[Game Takes] Bolts 6 Flames 3

[Scroopy Noopers]

Goal 1: One review of the Lightning PP and you know that pass to below the goalline is going to be one touch back to the slot -> one timer. Rittich playing cautious goes down on what isn’t a shot attempt and then can’t challenge the shooter. Who was set up in view the whole time. Too cautious/poor prep. Hell of a shot though.

Goal 2: again goes down before the pass is made... of he wants to play like this he needs to play like he has spring board knee caps. But he isn’t.

4: stick in the air, Carey Price makes this save easily.

3 & 5 were tough breaks. 6 was Stamkos being Stamkos...but Rittich is deeper than I would have liked to see there. Again, you know the one timer is coming.

He just didn’t appear to play with much confidence all game. Not sure why, or how they can work on that. But I think it’s holding him back from being a legitimate starter.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Kasi

The reason is because DMs comparisons are so opinion based. Why are the saves that Rittich made not saveable but the ones Smith makes are? Even on obvious bad goals like the spin around one the other game we get explanations like the skate obstructed the view. When one goalie can do no wrong and the other goalie can do no right I tend to discount the opinion.

Not my opinion. If Smith or any goalie was in last night, same analysis.

Kane’s goal was a crappy goal, and he would want it back. I was just volunteering that those shots are tougher to read and react to than many people may appreciate. And that they are rare enough that they don’t project anything in his general ability to stop normal shots.

That was the whole point about the SJ game - there were two bad goals in quite uncommon situations, not two weak goals in normal situations.

I wouldn’t claim those to be good goals or unstoppable. That would be daft. They were bad goals, but they were not normal. And you can’t project behaviour in normal situations based on behaviour in outlying situations.

And the TB game is also an outlying situation.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I never have a problem with people having an opinion that is different, or thinking my opinion is wrong. I expect it with everything I put out.

But lay off on the spreadsheet comments, that's a lame way of trying to diminish another's opinion when you don't have a clue how I arrived at my conclusions.

You defend Rittich every day though so I get it ... he can do no wrong.

Then you tell me what I can't say ... that's nice, especially for someone that isn't intending to offend.

Starting goalies stop 97.5% of the easy shots, 91% of the medium tier shots, and 81% of the high danger shots.

Rittich stopped 9 of the 11 high danger shots last night which is right on the average starter level, but he let up 25% of the non high danger chances according to the summary.

That's not a good night.

With due respect, shot danger is far too subjective to be measured objectively in a one game sample. A whole season? Sure. But if a top corner one timer off a pass on the rush is considered medium danger - that's flawed within the scope of one game. A Monahan snipe in the mid-slot is a higher danger chance than a Gaudreau/Bennett wraparound, but the stats don't pick up on that so using them to evaluate single game events is a bit iffy.

Calgary's coverage last night was nothing short of awful. Coverage matters because it forces guys to adjust their shot release or go to a plan B. We did nothing of the sort and were far too focused on blocking the easy shots only to leave the one time snipes wide open. It was a tactical problem. There are shots you need to block, and shots you need to let the goalie save. We blocked the ones goalie needed to have ("medium danger") and let the goalie exposed to shots that are typically blocked/altwred and turned into medium danger, but because they were uncovered, became high danger.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Not the conversation I thought we were having. Really, this isn’t even about Rittich, specifically. It’s about whether the goalie in this situation played well or not, based on shot quality and expectations.

I have shared my opinion on numbers such as save percentage. It is a flawed stat because of failure to factor in shot quality, and shot quality distribution

And this Tampa game is a poster boy for when the basic statistics don’t tell the whole story. That makes it conversation worthy.

Hrudey has said on the telly that a goalie can let in 5 but play well. I say the same. 6, even.

A lot of people look at stats, count shots and goals, and classify the play based on that.

When Kipper took the step change from .920 ish with Sutter and Playfair to sub .910 with Keenan, I didn’t think he forgot how to play net. Some people thought his play dropped off. He still was really damn good. Team D went by the wayside, and it affected his results. It’s a stat that needs context.

You and I both look at regular and advanced stats a lot.

I understand the flaws in how danger tier is classified, and also understand the concept of statistical significance.

Really what it comes down to is that you are looking at the outcome, based on numbers, and classifying the performance based on that. Not considering the detail and context behind those numbers.

I am more interested in how the goalie actually played.

