[Game Takes] Canucks 4 Flames 3

[Erick Estrada]

I personally don't believe the Flames have got value out of Markstrom's contract. Save for one season he's not played to the levels of it. He's been better this season but as some have said he manages to let in a soft goal in too many games for a team offensively challenged like the Flames. In hindsight I think the Flames would have been better off signing Talbot for a much more team friendly deal that summer as I don't think a lot separates the two when you sum them up as Talbot is more steady and Markstrom has higher highs and lower lows.

[cannon7]

The Flames have certainly had their defensive gaffes this season. But they're 7th best in the league for shots against, so I find it difficult to pass this much blame onto the blueline in front of Markstrom. By most metrics playing Behind the Flames is an ideal assignment for a starting goaltender.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you're just ignoring the graphic above that has him ranked 5th in the league?

It's one stat. And it's a highly contrived stat.

That same graphic shows other stats where he is far from 5th in the league.

[Enoch Root]

To me, Markstrom is playing aggressively, with a lot of movement. He is making big, highlight reel saves as a result. But they are a double edged sword: his activity is resulting in those big saves, but also leaves him out of position a lot.

Combine that with the occasional softie, and you get the stats that we are seeing from him: lots of high danger saves, lots of 'unexpected' saves, but overall, a little below expected performance.

I think that is what the graphic above shows as well.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

The Flames have certainly had their defensive gaffes this season. But they're 7th best in the league for shots against, so I find it difficult to pass this much blame onto the blueline in front of Markstrom. By most metrics playing Behind the Flames is an ideal assignment for a starting goaltender.

We have better stats than shots though.

So low shots, but middle of the pack expected goals against means very average defensive team with goalie looking bad with a lower save percentage.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's one stat. And it's a highly contrived stat.

That same graphic shows other stats where he is far from 5th in the league.

It's a pretty data savvy writer compiling his own goals saved above average based on his own metrics and arriving at Markstrom ranked 5th.

Certainly that has to have more weight than someone just saying Markstrom sucks because I think he sucks.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's a pretty data savvy writer compiling his own goals saved above average based on his own metrics and arriving at Markstrom ranked 5th.

Certainly that has to have more weight than someone just saying Markstrom sucks because I think he sucks.

Certainly, but the weight of one person who’s opinions differ from the majority is equally suspect as well.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Certainly, but the weight of one person who’s opinions differ from the majority is equally suspect as well.

That's the thing: It's not his opinion, it's the result of his analysis. You can agree or disagree with his methodology, but he is not actually expressing an opinion in those numbers. He is merely saying, ‘I applied my method to the data and this is what I found.’

Now, there are methods that are guaranteed to produce garbage results, like the infamous Ricardo Grit Index. But I will take any serious and sustained attempt to analyze data honestly over the opinion of an emotionally invested fan.

When emotions come in, the opinion all too often becomes a mere rationalization for a subjective feeling: ‘I love/hate X, therefore I will come up with reasons why X is good/bad.’

That's not even accounting for the fact that not all opinions are of equal value. An informed opinion is worth something. An uninformed opinion is just wind. And there's a lot of wind in fans' opinions of individual players.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's a pretty data savvy writer compiling his own goals saved above average based on his own metrics and arriving at Markstrom ranked 5th.



Certainly that has to have more weight than someone just saying Markstrom sucks because I think he sucks.

My concern is that a lot of the other public data models guys on twitter don't have Markstrom anywhere near 5th in the league. In most cases he is sitting on the bottom of the league in GSAA

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by hockey-and_stuff

my concern is that a lot of the other public data models guys on twitter don't have markstrom anywhere near 5th in the league. In most cases he is sitting on the bottom of the league in gsaa

sent from my pixel 7 pro using tapatalk

He goes into detail in the comments.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1234590266029477892

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Certainly, but the weight of one person who’s opinions differ from the majority is equally suspect as well.

You've established a majority on this topic?

[GioforPM]

My sense from this year's game theads is that most posters think Markstrom was playing well, including in the initial slow start of the team.

Any criticism of him has usually been guys pointing at save % without talking about the actual plays in the game.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The issue with Markstrom is he is a big goalie who can let the puck come ton him and calm the game down. Instead he’s overly active. Trying to make highlight saves when it’s not needed. Playing pucks leaving his net.

