Canadian Division (Canada Cup) Part IX

[TopChedder]

Would be more epic in the second round.

Yes it would lol

 

[LEAFSANDBILLSFAN]

Edmonton versus Montreal in Round 2.

Book it.

2 storied franchises head to head to rekindle the late 70s and the 80s.

Montreal will handle the Leafs but the Jets will take the Oilers to game 7.

What's historic about Edmonton? Aren't they a suburb of Calgary?

 

[McFlash97]

What's historic about Edmonton? Aren't they a suburb of Calgary?

Standing ovation for this classic .

You got me there....

 

[Raym11]

First round matchup for the Leafs needs to be Montreal, most likely team to implode against since Ottawa isnt in.

Gives the rest of the league more time to laugh at us, or forces them to think of excuses going into round 2


Winnipeg is the real challenge to get out of the North division

 

[Jaytee]

I think tonight's game is a microcosm for why just looking at analytics will always have flaws. A lot of these analytics don't properly take into account talent levels. So a team like Montreal can "dominate the analytics battle" but lose because they don't have the firepower to take advantage of all those shots. Winnipeg doesn't need 50 shots on net to score 3 or 4 goals.

This is it, exactly!

Last night was one of those games where it became apparent to me, quite early, that Montreal just wasn't going to score much, regardless of the number of shots. I've felt that way about the Jets, several times this year, and I've been right, 100% of the time.

The only time I was even slightly worried was after Montreal's extremely flukey second goal, because stupid bounces were the only thing they had going for them. They just don't have the high-end talent. The Jets can score four goals on 20 shots, and have done so consistently. Most other teams take 30 shots to do the same. Montreal needs 40 shots.

The Jets will lose the analytics battle nine times out of ten, but win two-thirds of the games. Real hockey isn't a video game - you can't program in statistics and let them determine the outcome.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

This is it, exactly!

Last night was one of those games where it became apparent to me, quite early, that Montreal just wasn't going to score much, regardless of the number of shots. I've felt that way about the Jets, several times this year, and I've been right, 100% of the time.

The only time I was even slightly worried was after Montreal's extremely flukey second goal, because stupid bounces were the only thing they had going for them. They just don't have the high-end talent. The Jets can score four goals on 20 shots, and have done so consistently. Most other teams take 30 shots to do the same. Montreal needs 40 shots.

The Jets will lose the analytics battle nine times out of ten, but win two-thirds of the games. Real hockey isn't a video game - you can't program in statistics and let them determine the outcome.

I mean it isn't a black and white situation. You can't just point at a spread sheet say Montreal has the puck a lot so they are a great team, you need to add the context around what their actual roster is and the fact that they lack game breakers. On the other end you can't say possession metrics do not matter because guess what happens when you couple elite possession with elite talent? The Avalanche and the Lightning happen. The Jets and the Habs are just two sides of a coin each missing what the other team has in order to become a great team.

 

[NK94]

Data for sure has unbiased information your brain and eyes can't track on their own, but we all know data isn't all you need. There needs to be context.

I feel that if I want to be fully informed about what's going on during a Leafs game, or if I want to make a "statement" and argue a case, there's no way I'm not going to check the numbers.

 

[Jaytee]

I mean it isn't a black and white situation. You can't just point at a spread sheet say Montreal has the puck a lot so they are a great team, you need to add the context around what their actual roster is and the fact that they lack game breakers. On the other end you can't say possession metrics do not matter because guess what happens when you couple elite possession with elite talent? The Avalanche and the Lightning happen. The Jets and the Habs are just two sides of a coin each missing what the other team has in order to become a great team.

That's true, and to be clear, I don't believe that the Jets are a "great" team...yet.

But when a team like the Jets lose the analytics game 90% or more of the time, yet actually win two-thirds of their games, it's really, really, really time for the analytics to be questioned. To not do so is equivalent to people who take a basic physics class and spend their lives arguing that bees can't fly, because the analytics prove that they can't. No one, of course, does this...because it's stupid. Yet in sports? We see it all the time.

When the analytics say that a team should usually lose, but they usually win, it's the analytics that are faulty, not the team. And when it happens literally dozens of times in a season, it's no longer a fluke. Every team wins (and loses) a handful of games because of a fluke. But 20 games? Nope. There's clearly something going on that's both stronger than analytics, but less understandable.

Analytics have their place. They can tell knowledgeable people (coaches, players, GMs) a lot, if taken with a grain of salt. In the hands of most other people, they just point out how little we actually understand.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

That's true, and to be clear, I don't believe that the Jets are a "great" team...yet.

But when a team like the Jets lose the analytics game 90% or more of the time, yet actually win two-thirds of their games, it's really, really, really time for the analytics to be questioned. To not do so is equivalent to people who take a basic physics class and spend their lives arguing that bees can't fly, because the analytics prove that they can't. No one, of course, does this...because it's stupid. Yet in sports? We see it all the time.

