Practice notes Mar 12: Tkachuk, Monahan, & Backlund absent "maintenance days" for all

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Please don't fix my posts.

As your fix actually takes away from my point, and adds nothing.

If you don't agree I'm happy to to discuss any points with you, but leave my thoughts alone thanks.

Um, ok. I thought fyp’s were generally viewed in a bit of a humorous way, not so sensitive a topic.

To be crystal clear, though, out shooting and out playing are not the same thing.

You must see how the Flames play a slow perimeter game, how their chances are adequate in count as dangerous (based on location), but don’t actually feel dangerous or result in the commensurate quantity of goals and corresponding wins.

Underlying numbers can be fine when supporting a hypothesis, but using them to draw conclusions that disagree with actual results is missing the boat.

You can look at a team that puts up 50 easy shots on 2 New York teams and loses both games handily and you can look at it in different ways
1) trot out the shot counting stats and basically conclude from underlying numbers that the team was good enough, system works, ran in to a hot goalie, got unlucky etc.
2) note however that the team never actually looked like they were going to win either game. Think what is missing and not captured in underlying numbers, that are there in the eye test and in the actual results. (Slow moving, few odd man rushes, few exposed defenders, large number number of perimeter shots.)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Um, ok. I thought fyp’s were generally viewed in a bit of a humorous way, not so sensitive a topic.

To be crystal clear, though, out shooting and out playing are not the same thing.

You must see how the Flames play a slow perimeter game, how their chances are adequate in count as dangerous (based on location), but don’t actually feel dangerous or result in the commensurate quantity of goals and corresponding wins.

Underlying numbers can be fine when supporting a hypothesis, but using them to draw conclusions that disagree with actual results is missing the boat.

You can look at a team that puts up 50 easy shots on 2 New York teams and loses both games handily and you can look at it in different ways
1) trot out the shot counting stats and basically conclude from underlying numbers that the team was good enough, system works, ran in to a hot goalie, got unlucky etc.
2) note however that the team never actually looked like they were going to win either game. Think what is missing and not captured in underlying numbers, that are there in the eye test and in the actual results. (Slow moving, few odd man rushes, few exposed defenders, large number number of perimeter shots.)

Yeah I'm well aware that out shooting and out playing aren't the same thing ... hence changing my post is somewhat disingenuous even if you're trying to be funny.

What drives me nuts is the picking and choosing in posts.

I went into great detail about trailing early puts the home numbers in a different light as they are chasing the game and running up both shot and scoring chance totals in desperation.

It doesn't change the fact that they had almost twice the scoring chances as the Islanders (isn't just a shot thing so let that go), but it does change the "we were so unlucky" narrative because they got themselves down, pressed hard, but couldn't get back into the game.

It doesn't however change the fact that they did out play the Islanders in almost every way you look at it, but it does change the optics of luck vs being ready to play and what to do with that.

[DeluxeMoustache]

See, I saw a high volume of not so dangerous chances. Felt like they were not dangerous and going to win at the time. And they didn’t.

It is as if Weight told the Isles “Ok boys, we are up. Give them the outside but don’t give up anything dangerous. Let them tire themselves out”

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

See, I saw a high volume of not so dangerous chances. Felt like they were not dangerous and going to win at the time. And they didn’t.

It is as if Weight told the Isles “Ok boys, we are up. Give them the outside but don’t give up anything dangerous. Let them tire themselves out”

In my game takes I pointed out that they didn't have the volume of the 53 shots from in tight, that the heat map didn't show a complete onslaught, but a team throwing everything at the net.

So we agree.

But at then end of the day they did have 18 high danger scoring chances to 11 in all situations, and a 41-23 edge in scoring chances (includes shots wide and blocked shots)

They out played the Islanders regardless of how many shots were undangerous.

[442scotty]

This team has to play great on most nights to win but they only have two players that I would categorize as great. Giordano and Gaudreau . They have a few very good players in Monahan , Hamilton , Chucky and Backlund. The rest are good or not very good at all.

There's just not enough skill on this team to be the team we hope them to be. Gullys boring system gets them a few more wins than they should have and Trelivings trades make the team a little less mediocre. This team needed to go through at least one more lousy season with draft pics INTACT! so that we could get better players at the draft. There were/are some pretty good players at the draft that this team is missing out on because ownership lost its patience.

expecting to get smoked badly tonight but hoping for a miracle anyway. And sure hoping that Dube, Gawdin, Tuulola, Ruzicka, Fox and a few on the Heat turn into long shot home runs cause this team is going to need some

That's my negative Nellie rant for today. I'd like to see our good players play up a notch or two just for one day to kick some Oiler butt tonight. Is that too much to ask for?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I
They out played the Islanders regardless of how many shots were undangerous.

But if you outplay a team in a perimeter way that doesn't get you dangerous shots, did you really outplay them?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by timbit

Still have to be curious as to why their road record is so remarkably good.

