12-14-2017, 01:36 PM
|
#21
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
A system that routinely out shoots and out chances the opposition is the very definition of coaching for success isn't it?
|
What? No, that's absurd. Shots and chances are a proxy for actual goals for and against, and even goals are a stat once removed from actual success.
The very definition of success is winning.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:37 PM
|
#22
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Not sure I follow on that one.
No offence but it seems like if you have your mind made up that you don't like the coach you'll just toss what doesn't fit your narrative.
But I'll indulge ...
"deploy players in a way that makes them and the team as sucessful as it can be"
A system that routinely out shoots and out chances the opposition is the very definition of coaching for success isn't it?
"Outchancing doesn't always equal success"
It doesn't when the players don't execute. But what more can a coach do but create a system where you get more chances?
|
I have an opinion on the coach, yes, but does that really mean that my thoughts don't matter? Many NHL people will tell you that this is a show me league, not a "try" league. I think we can agree that the results aren't there.
I think the problem is that not all chances are equal. We can't judge a team by that. Monahan missed an almost sure goal in OT last game. That's a chance that gets on a replay feed and more often than not they go in. But how are other chances defined? A shot from the same spot by Monahan will have a different outcome than one from Brouwer. At least most of the time.
So yes the Flames are buzzing around and shooting, but again, that can have different results.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:38 PM
|
#23
|
Loves Teh Chat!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
What? No, that's absurd. Shots and chances are a proxy for actual goals for and against, and even goals are a stat once removed from actual success.
The very definition of success is winning.
|
Well sure, winning is the ultimate metric but don't you think having more shots and chances than the other team should put you in a good position to win most nights?
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:41 PM
|
#25
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
What? No, that's absurd. Shots and chances are a proxy for actual goals for and against, and even goals are a stat once removed from actual success.
The very definition of success is winning.
|
Shots and chances are metrics to describe with an impartial source how well a team is playing. They are an added layer of looking at a team that gives some depth for decision making so a silly GM doesn't dump a coach or extend a contract on a sad sack coach over a simple line like wins.
There is nothing absurd about it. A coach that has a team out playing the opposition is a very good measuring stick for whether or not he's doing a good job.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:42 PM
|
#26
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
What? No, that's absurd. Shots and chances are a proxy for actual goals for and against, and even goals are a stat once removed from actual success.
The very definition of success is winning.
|
If you want to predict future goals and wins, you're better off looking at current shots and chances than current goals.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:42 PM
|
#27
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I have an opinion on the coach, yes, but does that really mean that my thoughts don't matter? Many NHL people will tell you that this is a show me league, not a "try" league. I think we can agree that the results aren't there.
I think the problem is that not all chances are equal. We can't judge a team by that. Monahan missed an almost sure goal in OT last game. That's a chance that gets on a replay feed and more often than not they go in. But how are other chances defined? A shot from the same spot by Monahan will have a different outcome than one from Brouwer. At least most of the time.
So yes the Flames are buzzing around and shooting, but again, that can have different results.
|
I thought that this was the kind of stuff fancy stats were supposed to explain though.
__________________
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:43 PM
|
#28
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovaz
Good article. The only thing I'd disagree with is the use of the term "luck" for PDO. Sure, luck definitely influences your percentages, but IMO player execution is the bigger underlying factor. Kucherov's high PDO isn't because he's getting lucky - he's been absolutely in the zone for the last year. His shooting percentage is high because he's going bar-down every second shot. The coach can't just tell his players to be "in the zone", so I agree it's not fair to the coach to put too much weight on those numbers.
Save percentage is also far from random - it's subject to the same player execution fluctuations as shooting percentage, but because it's concentrated in one player it's more likely to be consistently high or low over a season. You don't get the averaging-out that shooting percentage gets due to the 18 skaters on the ice. So when I look at that LA Kings table, I think it's a little deceiving to see "Luck Look" and a high rank. It'd be easy to conclude at a glance that LA's been really lucky this year, when it's probably more accurate so say that Quick has been unreal.
|
Absolutely and that's why I brought scoring chances into it.
