Post-Game Talk: @boxcar65

[oXo Cube]

Well Replacement if you've got a problem with the recording of the statistic you'll have to take that up with naturalstattrick.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Someone earlier in the thread seemed pretty convinced they don't.

Them counting would make much more sense, but I can't find anything that says either way.

So the metric isn't even explained fully on the site with the exact parameters of what it includes?

 

[Drivesaitl]

Well Replacement if you've got a problem with the recording of the statistic you'll have to take that up with naturalstattrick.

Its just discussion. I don't mean any ill will or anything by it. Sorry if I tend to go hard at these things..

cheers

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Ha ha ha you're actually holding the line on this. HDSC is a great (not perfect) predictor of goals scored in a game, not quite as good as Corsi but good. It doesn't correlate perfectly with goals because... wait for it.. there is such a thing as a lucky goal. But a team that relies on lucky goals is going to score less and lose games. This isn't hard.

That's funny.

I didn't see the Oilers score a lucky goal last night.

Did you?

I used to watch the stone hand Oilers shoot 50 pucks at teams and score one goal. Those were good times according to the stats, eh?

 

[McDNicks17]

There is simply no way that the total is 4 last night, if this is the case, and there seems to be a lot of is or isn't lack of understanding on what is being tabulated.

3 of the Oilers goals came close in, Nuge on a 4th is denied. The Oilers had other chances around the net on the night. A total of 4 is ridiculous. That just isn't correct.

The trouble with stats is people read them and post them not even knowing what they are, what they count, how they are tabulated.

Based on this thread the vast majority don't know, and even those that follow the stat don't know.

What is, exactly, the HDSC? It is of course not demarked on ice . Being that hockey ice doesn't have a demarked "in the paint" drawn on like in basketball the tabulation of HDSC may not even be objective, it could suffer some bias and inaccuracy. Also the act of shooting the puck, combined with motion results in shots that are very hard to decipher exactly where they came from. The speed and motion of hockey shooting makes it a bit difficult to tell. Contrast to basketball where the act of shooting is often a jump shot. From a particular spot. Hockey is not like that. It can't be quantified like that.

For instance in realtime lots of times on the rush it looks like a guy got a shot off from the high circle. But in watching replay the release point often looks closer. I'd bet the HDSC shots are even under counted.

I think that person likely forgot to specify that those 4 HDSCs were only for 5v5.

RNH and Leon were both credited with a HDSC, but they were on the PP, so they wouldn't show up in the above.

 

[oXo Cube]

So the metric isn't even explained fully on the site with the exact parameters of what it includes?

The definitions and the links the methodology are there, they just aren't easy to find.

I tend to attribute that to the site looking like garbage just in general. Good web development is expensive.

 

[Drivesaitl]

The definitions and the links the methodology are there, they just aren't easy to find.

I tend to attribute that to the site looking like garbage just in general. Good web development is expensive.

heh, I remember the behindthenet interface and user experience.

Having to spend a longtime setting filters, variables then submitting and hope it doesn't crash or freeze and having to do it over again. Seems like none of these have ever been easy use or well explained.

You're right that the methodology and table descriptors are not easy to find.

 

[Drivesaitl]

That's funny.

I didn't see the Oilers score a lucky goal last night.

Did you?

I used to watch the stone hand Oilers shoot 50 pucks at teams and score one goal. Those were good times according to the stats, eh?

Scorecoff=Legend.

But yeah, I already posted the reply you posted. Seems like when you ask a brass tacks question they don't get answered.

There were no lucky Oilers goals scored last night. 5 at least were well taken finishes on great chances.

The suggestion the result was lucky comes from backwards revisioning of the game and reimagining potentials that didn't occur and ADDING circular reasoning in the name of Science..

The team that was winning the game 6-1 in the 3rd period we're being told were "lucky to win" when in fact the best players in hockey stamped that result indelibly.

This is what hockey science is telling us..


There's McD breaking in making an improbable play scoring the 3-1 goal well against the grain of hockey play as if stating "Corsi don't mean shit, I make hockey reality, I am Connor, I am reality!"

The reality is this season we have 2 or 3 goal scoring cheat codes on this team. They skew results and will skew results.

 

[joestevens29]

I actually didn't know they knocked a point off for the shot attempt being blocked.

Makes me like the stat even more, honestly.