Same coaches and same players as at home.

Still haven’t got a response.

There have been lots of responses, in every thread.

I think the biggest reasons are that they play a simpler, north-south game on the road. And they don't try to pass the puck all the way into the net.

The big (and debatable) question of course is why? Preparation? Confidence? Distractions? Could be any or all of the above, plus other reasons.

But I have to voice my opinion along with several others here: I see you questioning others a lot. I see you challenging others a lot. But what I don't see is your opinion on anything. I don't see you adding anything, just criticizing others. Please enlighten us with your takes.

[jayswin]

I appreciate Tranny and Timbit's coaching experience they offer to the discussion, but sometimes it can get a little holier than thou. Last week or whenever when transplant99 (or possibly someone else) said that timbit's opinion means more was a bit much.

He has qualifications.

Do you?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by jayswin

But if you outplay a team in a perimeter way that doesn't get you dangerous shots, did you really outplay them?

Flames had more dangerous chances than the Islanders come on now

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jayswin

But if you outplay a team in a perimeter way that doesn't get you dangerous shots, did you really outplay them?

They didn't.

They out played them in a perimeter way and also in an inside the perimeter way.

The numbers are right there to see.

They didn't dominate the "paint" like they have in other losses, but they did to the extent that a win should have been secured.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There have been lots of responses, in every thread.

I think the biggest reasons are that they play a simpler, north-south game on the road. And they don't try to pass the puck all the way into the net.

The big (and debatable) question of course is why? Preparation? Confidence? Distractions? Could be any or all of the above, plus other reasons.

But I have to voice my opinion along with several others here: I see you questioning others a lot. I see you challenging others a lot. But what I don't see is your opinion on anything. I don't see you adding anything, just criticizing others. Please enlighten us with your takes.

I honestly think it's scoring first, or not trailing as much.

Simple as that.

[Dajazz]

I don't buy it. Advanced mumbo jumbo, shots here and there analysis blah blah completely subjective statistic.

Two seasons of REAL results show the FACTS. This is a mediocre team - bad depth, worse coach - let's call a spade a spade. I am however really hoping they are going on a run and start winning, but I have my doubts.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

I don't buy it. Advanced mumbo jumbo, shots here and there analysis blah blah completely subjective statistic.

Two seasons of REAL results show the FACTS. This is a mediocre team - bad depth, worse coach - let's call a spade a spade. I am however really hoping they are going on a run and start winning, but I have my doubts.

What is subjective about counting every shot attempt in a specific zone on the ice?

Its the very definition of objective.

You don't have to like the measure, but call it what it is.

[Matty81]

NHL advanced stats are a joke. They take into account only shots without consideration of the shot quality or the skill of the person taking the shot to convert them into goals, it's totally ridiculous. The Flames have been OK lately but are exhibit A of why advanced stats are nonsense. You can out-Corsi the world if your finishing and goaltending suck you will still lose. I remember the Oilers being godawful a few years ago and leaning on Corsi, they'd outshoot the other team 28-22, give up 4 breakaways and have most of their own shots from the boards.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What is subjective about counting every shot attempt in a specific zone on the ice?

Its the very definition of objective.

You don't have to like the measure, but call it what it is.

Just watching it feels like the other team is always way more prepared for us in the high danger zone than we are of other teams.

We're a telegraphed hockey club, that prefers to start from a set rush and then play around in the zone before attempting a shot, rather than relentlessly forechecking and causing turnovers which create confusion and chaos in the high danger zone.

I've been monitoring the high danger zone while watching (due to your analysis - I don't want to be one of those guys that won't give stats a chance and just ignorantly slams them) and too many of them I find myself going "yep, that was the high danger area and it was pretty routine for the defense and goalie".

Anecdotal based on my watching, of course.

[Classic_Sniper]

Are people really questioning whether or not we outplayed or out chanced the Islanders? Did we all watch different games or something? Both New York teams were exceptionally lucky to win these games.

The Islanders fired 2 shots off a limb and a stick that both went in early on whereas we had a gargantuan amount of chances and lost. Case in point:

- Brodie fires a puck off the post and it ricochets off Gibson's foot but doesn't bounce in somehow, instead it sticks to Gibson's skate

- Sam Bennett pulls off a move, basically has a breakaway, fires it 5 hole and Gibson stops that point blank, no rebound

- Gaudreau right at the doorstep, is robbed by the foot of an stretched out Gibson

- Tkachuk slips the puck into the open net but goal is disallowed because the refs blow the whistle early when Gibson doesn't even have the puck

Those are just a few goals and chances from what I could remember that could've went in and changed the entire complexion of the game. Even NYR's Lundqvist's ridiculously lucky save on Backlund at the start of the 2nd could've changed the complexion of that game because the Rangers came back and scored a softie right after that save. These 2 losses could've easily been wins any other day but we lost purely because of bad luck. Crap happens, but the Islanders and Rangers looked like junk in those games and were lucky to win.