A low shooting percentage from a team that shoots from a distant all the time would be meaningless. If the shooting percentage is high from a team that is highly ranked in scoring chances then you have another answer, and this is where luck enters into it.
Someone did an analysis on the Oilers start this season and they had something like 55% of their shots from the blueline compared to 35% last year. Corsi looked great, but their actual scoring chances weren't in line.
You bring up Tampa and Kucherov, they are just ahead of the Flames when it comes to share of scoring chances.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 01:46 PM
|
#29
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
|
Thanks for all the work and these charts Bingo!
I would suspect that Hartley's playoff year looked a lot like LAs chart right now. A lot of scoring and some luck, but underlying it just didn't have the type of play that would indicate future success. A lot of pundits were saying I told you so the next year.
I don't think advanced stats are as accurate in hockey as in baseball, but as a starting point to show underlying play and trends I think they have been proven as pretty accurate indicators. That doesn't mean they are always right, there are always outliers, but it makes a pretty good case for the Flames to be doing everything in the right direction.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Last edited by belsarius; 12-14-2017 at 01:59 PM.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 02:20 PM
|
#30
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I have an opinion on the coach, yes, but does that really mean that my thoughts don't matter? Many NHL people will tell you that this is a show me league, not a "try" league. I think we can agree that the results aren't there.
I think the problem is that not all chances are equal. We can't judge a team by that. Monahan missed an almost sure goal in OT last game. That's a chance that gets on a replay feed and more often than not they go in. But how are other chances defined? A shot from the same spot by Monahan will have a different outcome than one from Brouwer. At least most of the time.
So yes the Flames are buzzing around and shooting, but again, that can have different results.
|
So, are you suggesting that the discrepancy between Flames' scoring chance generation and actual goals scored is an artificial product of low-percentage shooters amassing an inordinate number of high quality chances?
I think if you are going to forward an assertion like this, then the impetus is upon you to show some evidence to support it.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-14-2017, 02:22 PM
|
#31
|
Franchise Player
|
I've been a strong critic of so-called advanced stats in the past (especially PDO, which makes about as much sense as a soup sandwich). But now that the stats guys have got past the idea that all shots on goal are created equal, and started focusing on things like expected goals and high-danger scoring chances, I'm really warming up to the work they're doing.
It's been clear from early on in the season that one of the team's big problems is that certain guys have been shooting far, far below their usual percentage. (Hello, Sam!) That's started to come around for the third line, but now the first line is in a funk. If they can settle down and get things on an even keel, they should do better the rest of the way.
By the way, Textcritic, I think you meant ‘onus’ rather than ‘impetus’.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Last edited by Jay Random; 12-14-2017 at 02:25 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-14-2017, 02:46 PM
|
#32
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
So, are you suggesting that the discrepancy between Flames' scoring chance generation and actual goals scored is an artificial product of low-percentage shooters amassing an inordinate number of high quality chances?
I think if you are going to forward an assertion like this, then the impetus is upon you to show some evidence to support it.
|
I guess I'm just not a fan of fancy stats. Scoring a goal is a combination of many random things. Yes getting chances is better than not getting them, but in the end only a fraction of chances get converted to goals. This is why I don't quite fully buy in to Bingos prognosis.
I firmly disagree that just outchancing teams is a measurement of success for coaches. Winning is. But of course if you coach a team with weak players you have to look at other things. Good structure, consistency, effort and most important continuous improvement.
So we may disagree where this team should be in the standings but should agree that this team has no identity, has no consistency or structure, is not improving and effort is spotty at best.
And then there is the special teams. And that's mostly on coaches as they are the ones playing guys with no hope of scoring on the top PP unit.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 02:52 PM
|
#33
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I guess I'm just not a fan of fancy stats. Scoring a goal is a combination of many random things. Yes getting chances is better than not getting them, but in the end only a fraction of chances get converted to goals. This is why I don't quite fully buy in to Bingos prognosis.
I firmly disagree that just outchancing teams is a measurement of success for coaches. Winning is. But of course if you coach a team with weak players you have to look at other things. Good structure, consistency, effort and most important continuous improvement.
