[Game Takes] Flames 6 Yotes 3

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I was referring to the guy that was annoyed that it was another game with the goalie giving up more than expected.

Yes, which should open the conversation about how ‘expected’ aligns with reality

I find it curious.

You are somehow able to notice that multiple times this season, I have noted that the goalies on the Flames side face proportionally more actual shots with a high likelihood of scoring, usually tied to breakdowns, time and space, and shot placement.

You have basically said the models are the same for every team, and these things balance out

Moreover, you have said that the only way to know would be to watch every game of every team

I find it funny that when you see me make note of it a statistically disproportionate amount of times, rather than thinking ‘hey, maybe there is something to this’, you just get upset.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

*sigh*

#### sakes, people don’t get statistics

Each of those mainly nonsense 18 first period shots, easily handled, contributed a portion of a goal to the “expected goals” count

The shots that were likely to go in went in on both sides tonight

Tell me this. Did you expect Tanev’s own goal?

A low quality shot doesn't increase expected goals much because...it has a low probability of going into the net. A low quality shots increases expected goals by an average of .02 or so. Because the historical data suggests you score about 1 goal for every 50 low quality shot.

So if all the flames 18 shots were low danger opportunities, their expected goals would be around 0.36. The flames expected goals after 18 shots was closer to 1.5. So they actually had a number of medium and high danger scoring opportunities that period.

I think that's what is often missed by those remembering the game. The flames attack generates a lot of expected goals because its generating lots of scoring events (low, medium and high) that aggregate to a decent offensive output. When you add it up, most nights it's enough to get them to over 3 goals a game of actual goals.

People look at the shots and they say "lack of finish" and that's true to some extent. But the larger truth is that the game plan for offense is largely working as intended. The problem with the flames isn't offense...

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man I hate crap like the bolded.

"I have an opinion and if you disagree you didn't watch the game!"

The Flames had a 14-5 edge in home plate shots in the first period, that could and should easily mean more than one goal.

Five high danger shots in the first puts them well over the pace of the average NHL game.

And once again, the goalie doesn’t have to stop the shot location, he has to stop the shot taken

A puck into the pads? Easy peasy, lemon squeezy

Model doesn’t measure shot placement.

I’m not disputing that the Flames carried the play.

But (don’t get mad here) anybody who watched the game should have been able to see where the shots hit the goalie.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Draug

Maybe, just maybe, we should play more young players players more often!

Pelletier and Duehr have both been integrated into the lineup at a reasonable pace and are now playing at a level where they are simply better than a number of veteran forward on the team. This is how you do it properly when you aren't handling blue chip prospect, and I have no issues with how the team is handling either player.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Yes, which should open the conversation about how ‘expected’ aligns with reality

I find it curious.

You are somehow able to notice that multiple times this season, I have noted that the goalies on the Flames side face proportionally more actual shots with a high likelihood of scoring, usually tied to breakdowns, time and space, and shot placement.

You have basically said the models are the same for every team, and these things balance out

Moreover, you have said that the only way to know would be to watch every game of every team

I find it funny that when you see me make note of it a statistically disproportionate amount of times, rather than thinking ‘hey, maybe there is something to this’, you just get upset.

Thanks for the recap!

Who is upset? You're a broken record.

I look at expected goals vs actual in every game story. You only get upset when Vladar is under water.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

And once again, the goalie doesn’t have to stop the shot location, he has to stop the shot taken

A puck into the pads? Easy peasy, lemon squeezy

Model doesn’t measure shot placement.

I’m not disputing that the Flames carried the play.

But (don’t get mad here) anybody who watched the game should have been able to see where the shots hit the goalie.

So if you're trying to avoid people getting mad, why walk out that same crap then?

Shot models look at placement. They don't look at the ability of a player to miss the goalie.

But it's equal on every count.

So unless you're suggesting the Flames are epically worse at hitting the goaltender (could be true), there's really nothing to say here.

I prefer counts, keeps the bias out of it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Pelletier and Duehr have both been integrated into the lineup at a reasonable pace and are now playing at a level where they are simply better than a number of veteran forward on the team. This is how you do it properly when you aren't handling blue chip prospect, and I have no issues with how the team is handling either player.

