[Game Takes] Canucks 4 Flames 3

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

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

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

“Better” than NYR, Boston and Vegas (who are first through third in the league actual standings)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

“Better” than NYR, Boston and Vegas (who are first through third in the league actual standings)

Yeah two of them have elite goaltenders that have vezina discussion every year, so that's not surprising.

Are you suggesting being in the bottom half of the league in odd man rushes against helps the goaltender?

[Kipper_3434]

Not sure the variance in that chart is broad enough to discuss anything other than the major outliers at the top and bottom. Curious if it only counts chances resulting in a shot on goal as well. What if a team breaks up a 2-1 chance but takes a penalty? Does that still count?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah two of them have elite goaltenders that have vezina discussion every year, so that's not surprising.

Yes and I think that highlights the Flames issue seeing they are paying their guy a salary that warrants the elite play that other teams are getting out of their goaltenders.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yes and I think that highlights the Flames issue seeing they are paying their guy a lot more than these elite goaltenders that are in the Vezina discussion every year.

How is Markstrom’s paycheque hurting Calgary? And we are talking $1M or less difference for Elvis and Ullmark. Vegas tripped over their goalies after going through a bunch.

Markstrom also makes less than Matt Murray. But who cares, neither is hurting their team’s cap.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yes and I think that highlights the Flames issue seeing they are paying their guy a salary that warrants the elite play that other teams are getting out of their goaltenders.

Not sure that would be my summary!

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah two of them have elite goaltenders that have vezina discussion every year, so that's not surprising.

Are you suggesting being in the bottom half of the league in odd man rushes against helps the goaltender?

The observation was more about her question ‘how are you feeling about your team?’ which infers some correlation between that stat and team performance. And obviously team results and rush chances against don’t correlate strongly, based on her list

About your question, a couple of things - technically bottom half of the league is correct, but I would classify 19th as middle of the pack, especially with such tight variance.

You may have some idea about how rush chances translate to xGA. Based on what I’ve seen, that .5 spread amongst the middle of the pack goalies may translate to about one goal every 13 games

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The observation was more about her question ‘how are you feeling about your team?’ which infers some correlation between that stat and team performance. And obviously team results and rush chances against don’t correlate strongly, based on her list

About your question, a couple of things - technically bottom half of the league is correct, but I would classify 19th as middle of the pack, especially with such tight variance.

You may have some idea about how rush chances translate to xGA. Based on what I’ve seen, that .5 spread amongst the middle of the pack goalies may translate to about one goal every 13 games

Agree on all accounts.

Not hanging on my hat on it at all. But another example of maybe suggesting the Flames aren't the best when it comes to team defense, requiring more from their goaltender. Dom's comments about Markstrom above lends to that.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah two of them have elite goaltenders that have vezina discussion every year, so that's not surprising.

Are you suggesting being in the bottom half of the league in odd man rushes against helps the goaltender?

No one said it helps the goaltender. But that list has zero correlation with good defensive teams. So we should probably leave it at that. But it fit your narrative, so you want to post it.

Also, 'bottom half of the league', 0.07 differential from the median...

[Enoch Root]

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.

I am not dismissing their efforts, or even their methodology. I am saying that - because hockey is what it is - even the inputs are only so reliable. And there is no set, or correct, weighting for the inputs. And most importantly, there is no way to test the validity of the output.

So peoples' conclusion is exactly what Bingo always says "it's not perfect, but it's the best we have'. But the problem is that people treat is like gospel, quoting the numbers as proof, because it is the only number they have.

But we have no idea whether it truly represents what it is trying to represent.

anyway, enough on this.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No one said it helps the goaltender. But that list has zero correlation with good defensive teams. So we should probably leave it at that. But it fit your narrative, so you want to post it.

Also, 'bottom half of the league', 0.07 differential from the median...

Narrative seems like a strong word.

There are stats that suggest Calgary isn't an air tight defensive team. That's the summary.

Pushing back on the Markstrom sucks crowd doesn't create a narrative, or even suggesting he's none of the defensive problem. Have said that a few times.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am not dismissing their efforts, or even their methodology. I am saying that - because hockey is what it is - even the inputs are only so reliable. And there is no set, or correct, weighting for the inputs. And most importantly, there is no way to test the validity of the output.

So peoples' conclusion is exactly what Bingo always says "it's not perfect, but it's the best we have'. But the problem is that people treat is like gospel, quoting the numbers as proof, because it is the only number they have.

But we have no idea whether it truly represents what it is trying to represent.

anyway, enough on this.

I certainly haven't used or suggested "gospel" on any stats.

But looking beyond save percentage isn't a step into the fantasy world. It's likely better information.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I certainly haven't used or suggested "gospel" on any stats.

But looking beyond save percentage isn't a step into the fantasy world. It's likely better information.

Yeah, to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you take it as gospel, just that people in general do. Not everyone understands stats, and what they are, and what they aren't.

But when someone posts 3.66 vs 3.42, most people will read that as proof that A outperformed B.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you take it as gospel, just that people in general do. Not everyone understands stats, and what they are, and what they aren't.

But when someone posts 3.66 vs 3.42, most people will read that as proof that A outperformed B.

Proof? No. Evidence? Yes.