[PGT] Vegas 3, Flames roll craps

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Goriders

He’s probably the guy I’m the most disappointed in. Or maybe one of the few. I was excited to see what he could do this year as he finished last year pretty hot.

Apparently the answer is nothing.

He’s a cap dump, who cares? We bought Gridin for having to watch that atrocity.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Where did you get the data for that?

From a print source back in the day, which, unfortunately, does not come with a URL. I believe it was an article in The Hockey News back when that was worth reading. The success rate for 5-on-4 power plays historically has hovered around 25% per two full minutes, 5-on-3 is double that. I've heard at least one power play coach say (on the air, so alas, also no URL) that he actually would rather have a 4-on-3 than a 5-on-3 because there's more open space in the attacking zone.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

From a print source back in the day, which, unfortunately, does not come with a URL. I believe it was an article in The Hockey News back when that was worth reading.

Ah, thanks. You know me and my infatuation with (or, more accurately, yearning for) open hockey data sources.

[butterfly]

There’s no one stopping them from just sending someone to the neutral zone and creating a 4-on-3.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

50% of the time seems super successful to me TBH...

If they score there it might change the outcome. They would have had a 1-0 lead heading into the second and would have had the momentum as it would have been a late period goal and would have still had time left on the 4 minute PP.

None of which would have prevented Vegas from scoring goals in the second and third periods.

‘Momentum’ is a term much abused by media people who don't understand the game but understand how to make a narrative that will excite the audience. One of the earliest exercises in analytics, done back in the early 2000s, showed pretty conclusively that it doesn't exist to the extent that it can affect the outcome of games. Score effects actually work the opposite way – the team trailing in a game is more likely to score the next goal.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

From a print source back in the day, which, unfortunately, does not come with a URL. I believe it was an article in The Hockey News back when that was worth reading. The success rate for 5-on-4 power plays historically has hovered around 25% per two full minutes, 5-on-3 is double that. I've heard at least one power play coach say (on the air, so alas, also no URL) that he actually would rather have a 4-on-3 than a 5-on-3 because there's more open space in the attacking zone.

I really don't understand what you're saying and I'm drunk so that may be a me problem. 4 on 3 is 25% success rate, 5 on 3 is double that so 50% success rate, but a PP coach said he'd rather have a 4 on 3?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I really don't understand what you're saying and I'm drunk so that may be a me problem. 4 on 3 is 25% success rate, 5 on 3 is double that so 50% success rate, but a PP coach said he'd rather have a 4 on 3?

No, 5 on 4 is 25%. The article didn't give statistics for 4 on 3, unfortunately.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

None of which would have prevented Vegas from scoring goals in the second and third periods.

‘Momentum’ is a term much abused by media people who don't understand the game but understand how to make a narrative that will excite the audience. One of the earliest exercises in analytics, done back in the early 2000s, showed pretty conclusively that it doesn't exist to the extent that it can affect the outcome of games. Score effects actually work the opposite way – the team trailing in a game is more likely to score the next goal.

See also: “Chemistry” and “Proven Goaltending”

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, 5 on 4 is 25%. The article didn't give statistics for 4 on 3, unfortunately.

But you said "The success rate for 5-on-4 power plays historically has hovered around 25% per two full minutes, 5-on-3 is double that.". Is that incorrect? I didn't see you reference anything about 4 on 3.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by jayswin

But you said "The success rate for 5-on-4 power plays historically has hovered around 25% per two full minutes, 5-on-3 is double that.". Is that incorrect? I didn't see you reference anything about 4 on 3, nor did I.

That’s what Jay said but 4-on-3 success rate is undisclosed according to the article that we are talking about.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

None of which would have prevented Vegas from scoring goals in the second and third periods.

‘Momentum’ is a term much abused by media people who don't understand the game but understand how to make a narrative that will excite the audience. One of the earliest exercises in analytics, done back in the early 2000s, showed pretty conclusively that it doesn't exist to the extent that it can affect the outcome of games. Score effects actually work the opposite way – the team trailing in a game is more likely to score the next goal.

