GDT: #15| New York Islanders @ Tampa Bay Lightning | November 8th | 7:30 PM | F/L 4-2

[steveat]

Just clickbait. Media publishing these days...with so much content online, it's hard to stick out of the crowd, so newsy sites have to do something out of the norm to attract readers. This is to generator readership, comments, traffic in order to make money.

I wouldn't look any more into it. You're just wasting your time. The only reason why you would even feel remotely angry is because you believe it to be true and you don't...non of us do. We know our team the best.

As for tonights game....you have to draw from last year. The first time we met TBL, they didn't know our system and got killed...second time, they fixed it with an aggressive forecheck and they won.

I figure this time, we'll win...second time..we may not.. Their forecheck isn't as rough as the Habs so we're good there. We have a chance to win the season series if we keep playing our style with quality shots and suppressing shots from the danger areas. We have enough scoring and this is the only thing that makes a difference between us being bottom dwellers and playoff spot contenders..

 

[SI90]

Good to see Lehner back. Hopefully Trotz ripped the boys a new one for the way they played against the Habs.

 

[BelovedIsles]

One of the things that might on our side tonight is that TB almost always plays to the level of their competition, which is not meant as a knock on us, but, I mean, c'mon, let's be realistic, on paper this is no contest. Still, I can see us stealing a point, maybe 2, if form holds.

I agree. Only hope, they take nights off. They did a year ago and NYI won 5-2.

Even if the Isles play lights out, Tampa brings their A game, talent wins out.

 

[pursuit81]

I agree. Only hope, they take nights off. They did a year ago and NYI won 5-2.

Even if the Isles play lights out, Tampa brings their A game, talent wins out.

Well, there's always PDO there to save us. It's the antidote to any superteam's A game.

 

[BelovedIsles]

Well, there's always PDO there to save us. It's the antidote to any superteam's A game.

In all seriousness, I generally agree that they can’t sustain the PDO, that said, over the course of the year other aspects will improve. Eg, executing Trotz puck management system, Barzal adjusts, Beau gets going, which can compensate for weaker goaltending and ‘lucky’ goal scoring.

 

[pursuit81]

In all seriousness, I generally agree that they can’t sustain the PDO, that said, over the course of the year other aspects will improve. Eg, executing Trotz puck management system, Barzal adjusts, Beau gets going, which can compensate for weaker goaltending and ‘lucky’ goal scoring.

Keep in mind, other teams will be adjusting too.

On paper, this team is over-achieving and there should be a collective reversion to the mean. The thing is though that we aren't quite sure what that mean is. We have past performance benchmarks and individual player statistics, but with BT at the helm and with world-class goalie coaches, perhaps what has been the statistical mean in the past is no longer applicable. That is why this season is so exciting to me. Ultimately, I really don't think we can make the playoffs and I'm not even sure that we should want to, but I will enjoy every game because I do see a brighter future and win or lose, every game we're going to be learning something about how we get there ASAP.

 

[Chardo]

When are the geeks gonna realize that hockey analytics doesn't correlate to wins. They're measuring what happened, not why. Just too many variables.

 

[PuckItUp27]

When are the geeks gonna realize that hockey analytics doesn't correlate to wins. They're measuring what happened, not why. Just too many variables.

Analytics is a joke because it doesn't take into account chemistry. Anyone who has played or plays hockey knows that chemistry is the most important aspect of producing and winning.

 

[pursuit81]

Analytics is a joke because it doesn't take into account chemistry. Anyone who has played or plays hockey knows that chemistry is the most important aspect of producing and winning.

Really? You think good chemistry trumps talent? Five career AHLers with great chemistry are going to beat five career NHLers with only so so chemistry? Not in a million years. Talent matters. And do you really think the Isles have some kind of special chemistry that other teams don't? C'mon.

 

[Glory Days]

Looking forward to tonight's game and how Isles respond after Montreal.

 

[majormet]

I think is going to be a game of heavy shifting momentum, and we pull out it 5-3, I look for Nelson to get 2 tonight

 

[Bones45]

Bailey 3 - Bolts 2

 

[Axel574]

Bailey 3 - Bolts 2

Lol... luv it.

 

[Strait2thecup]

Big test tonight. Don’t care about what some torontonian nerd says about our team. He lives at home and acts like a hormonal 15 year old like most laughs fans when it comes to hockey. They’re pathetic and this is all they have in life

 

[Lights911]

LETS GO GET THIS WIN

 

[Frankie41987]

Analytics is a joke because it doesn't take into account chemistry. Anyone who has played or plays hockey knows that chemistry is the most important aspect of producing and winning.

This just means you don’t understand what analytics is or how to use them. Why is every NHL team paying millions of dollars for analytic firms to provide numbers and research? All sports use analytics, all industries use analytics. You can’t seriously know anything about it and think “it’s a joke”

 

[kmo429]

If Toritz and this year's team ahve shown me anythign early on, it is that they've been able to bounce back. After they blew that 2 goal lead against Florida at home in a mostly lackluster game, they had the same situation the next game against the Flyers (up 2 entering the 3rd) and they revved up their engines and potted 3 more before beating Phill 6-1. The Bolts ar ein a different class than the Flyers, no doubt, but what we lacked in structure and mental fortitude last game, I am very condifent they'll fix those tonight. Will it result in a win? maybe not. Even with an A+ effort the Bolts are an elite team with deep talent, but even if we lose, I have a feeling it will be a loss with a nice silver lining.