Yeah you can't look at things two months later when it's working and say it should have been done earlier, which would mean said players wouldn't have the current development and likely wouldn't have been as successful.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So if you're trying to avoid people getting mad, why walk out that same crap then?

Shot models look at placement. They don't look at the ability of a player to miss the goalie.

But it's equal on every count.

So unless you're suggesting the Flames are epically worse at hitting the goaltender (could be true), there's really nothing to say here.

I prefer counts, keeps the bias out of it.

By shot placement I mean where the puck goes after it leaves the stick, not the location it comes from

Yes, I was saying the Flames hit the goalie a lot

And I am also saying that they give up a lot of 10 bellers where the opponent has time and space and can place their shot

The other guy had 17 easy saves and a goal after 1. Vladar didn’t face 18 shots all night and I don’t fault him for the 3
- perfectly placed cross crease 1 timer
- own goal
- shooter with time and space (while Toff is looking skyward and D2 is on his ass up ice) places a shot well

I am very much saying this game has the same elements I have viewed a statistically disproportionate amount of times

[Draug]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Pelletier and Duehr have both been integrated into the lineup at a reasonable pace and are now playing at a level where they are simply better than a number of veteran forward on the team. This is how you do it properly when you aren't handling blue chip prospect, and I have no issues with how the team is handling either player.

In my opinion, The integration should have started long before it did. Additionally, Gilbert should've been playing over Stone for a long time. And, Phillips should be playing on the Flames, not the Wranglers.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Draug

In my opinion, The integration should have started long before it did. Additionally, Gilbert should've been playing over Stone for a long time. And, Phillips should be playing on the Flames, not the Wranglers.

Phillips hasn’t been given a huge shot but in what he’s had he has not looked anywhere near as ready as Pelletier, Duehr or even Ruzicka or Gilbert. Maybe with some more time he would have. But he hasn’t forced his way on.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

*sigh*

#### sakes, people don’t get statistics

Each of those mainly nonsense 18 first period shots, easily handled, contributed a portion of a goal to the “expected goals” count

The shots that were likely to go in went in on both sides tonight

Tell me this. Did you expect Tanev’s own goal?

I find, compared to forwards and dmen, most people don’t understand even the basic technical concepts of goaltending.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Phillips hasn’t been given a huge shot but in what he’s had he has not looked anywhere near as ready as Pelletier, Duehr or even Ruzicka or Gilbert. Maybe with some more time he would have. But he hasn’t forced his way on.

It's a bit of style too there.

In a 4th line role I'd expect Pelletier or Duehr to shine more than Phillips that is not his game.

It's not that dissimilar to Ruzicka - people are down on him in a 4th line role. He had 20 points in 25 games when playing in the top 9 role.

I think Phillips or Pelletier could have both been effective in that spot next to Kadri and Huberdeau - but Pelletier's overall game is better suited to Sutter for sure.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Doesn't help that Keller ended the night with a goal on zero shots, since Tanev was the one who put he puck in the net, meaning no xG at all was generated.

One of the public stat model guys (Micah or JFresh) mentioned this year that previously xG and actual goals have been very close with the exception of this season, where actual goals are well ahead of expected goals across all public data models, so this is a bit of an outlier year in general for these models, but it should even out in the aggregate.

Sent from my SM-G998W using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

By shot placement I mean where the puck goes after it leaves the stick, not the location it comes from

Yes, I was saying the Flames hit the goalie a lot

And I am also saying that they give up a lot of 10 bellers where the opponent has time and space and can place their shot

The other guy had 17 easy saves and a goal after 1. Vladar didn’t face 18 shots all night and I don’t fault him for the 3
- perfectly placed cross crease 1 timer
- own goal
- shooter with time and space (while Toff is looking skyward and D2 is on his ass up ice) places a shot well

I am very much saying this game has the same elements I have viewed a statistically disproportionate amount of times

I think some teams may hit the crest more than others, but guessing the variance isn't as big as you think.

And I would agree you could be right in any particular game for sure, but it evens out across a season, and is an even measure for all teams on all nights.

Certainly vs your eye test with a bias anyway.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

I find, compared to forwards and dmen, most people don’t understand even the basic technical concepts of goaltending.