When the analytics say that a team should usually lose, but they usually win, it's the analytics that are faulty, not the team. And when it happens literally dozens of times in a season, it's no longer a fluke. Every team wins (and loses) a handful of games because of a fluke. But 20 games? Nope. There's clearly something going on that's both stronger than analytics, but less understandable.

Analytics have their place. They can tell knowledgeable people (coaches, players, GMs) a lot, if taken with a grain of salt. In the hands of most other people, they just point out how little we actually understand.

I guess my point is that just like the additional context around the Habs elite possession numbers can explain why they are an outlier the additional context also paints the picture for the Jets. They are a team with top tier offensive fire power and a top 5 goalie in hockey. That is basically a recipe to be a positive outlier when it comes to the analytics. If the Jets were able to lock in their possession game and limit high danger chances to really control games they would turn into a serious serious issue for other teams. Just like if the Habs could add those game breaking offensive players to go along with their possession you would likely see a big improvement there as well.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Data for sure has unbiased information your brain and eyes can't track on their own, but we all know data isn't all you need. There needs to be context.

I feel that if I want to be fully informed about what's going on during a Leafs game, or if I want to make a "statement" and argue a case, there's no way I'm not going to check the numbers.

The thing is do these stats actually tell us anything we don't already know? Do they unearth players that people think are bad, but are actually good? The only thing I see from stats supporters are confirming what we already know, or trying to convince people that bad players, I.e. Gardiner, Franson and Colin Miller are really good players, which in fact they are not.

 

[NK94]

The thing is do these stats actually tell us anything we don't already know? Do they unearth players that people think are bad, but are actually good? The only thing I see from stats supporters are confirming what we already know, or trying to convince people that bad players, I.e. Gardiner, Franson and Colin Miller are really good players, which in fact they are not.

They do if you want to actually take the time to look past the whole "Confirming what we already know, or trying to convince people that bad players, are good" narrative you seem to prefer.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

That's true, and to be clear, I don't believe that the Jets are a "great" team...yet.

But when a team like the Jets lose the analytics game 90% or more of the time, yet actually win two-thirds of their games, it's really, really, really time for the analytics to be questioned. To not do so is equivalent to people who take a basic physics class and spend their lives arguing that bees can't fly, because the analytics prove that they can't. No one, of course, does this...because it's stupid. Yet in sports? We see it all the time.

When the analytics say that a team should usually lose, but they usually win, it's the analytics that are faulty, not the team. And when it happens literally dozens of times in a season, it's no longer a fluke. Every team wins (and loses) a handful of games because of a fluke. But 20 games? Nope. There's clearly something going on that's both stronger than analytics, but less understandable.

Analytics have their place. They can tell knowledgeable people (coaches, players, GMs) a lot, if taken with a grain of salt. In the hands of most other people, they just point out how little we actually understand.

It isn't the analytics that are faulty, it's interpretation. There's an old saying:

"He uses statistics the way a drunkard uses a lightpole, for support rather than illumination."

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

The thing is do these stats actually tell us anything we don't already know? Do they unearth players that people think are bad, but are actually good? The only thing I see from stats supporters are confirming what we already know, or trying to convince people that bad players, I.e. Gardiner, Franson and Colin Miller are really good players, which in fact they are not.

That may depend on knowing how much guys like (for example) Dubas are using stats versus their eyes. He has found some true gems (like Hyman) and his drafting on the surface seems to yield above average dividends (for where he picks). Now one thing we don't know is whether that is stat based or is it simply that he targets something in particular that tends towards better results?

 

[hockeyes]

That's true, and to be clear, I don't believe that the Jets are a "great" team...yet.

But when a team like the Jets lose the analytics game 90% or more of the time, yet actually win two-thirds of their games, it's really, really, really time for the analytics to be questioned. To not do so is equivalent to people who take a basic physics class and spend their lives arguing that bees can't fly, because the analytics prove that they can't. No one, of course, does this...because it's stupid. Yet in sports? We see it all the time.

When the analytics say that a team should usually lose, but they usually win, it's the analytics that are faulty, not the team. And when it happens literally dozens of times in a season, it's no longer a fluke. Every team wins (and loses) a handful of games because of a fluke. But 20 games? Nope. There's clearly something going on that's both stronger than analytics, but less understandable.

Analytics have their place. They can tell knowledgeable people (coaches, players, GMs) a lot, if taken with a grain of salt. In the hands of most other people, they just point out how little we actually understand.

I don't think anyone pretends the stats are the end all be all but they usually give a good indication of the direction of success into the future. Since 2010 there's been what, 2 teams to win the cup that weren't a top analytic team? Even then, those two that weren't were still middle of the road. It is a strong indicator of success.

