[PGT] Flames Roast Sharks 2-0

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

And this is where the advanced stats fail...

Lomberg intercepts a puck high in the air while standing all alone 8 feet in front of the SJS net. He pulls it down, and gets a shot away, completely untouched/unchalleneged/unhurried. That's a high-danger shot and an expected goal any day of the week... which looks pretty good if all you care about are dangers and XGs... But if you care about being accurate, then you also have to take into consideration that it's Lomberg shooting, and it took him a good couple seconds to get the shot off, giving Askarov time to get set, and then he just kind of flung it right into the crest for one of the easiest saves any goalie will ever have to make.

When I talk about dangers in a game that I've watched, I'm not talking about what shows up on the statline. I'm talking about plays and shots that are actually dangerous.

Weegsy on an in-tight wraparound... another high-danger XG... except he already knew where he was going to shoot it when he started the wrap, and shot it exactly there - even though Askarov was already snug and fully covering the shortside low-mid. Result: puck swallowed with zero need for reaction from Askarov. Not even a rebound. Just a frozen puck and a faceoff, just like it was a low-danger from the point with no traffic.

I wish there was a better stat that incorportaed shooter, shot selection, timing, release, blade angle etc, because not all slot shots are equal. This is probably why there's often so much variance stat lines and eyeballs, and why so many coaches and GMs will remind people that advanced stats are only a portion of the picture. You absolutely have to have eyes-on as well.



Annnyway. It was a fun game to watch. I was really impressed with Wolf in the last half of the third. I also thought Coronato had a hell of a game. Didn't think Kerins was really used in a way that explained his callup, but I liked his game regardless.

you are way off on this one...like way off

This was one of the most dominant games you will ever see in the NHL. Eyes on? even the sharks announcers were calling it one of the most lopsided games they had ever seen...one compared it to a game the Flames won 13-1 in the 90s.

Like the Sharks had one scoring chance in the first 40 minutes. On no planet were the quality chances even remotely close to even.

[Ashes]

Anyone else find it bizarre reading the ATL and seeing Sharks fans talking s*** about losing to the "last place team" after how bad they've been the last few years lol

It's like a case-study in how quickly public opinion changes once you've added some top talent to your team through the draft.

I'm glad we won, those Sharks will be good soon but I don't think they have the experience to make playoffs this season.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

you are way off on this one...like way off

This was one of the most dominant games you will ever see in the NHL. Eyes on? even the sharks announcers were calling it one of the most lopsided games they had ever seen...one compared it to a game the Flames won 13-1 in the 90s.

Like the Sharks had one scoring chance in the first 40 minutes. On no planet were the quality chances even remotely close to even.

*sigh*

The 2 biggest things that actually matter are not measured.

Shot placement, and defensive positioning

Everybody knows the Flames were dominant .

But give your head a shake. Despite the lopsided shots, it was a 1-0 game with an empty netter. And that felt about right

[Jiri Hrdina]

I didn't see any of the game. How did Rory do?

[Rhett44]

While we were dominant, it is not a surprise we only scored one. We do not have a lot of scoring talent.

When Lomberg and Farabee are getting a bunch of scoring chances, the advanced stats fail to show that both players will likely shoot it at the crest or miss the net almost every time. Even when they have a wide open net.

I am convinced if Farabee had a shootout attempt on an open net, he misses the net 75% of the time. He is cursed.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

And this is where the advanced stats fail...

Lomberg intercepts a puck high in the air while standing all alone 8 feet in front of the SJS net. He pulls it down, and gets a shot away, completely untouched/unchalleneged/unhurried. That's a high-danger shot and an expected goal any day of the week... which looks pretty good if all you care about are dangers and XGs... But if you care about being accurate, then you also have to take into consideration that it's Lomberg shooting, and it took him a good couple seconds to get the shot off, giving Askarov time to get set, and then he just kind of flung it right into the crest for one of the easiest saves any goalie will ever have to make.

When I talk about dangers in a game that I've watched, I'm not talking about what shows up on the statline. I'm talking about plays and shots that are actually dangerous.

Weegsy on an in-tight wraparound... another high-danger XG... except he already knew where he was going to shoot it when he started the wrap, and shot it exactly there - even though Askarov was already snug and fully covering the shortside low-mid. Result: puck swallowed with zero need for reaction from Askarov. Not even a rebound. Just a frozen puck and a faceoff, just like it was a low-danger from the point with no traffic.

I wish there was a better stat that incorportaed shooter, shot selection, timing, release, blade angle etc, because not all slot shots are equal. This is probably why there's often so much variance stat lines and eyeballs, and why so many coaches and GMs will remind people that advanced stats are only a portion of the picture. You absolutely have to have eyes-on as well.

Annnyway. It was a fun game to watch. I was really impressed with Wolf in the last half of the third. I also thought Coronato had a hell of a game. Didn't think Kerins was really used in a way that explained his callup, but I liked his game regardless.

There is. It's called goals for and goals against.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Truly stunned at how poorly the Sharks played tonight. Good on Wolf to get the shutout.

