[Game Takes] Flames 4 Oilers 3

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

So you would rather have had the Flames tank against Dallas last year than get to play a series with the Oilers?

Were the Dallas games not frustrating to you? out playing them but just about losing the series?

That’s a different type of frustration.
But ultimately I respected what Oettinger was doing

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

So you would rather have had the Flames tank against Dallas last year than get to play a series with the Oilers?



Were the Dallas games not frustrating to you? out playing them but just about losing the series?

WTF?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Calgary's last PP was bananas. I was shocked they didn't score. Had 4-5 good looks.

One of the worst games I've seen Draisaitl play in recent years. Lots of turnovers on his part.

Game looked like it was going to get out of hand and turned into a good match in the end. Too bad these teams only play 3 times this year.

I watched the Vancouver game too ... I think Draisaitl's ankle is still a problem. He went from slow, to not as noticeably slow in recent seasons, but looked slow in both games again.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How was McDavid's goal not a high danger chance? Also Bouchard walked right into the slot for a good, and clear chance, on the last PP

High danger has to come from home plate ... he was off to the side of the net.

I hear what you're saying for sure, but by definition it wasn't.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

High danger has to come from home plate ... he was off to the side of the net.



I hear what you're saying for sure, but by definition it wasn't.

I have recently had to adjust my thinking about appraising HDCs. Because this us an accumulated average over the season the number is simply not going to account for everything, but it does provide a pretty accurate picture of what a team is doing well ir poorly overall. The goal dor a team is to keep the "home plate" area clear, because it is, well, the easiest place to score from, and the most difficult place from which to prevent goals. When teams are taking care of that, then it makes sense if the only goals they are allowing are seeing-eye shots from the point, or bank-ins, tips and such at the sides of the net.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have recently had to adjust my thinking about appraising HDCs. Because this us an accumulated average over the season the number is simply not going to account for everything, but it does provide a pretty accurate picture of what a team is doing well ir poorly overall. The goal dor a team is to keep the "home plate" area clear, because it is, well, the easiest place to score from, and the most difficult place from which to prevent goals. When teams are taking care of that, then it makes sense if the only goals they are allowing are seeing-eye shots from the point, or bank-ins, tips and such at the sides of the net.

And even more so it's a HD if the shot comes on a pass, rebound or deflection ... the truly most dangerous chances.

So yeah there will be ones that aren't included that were easy goals, but that should even out.

If you prevent the other team from getting a rebound, tipping the puck or getting a point blank pass in the home plate you will win more games than you lose.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

So you would rather have had the Flames tank against Dallas last year than get to play a series with the Oilers?

That's not what was said at all, so why straw man a question in here?

[1Nite]

Originally Posted by the2bears

That's not what was said at all, so why straw man a question in here?

One day when the Flames are as good as jets, it will all make sense.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by the2bears

That's not what was said at all, so why straw man a question in here?

Let me introduce you to ricardodw...

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

High danger has to come from home plate ... he was off to the side of the net.

I hear what you're saying for sure, but by definition it wasn't.

I am starting to see less usefulness of the stats that use subjective qualifiers for certain things. Once the puck makes it's way to McDavid, that was about a 95% likelihood of a goal.

Let's say there's a two on one.

In scenario 1 puck carrier makes a perfect pass to the shooter but the goalie slides across and makes an incredible save.

In scenario 2, puck carrier muffs the pass and no scoring chance.

Scenario 1 is maybe high danger (depends where he receives the pass?) and I assume a high xGF%. But no idea exactly how the xgf% is actually calculated on that play.

Scenario 2 isn't measured by any stat is it?

Yet both scenarios were high danger scoring opps and should tell us something about how both teams were playing. The stats only seem to tell us something about the shooter and the goalie on that play.

I'm not knocking all advanced stats, it just seems hockey is a difficult game to measure accurately that way.

And of course I don't fully understand how these stats are calculated so much of the problem may be on my end.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am starting to see less usefulness of the stats that use subjective qualifiers for certain things. Once the puck makes it's way to McDavid, that was about a 95% likelihood of a goal.

