Post-Game Talk: #6 | Flyers at Golden Knights | October 24, 2023 | Flyers lose 3-2

[bennysflyers16]

Caught about half the 2nd period after I got home from a show, and saw the highlights this morning. They were looking pretty decent.

Side note, I went to see I Mother Earth and Tea Party - their live performances just get better with age. I have no voice left this morning.

I think most here won't know who are talking about !!

 

[Beef Invictus]

You know, I think John might need to rethink his philosophy about filling the net. Sure helped Vegas win last night.

@JojoTheWhale @VladDrag

Hey mathers, can you guys crunch the numbers and tell us the rate at which the team that fills the net more wins?

 

[deadhead]

Tea Party I've heard of (not my cup of tea) but Mother Earth?
There was a Mother Earth in the late 1960s/early 1970s led by Tracy Nelson, but I think this must be a different group.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Tea Party I've heard of (not my cup of tea) .

*Golf clap*

 

[JojoTheWhale]

@JojoTheWhale @VladDrag

Hey mathers, can you guys crunch the numbers and tell us the rate at which the team that fills the net more wins?

I checked out of this one when deady and I couldn’t even agree on the relative worth of one goal scored vs one prevented.

 

[deadhead]

There used to be a baseball model that analyzed each AB in terms of game situation to determine it's impact on the probability of winning and losing.

I think you could do that with goals scored and allowed at different points of games and against different levels of competition and come up with a similar metric - but I don't think anyone has tried.

And with STs, there are synergistic impacts, a top PK allows you to play more aggressively at 5x5, a top opposing PP counsels less aggression (and there's the ref effect).

 

[Beef Invictus]

I checked out of this one when deady and I couldn’t even agree on the relative worth of one goal scored vs one prevented.

If you prevent all goals and score none you don't win, though. This is really easy to determine.

 

[deadhead]

If you prevent all goals and score none you don't win, though. This is really easy to determine.

It's all stochastic, so it's not about scoring and allowing goals, that's ex post, it's about the probability of scoring and allowing goals, which is what models try to predict.

So increasing the probability of scoring goals by strategies that increase the probability of allowing goals can be self-defeating.

 

[VladDrag]

@JojoTheWhale @VladDrag

Hey mathers, can you guys crunch the numbers and tell us the rate at which the team that fills the net more wins?

Keep me out of this. I get into way too many arguments on this site as it is.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

It's all stochastic, so it's not about scoring and allowing goals, that's ex post, it's about the probability of scoring and allowing goals, which is what models try to predict.

So increasing the probability of scoring goals by strategies that increase the probability of allowing goals can be self-defeating.

That’s not what the discussion I’m referencing was. I directly asked you the relative value between a Goal Scored and a Goal Prevented. No models. Not an xG. No metrics.

(I’m not having this discussion again. I’m just explaining what we were talking about.)

 

[deadhead]

Have to be careful with stats.

Miami was supposed to run rough shod over the Eagle defense and their depleted secondary, historic offensive production their first six games - but it turns out, a statistical mirage from pounding weak sisters.

Game theory, one you get past 2x2 models, quickly becomes intractable with multiple equilibrium (and that's with rational actors and good information). Sports are game theory in action with far more variables than theoretical models and far worse information, so it's no wonder there is no sure proof model for success.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It's all stochastic, so it's not about scoring and allowing goals, that's ex post, it's about the probability of scoring and allowing goals, which is what models try to predict.

So increasing the probability of scoring goals by strategies that increase the probability of allowing goals can be self-defeating.

If you are having the puck and generating offensive chances then that is time spent where the opposing team can't score. Offense is also defense.

Defense is purely defensive.

 

[ajgoal]

That’s not what the discussion I’m referencing was. I directly asked you the relative value between a Goal Scored and a Goal Prevented. No models. Not an xG. No metrics.

(I’m not having this discussion again. I’m just explaining what we were talking about.)

I'm going to take a stab, just from an intuitive perspective. I'll guess that one scored is worth more, for a few reasons. First, more goals are prevented than scored in a game. That makes scoring inherently more valuable. Second, preventing a goal doesn't really put pressure on your opponent to do anything unless you're already ahead. Scoring is something that requires a reaction from the opponent except in a serious blowout. It forces them to score to catch up, or prevent you from scoring more if you are closing a gap.

 

[deadhead]

If you are having the puck and generating offensive chances then that is time spent where the opposing team can't score. Offense is also defense.

Defense is purely defensive.

Not necessarily, if you possess the puck but are careless and don't back check aggressively, you may win the CF and Fenwick war but lose the xGF/HDCF war.

 

[Striiker]

Heard the color guy say the Flyers are sitting back in a 1-1-3, up 2-1, dozed off and woke up to a 3-2 regulation loss. Solid.

You're not allowed to say that. Torts is actually still infallible.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Not necessarily, if you possess the puck but are careless and don't back check aggressively, you may win the CF and Fenwick war but lose the xGF/HDCF war.

If you're careless then you aren't actually winning the possession battle. Everyone is fully aware the point of hockey isn't winning the CF and Fenwick battle, it is scoring goals. This is a strawman on your part. Nobody has claimed winning those categories is The Point. We all watched enough perimeter Hakstol hockey to know that.