Fair points.

But how could you conclusively say that a game that was 1-0 for Vegas until a PP goal made it 2-0 with 5 minutes remaining (on a penalty that was entirely from the Flames pushing for an equalizer) wouldn't have been impacted by the Flames scoring a goal.

Flames going up 1-0 there would undoubtedly have changed the outcome of the game. Maybe they lose , maybe they win, but the entire rest of the game from that point would have played out entirely differently and hence the outcome would be different.

It's not like it was some late PP that would have given the Flames an inconsequential late goal that made it 3-1 instead of 3-0.

Flames scoring 1st there would have changed the outcome of the game and there's no real debate to that. Maybe they end up winning the game, maybe it wakes Vegas up and they lose 5-1 but in the end the outcome is different no matter what.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Funny how people are crapping on Kuzmenko

He’s missed the last 5, coming off a lower body injury. He gets 4th line duty then mid game bumped to 3rd line. No time on the PP (which probably could use skill like he has), and gets less than 10 minutes.

He accomplished as much as the entire team offensively, although he did feed Zary for the one good chance they had. He didn’t cost them in any way

Sure he has struggled this year, but simply being dressed isn’t exactly being put in a position to dazzle

I am not sure what everyone expected from him because the whole team had nothing going. He got very little time, didn’t cost them, and didn’t stand out much in a bad or good way

People are funny

[butterfly]

Guy has 1 goal the entire season and contributes negatively on the defensive end for the tidy price of almost $6 million. He’s a cap dump.

Staying healthy and avoiding injury is a skill. It’s not an excuse to use for poor play.

You could call up anybody from the AHL and get this performance.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Kuzmenko is awful

Just watched the recorded game late, but I actually thought this post was the ol' joke that he was a scratch and just equally as noticeable as usual. Checked NHL.com... nope he was there apparently.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Funny how people are crapping on Kuzmenko

He’s missed the last 5, coming off a lower body injury. He gets 4th line duty then mid game bumped to 3rd line. No time on the PP (which probably could use skill like he has), and gets less than 10 minutes.

He accomplished as much as the entire team offensively, although he did feed Zary for the one good chance they had. He didn’t cost them in any way

Sure he has struggled this year, but simply being dressed isn’t exactly being put in a position to dazzle

I am not sure what everyone expected from him because the whole team had nothing going. He got very little time, didn’t cost them, and didn’t stand out much in a bad or good way

People are funny

Don't think Kuzmenko was injured. Hes been healthy scratched for 5 games.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Don't think Kuzmenko was injured. Hes been healthy scratched for 5 games.

I think he had a nagging lower body injury. Huska said as much, and Kuzy was missing practices at the time as well. That was the reason he missed the FLA, BOS, and OTT games. He was a healthy scratch for both the CHI, and SJS games.

I don't see the benefit of the Flames lying about the injury and using it as an excuse.

[SuperMatt18]

https://x.com/darrenwhaynes/status/1...709893545?s=46

This checks out

[Enoch Root]

I knew (well, suspected) they were bad at it, but 19%? That is insane.

[NewFan]

I think Kuzmenko and Sharangovich type players need a special roles to reach their potential. In other word, they will play better with certain types of players which they can use their strength. Unfortunately most coaches don't want or don't know how to use them properly. I think Huska is one of those coaches.
Kuzmenko - Kadri - Pospisil will be as good as or better than Huberdeau - Kadri - Pospisil now.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I knew (well, suspected) they were bad at it, but 19%? That is insane.

The tweet doesn't say what the range is for other teams. A 5-on-3 rarely lasts the full two minutes, since it's usually the result of taking a second penalty while a team is already shorthanded. If the length is randomly distributed from zero to two minutes, it should average about a minute, and if the old stat I read is still roughly true, a team should expect to score about 25% of the time in 60 seconds of 5-on-3. So yes, 19% is bad, but context is needed to see just how bad.