40 games isn't a big enough sample to conclude they are bucking the long term trend. There are lots of teams that have gone on stretches of similar length or longer looking like an outlier before getting slapped in the face.

There is of course nothing wrong with being optimistic about your team, you just probably won't convince many skeptics with a "this time is different" stance.

 

[Coffey]

What's historic about Edmonton? Aren't they a suburb of Calgary?

There is a reason why this post has zero likes.

 

[Cotton]

Edmonton versus Montreal in Round 2.

Book it.

2 storied franchises head to head to rekindle the late 70s and the 80s.

Montreal will handle the Leafs but the Jets will take the Oilers to game 7.

The misplaced confidence of some of you is too much, lol.

 

[All Mod Cons]

They do if you want to actually take the time to look past the whole "Confirming what we already know, or trying to convince people that bad players, are good" narrative you seem to prefer.

I've yet to see any examples of where this has occurred. I suppose we'll never know what info dictated a transaction, but it seems like (I presume) analytical moves like Malgin and Petan has less impact than now analytical moves like Simmonds and Bogosian as an example.

 

[NK94]

I've yet to see any examples of where this has occurred. I suppose we'll never know what info dictated a transaction, but it seems like (I presume) analytical moves like Malgin and Petan has less impact than now analytical moves like Simmonds and Bogosian as an example.

Nichushkin seems like a pretty strong example, in my opinion.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I've yet to see any examples of where this has occurred. I suppose we'll never know what info dictated a transaction, but it seems like (I presume) analytical moves like Malgin and Petan has less impact than now analytical moves like Simmonds and Bogosian as an example.

You're also assuming all moves are made for a given reason.

 

[IPS]

I have him just outside the top 30. I think the other players would score more, but they're not trying to this season.

I don't know what's funnier - the comment itself or the fact that someone couldn't even pick up the sarcasm.

 

[libertarian]

I guess my point is that just like the additional context around the Habs elite possession numbers can explain why they are an outlier the additional context also paints the picture for the Jets. They are a team with top tier offensive fire power and a top 5 goalie in hockey. That is basically a recipe to be a positive outlier when it comes to the analytics. If the Jets were able to lock in their possession game and limit high danger chances to really control games they would turn into a serious serious issue for other teams. Just like if the Habs could add those game breaking offensive players to go along with their possession you would likely see a big improvement there as well.

Great discussion guys!

If Mtl exchanges some of their great possession players for a couple of game breaking skill guys would their possession game suffer because of it?

 

[Romang67]

I guess my point is that just like the additional context around the Habs elite possession numbers can explain why they are an outlier the additional context also paints the picture for the Jets. They are a team with top tier offensive fire power and a top 5 goalie in hockey. That is basically a recipe to be a positive outlier when it comes to the analytics. If the Jets were able to lock in their possession game and limit high danger chances to really control games they would turn into a serious serious issue for other teams. Just like if the Habs could add those game breaking offensive players to go along with their possession you would likely see a big improvement there as well.

Yeah, I agree that there's more to look at than only the xGF%.

We had a delta of almost +4% GF% against xGF% (despite Hellebuyck having a down year in 18/19) in the 3 seasons before this, and a delta of about +6.5% this year, mostly driven by Hellebuyck (10 fewer goals against than expected). So yeah, at some point people who pretend to be all about the stats need to stop just calling the Jets a garbage team getting lucky and start questioning what's going on there.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have a possession dominant team performing in line where they should as we are extremely susceptible to a goaltending of shooting slump, but it's disingenuous (or ignorant) to just say we're on 4 years running of getting lucky.

 

[TheDoldrums]

I've yet to see any examples of where this has occurred. I suppose we'll never know what info dictated a transaction, but it seems like (I presume) analytical moves like Malgin and Petan has less impact than now analytical moves like Simmonds and Bogosian as an example.

Bogosian has had some of the best PK "analytic" numbers for awhile. Considering his last two teams have been Tampa and Toronto I think he probably grades out better in underlying stats than your assumption.

I would also bring up Justin Holl, a guy the Leafa believed in because of his underlying stats that didn't get much of a chance under the previous coach. He seems like a good example of someone analytics found that traditional scouts had ignored.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Great discussion guys!

If Mtl exchanges some of their great possession players for a couple of game breaking skill guys would their possession game suffer because of it?

Depends if they can get some skilled guys who are good possession guys as well?

 

[TopChedder]

Bogosian has had some of the best PK "analytic" numbers for awhile. Considering his last two teams have been Tampa and Toronto I think he probably grades out better in underlying stats than your assumption.

I would also bring up Justin Holl, a guy the Leafa believed in because of his underlying stats that didn't get much of a chance under the previous coach. He seems like a good example of someone analytics found that traditional scouts had ignored.

What a difference between Buffalo Bogo and now Tampa/Toronto Bogo.

Unreal