That makes more sense to me as well. You should be penalized for taking a dumb shot that had no chance at doing anything. Now a defender making a good move to block a shot I have no issue with, but taking a shot that clearly can't make it to the net isn't exactly smart

 

[iCanada]

Not really following your reply. The Oilers are going to win a lot of games where they are even close in the metric of scoring chances because the coefficient of who is getting those scoring chances is off the charts. For instance consider a coefficient multiplier of McD, Dra, Neal, Nuge variable effect.

The Oilers have scored as many goals as they have because we have two generational producers. The two top producers in the game arguably, on the same team.

Nor will those players be lucky to score. McD, Drai may again be among, or the top two producers in the entire league.

HDSC is essentially meaningless without factoring in several other effects, variables, coefficients.

This is my large problem with NHL analytics; they are largely built on two assumptions that generally have held true for awhile.

1. All NHL players are roughly equal in skill, to the point that there are not vast skill disparities between different clubs or players. Thus:
2. All shots and shot attempts are equal. Thus your shooting percentage is a function of luck.
3. All saves and save attempts are created equally. This your save percentage is a function of luck.

Generally speaking, I think the assumptions made are accurate enough that they are a good tool for looking at the game, because the league has generally been par enough that low level talent is being sucked out and replaced, and high level talent has been stifled so much due to clutch and grab. But in edge cases they really fall apart; Colby Cave for example is an analytics darling.

And notably, as discussed by you above... Analytics has no way to account for the fact that McDrai are McDrai. Forgetting that they have better shots then the mean by a ridiculous margin in terms of release / accuracy / power, they also are just getting better opportunities then other players. Because they play with a player also so much better than other players, they have more open ice, they have an easier time being picky with chances and creating stronger opportunities. Any shot Drai takes is blessed with so many advantages compared to any shot Khaira takes, and it's not remotely close.

Case in point... You look at a guy like Getzlaf and he's maintained a "lucky" PDO of 101.5 over his entire 10 year career. Is that because he's creating / preventing opportunities more than most and is better at scoring? Or does that mean his entire career he's been a lucky mother? What about Crosby's 102.4?

 

[Barrsy]

This stat sounds like garbage.

So I could shoot from 5 feet away at two defenders and it's a HDSC even though it really was stupid play. On the flip side I can take a clean shot from the blueline with no traffic and that's not a HDSC? Even though the team was smart and opened up space for a guy to get off a clean 100mph slap shot.

Like Mannings goal last night. That doesn't count?
Its an idiotic stat. Stat nerds need to find another hobby.

 

[snipes]

Like Mannings goal last night. That doesn't count?
Its an idiotic stat. Stat nerds need to find another hobby.

As I said earlier, moneypuck doesn’t work the same as it does in baseball.

Hockey is a fluid and transitional game played on ice. Baseball is a static sport.

 

[iCanada]

Like Mannings goal last night. That doesn't count?
Its an idiotic stat. Stat nerds need to find another hobby.

Hang on, there is value in analytics.

Just you have to be careful and know and understand what the stats are telling you.

They're a tool to help frame what you already have. They certainly aren't you're only tool like some people see them, but we're better with them then without them.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Hang on, there is value in analytics.

Just you have to be careful and know and understand what the stats are telling you.

They're a tool to help frame what you already have. They certainly aren't you're only tool like some people see them, but we're better with them then without them.

heh, this isn't the easiest thing to view being Oilers fans who have been sold on quite a few analytics players through the decades. I dunno, they tend to look like a lot of players we've acquired in exchange for actual talent.

An argument could be made that improper use of tools creates harm. An argument could be made some GM's haven't known what they are doing and shouldn't be using any sharp instruments..

Thanks for the previous post where you break down analytics. That is a very good post.

 

[McShogun99]

That's funny.

I didn't see the Oilers score a lucky goal last night.

Did you?

I used to watch the stone hand Oilers shoot 50 pucks at teams and score one goal. Those were good times according to the stats, eh?

Good ol Eakins days of pumping up that Corsi.

I'd rather the team get 20 quality shots over 40 shots from the perimeter.

 

[McShogun99]

Like Mannings goal last night. That doesn't count?
Its an idiotic stat. Stat nerds need to find another hobby.

In the end the only stat that matters is the final score.

 

[iCanada]

heh, this isn't the easiest thing to view being Oilers fans who have been sold on quite a few analytics players through the decades. I dunno, they tend to look like a lot of players we've acquired in exchange for actual talent.

