08-29-2017, 01:43 PM
|
#8261
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
To answer his question though ...
I do think the Blues, Sens and Oilers were the most fortunate teams of the first round, Sens carried that even further. Stats support it.
Flames lose on goaltending, and as some have said goalies are part of a team so team deserved to lose.
Unluckiest team by a fair margin was the Wild, that series was bizarre.
So I'm pretty content with those lists to be honest.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 01:44 PM
|
#8262
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
As I said you were cool with quoting lead stats from 7 games, so sample size didn't bother you in the least.
|
you don't need a "sample size" to say they lead in 6 of the 7 games...cause you can't skew those facts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I get it though, they don't fit your narrative.
Cool with me though, walk down Spector lane with the Oilers will be measured by a conference final birth or the season is a failure. The best of the unwashed will incorporate some of this stuff though, as it's a pretty good barometer to actually what went down in the playoffs. Sample size is two playoff rounds, and if you're routinely getting out shot, out chanced and hemmed in playoff game after playoff game then what you really have is a hot goaltender and not "the run" as it's been coined in Edmonton.
Your call though.
|
no its not....Minny, despite having the best "fancy" stats according to your post, got bounced in 5 games in the first round
the Pens and Sens has some of the worst "fancy stats" in the playoffs yet were Conference Finalists
heck, even the Preds and Ducks only show up in the top 5 3times total yet they met in the Conference Finals
again, the only thing these stats show is how wildly unpredictable the playoffs can be
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 01:47 PM
|
#8263
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
you don't need a "sample size" to say they lead in 6 of the 7 games...cause you can't skew those facts
|
Can't skew shot differentials either. They are recorded much the same way a goal is. Get one, they write it down. No difference at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
no its not....Minny, despite having the best "fancy" stats according to your post, got bounced in 5 games in the first round
the Pens and Sens has some of the worst "fancy stats" in the playoffs yet were Conference Finalists
heck, even the Preds and Ducks only show up in the top 5 3times total yet they met in the Conference Finals
again, the only thing these stats show is how wildly unpredictable the playoffs can be
|
As I said in the other post ... Blues, Sens and Oilers were the least deserving teams to the eye test.
Wild got ripped off by almost any measure imaginable.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 01:48 PM
|
#8264
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
again, the only thing these stats show is Edmonton had a hot goalie for a little while
|
FYP
Seriously - your bar is "winning a round"? Everyone knows a lesser team can win a round. Hot goalie, luck luck, injuries, etc.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 01:52 PM
|
#8265
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
you don't need a "sample size" to say they lead in 6 of the 7 games...cause you can't skew those facts
no its not....Minny, despite having the best "fancy" stats according to your post, got bounced in 5 games in the first round
the Pens and Sens has some of the worst "fancy stats" in the playoffs yet were Conference Finalists
heck, even the Preds and Ducks only show up in the top 5 3times total yet they met in the Conference Finals
again, the only thing these stats show is how wildly unpredictable the playoffs can be
|
Disputes stats by saying stats aren't reliable....you can tell because of this stat.
Declares Oilers great based on 1 playoff round win where a goalie and 1 player got super hot.....points out that playoffs are unpredictable.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 01:54 PM
|
#8266
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
|
Edmonton is No Good Episode 4: New Rink, Same Stink
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
Travis Hamonic? I like him for his character and toughness but not much of a puck mover...and was a -21 last year on a decent Isles team
|
Lol. You've got to be kidding. Harmonic was aggressively pursued by Charelli but now that he's a Flame he's not that good. Sure bud. Also obviously your talking out your ass because his skating and puck movement are some of his strengths. Sounds like you're jealous that the one you had a crush on just spurned you for your rival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
Smith has had very mediocre stats, is old and a hot-head...can't wait to see him lose his mind the second a defender makes a mistake
|
A goalie who has a lot of pride, what a terrible thing to have. Not to mention his stick handling will be like a 3rd defenseman back there, keeping the D from getting hit a lot. All we need from Smith is average goaltending, anything above that will be gravy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
Sekera? sure...he'll be missed, but for how long? no one knows
|
Most estimates have him not back until after Christmas. I don't think there's a worse #3 defenseman than Benning/Russell/Nurse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
you're only adding Hamonic to a team that got swept in the playoffs and finished the year 5-7 after the 10-game win streak
time will tell if that's enough to put the Flames ahead
|
Only adding a good top 4 guy to a team that already has one of the best top 3 in the league. Who did the Oilers go out and get that improved their defense? You can attribute the late season drop off to the abysmal goaltending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
remember when Joel Quennville had the "choke" label with his time in St. Louis and Colorado?
now he's considered one of the best coaches in the NHL
|
Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarrson, Byfuglien >>>>> Klefbom, Larsson, Russell, Nurse, Benning.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
Last edited by MisterJoji; 08-29-2017 at 01:56 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterJoji For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 01:56 PM
|
#8267
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Naming leads in games? How 1987 of you!