You took offense to ‘spreadsheet take.’ (Fine, numbers based take - I know you can do math without a spreadsheet, but wasn’t the point)

No secret I like Rittich as a goalie, but that is because he is really good.

Just I can tell what is stoppable from what isn’t.

If Brian Burke can say he judges goalies based on what they should stop, not what they could stop, I won’t apologize for looking at things the same.

I'm certainly aware that the stats aren't perfect. But you have to at least accept your view of his performance is subjective at best, potentially biased, and maybe flawed as well.

I always start with the eye test, but then dig into stats to see if they're backed up.

I didn't like the top line last night, so I wasn't shocked to see Gaudreau at the bottom of the pile when it came to shot attempts. It matched.

I thought the third line looked good ... looked at the stats after the game and yep there it is, controlling the play but not finishing.

I didn't hate all the goals that Rittich gave up, but he has to be better than that to give his hockey team a fighting chance, and that's not excusing the mistakes his teammates made.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Flames average? Rittich average? Spreadsheet take.

Flames below average. TB close to perfect. Domimant. Rittich decent.

If your answer is ‘how can you let in 6 goals and be decent?’ then you have a spreadsheet take. At least 4 of those goals were unstoppable, and he had pretty much below average chance on the other two.

What is it... about 9/10 of your posts are defending Rittich
Do you see anyone blaming these losses on him? No
Is now the right time for him to struggle a bit? Yes
Do the Flames need to be better in front of him? Of course.
Does Rittich need to be much better? Absolutely

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Goal 1: One review of the Lightning PP and you know that pass to below the goalline is going to be one touch back to the slot -> one timer. Rittich playing cautious goes down on what isn’t a shot attempt and then can’t challenge the shooter. Who was set up in view the whole time. Too cautious/poor prep. Hell of a shot though.

Goal 2: again goes down before the pass is made... of he wants to play like this he needs to play like he has spring board knee caps. But he isn’t.

4: stick in the air, Carey Price makes this save easily.

3 & 5 were tough breaks. 6 was Stamkos being Stamkos...but Rittich is deeper than I would have liked to see there. Again, you know the one timer is coming.

He just didn’t appear to play with much confidence all game. Not sure why, or how they can work on that. But I think it’s holding him back from being a legitimate starter.

Yeah I see it differently.

If you come off the post on goal 1, it’s still a crapshoot if you stop the one timer. Gives the guy an option to bank it off you. Have to trust the D with the pass and the shooter. TB executes perfectly

Goal 2, he was explosive laterally and extended fully. Perfectly placed, just too quickly for him

Goal 4, he was trying to stop the pass with his paddle. Stick can’t be in two places at once.

TB is the best team in the league for a reason and executed perfectly on some grade A opportunities.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

What is it... about 9/10 of your posts are defending Rittich
Do you see anyone blaming these losses on him? No
Is now the right time for him to struggle a bit? Yes
Do the Flames need to be better in front of him? Of course.
Does Rittich need to be much better? Absolutely

Haha. Same crappy argument.

Like I said, it isn’t about Rittich, it’s about using stats vs context to declare performance quality.

Didn’t say anyone blamed the loss on him, so not sure what that has to do with me.

Bingo said he was average. I didn’t get it. Still don’t. Never will.

TB shredded Calgary, scored surefire goals. Wicked unstoppable shots.
I still don’t see what he should have done better last night.

Does Rittich need to be better? If you say so. That’s why I wanted to talk aboit each goal. I don’t give a crap how many went in, what could he do on them that’s better?
Sigalet better get to work and just tell Rittich to be better. That oughta do it. Lol

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm certainly aware that the stats aren't perfect. But you have to at least accept your view of his performance is subjective at best, potentially biased, and maybe flawed as well.

I always start with the eye test, but then dig into stats to see if they're backed up.

I didn't like the top line last night, so I wasn't shocked to see Gaudreau at the bottom of the pile when it came to shot attempts. It matched.

I thought the third line looked good ... looked at the stats after the game and yep there it is, controlling the play but not finishing.

I didn't hate all the goals that Rittich gave up, but he has to be better than that to give his hockey team a fighting chance, and that's not excusing the mistakes his teammates made.

I agree with almost everything, and generally agree with you.

I just sympathize with the goalie that faces those type of shots, and then shot counters come out of the woodwork, and decide that he should just be better.

How?