If you're careless on defense and that's your focus then you just lose harder than you would if you at least score. In fact, this is an issue with Tortorella's style. His teams sell out on sealing off below the goal line and around the net. But that routinely surrenders the high ice to attackers, and that's where good teams are creating a ton of offense from. A mini-rush created from the blue line attacking reactive defenders focused low is always advantage to the attackers. I'd say it's very careless to play that way in 2023. Teams are long past the stage of shelling shots from the perimeter. The good teams employ more complex attacks than that, and the way to prevent those from coming together is to keep the other team from having the space.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

It seems it is a requirement that Flyer teams go to a shell in the final period. Only coach who didn’t do it was Lavy unless I am mistaken. Everyone else in decades has done it. Going back to the 90s anyway.

 

[deadhead]

Meh, nothing wrong with the scheme, all schemes can be attacked, the problem is they are talent deficient right now. When Zamula - Walker are your 2nd pair on defense . . . when you're playing two RWs out of position, when your best playmaker is a 22 year old rookie in his 6th game . .

It seems it is a requirement that Flyer teams go to a shell in the final period. Only coach who didn’t do it was Lavy unless I am mistaken. Everyone else in decades has done it. Going back to the 90s anyway.

Watching around the league, it's partially a perception issue. When you play a good team and have a lead, they'll take more chances to pen you in your own D-zone, so even if you're playing the same way you did the first two periods, it'll look like a shell - and if you have a bunch of young players who aren't used to NHL pressure, they'll make bad mistakes.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It seems it is a requirement that Flyer teams go to a shell in the final period. Only coach who didn’t do it was Lavy unless I am mistaken. Everyone else in decades has done it. Going back to the 90s anyway.

We've watched Berube and Hakstol's systems open up offensively when they leave. We have watched them manage to turn Lavy and AV (the last coach I'd expect that from!!) into risk-free defense-focused guys.

It is absolutely a directive being handed down from on high. It is part of management culture and values. It is never going away until the office is blown apart.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Meh, nothing wrong with the scheme, all schemes can be attacked, the problem is they are talent deficient right now. When Zamula - Walker are your 2nd pair on defense . . . when you're playing two RWs out of position, when your best playmaker is a 22 year old rookie in his 6th game . .


Watching around the league, it's partially a perception issue. When you play a good team and have a lead, they'll take more chances to pen you in your own D-zone, so even if you're playing the same way you did the first two periods, it'll look like a shell - and if you have a bunch of young players who aren't used to NHL pressure, they'll make bad mistakes.

There absolutely is something wrong with the scheme. Some schemes are far more vulnerable to attack in various fashions than others. Some schemes are less able to produce offense. Tortorella's schemes, for a generation at this point, are vulnerable to attack from teams who can use high space while being poor at generating offense because they promote a head-on, dirt simple rush attack with minimal cross ice passes, and if that isn't available then it's grind time and treating offense as defense played in the other end. This has never been winning hockey. It never will be.

 

[flyersnorth]

Tea Party I've heard of (not my cup of tea) but Mother Earth?
There was a Mother Earth in the late 1960s/early 1970s led by Tracy Nelson, but I think this must be a different group.

It's I Mother Earth, they are a 1990s/2000s era funk/jam/rock kinda band. Interesting mix of 90s rock, Pink Floyd ambience in their breakdowns, latin / funk percussion feels, and Santana-ish solo flavours.

They really extend their songs in live shows - last night they opened with like a 10 minute slow burn jam.

Probably not appealing to most people today, but I grew up with them so it's more of a nostalgia thing.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I'm going to take a stab, just from an intuitive perspective. I'll guess that one scored is worth more, for a few reasons. First, more goals are prevented than scored in a game. That makes scoring inherently more valuable. Second, preventing a goal doesn't really put pressure on your opponent to do anything unless you're already ahead. Scoring is something that requires a reaction from the opponent except in a serious blowout. It forces them to score to catch up, or prevent you from scoring more if you are closing a gap.

I am not doing this again. I didn't come back for weeks after the last time.

But I will say that team hockey success is often defined by what happens over specific periods of time. 60 Minutes. 7 Games. Having probabilities line up over the long haul is not the same question as how many times they line up in a specific period.

 

[ajgoal]

I am not doing this again. I didn't come back for weeks after the last time.

No problem. I was just guessing at things but don't want to be the guy that drives you over the edge.

 

[deadhead]

 

[bennysflyers16]

Tea Party I've heard of (not my cup of tea) but Mother Earth?
There was a Mother Earth in the late 1960s/early 1970s led by Tracy Nelson, but I think this must be a different group.

There is an "I" in there,, I mother Earth

It's I Mother Earth, they are a 1990s/2000s era funk/jam/rock kinda band. Interesting mix of 90s rock, Pink Floyd ambience in their breakdowns, latin / funk percussion feels, and Santana-ish solo flavours.

They really extend their songs in live shows - last night they opened with like a 10 minute slow burn jam.

Probably not appealing to most people today, but I grew up with them so it's more of a nostalgia thing.

Me too, I remember having the Watchmen play at beer bashes at Red River CC , was bad ass.