The 7 game Oiler Duck series featured ...
a) Oilers at 43.9% CF%
b) Simple shots for they averaged only 41% through the 7 games
c) 44.6% in scoring chances through the 7 games
d) 45.8% in high danger scoring chances through the 7 games
Those are simple to look up.
The only game in 7 where the Oilers were the more dangerous and effective team was game 3 where you'd have to look at score adjusted since they lost 6-3
Same metrics for the Flames in their 4 game sweep?
a) 51.2% corsi for, with only one game under 50
b) 52.6% of shots for
c) 53.6% of scoring chances for
d) 52.2% of high danger scoring chances for
This isn't hard stuff to look up, I'm not ignoring metrics that don't fit my view. Talbot good. Elliott bad. End of story.
|
Flames were -14 in shot attempts when the games were tied. And -10 when the score was close. +16 when behind. +7 when leading.
Oilers were -20 when tied. Actually better than the Flames.
-34 when score close, just slightly behind the Flames.
+26 when playing from behind. The biggest difference was their -70 when playing with the lead. I thought they tried to sit on leads too much, and it definitely cost them in the Ducks series. That might just be me projecting my emotions onto the results though. In reality, they had the lead more often than not, so it makes sense that they would be well negative in this column.
So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.
12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.
During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.
We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.
Last edited by Oil Stain; 08-29-2017 at 01:59 PM.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:00 PM
|
#8268
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
|
Edmonton is No Good Episode 4: New Rink, Same Stink
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
Flames were -14 in shot attempts when the games were tied. And -10 when the score was close. +16 when behind. +7 when leading.
Oilers were -20 when tied. Actually better than the Flames.
-34 when score close, just slightly behind the Flames. +26 when playing from behind. The biggest difference was their -70 when playing with the lead. I thought they tried to sit on leads too much, and it definitely cost them in the Ducks series.
So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.
12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.
During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.
We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.
|
How about that the Oilers were roundly outhit and outshot by Anaheim in their series? The Flames outshot and we're almost even in hits in their matchup. What does that tell you?
Gibson/Bernier >> Elliott/Johnson (mostly Elliott).
Talbot > Gibson (valiant effort by Talbot but Anaheim had much better D and better secondary scoring).
If Calgary had Talbot level goaltending for their series, they easily take it.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
Last edited by MisterJoji; 08-29-2017 at 02:03 PM.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:04 PM
|
#8269
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I am not that energetic, but I am willing to project from the FACT that an overwhelming majority of NHL goalies undergo time management to limit them to around 65 regular season games to argue that I am likely correct.
You have yet to explain why it is that so many NHL teams in the past decade have seen fit to set these sorts of limits on their starting goalies. If playing 70 games in a season is no problem for a NHL goalie, then why does it not occur more frequently?
To put this another way: between 1995–2006 there were 36 individual campaigns in which goalies played at least 70 games. That is a 3.6 per year average. Since then there have been 31, for an average of 2.82. But in the past five full seasons there have been only seven, with three of those occurring together in 2011–12. Like it or not, there is an irrefutable trend towards fewer games for starting goalies. Do you honestly believe that this is just a random occurrence? I am betting that NHL coaches and managers are convinced that a goalie's workload is a matter of critical importance.
|
I think it has more to do with back to backs and 3 in 4 nights than total number of games.
Teams average around 15 back to backs per season, and stats clearly show that a goaltenders stats sag in the second game of a back to back.
I'm not sure if this is team related or not. The stats never seem to go deep enough for my wants.
I would imagine that coaches are into this though and aren't starting goalies in back to back games anymore which limits a starting goalie to around 65 games.
So I'd say it's more a worry about condensed schedules than it would be about total games.
I wish reporters would ask questions like this instead of the standard stock questions they repeat over and over.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:05 PM
|
#8270
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.
12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.
During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.
We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.
|
I'm honestly not saying a whole lot about the Flames in any of this. They lost.
Don't see the Oilers as a "run" though, when their playoffs had them out played often.
As Calgary fans we went a season being told it wasn't sustainable based on similar metrics. If media talks about Edmonton being great in the playoffs when data suggests they're were not it's an issue.
Oilers games ...
not a good sign to have W's below the line
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:05 PM
|
#8271
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
A goalie who has a lot of pride, what a terrible thing to have. Not to mention his stick handling will be like a 3rd defenseman back there, keeping the D from getting hit a lot. All we need from Smith is average goaltending, anything above that will be gravy.
|
didn't you say the same things about Elliott and his .930 save % last year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Most estimates have him not back until after Christmas. I don't think there's a worse #3 defenseman than Benning/Russell/Nurse.
|
yeah, you have no idea at all, and we won't know until training camp
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Only adding a good top 4 guy to a team that already has one of the best top 3 in the league. Who did the Oilers go out and get that improved their defense? You can attribute the late season drop off to the abysmal goaltending.
|
they're counting on continued growth of Larsson, Klefbom, Benning and Nurse
and again, until the Flames actually prove they're a top 3 defense, they are paper tigers..need to actually finish above the Oilers in GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarrson, Byfuglien >>>>> Klefbom, Larsson, Russell, Nurse, Benning.
|
no mention of the Oilers forwards and goaltending?