I don’t see what he actually should do on those perfectly placed shots to ‘be better’. To be better you have to be able to do, well, something. I don’t know what it is.

Scroopy had some ideas on a few goals, I don’t see it the same way.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I never have a problem with people having an opinion that is different, or thinking my opinion is wrong. I expect it with everything I put out.

But lay off on the spreadsheet comments, that's a lame way of trying to diminish another's opinion when you don't have a clue how I arrived at my conclusions.

Come on Bingo, you can't tell someone to layoff the spreadsheet comments then come back with...

Starting goalies stop 97.5% of the easy shots, 91% of the medium tier shots, and 81% of the high danger shots.

Rittich stopped 9 of the 11 high danger shots last night which is right on the average starter level, but he let up 25% of the non high danger chances according to the summary.

That is using a spreadsheet to critique his performance. You did not discuss the weakness in Rittich's performance, nor defined which goals were weak. You relied on only comparative statistics to make your point.

That's not a good night.

Wasn't for anyone, especially the Backlund line. Anyone claiming Backlund and Tkachuk are elite should be burning that game film. Treliving needs to bring a copy to the negotiation session with Chucky's agent.

[Strange Brew]

DM - It is possible that you are not the definitive source whether a shot was stoppable or not. I think once you acknowledge the possibility of being fallible in your assessment, whether it's through bias or the inherent limitations of human judgment, you will then be able to discern some value from statistics.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

DM - It is possible that you are not the definitive source whether a shot was stoppable or not. I think once you acknowledge the possibility of being fallible in your assessment, whether it's through bias or the inherent limitations of human judgment, you will then be able to discern some value from statistics.

On the same side of that coin, I think once you acknowledge the obvious flaws in the data collection process, whether it's through bias or the inherent limitations of human judgment, you will then be able to discern some value of statistics.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Come on Bingo, you can't tell someone to layoff the spreadsheet comments then come back with...



That is using a spreadsheet to critique his performance. You did not discuss the weakness in Rittich's performance, nor defined which goals were weak. You relied on only comparative statistics to make your point.



Wasn't for anyone, especially the Backlund line. Anyone claiming Backlund and Tkachuk are elite should be burning that game film. Treliving needs to bring a copy to the negotiation session with Chucky's agent.

His spreadsheet comments were based on my game story. I didn't mention any stats at all when it came to Rittich last night other than he gave up 6 goals on 27 shots.

Don't need a spreadsheet for that.

I'll stand by my comments thanks.

And yeah rough night for the whole team, and the second line in particular.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

DM - It is possible that you are not the definitive source whether a shot was stoppable or not. I think once you acknowledge the possibility of being fallible in your assessment, whether it's through bias or the inherent limitations of human judgment, you will then be able to discern some value from statistics.

Sure, it is definite. There are many shots on which people’s opinions may differ. I have shared my opinions on the goals, and reasoning, goal by goal. Several times I have asked what is stoppable and how, and the answer (except Scroopy, and thanks) is what I view as a lame “he just needs to stop more because stopping tough shots is part of the job”. A spreadsheet take. (Edit: and I know that we have established you don’t need a spreadsheet to count things.)

In an average game, if a team gets, say, 33 shots, the general expectation, based purely on sv%, is that a goalie saves about 30. Those numbers are from a very large volume of data.

That same data could be processed to quantify what an average 33 shots look like. Nobody is doing that for this game and its 27 shots. Rather, they are looking at the number goals scored on the number of shots, and saying the goalie wasn’t good enough.

That’s not good use of statistics.

I get a lot of value out of statistics.

Let’s say this. I want to determine how many shots I believe should be stopped in a game, and I have these data sources:
1) observing, thinking about, and analyzing every goal
2) applying a simple general statistical model to a statistically insignificant sample of data, with essentially no consideration of the details or quality of the actual shots
3) applying a slightly better statistical model that may adjust likelihood of a goal from, for example, a shot location, but can’t distinguish between a shot straight in to the goalie’s chest or wired over his shoulder top corner, (again applied to a relatively statistically insignificant sample of data)

Which should I trust? Especially with the full benefit of visibility in to the events?

#1, every time

Why on earth would I say that the flawed, limited model would give me more value?

It’s nice to know how many goals the average goalie stops on the average night, but that has nothing to do with what a specific goalie could stop on a specific night.

It’s possible to let in 6 and have played well.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And yeah rough night for the whole team, and the second line in particular.