An argument could be made that improper use of tools creates harm. An argument could be made some GM's haven't known what they are doing and shouldn't be using any sharp instruments..

Thanks for the previous post where you break down analytics. That is a very good post.

Can somebody please make sure Chiarelli's steak knife is replaced with a butter knife?

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Scorecoff=Legend.

But yeah, I already posted the reply you posted. Seems like when you ask a brass tacks question they don't get answered.

There were no lucky Oilers goals scored last night. 5 at least were well taken finishes on great chances.

The suggestion the result was lucky comes from backwards revisioning of the game and reimagining potentials that didn't occur and ADDING circular reasoning in the name of Science..

The team that was winning the game 6-1 in the 3rd period we're being told were "lucky to win" when in fact the best players in hockey stamped that result indelibly.

This is what hockey science is telling us..


There's McD breaking in making an improbable play scoring the 3-1 goal well against the grain of hockey play as if stating "Corsi don't mean ****, I make hockey reality, I am Connor, I am reality!"

The reality is this season we have 2 or 3 goal scoring cheat codes on this team. They skew results and will skew results.

If the stat people look back at the old days they would see how the powerhouse Oiler teams out shot teams such as the lowly Stars nearly 2 to 1.

Yet they would still lose because Modano would score a pair.

Shots on goal, etc. are great in a vacuum if every player had the same ability to put the puck in the net. Some players capitalize on their chances more than the average bear. Some love to blast it in to the logo.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Just a side point that Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl respectively were 25th and 35th in shots taken last season. Leon was 2nd place in goals scored and only 1 goal off Rocket Richard trophy and did that all on 231 shots.

Just adding to the points above that not all shots are equal. Guys like Toffoli and Williams who could once score and now aren't so good at it were taking similar amount of shots.

Heres an odd thing to consider. OV took 107 more shots than Drai last season to score one more goal. Not saying anything with that, just more than anything how hard it is to score 50, ever, in the NHL and what rare quality it is. Uncannily Drais G/G rate since December 2018 is off the charts wild. He has 43 goals in the 64GP in that time. More exactly, since December 7, 2018 he has 43 goals in 60GP.

Finally, there were only 13 players in the whole league last season that scored 40 or more goals. Last year we had two of those and this season possibly 3 of them. To a rule the shots by a 40 goal scorer would greatly exceed the danger posed by an ordinary player taking the same shot which needs to be repeated over and over again.

 

[onetweasy]

Also we are now bottom 5ish in most fancy stat categories. Myself I don't worry too much about Corsi in a vacuum, but without our #1 PP and #5 PK, we would probably be 2-5 right now.

I get that the "fancies" do not look great and we will definitely see regression......but think about the last couple of years where we have had a historically bad PK, terrible shooting %, terrible sv % etc........I guess what I am saying is this team was due for a god damn heater! I hope it lasts 82 + 16 games

 

[killercookie]

Yeah, this might be the "worst 6-1 team" that I can remember in a long, long time. Team needs to get their game together really fast here, otherwise we are going to get destroyed every night once we start playing playoff teams

Our schedule has been ridiculously easy so far. RIDICULOUSLY so. We haven't played a single game against a team that is in the top-15 of the league standings as of October 17th. The best team we've played is Vancouver, who is currently in 16th place. If we don't turn our game around really fast, we are going to get caved in really fast here.

f***en Shut up!!

 

[Dorian2]

****en Shut up!!

Truth hurts eh.

 

[DaGap]

Wow what a trash game by the oilers. Better get their shit sorted before the other teams wake up

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Wow what a trash game by the oilers. Better get their **** sorted before the other teams wake up

I don't know, they're 6-1, they seem to have it figured out. More consistency would certainly help, but the Oilers were never in danger of losing this game.

 

[Anarchism]

Lots of money coming off the books in the summer. Also, you work in cheap ELC's like Benson, Marody, Bouchard, Yamamoto, etc into the mix. The cap will rise quite a bit in the next few years with Seattle coming in as well as new US tv deal. I'm all for gettin Hall back. That would be a stacked top 6.

Holland always has seemed very reticent about the spending the money on the markets biggest ufa's. On July 1 , i think he will chase a nyquist or donski level player to play in the top 6. Maybe someone a little more dynamic. But i dont think he will spend the money on Taylor Hall even if he has it ....