I was not, they suck. I am stunned they are above .500 but I guess any team can go on a bit of a hot streak. They have one really good forward, that is the end of their team. And a decent goalie.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I didn't see any of the game. How did Rory do?

OK. A little behind the play sometimes. No defensive problems.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I was not, they suck. I am stunned they are above .500 but I guess any team can go on a bit of a hot streak. They have one really good forward, that is the end of their team. And a decent goalie.

Smith or Eklund would instantly be the best young forwards in the Flames organization by a longshot and would be leading the Flames in scoring this year.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Smith or Eklund would instantly be the best young forwards in the Flames organization by a longshot and would be leading the Flames in scoring this year.

And? Calgary had the best forward in the game for a few years and still sucked.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And? Calgary had the best forward in the game for a few years and still sucked.

Just saying they have more than just one really good forward.

[Royle9]

Something, something.. -2 McKenna points

[Jaybo]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That was a weird outing by SJS. So many giveways by both teams. At one point we almost tripled them in shot differential

I had to work last night so turned the game on somewhere in the middle of the second period when I got home. I thought the shot clock had a typo.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Just saying they have more than just one really good forward.

Yes. But they sucked last night. They lose more than they win, and are a terrible possession team even when they win, for some reason. They don’t get a lot of shots most nights (+25 only 5 times this year and below 20 5 times). They allow a ton of shots - over 30 almost every night and above 40 a couple times.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I was not, they suck. I am stunned they are above .500 but I guess any team can go on a bit of a hot streak. They have one really good forward, that is the end of their team. And a decent goalie.

They aren’t above 500 in wins v losses. They have 7 loser points.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes. But they sucked last night. They lose more than they win, and are a terrible possession team even when they win, for some reason. They don’t get a lot of shots most nights (+25 only 5 times this year and below 20 5 times). They allow a ton of shots - over 30 almost every night and above 40 a couple times.

Okay and what's that got to do with them having a few really good young forwards? Clearly the team is ascending but is still incomplete. I don't think anyone is claiming they are a finished product. They need to improve on the backend.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I was not, they suck. I am stunned they are above .500 but I guess any team can go on a bit of a hot streak. They have one really good forward, that is the end of their team. And a decent goalie.

They have 4 forwards more talented than our best forward and they are all young. What are you talking about?

I would trade rosters with them easily if I had the choice. They have a lot of gaps to fill bit they have some elite talent.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

And this is where the advanced stats fail...

Lomberg intercepts a puck high in the air while standing all alone 8 feet in front of the SJS net. He pulls it down, and gets a shot away, completely untouched/unchalleneged/unhurried. That's a high-danger shot and an expected goal any day of the week... which looks pretty good if all you care about are dangers and XGs... But if you care about being accurate, then you also have to take into consideration that it's Lomberg shooting, and it took him a good couple seconds to get the shot off, giving Askarov time to get set, and then he just kind of flung it right into the crest for one of the easiest saves any goalie will ever have to make.

When I talk about dangers in a game that I've watched, I'm not talking about what shows up on the statline. I'm talking about plays and shots that are actually dangerous.

Weegsy on an in-tight wraparound... another high-danger XG... except he already knew where he was going to shoot it when he started the wrap, and shot it exactly there - even though Askarov was already snug and fully covering the shortside low-mid. Result: puck swallowed with zero need for reaction from Askarov. Not even a rebound. Just a frozen puck and a faceoff, just like it was a low-danger from the point with no traffic.

I wish there was a better stat that incorportaed shooter, shot selection, timing, release, blade angle etc, because not all slot shots are equal. This is probably why there's often so much variance stat lines and eyeballs, and why so many coaches and GMs will remind people that advanced stats are only a portion of the picture. You absolutely have to have eyes-on as well.



Annnyway. It was a fun game to watch. I was really impressed with Wolf in the last half of the third. I also thought Coronato had a hell of a game. Didn't think Kerins was really used in a way that explained his callup, but I liked his game regardless.

How is the stat failing?

It's a count of shot attempts in a specific situation within a specific area of ice. Seems to work perfectly well because it's not establishing which event was more dangerous than the other dangerous event. It's a tally.

If you have 17 and they have 5 that's a significant stat.

And it keeps us from having to find all 22 instances in the game and assign value to them.

But if you did just that I still think Calgary would be well ahead.

And agreed that I look forward to a shading of the high danger tally into a more precise measurement. But until that day comes being ahead of shot attempts by anyone on your team in dangerous areas is a good thing!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

And this is where the advanced stats fail...

It’s funny that every time someone says this what they actually mean is that they don’t like the name/definition of a stat.

Lomberg shooting from a high danger area is more dangerous than Lomberg shooting from a low danger area. This isn’t controversial nor is it a failure of the stat because it doesn’t measure what you want.

If you learn what stats actually measure they become a whole lot less complicated.

[Robbob]

I mentioned in the game thread, but SJ right now reminds me of the Oilers before they popped. They are just a tire fire in their own zone and wins come by out scoring their faults. They were only credited with only 14 giveaways on the stat sheet, which I found laughable.