Some talk on these forums that Tkachuk is the future captain of this team. He is a great hockey player and leader on this team. I wonder how much his struggling game has affected the overall team performance since the all-star break.


Stats will show that the first line is the driver of this hockey team, and they are obviously a huge part of the teams success.


Just wondering what your take would be on this. Is Matthew Tkachuk SO valuable to this team that his personal success (or lack of in past 5 games) has had more of an impact to lack of team success than any other parts on the team.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

His spreadsheet comments were based on my game story. I didn't mention any stats at all when it came to Rittich last night other than he gave up 6 goals on 27 shots.

Don't need a spreadsheet for that.

I'll stand by my comments thanks.

And yeah rough night for the whole team, and the second line in particular.

The phrase spreadsheet take was not specifically intended to directed just at you, FYI.

Have said it before and will say it again, I like a lot of the work you do bringing stats to light and discussing. Very much so. I find your views often well thought out. No interest in offending you, but definitely have a way different view on the tending in the TB game.

Take guys like Steinberg and that Kent Wilson guy, also any and everybody that references just the numbers on a given night, and either draws a conclusion, or puts in inordinate weight on them. Obviously spreadsheet take is the wrong phrase but the point stands.

Good on you for standing by your comments. I stand by mine

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Some talk on these forums that Tkachuk is the future captain of this team. He is a great hockey player and leader on this team. I wonder how much his struggling game has affected the overall team performance since the all-star break.


Stats will show that the first line is the driver of this hockey team, and they are obviously a huge part of the teams success.


Just wondering what your take would be on this. Is Matthew Tkachuk SO valuable to this team that his personal success (or lack of in past 5 games) has had more of an impact to lack of team success than any other parts on the team.

I was wondering if Johnny may be the future captain. He reportedly hates to lose more than anyone. He was captain in college too. Tkachuk is pretty strong willed in interviews, and frank when things aren’t great with the team. But Johnny is the engine of the team. A lot of Tkachuk’s points are on the PP with the top line.

Also Tkachuk may not be the top choice for the guy to talk to the refs on behalf of the team.

Johnny is also basically slumping at the same time.

I think the top line cooling off has been at least as much of a team challenge as Tkachuk.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I was wondering if Johnny may be the future captain. He reportedly hates to lose more than anyone. He was captain in college too. Tkachuk is pretty strong willed in interviews, and frank when things aren’t great with the team. But Johnny is the engine of the team. A lot of Tkachuk’s points are on the PP with the top line.

Also Tkachuk may not be the top choice for the guy to talk to the refs on behalf of the team.

Johnny is also basically slumping at the same time.

I think the top line cooling off has been at least as much of a team challenge as Tkachuk.

Good point. It will be interesting to see how he 'matures' over the next few years. Might be a great team leader, but might not be best choice to wear the C

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The phrase spreadsheet take was not specifically intended to directed just at you, FYI.

You sure about that? I post a game story and the first reply in the topic is this ...

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Flames average? Rittich average? Spreadsheet take.

Flames below average. TB close to perfect. Domimant. Rittich decent.

If your answer is ‘how can you let in 6 goals and be decent?’ then you have a spreadsheet take. At least 4 of those goals were unstoppable, and he had pretty much below average chance on the other two.

Who else could it be directed at?

[Ullr]

What a hilarious conversation about statistics where one person posts statistics that back up a claim and the other argues about how statistics are a wash and then states a claim with no numerical evidence that supports the argument.

Rittich is a good goalie, but is he still performing at the same caliber at the start of the season? No.

Is he to blame for yesterday's loss? Maybe. Maybe not.

Do the numbers support this? Yes.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Some talk on these forums that Tkachuk is the future captain of this team. He is a great hockey player and leader on this team. I wonder how much his struggling game has affected the overall team performance since the all-star break.


Stats will show that the first line is the driver of this hockey team, and they are obviously a huge part of the teams success.


Just wondering what your take would be on this. Is Matthew Tkachuk SO valuable to this team that his personal success (or lack of in past 5 games) has had more of an impact to lack of team success than any other parts on the team.

As said above it's not just him ... the top two lines have gone bone cold at the same time which is now turning leaky wins into losses.

Had to happen though, none of the top four forwards have had much by way of any cold runs this year.

Last three games haven't been good for Tkachuk, but I liked his game in Carolina after the break.

It'll come.