[GDT] 2020 WC Play-In Round: Calgary Flames (8) vs. Winnipeg Jets (9) Flames 2-1

[MissTeeks]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1286791878986338304

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're looking at results, and I'm talking about how they are playing. The Jets are one of the worst five on five teams in hockey and saved by their goaltender; as I pointed out with their PDO.

Using your last 20 games

xGF%
Flames 12th
Jets 28th

SCF% (Chance splits)
Flames 17th
Jets 26th

High Danger Chance Splits
Flames 7th
Jets 29th

PDO
Flames 11th
Jets 6th

Winnipeg had the third highest save percentage during this time period ... my point from the beginning. Calgary had the 27th ranked save percentage.

It's all about Hallebucyk. The Jets are a mess otherwise.

And I don't see either team as "Good". The Jets are a tire fire and the Flames are a bubble team.

What do you have to say about the LA Kings? There is not a fancy stat where they are not significantly better than the Flames or the Jets and the are all set to draft 2nd overall.

Would the Flames be in over their heads going up against them in a best of 5?

I was going to make an argument that the teams were both better after the all star game but it seem that you were more observant than I was.

The Flames should be approaching this as big underdogs that snuck in (2004)

The standings since the allstar game have the Flames on the outside looking in. They would have had to play better to make the playoffs in a real season, like they were doing for the last 10 games.

team - games - pts - Win Pct
Colorado - 21 - 30 - 0.71
*Vegas - 19 - 26 - 0.68
Minnesota - 19 - 25 - 0.66
Winnipeg - 20 - 26 - 0.65
*St Louis - 21 - 26 - 0.62
Nashville - 22 - 27 - 0.61
Edmonton - 22 - 26 - 0.59
Los Angeles- 20 - 23 - 0.58
Calgary - 20 - 22 - 0.55
Dallas - 21 - 22 - 0.52
Anaheim - 23 - 24 - 0.52
Vancouver - 20 - 20 - 0.50
Chicago - 19 - 18 - 0.47
Arizona - 19 - 17 - 0.45
San Jose - 20 - 17 - 0.43

[AC]

Why use the Allstar Game as the arbitrary starting point?

What about since Geoff Ward took over? That seems like an obvious and logical choice.

1. Boston 0.685%
2. Colorado 0.681%
3. Tampa Bay 0.673%
4. Vegas 0.667%
5. Philadelphia 0.667%
6. St Louis 0.652%
7. Pittsburgh 0.622%
8. Calgary 0.616%
...
19. Winnipeg 0.543%

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

What do you have to say about the LA Kings? There is not a fancy stat where they are not significantly better than the Flames or the Jets and the are all set to draft 2nd overall.

Would the Flames be in over their heads going up against them in a best of 5?

I was going to make an argument that the teams were both better after the all star game but it seem that you were more observant than I was.

The Flames should be approaching this as big underdogs that snuck in (2004)

The standings since the allstar game have the Flames on the outside looking in. They would have had to play better to make the playoffs in a real season, like they were doing for the last 10 games.

team - games - pts - Win Pct
Colorado - 21 - 30 - 0.71
*Vegas - 19 - 26 - 0.68
Minnesota - 19 - 25 - 0.66
Winnipeg - 20 - 26 - 0.65
*St Louis - 21 - 26 - 0.62
Nashville - 22 - 27 - 0.61
Edmonton - 22 - 26 - 0.59
Los Angeles- 20 - 23 - 0.58
Calgary - 20 - 22 - 0.55
Dallas - 21 - 22 - 0.52
Anaheim - 23 - 24 - 0.52
Vancouver - 20 - 20 - 0.50
Chicago - 19 - 18 - 0.47
Arizona - 19 - 17 - 0.45
San Jose - 20 - 17 - 0.43

Kings and Hurricanes have always been odd ducks when it comes to underlying stats ... and honestly it happens every year. The Flames made the playoffs with Hartley despite having terrible numbers and every season there's a team with good numbers that don't make it.

The overall trends are pretty tight though.

Only one team (LA) from the 7 teams already out are in the league's top 17 in xGF%. So clearly it's not hocus pocus. You get out played you generally don't do all that well.

Inversely, four of the teams out are in the bottom 7 for this stat ... joined by Winnipeg, the Blackhawks and Rangers. The latter two known well for being weak defensively.

The Jets are a poor five on five hockey team.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Kings and Hurricanes have always been odd ducks when it comes to underlying stats ... and honestly it happens every year. The Flames made the playoffs with Hartley despite having terrible numbers and every season there's a team with good numbers that don't make it.

The overall trends are pretty tight though.

Only one team (LA) from the 7 teams already out are in the league's top 17 in xGF%. So clearly it's not hocus pocus. You get out played you generally don't do all that well.

Inversely, four of the teams out are in the bottom 7 for this stat ... joined by Winnipeg, the Blackhawks and Rangers. The latter two known well for being weak defensively.

The Jets are a poor five on five hockey team.

