CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
Pre-Game Talk: 2015 Stanley Cup Final: Bolts vs Hawks
- Thread starter No Fun Shogun
- Start date
- Status
CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
I agree with this post. I hope Q is thinking along similar lines... no pun intended
CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
The better team?
In the end all that really matters is how many did they score and how many did you score which determines who wins the game...
HOWEVER by definition that results analysis does not account for factors beyond the control of players on the ice...players do control who gets more scoring chances and the conversion succrssor lack of on those chances...a miss on such chances can either be a fault of the shooters failing to score or the goalie being shot at failing to stop the puck...however scoring chances are notoriously subjective as to what data counts as a scoring chance..Further there seems to be a separation between quality scoring chances and all scoring chances...But ask different people to track these data sets and you have wildly divergent opinions of what counted as a scoring chance...I think we need some very strict definition s here...But the final objective is to remove pure luck from the measure...But all shot attempts that are not blocked are not really scoring chances ...and even all unblocked shots that get on net are not quality scoring chances..The quality scoring chance should be from unblocked shots that one cannot describe as routine or likely to be saved the vast majority of the time by NHL goalies..That definition of quality scoring chances is of course very subjective so again it is hard to get a consensus of what is or is not a quality scoring chance..Clearly unimpeded break-aaways should count as quality scoring chances.. (eg. The Vermette chance last night )..Clearly shots that miss open nets are quality chances if there is no other reason( like a checker preventing a clears hot attempt in that situation),and clearly shots getting on net for rebound whack chances are quality scoring chances..But can you credit the shot off the wing from well out that Crawford whiffed on with his glove hand as a quality chance or was it really a horrible goalie fault that the majority of NHL goalies stop most of the time? Some would say any clear shot you have at a goalie is a quality chance because it will go past him some of the time even if only a slight %of the time..So this quality chance data can be both easy to count and sometimes subjective. Deflection off shot attempts that are not blocked away but instead get re-directed past goalies. ..how can pure luck there be counted as a quality chance when if it deflects a few inches wider it would have missed the net...OR lucky bounce goals ...such goals do not always come from quality chances..What about deflection goals off skates with no kicking motion?In those cases you ought to credit a quality chance because of the effort of the attacking player to get to the net..But if a shot deflects off a defender into the net was it from a quality chance shot attempt or from a mere routine shot...very difficult to decide such an issue.
EVEN ASSUMING we could come up with a strict definition of what counts as a quality chance to score do we credit a team with a big differential in quality chances as the better team and if they fail to win credit either their own goalie for a bad game or the opposing goalie for stopping their quality chances as the reason he better team lost ,OR we look at conversion failure on these quality chances as the explanation for the loss of a team with a higher number of quality scoring g chances.
SO ...while I have seen some analyses of scoring chances for and scoring chances against for individual players lines and d-pairs
I cannot be certain if quality chance data is subjective or even coming from the same person doing the counting..And of course even if we could come up with the same definition for quality chances how do we remove the influence refs MIGHT have on a game by calling more penalties against one team while ignoring g infractions by the other team? The refs actions do influence quality chance numbers because you would think more PPS for a team result in more quality chances generated (but not always).
Then even if we could remove referee bias and bad calls influence on scoring chances is a team better because it has a very great scoring chance differential but if it fails to score enough goals to win we blame bad luck or the opposing goalie...OR does
the goalie impacting a game help define the better .
Possession stats may show which team is dominating the play but so what?What matters is quality chances and conversions or not converting.
Suppose we agreed on definition for quality chances which includes missed shots on goal hitting posts but not off defender deflection. ..let us say team A is credited with 15 quality chances generated and only converts 2 of them...team B only generates 8 quality chances but scores on 3 of them...Who do we say is the better team? IF team B had generated say 14 chances but scored on 3 we could say the teams were close and team B was slightly better..But in the first case do you still credit a team for dominating scoring chances but failure in converting or do you blame them for massive failure to convert enough or do you say the better team was simply stymied by the opposing goalie being much better than their goalie? SO how do you define who really was better?
In the end it comes down to the better team was the team that won the game ...the rest is kust excuse for the losers
BUT in our desire to explain better Ness we avoid the final score and look to possession stats ,advanced stats ,and if we could agree on definition the quality chance stats and conversion or failure rates as explaining wins or losses aside from the refs calls and coaching decisions.
In the old days it was easy...Get out -shot and lose .then your opponent was better....Out-shoot them by a wide margin and get more quality chances...still lose...then blame your goalie or credit their goalie or blame the refs or blame bad luck...but you still felt you were better than them.
TODAY ..we must know who if any team dominated quality scoring chances and if that was the case (it may be close with no team dominating that stat)
Then ask the difficult question as to whether the fault on losing was die to your goalie not as good as their goalie,bad luck or refs influence,or your own fault for not converting enough on your big differential in scoring chances.