I think that’s what is so good about Wolf. He lets the game come to him he kills plays he absorbing pucks. Highlight saves when he’s out of position.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's a pretty data savvy writer compiling his own goals saved above average based on his own metrics and arriving at Markstrom ranked 5th.

Certainly that has to have more weight than someone just saying Markstrom sucks because I think he sucks.

I really don't want to write a long post about the perils of building a stat like that, because no one will read it anyways.

Building a composite stat like that requires all kinds of choices as to what inputs to use, at what weights, etc. What back testing has been done to determine the accuracy of the stat (None, because how could you even?). It's a compilation of other stats (most of which have issues of their own, because a lot of things are difficult to measure in hockey), chosen by the author's own opinion of import, and weighted in the same way.

To conclude that there were 3.66 potential goals in that game is ridiculous. Just say it out loud. It's blind arrogance. Then, to make it worse, it is presented with 2 decimal places! making it sound so acutely accurate! and causing readers to take it as gospel

It's pretty much garbage. And I know your reply is 'it's the best we have'. But that's the problem. It isn't - or at least we have no way of knowing whether it is or not. So the correct response is to ignore it.

As to your second point, it was literally posted along with other stats that contradict it. No one has to just go with 'I think he sucks'.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's the thing: It's not his opinion, it's the result of his analysis. You can agree or disagree with his methodology, but he is not actually expressing an opinion in those numbers. He is merely saying, ‘I applied my method to the data and this is what I found.’

Now, there are methods that are guaranteed to produce garbage results, like the infamous Ricardo Grit Index. But I will take any serious and sustained attempt to analyze data honestly over the opinion of an emotionally invested fan.

When emotions come in, the opinion all too often becomes a mere rationalization for a subjective feeling: ‘I love/hate X, therefore I will come up with reasons why X is good/bad.’

That's not even accounting for the fact that not all opinions are of equal value. An informed opinion is worth something. An uninformed opinion is just wind. And there's a lot of wind in fans' opinions of individual players.

Sure. But the problem here is that it is created by the author making choices and assumptions. And using other stats, as inputs, that are also flawed (because, hockey). We have no idea whether this is at all accurate.

At least something like GAA is indisputable, as to what it is claiming. You can debate the validity of the stat all you want, but at least you know it is measuring what it is supposed to measure.

The expected goals stat does not satisfy that test, or any statistical test, at all. We have no idea as to its legitimacy, validity, or even if it is accurately measuring what it is trying to measure.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The issue with Markstrom is he is a big goalie who can let the puck come ton him and calm the game down. Instead he’s overly active. Trying to make highlight saves when it’s not needed. Playing pucks leaving his net.

I think that’s what is so good about Wolf. He lets the game come to him he kills plays he absorbing pucks. Highlight saves when he’s out of position.

Funny because some posters say he doesn't challenge enough and stays too far back in the net.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The issue with Markstrom is he is a big goalie who can let the puck come ton him and calm the game down. Instead he’s overly active. Trying to make highlight saves when it’s not needed. Playing pucks leaving his net.

I think that’s what is so good about Wolf. He lets the game come to him he kills plays he absorbing pucks. Highlight saves when he’s out of position.

I think you are seeing what you want to see.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure. But the problem here is that it is created by the author making choices and assumptions. And using other stats, as inputs, that are also flawed (because, hockey). We have no idea whether this is at all accurate.

Well, you certainly don't have any idea unless you find out what he is actually doing. And to do that, you have to realize that he isn't just cooking up some weird stat on his own, but participating in serious work being done by a lot of different analysts.

GSAx is a mainstream stat now, and if you don't bother to find out about it, why it works, and to what extent, you have no business dismissing it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, you certainly don't have any idea unless you find out what he is actually doing. And to do that, you have to realize that he isn't just cooking up some weird stat on his own, but participating in serious work being done by a lot of different analysts.

GSAx is a mainstream stat now, and if you don't bother to find out about it, why it works, and to what extent, you have no business dismissing it.

Plus I don't think anyone is saying he's right.

Just saying he has compiled a list using his own parameters, without a bias (he's a Leafs fan if anything), and has Markstrom measured quite high.

I think that adds a bit of weight to a discussion that contains subjective opinions on a topic.

It's not open and shut, but to me there's some math behind it and it's from a writer that has certainly gained some credibility for his work in doing similar things.

[Bingo]

Another metric on team defense ... Calgary bottom half of the league in odd man rushes.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1732041732790108661