Last edited by AlbertaOiler72; 08-29-2017 at 02:08 PM.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:06 PM
|
#8272
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
How about that the Oilers were roundly outhit and outshot by Anaheim in their series? The Flames outshot and we're almost even in hits in their matchup. What does that tell you?
|
Flames were also out shot when the score was tied or close.
What does that tell you?
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:07 PM
|
#8273
|
Franchise Player
|
Who cares about last season...its over and both teams weren't good enough
I think the Flames have improved more than the Oilers but we will see on the ice
__________________
GFG
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:20 PM
|
#8274
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
and again, until the Flames actually prove they're a top 3 defense, they are paper tigers..need to actually finish above the Oilers in GA
|
GA is a pretty weak way to measure a defense core though, guessing you know that.
If you have a 30th ranked save percentage no defense core can bail that out. Similarly a Jennings trophy for Carey Price doesn't suggest the Habs in any one season had the best blueline.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:20 PM
|
#8275
|
First Line Centre
|
nm
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:21 PM
|
#8276
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I'm honestly not saying a whole lot about the Flames in any of this. They lost.
Don't see the Oilers as a "run" though, when their playoffs had them out played often.
As Calgary fans we went a season being told it wasn't sustainable based on similar metrics. If media talks about Edmonton being great in the playoffs when data suggests they're were not it's an issue.
Oilers games ...
not a good sign to have W's below the line
|
That's fair.
I think the Oilers didn't deserve to get by the Ducks last season, and that was the end result.
I don't think any team with one playoff appearance should be banking on going deep in the playoffs. I'll take any success they get this year.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:29 PM
|
#8277
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
Flames were also out shot when the score was tied or close.
What does that tell you?
|
Fortunately, we have score-adjusted stats that can take into account score effects. Score-adjusted, the Flames were at 50.72% of shots attempts. While they were out-shot when the score was tied, they controlled over 55% of shot attempts while trailing (score effects predict 52% for the team trailing). Average it out, and you get a team that, on average, outshot the Ducks over the course of the series.
Corsi close (within 1 goal) has less predictive power than raw Corsi (unadjusted), which has less predictive power than score-adjusted Corsi.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Kovaz For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:43 PM
|
#8278
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
That's fair.
I think the Oilers didn't deserve to get by the Ducks last season, and that was the end result.
I don't think any team with one playoff appearance should be banking on going deep in the playoffs. I'll take any success they get this year.
|
very level headed view, appreciated
Flames could have Smith go in the tank and have the season go up in smoke, or he could find it.
I think the key is to hammer down as many of the "ifs" as you can, Calgary has done some of that.
Time will tell.
|
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:47 PM
|
#8279
|
Scoring Winger
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Red Deer
|
[QUOTE=AlbertaOiler72;6358526]didn't you say the same things about Elliott and his .930 save % last year?
And Elliot certainly didn't give us average goaltending when it mattered most. He was abysmal to start the year and again in the playoffs. He deserves some credit for helping the Flames get hot when they did. Elliot was playing average to above average when the Flames got hot mid season. Flames were one of the top teams in the league during that stretch. So what does that tell you?
If Elliot had given them at least average goaltending in the playoffs, I certainly don't think they would have been swept. He fell apart in the playoffs and was like a leaky faucet. Not putting all the blame on him, but it's pretty tough to win a series with the goaltending he gave the Flames
__________________
It was in.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to ---Hatrick--- For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-29-2017, 02:59 PM
|
#8280
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The toilet of Alberta : Edmonton
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
didn't you say the same things about Elliott and his .930 save % last year?
|
And did he give us average, consistent goaltending? No, he was bad-great-abysmal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
yeah, you have no idea at all, and we won't know until training camp
|
That's why they're called estimates. But most pundits, including on the Oilers think it won't be until December.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
they're counting on continued growth of Larsson, Klefbom, Benning and Nurse
|
So then Calgary should be even better than last year. Adding Hamonic to the growth of Hamilton, Brodie, Stone and Kulak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
and again, until the Flames actually prove they're a top 3 defense, they are paper tigers..need to actually finish above the Oilers in GA
|
Do you really need to be reminded every time that the GA was 90% Talbot>>Elliott.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaOiler72
no mention of the Oilers forwards and goaltending?
|
Yeah, I didn't mention them because I felt it was a wash. Oilers had little bit better goaltending and the Hawks little bit better forwards. But the D isn't even remotely comparable.
Hawks F > Oilers F
Oilers G > Hawks G
Hawks D >>> Oilers D
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MisterJoji For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 AM.
|
|