If you conclude it was mainly your own fault for not converting your big advantage on quality chances then that hardly makes you a better team..You have a major problem if you keep failing to convert enough on superior quatity of quality chances.
Blaming bad luck,refs,or your goalie's mistakes or their goalie's ability to stop pucks only make you big fail on the conversions.
You may feel better blaming the other factors for losing but it does not make you the better team that somehow got jobber.
YOU did that to yourself.
Now I have not seen the scoring chance stats from last night's game 3...do not know if we had some great quantity advantage
.If not then any possession stat or simple shots on goal advantage we had are even less important..But if we did have a big advantage in quality scoring chances..If would say that does not make us better than them becausebourbinavility to convert enough of these is such a big Flaw that to use the term "better" would be an oxymoron.
If they generate as many or more quality chances on less shots and possession and convert theirs to a higher rate than we do ours then clearly they are better.
BUT I GUARANTEE YOU...if we win the scoreboard...no matter how. .we are going to be thought of as the better team...and THAT is all that matters.
In the end all that really matters is how many did they score and how many did you score which determines who wins the game...
HOWEVER by definition that results analysis does not account for factors beyond the control of players on the ice...players do control who gets more scoring chances and the conversion succrssor lack of on those chances...a miss on such chances can either be a fault of the shooters failing to score or the goalie being shot at failing to stop the puck...however scoring chances are notoriously subjective as to what data counts as a scoring chance..Further there seems to be a separation between quality scoring chances and all scoring chances...But ask different people to track these data sets and you have wildly divergent opinions of what counted as a scoring chance...I think we need some very strict definition s here...But the final objective is to remove pure luck from the measure...But all shot attempts that are not blocked are not really scoring chances ...and even all unblocked shots that get on net are not quality scoring chances..The quality scoring chance should be from unblocked shots that one cannot describe as routine or likely to be saved the vast majority of the time by NHL goalies..That definition of quality scoring chances is of course very subjective so again it is hard to get a consensus of what is or is not a quality scoring chance..Clearly unimpeded break-aaways should count as quality scoring chances.. (eg. The Vermette chance last night )..Clearly shots that miss open nets are quality chances if there is no other reason( like a checker preventing a clears hot attempt in that situation),and clearly shots getting on net for rebound whack chances are quality scoring chances..But can you credit the shot off the wing from well out that Crawford whiffed on with his glove hand as a quality chance or was it really a horrible goalie fault that the majority of NHL goalies stop most of the time? Some would say any clear shot you have at a goalie is a quality chance because it will go past him some of the time even if only a slight %of the time..So this quality chance data can be both easy to count and sometimes subjective. Deflection off shot attempts that are not blocked away but instead get re-directed past goalies. ..how can pure luck there be counted as a quality chance when if it deflects a few inches wider it would have missed the net...OR lucky bounce goals ...such goals do not always come from quality chances..What about deflection goals off skates with no kicking motion?In those cases you ought to credit a quality chance because of the effort of the attacking player to get to the net..But if a shot deflects off a defender into the net was it from a quality chance shot attempt or from a mere routine shot...very difficult to decide such an issue.
EVEN ASSUMING we could come up with a strict definition of what counts as a quality chance to score do we credit a team with a big differential in quality chances as the better team and if they fail to win credit either their own goalie for a bad game or the opposing goalie for stopping their quality chances as the reason he better team lost ,OR we look at conversion failure on these quality chances as the explanation for the loss of a team with a higher number of quality scoring g chances.
SO ...while I have seen some analyses of scoring chances for and scoring chances against for individual players lines and d-pairs
I cannot be certain if quality chance data is subjective or even coming from the same person doing the counting..And of course even if we could come up with the same definition for quality chances how do we remove the influence refs MIGHT have on a game by calling more penalties against one team while ignoring g infractions by the other team? The refs actions do influence quality chance numbers because you would think more PPS for a team result in more quality chances generated (but not always).
Then even if we could remove referee bias and bad calls influence on scoring chances is a team better because it has a very great scoring chance differential but if it fails to score enough goals to win we blame bad luck or the opposing goalie...OR does
the goalie impacting a game help define the better .
Possession stats may show which team is dominating the play but so what?What matters is quality chances and conversions or not converting.
Suppose we agreed on definition for quality chances which includes missed shots on goal hitting posts but not off defender deflection. ..let us say team A is credited with 15 quality chances generated and only converts 2 of them...team B only generates 8 quality chances but scores on 3 of them...Who do we say is the better team? IF team B had generated say 14 chances but scored on 3 we could say the teams were close and team B was slightly better..But in the first case do you still credit a team for dominating scoring chances but failure in converting or do you blame them for massive failure to convert enough or do you say the better team was simply stymied by the opposing goalie being much better than their goalie? SO how do you define who really was better?