So we may disagree where this team should be in the standings but should agree that this team has no identity, has no consistency or structure, is not improving and effort is spotty at best.
And then there is the special teams. And that's mostly on coaches as they are the ones playing guys with no hope of scoring on the top PP unit.
|
Nope.
-identity is pretty nebulous so I'll leave that alone, however an identity of out playing everyone isn't a bad start
-they have plenty of structure, disagree with that
-consistency has been better of late, but brutal against Toronto and Edmonton at home
-they are certainly improving though, not sure how you can suggest they're not.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-14-2017, 03:01 PM
|
#34
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Nope.
-identity is pretty nebulous so I'll leave that alone, however an identity of out playing everyone isn't a bad start
-they have plenty of structure, disagree with that
-consistency has been better of late, but brutal against Toronto and Edmonton at home
-they are certainly improving though, not sure how you can suggest they're not.
|
Improving from last year?
We have the same record and that's with a good start.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 03:04 PM
|
#35
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Improving from last year?
We have the same record and that's with a good start.
|
He meant improving over the course of the year. Can you deny that they've looked good over the last 4 games? As good as they've looked all year?
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 03:14 PM
|
#36
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I guess I'm just not a fan of fancy stats. Scoring a goal is a combination of many random things. Yes getting chances is better than not getting them, but in the end only a fraction of chances get converted to goals. This is why I don't quite fully buy in to Bingos prognosis...
|
That doesn't really answer my question. Please help me to explain what you mean by this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
...not all chances are equal. We can't judge a team by that. Monahan missed an almost sure goal in OT last game. That's a chance that gets on a replay feed and more often than not they go in. But how are other chances defined? A shot from the same spot by Monahan will have a different outcome than one from Brouwer. At least most of the time.
So yes the Flames are buzzing around and shooting, but again, that can have different results.
|
You chose this specific criterion upon which to illustrate your opinion of why the results do not correspond easily with the underlying numbers. So, explain it.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 04:00 PM
|
#37
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
That doesn't really answer my question. Please help me to explain what you mean by this:
You chose this specific criterion upon which to illustrate your opinion of why the results do not correspond easily with the underlying numbers. So, explain it.
|
I mean that the Flames are able to cycle in the offensive zone and are generating (given?) some chances, but for most part are limited to very few excellent chances, rebound chances or point blank chances. We don't generate much in front of the net. Once we get those, we will score more goals, because thats how goals are scored.
Makes one wonder if anyone tracks goals off rebounds.
But in fairness, this is all from my eye test. Thats what I see. I don't seek stats to support my theory that the Flames are not getting enough net presence.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 04:04 PM
|
#38
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
He meant improving over the course of the year. Can you deny that they've looked good over the last 4 games? As good as they've looked all year?
|
All of these games could have gone the other way. No dominant games and no terrible ones either. I will give you that. So average?
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 04:17 PM
|
#39
|
Franchise Player
|
The ability of a scorer to bury his chances and the ability of a goalie to make saves is about the furthest thing from luck IMO.
I agree with the general thrust of the article though and Flames have started to play better as of late. But 4 games is a poor sample size from which to draw many conclusions.
|
|
|
12-14-2017, 04:25 PM
|
#40
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I mean that the Flames are able to cycle in the offensive zone and are generating (given?) some chances, but for most part are limited to very few excellent chances, rebound chances or point blank chances. We don't generate much in front of the net. Once we get those, we will score more goals, because thats how goals are scored...
|
From Bingo's article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
"...the Flames are an elite team when it comes to generating scoring chances. They sit top ten in chances for, and top five when it comes to the differential between scoring chances for and against, suggesting that not only are they driving play, they are out chancing their opponents pretty regularly."
|
Of course, this depends upon how "high danger scoring chances" are defined, but given that the same definition is applied to every other NHL team I expect it won't change the outcome.
Bingo has supplied some pretty compelling numbers. You have countered with "the coach is bad, and it just doesn't feel like the team is playing well."
I am strongly compelled to endorse his evaluation over yours.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Textcritic For This Useful Post:
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
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 07:43 AM.
|
|