Post-Game Talk: devils @ Rangers -- 4/17/21

[FireGerardGallant]

I don’t know why we even do PGTs anymore.

 

[Pidto Files]

They're a regional network I think. They got the whole ass state and the whole ass Connecticut too.

Not all of CT. Just Fairfield and most of New Haven county..

 

[ohbaby]

I think the highlight of this game is when Vallie said,.. the Rangers just now have to just kick this team in the teeth! LOL

And he said this after leading 3 zip! He hates the debbies as much as I do. LOL

 

[Machinehead]

Wow panarin had an awful game i guess.

Seriously, the formulas are broken af for these charts. Why bother posting this useless charts game after game. It just shows how awful some advanced stats are for hockey

I voted for Panarin

 

[Machinehead]

In particular the problem is that a single game is such a small sample that it blows your random error through the roof.

I don't know why people who are proficient in stats share single game charts. It's like presenting a quantitative study with an "N" of six and trying to draw causal inference.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Nobody is drawing conclusions from a single chart. I think it's interesting to see patterns game to game. If it's not interesting to you, don't respond to it.

It's the same shit since 2015. Somebody sees something in a chart they don't like, declares that advanced stats should never be used because of one thing in one chart that they didn't like, and then somehow the advanced stats people overreacted to a small smaple.

 

[Pidto Files]

Kids did nothing, Fox 0 points, shestys beautiful GAA ruined.... 2/10 win

Can you explain what a 2/10 win is?? Do wins count differently?? Last time I checked one goal more still counts the same as 10 goals more. This is a pretty stupid statement.

 

[Machinehead]

It's like an Onion headline.

"New York Man Who Scores Three Points Per Game Sometimes Sacrifices Defense; Fans Livid"

 

[Ruggs225]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Nobody is drawing conclusions from a single chart. I think it's interesting to see patterns game to game. If it's not interesting to you, don't respond to it.

It's the same shit since 2015. Somebody sees something in a chart they don't like, declares that advanced stats should never be used because of one thing in one chart that they didn't like, and then somehow the advanced stats people overreacted to a small smaple.

the only pattern i see is that these charts dont mean shit to what happened in the game. They are laughably bad. Guys who had great games are rated poorly and people who play like crap somehow rate well.

I like charts. Im an analyst in real life. My job is to tell the story behind the data. And the data u have is completely disconnected what actually happened. Its a useless chart. Thats my problem.

Most advanced stats people love to ahow thyey can create a chart. Good for u. But the chart sucks.

 

[Machinehead]

the only pattern i see is that these charts dont mean shit to what happened in the game. They are laughably bad. Guys who had great games are rated poorly and people who play like crap somehow rate well.

I like charts. Im an analyst in real life. My job is to tell the story behind the data. And the data u have is completely disconnected what actually happened. Its a useless chart. Thats my problem.

Most advanced stats people love to ahow thyey can create a chart. Good for u. But the chart sucks.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the data I posted. It doesn't take into account individual production. I never said it did. That's, like, kind of important. The data isolates what happened besides goals and assists because we know who got goals and assists.

Panarin rates poorly in these because I got news for you, 100+ point players in the NHL don't f***ing play defense. You didn't know that?

The guy's putting up 3-4 points a game, I don't give a f*** if he does a single backcheck the rest of his career.

 

[ohbaby]

It's the same shit since 2015. Somebody sees something in a chart they don't like, declares that advanced stats should never be used because of one thing in one chart that they didn't like, and then somehow the advanced stats people overreacted to a small sample.

But it's so true. They do overreact. Look at this thing with the youngsters and their minutes. Every single time they play less than their average TOI per game, they whine on about how they are not being developed. It's so tiresome to read this crap after each big win. There are just so many minutes in a game. You can't dole out the perfect amount of minutes for each player every single night. What do you want them to do,... punch a time clock? Howden gets less minutes than all three, on the kids line. But God forbid he gets one more minute, in any one particular game and the freakin sky is falling,... The kids are not being properly developed,... Quinn is a skank, so on and so forth. It's just so sad they can't be happy with the win.