In the end it comes down to the better team was the team that won the game ...the rest is kust excuse for the losers
BUT in our desire to explain better Ness we avoid the final score and look to possession stats ,advanced stats ,and if we could agree on definition the quality chance stats and conversion or failure rates as explaining wins or losses aside from the refs calls and coaching decisions.
In the old days it was easy...Get out -shot and lose .then your opponent was better....Out-shoot them by a wide margin and get more quality chances...still lose...then blame your goalie or credit their goalie or blame the refs or blame bad luck...but you still felt you were better than them.
TODAY ..we must know who if any team dominated quality scoring chances and if that was the case (it may be close with no team dominating that stat)
Then ask the difficult question as to whether the fault on losing was die to your goalie not as good as their goalie,bad luck or refs influence,or your own fault for not converting enough on your big differential in scoring chances.
If you conclude it was mainly your own fault for not converting your big advantage on quality chances then that hardly makes you a better team..You have a major problem if you keep failing to convert enough on superior quatity of quality chances.
Blaming bad luck,refs,or your goalie's mistakes or their goalie's ability to stop pucks only make you big fail on the conversions.
You may feel better blaming the other factors for losing but it does not make you the better team that somehow got jobber.
YOU did that to yourself.
Now I have not seen the scoring chance stats from last night's game 3...do not know if we had some great quantity advantage
.If not then any possession stat or simple shots on goal advantage we had are even less important..But if we did have a big advantage in quality scoring chances..If would say that does not make us better than them becausebourbinavility to convert enough of these is such a big Flaw that to use the term "better" would be an oxymoron.
If they generate as many or more quality chances on less shots and possession and convert theirs to a higher rate than we do ours then clearly they are better.
BUT I GUARANTEE YOU...if we win the scoreboard...no matter how. .we are going to be thought of as the better team...and THAT is all that matters.
Surprised it hasnt been mentioned but why hasnt Q tried slowing down the pace of the game and clogging up the neutral zone? Do this and you eliminate the TB forwards from gaining speed through the neutral zone.
Hawks need to slow the game down, when they do this, they have shown it leans towards their favour.
Hawks need to slow the game down, when they do this, they have shown it leans towards their favour.
TB +155 right now for game 4. Hard to pass up that moneymaker. Wow. I bet that line climbs even more with the guaranteed action on Chicago.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,278
- 9,601
I actually just put $100 down on Tampa.
One way or the other, Blackhawks are going to make me happy tomorrow.
I actually just put $100 down on Tampa.
One way or the other, Blackhawks are going to make me happy tomorrow.
You're really not a fan if making a tiny bit of money would make you happy after your team loses a SCF game. To each his own, but that's bizarre.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,278
- 9,601
Meh.
Money is money, and this way I either see my team win, or I get free money.
It won't take the sting away entirely, for sure, but it's better than if they lose and I didn't put money on it.
CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
Meh.
Money is money, and this way I either see my team win, or I get free money.
It won't take the sting away entirely, for sure, but it's better than if they lose and I didn't put money on it.
How can you bet against your "favorite team"?
Kurtosis
GHG
CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
Meh.
Money is money, and this way I either see my team win, or I get free money.
It won't take the sting away entirely, for sure, but it's better than if they lose and I didn't put money on it.
Meh, I think for most fans $100 wouldn't take away the sting at all. As I said, you're not really much of a fan. To each his own.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,278
- 9,601
Yes, leaving in a mopey depression following every loss is the true test of fandom.
When they're eliminated, Ill do my mourning. Til then Ill leave the 'you must suffer to be true!' Fan types to their self-flaggelation.
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Putting $ on opposition is horrible thing
I don't see how you can be happy with possibility your team losing game just for you to get some money
I don't see how you can be happy with possibility your team losing game just for you to get some money
Last edited:
MurrayBannerman
I post about baseball on a hockey forum
Yes, leaving in a mopey depression following every loss is the true test of fandom.
When they're eliminated, Ill do my mourning. Til then Ill leave the 'you must suffer to be true!' Fan types to their self-flaggelation.
Sure thing capt. strawman.
CptnSerious
Them Intangibles
- Apr 19, 2014
- 2,938
- 1
Yes, leaving in a mopey depression following every loss is the true test of fandom.
When they're eliminated, Ill do my mourning. Til then Ill leave the 'you must suffer to be true!' Fan types to their self-flaggelation.
The Hawks need to get these three straight wins done and quick. Maybe this board will be more pleasant when we're just talking about the draft.
MurrayBannerman
I post about baseball on a hockey forum
- Status