Just a hint: whenever anyone makes an argument that includes a number like "top 17", it's obvious they're cherrypicking the numbers to some extent.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Just a hint: whenever anyone makes an argument that includes a number like "top 17", it's obvious they're cherrypicking the numbers to some extent.

How does someone cherry pick 16/17 teams in xgf% are still playing?

I could have said 9/10 but then noticed the next 7 were all playing as well.

You don't need to spin this when over half the league is represented in the 17. But pick what you want 9/10, 14/15, 16/17 and 17/20

All of them make the same point.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How does someone cherry pick 16/17 teams in xgf% are still playing?

I could have said 9/10 but then noticed the next 7 were all playing as well.

You don't need to spin this when over half the league is represented in the 17. But pick what you want 9/10, 14/15, 16/17 and 17/20

All of them make the same point.

17/20 doesn't make the same point at all, because you can say the same like this:

"About half of the teams that are out of the playoffs are in the top 20"

And if we're going to 20, why not go all the way to 24?

[transplant99]

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

17/20 doesn't make the same point at all, because you can say the same like this:

"About half of the teams that are out of the playoffs are in the top 20"

And if we're going to 20, why not go all the way to 24?

9 of the top 10 teams in xgf% are still playing. I think that's significant in this argument. Don't you?

You seem pissy about this.

Am I being too hard on the Jets?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's not really that tough to figure out. The Jets have been a bad team this year in terms of puck possession and generating more chances than their opponents, but have won games in spite of that weakness mainly because their goalie had the best season of any goalie in the league, and also they have excellent finishing talent at the top of the lineup that can capitalize on their opportunities at a higher rate than other teams, like, say, the Kings and Hurricanes.

Edit: also it would be 18/20 and 21/24 for xgf%.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not really that tough to figure out. The Jets have been a bad team this year in terms of puck possession and generating more chances than their opponents, but have won games in spite of that weakness mainly because their goalie had the best season of any goalie in the league, and also they have excellent finishing talent at the top of the lineup that can capitalize on their opportunities at a higher rate than other teams, like, say, the Kings and Hurricanes.

Edit: also it would be 18/20 and 21/24 for xgf%.

Thanks ... so 4/7 for teams at the bottom are no longer playing.

Seems pretty easy to draw a line between the two.

[AC]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287173280093179904
Dube is in playoff Jesus mode.

[FanIn80]

A playoff beard is something you start growing on day one of the playoffs, not day one of a five-month break before playing a wildcard series to decide whether or not you even make the playoffs.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

A playoff beard is something you start growing on day one of the playoffs, not day one of a five-month break before playing a wildcard series to decide whether or not you even make the playoffs.

Who says that is a "playoff beard"? Maybe it's just a "beard"?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Who says that is a "playoff beard"? Maybe it's just a "beard"?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I suppose you could scroll back up and read the tweet again, if you’re super curious.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I suppose you could scroll back up and read the tweet again, if you’re super curious.

It's all just speculation.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[AustinL_NHL]

I swear, some people truly do their best to ignore analytics or the point of analytics.

As a team, it is infinitely better to be analytically great than not, but just because a team is great in most analytical categories doesn't necessarily mean that team is necessarily gonna be a great team.

You still need talent.

This is one thing people who hate analytics never seem to understand. They see these analytically great players and/or teams and think that just because the results don't match the analytics that analytics have no value, which is just absolutely false.

Of course, it's much better and more valuable to your team if you're constantly out-shooting and out-chancing your opponents, but if you don't have the talent to finish your chances, then your results aren't going to match your xGF.

This is why you always see incredible shooters like Laine, Ovechkin, Monahan, etc... outperforming their ixGF and also why you always see incredible skaters like McDavid, Byron, Athanasiou, etc... outperforming their ixGF.

So, in short: while a team like the Kings might have great scoring chance rates & xGF analytical stats that are among the very best in the NHL, they just don't have the talent on their roster to actually produce those results. So basically, they're being coached great but they just don't have the talent.

A team with 18 McDavid's and analytical stats like the Kings would completely dominate the NHL and score an infinite amount of goals, whereas a team with 18 McDavid's and analytical stats like the Jets would still dominate the NHL due to the talent of the team, but would struggle mightily and get destroyed against the McDavid's with Hurricanes analytics if put head to head in a Best of 7.

When it comes to the Jets, they're truly a horrible team 5v5, but along with having some elite scoring talent upfront, they also have Hellebuyck who played like a total God this season saving their a** night in and night out. Don't know what's so hard to understand.

You need a solid mix of great analytics AND talent on the team.

Hope that helps.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by AC

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287173280093179904
Dube is in playoff Jesus mode.

He's got the Scotty Hartnell vibe going.

[AC]

Haynes with a good point regarding trying to maximize Bennett's value to the team in the playoffs:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287230272027496448

[TED]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Looks like the gap in the front middle is out of respect for the late Ken King who would have sat there. A nice touch by the organization.