Don't prove me wrong!

 

[kmo429]

This just means you don’t understand what analytics is or how to use them. Why is every NHL team paying millions of dollars for analytic firms to provide numbers and research? All sports use analytics, all industries use analytics. You can’t seriously know anything about it and think “it’s a joke”

I'm not sure. Why are Baseball teams taking out their $20M starting pitchers after 1.2 innings after giving up 3 baserunners? Just because teams are doing it and paying for it, doesn't mean it correlates to wins and losses.

I think analytics has it's place, and ar evaluable to bulding a team and winning,but I'd take a poor analytic team that wins on the ice and in the eye test than one with great analytics that can't put up W's.

It's not always the on-ice play that regresses to the level of the analytics. This early in the season, it is just as likely the opposite occurs.

 

[Frankie41987]

Analytics is a joke because it doesn't take into account chemistry. Anyone who has played or plays hockey knows that chemistry is the most important aspect of producing and winning.

If a team has “chemistry” and is generating offensive zone times, quality scoring chances and limiting opponents opportunisties that is reflected in analytics. You can criticize people’s usage or interpretation but it literally makes no sense to crap on analytics. Numbers are numbers.

 

[Frankie41987]

I'm not sure. Why are Baseball teams taking out their $20M starting pitchers after 1.2 innings after giving up 3 baserunners? Just because teams are doing it and paying for it, doesn't mean it correlates to wins and losses.

I think analytics has it's place, and ar evaluable to bulding a team and winning,but I'd take a poor analytic team that wins on the ice and in the eye test than one with great analytics that can't put up W's.

It's not always the on-ice play that regresses to the level of the analytics. This early in the season, it is just as likely the opposite occurs.

Using analytics successfully is only about making decisions based on odds and percentages. The fact that you are providing one example that didn’t work out literally means nothing.

 

[Seph]

I'm not sure. Why are Baseball teams taking out their $20M starting pitchers after 1.2 innings after giving up 3 baserunners? Just because teams are doing it and paying for it, doesn't mean it correlates to wins and losses.

I think analytics has it's place, and ar evaluable to bulding a team and winning,but I'd take a poor analytic team that wins on the ice and in the eye test than one with great analytics that can't put up W's.

It's not always the on-ice play that regresses to the level of the analytics. This early in the season, it is just as likely the opposite occurs.

I don't think anyone's saying analytics are more important than the results on the ice. People are simply saying that analytics can be used to help determine the likelyhood of those results continuing. They are not perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't still useful or that they're a joke.

 

[TommytheCat]

rupper doubting us too ... f em all ... LGI !!!

 

[kmo429]

I don't think anyone's saying analytics are more important than the results on the ice. People are simply saying that analytics can be used to help determine the likelyhood of those results continuing. They are not perfect, but that doesn't mean they aren't still useful or that they're a joke.

I agree with both of you. I just think that often times fans, analysts, writers, etc fall back on analytics to when the on-ice results don't match their personal expectations. If the Islanders were a team that everyone expected would be good this year, but had the same record and analytics, nobody would even be talking about how they're going to regress.I know this is a hypothetical scenario, though. They have a significant place in the game as a tool used for building teams and projecting success. In a world where analytics are perfect, you'd hypothetically be able to predict the winner of every game and every series without fail. With that, we are at a point where the anaytic breakdown of a team and their actual record seem to show some correlation but mean far less than they would if they were perfect.

There are many potential theories. One is that luck (now a mainstream analytic") essentially makes up for any variance between analytics and actual results. The second, for me, is that anaytics fail to capture countless things that measure up to on-ice results. Which is more likely? That when a team outperforms analytics, it is luck and unsustainable, or that if a team outperforms analytics, the analytics just are not good enough to capture everything that contributes to winning. It is likely both. But for fans and pundits to continually site analytics as a verified source for why the Islanders are actually bad, I think they're at least as naive as those who disregard anayltics althogether. Both probably missing the mark.

 

[Seph]

I agree with both of you. I just think that often times fans, analysts, writers, etc fall back on analytics to when the on-ice results don't match their personal expectations. If the Islanders were a team that everyone expected would be good this year, but had the same record and analytics, nobody would even be talking about how they're going to regress.I know this is a hypothetical scenario, though. They have a significant place in the game as a tool used for building teams and projecting success. In a world where analytics are perfect, you'd hypothetically be able to predict the winner of every game and every series without fail. With that, we are at a point where the anaytic breakdown of a team and their actual record seem to show some correlation but mean far less than they would if they were perfect.

There are many potential theories. One is that luck (now a mainstream analytic") essentially makes up for any variance between analytics and actual results. The second, for me, is that anaytics fail to capture countless things that measure up to on-ice results. Which is more likely? That when a team outperforms analytics, it is luck and unsustainable, or that if a team outperforms analytics, the analytics just are not good enough to capture everything that contributes to winning. It is likely both. But for fans and pundits to continually site analytics as a verified source for why the Islanders are actually bad, I think they're at least as naive as those who disregard anayltics althogether. Both probably missing the mark.

I mean, yeah, typically when you can't figure out what's causing something, getting more information can help you figure it out. I don't see why that would be considered a negative to how you get that information, though.

 

[SI90]

This is an insanely good Tampa team. Going to be tough.