Let's say there's a two on one.

In scenario 1 puck carrier makes a perfect pass to the shooter but the goalie slides across and makes an incredible save.

In scenario 2, puck carrier muffs the pass and no scoring chance.

Scenario 1 is maybe high danger (depends where he receives the pass?) and I assume a high xGF%. But no idea exactly how the xgf% is actually calculated on that play.

Scenario 2 isn't measured by any stat is it?

Yet both scenarios were high danger scoring opps and should tell us something about how both teams were playing. The stats only seem to tell us something about the shooter and the goalie on that play.

I'm not knocking all advanced stats, it just seems hockey is a difficult game to measure accurately that way.

And of course I don't fully understand how these stats are calculated so much of the problem may be on my end.

They're certainly not perfect. They likely never will be.

Generally though shots from home plate with a pass, tip or rebound are the most dangerous chances, and getting more of those than your opposition is clearly a good thing.

A shot from where McDavid's powerplay goal was scored is usually not that dangerous unless it's done with a perfect cross crease pass as it was ... which makes it pretty rare.

They are indicators, but you can't take them to the bank.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am starting to see less usefulness of the stats that use subjective qualifiers for certain things. Once the puck makes it's way to McDavid, that was about a 95% likelihood of a goal.

Let's say there's a two on one.

In scenario 1 puck carrier makes a perfect pass to the shooter but the goalie slides across and makes an incredible save.

In scenario 2, puck carrier muffs the pass and no scoring chance.

Scenario 1 is maybe high danger (depends where he receives the pass?) and I assume a high xGF%. But no idea exactly how the xgf% is actually calculated on that play.

Scenario 2 isn't measured by any stat is it?

Yet both scenarios were high danger scoring opps and should tell us something about how both teams were playing. The stats only seem to tell us something about the shooter and the goalie on that play.

I'm not knocking all advanced stats, it just seems hockey is a difficult game to measure accurately that way.

And of course I don't fully understand how these stats are calculated so much of the problem may be on my end.

Oh and sorry to answer your question.

Stats show that scenario two isn't dangerous because no pass was made. The goalie never had to adjust.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I thought Backlund has been bad in both games and the stats show it. That being said that's why you win cups with being deep down the middle.

Really solid game and it really should have been 8-1 win.

Mcdavis was invisible.

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I thought Backlund has been bad in both games and the stats show it. That being said that's why you win cups with being deep down the middle.

Really solid game and it really should have been 8-1 win.

Mcdavis was invisible.

If it’s xGF% you’re looking at, given the assignment backlunds line is asked to do, any goal coming from that line is a bonus.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by joejoe3

If it’s xGF% you’re looking at, given the assignment backlunds line is asked to do, any goal coming from that line is a bonus.

Backlund was getting cooked by Nugget Hopkins not the top line.

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Backlund was getting cooked by Nugget Hopkins not the top line.

But in the end Ryan Nothing-Happened

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Oh and sorry to answer your question.

Stats show that scenario two isn't dangerous because no pass was made. The goalie never had to adjust.

That’s what I thought. So it says something about the goalie but not much about possession or chances etc.

As you say it’s not perfect and in small sample sizes, even less so. But not perfect is certainly different than worthless.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

That’s what I thought. So it says something about the goalie but not much about possession or chances etc.

It says nothing about the goalie because the goalie didn't have to respond to the play. It says that the puck carrier failed to make a pass and, in consequence, there was never a dangerous scoring chance. In other words, nothing happened, and it shows up in the numbers as nothing.

It doesn't matter that the intended target of the pass was in a scoring position, because he never got the puck.

[GioforPM]

The biggest factor not accounted in stats (and you can’t do it) for is skill of the player getting the HDC.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Bingo

McDavid sure didn't stand out as you usually see in games in Edmonton.

I think that really speaks to the three deep center roster and boosted blueline.

Also thought it was key that the Oilers had zero high danger chances on four powerplays (Calgary has 6)

Power play point is huge. That’s their bread and butter.