And they put far too much emphasis on save percentage when judging whether a goalie is had or is having a good game. Many times it's misleading. Just as an example allowing 2 goals on 15 shots isn't that bad but it's .866 which is unacceptable to some.

It's not like the first 10-15 shots a goalie faces are always super easy. Sometimes the hardest shots you face end up being in that range and the ones after that aren't as difficult.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Inferno

And they put far too much emphasis on save percentage when judging whether a goalie is had or is having a good game. Many times it's misleading. Just as an example allowing 2 goals on 15 shots isn't that bad but it's .866 which is unacceptable to some.

It's not like the first 10-15 shots a goalie faces are always super easy. Sometimes the hardest shots you face end up being in that range and the ones after that aren't as difficult.

Right but that's where expected goals comes in.

And I get it ... Deluxe isn't wrong it's not a science.

But on average a goalie facing 18 shots from specific areas and situations should give up x number of goals.

It provides better balance than save percentage as you said.

Last night I thought Vladar was fine, and in the game story I didn't hammer him at all. I brought up expected goals, and I do so every game ... and it's been a pattern. Flames goalies seems to be giving up a 1/2 to full game more than models say they should.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Right but that's where expected goals comes in.

And I get it ... Deluxe isn't wrong it's not a science.

But on average a goalie facing 18 shots from specific areas and situations should give up x number of goals.

It provides better balance than save percentage as you said.

Last night I thought Vladar was fine, and in the game story I didn't hammer him at all. I brought up expected goals, and I do so every game ... and it's been a pattern. Flames goalies seems to be giving up a 1/2 to full game more than models say they should.

There's got to be a team component to that as well. A shot from the home plate area where the team is defending well, clearing the lanes, and the goalie can anticipate where the shot is going to come from is usually made by both our goalies. A giveaway or missed assignment that results in a quick unexpected shot from a dangerous spot seems to lead to a lot of our goals against this year and is a much more difficult save but I am guessing tracks the same in the stats. We didn't give up much of those last year, and seem to give up way too many this year.

[Imported_Aussie]

You can fault Vladar on that 3rd goal but the others are on his teammates. That being said, in other games goals like that 3rd goal have been difference makers.

I do think this team has had bad puck luck this season, and may now finally be finding the lines that work, but if they are going to make the playoffs and be better than a first round exit, the need goaltenders stopping more of these chances. So when there is the bad luck goal like Tanev's own goal, you cancel that out with saves.

This goaltending coming up to league average would make a big difference.

Pelletier and Duehr need to stay. Worst case you bench for a game and throw in Ruzicka or Ritchie, but they look the best fits in the top 9 and bottom line respectively. Don't go spending on depth this year, give these guys a shot

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Right but that's where expected goals comes in.

And I get it ... Deluxe isn't wrong it's not a science.

But on average a goalie facing 18 shots from specific areas and situations should give up x number of goals.

It provides better balance than save percentage as you said.

Last night I thought Vladar was fine, and in the game story I didn't hammer him at all. I brought up expected goals, and I do so every game ... and it's been a pattern. Flames goalies seems to be giving up a 1/2 to full game more than models say they should.

I'm not trying to argue against your analysis on Vladar last night or even your debate with DeluxeMoustache. I didn't watch last night so I can't comment on how Vladar played.

I'm speaking more in general on how people on here treat save percentage like it's the be all end all goalie stat. Even on wins you see "He got the win but another sub .900 game. *sigh*". That's more of a thing though with Markstrom because he's the one having the rougher season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There's got to be a team component to that as well. A shot from the home plate area where the team is defending well, clearing the lanes, and the goalie can anticipate where the shot is going to come from is usually made by both our goalies. A giveaway or missed assignment that results in a quick unexpected shot from a dangerous spot seems to lead to a lot of our goals against this year and is a much more difficult save but I am guessing tracks the same in the stats. We didn't give up much of those last year, and seem to give up way too many this year.

There is ... high danger.

A home plate shot without an event preceding it is just a scoring chance. But when a goalie faces a pass into the home plate area, a rebound or a deflection it's a high danger chance with a way higher weighting.

So the team component features in a) keeping shots out of the home plate area and then b) limiting or not limiting the degree of danger (not defending properly and allowing a guy to collect a rebound, or stand in front to deflect it, or get beat by a pass into the area)