The Rangers just kicked the Devils teeth in, I don't see how anyone on this board can't be happy about that.

 

[Machinehead]

But it's true. They do overreact. Look at this thing with the youngsters and their minutes. Every single game, when they play less than their average TOI per game, they start to whine on how they are not being developed. It's so tiresome to read this crap after each big win. There are just so many minutes in a game. You can't dole out the perfect amount of minutes for each player every single night. Howden gets less minutes than all three, on the kids line. But God forbid he gets one more minute, in any one particular game, the freakin sky is falling. The kids are not being developed, Quinn is a skank, so on and so forth. It's just so sad they can't be happy that we won.

That's not the advanced stats people, that's everyone.

And time on ice is like the least advanced stat in hockey.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the data I posted. It doesn't take into account individual production. I never said it did. That's, like, kind of important. The data isolates what happened besides goals and assists because we know who got goals and assists.

Panarin rates poorly in these because I got news for you, 100+ point players in the NHL don't f***ing play defense. You didn't know that?

The guy's putting up 3-4 points a game, I don't give a f*** if he does a single backcheck the rest of his career.

Even with that, Panarin is good defensively (maybe not all-world, but he's good). He's not a liability on defense at all.

 

[ohbaby]

That's not the advanced stats people, that's everyone.

And time on ice is like the least advanced stat in hockey.

It's the same principle. People using a very tiny sample, like one game, whatever stat you wish to use, advanced or not, to support an argument is totally flawed.

 

[romba]

Panarin plays Panarin hockey. Another reason I am not keen on Quinn. Different set of rules for different players. It's just a mess.

Yes, we should bench Panarin for sometimes conserving energy in the D zone or when defending the cycle he sometimes chooses to jump a passing lane instead of the 'right' play of taking the body. Please. When the kids show half the skill as him they can mess around like that. No one else on the team even tries to do what Panarin does, it's not like it's spreading bad habits. I don't love Quinn but Panarin having a slightly different set of rules is fine

 

[SnowblindNYR]

That's not the advanced stats people, that's everyone.

And time on ice is like the least advanced stat in hockey.

Speaking of time on ice, I just had a thought. You so often see per 60 stats. Now unless I'm misunderstanding something that's calculated by just prorating actual ice time to 60 minutes. If we're talking about points for example, doesn't composition of the ice time matter? If someone got 15 minutes but 4 of those minutes were PP time, prorating to 60 assumes 16 minutes of PP time, meanwhile someone else might have gotten 15 minutes of ice time with 0 PP time, prorating that would assume 0 minutes of PP time. Or are per 60 stats based on 5 on 5 ice time?

 

[Ruggs225]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the data I posted. It doesn't take into account individual production. I never said it did. That's, like, kind of important. The data isolates what happened besides goals and assists because we know who got goals and assists.

Panarin rates poorly in these because I got news for you, 100+ point players in the NHL don't f***ing play defense. You didn't know that?

The guy's putting up 3-4 points a game, I don't give a f*** if he does a single backcheck the rest of his career.

Well wtf did kreider do this game to rate high. he definitely still didnt have a good game outside of hitting the post. Or is it that his linemates carried him that high on the chart.

Or smith the last two games. Something still is off even if it doesnt account for production.

again, your charts just dont align at all with what im watching. Its like these charts are from a different game.

 

[Ruggs225]

Even with that, Panarin is good defensively (maybe not all-world, but he's good). He's not a liability on defense at all.

true, he actually is sneaky defensively and picks pockets well.

 

[Machinehead]

Well wtf did kreider do this game to rate high. he definitely still didnt have a good game outside of hitting the post. Or is it that his linemates carried him that high on the chart.

Or smith the last two games. Something still is off even if it doesnt account for production.

again, your charts just dont align at all with what im watching. Its like these charts are from a different game.

 

[Machinehead]

Even with that, Panarin is good defensively (maybe not all-world, but he's good). He's not a liability on defense at all.

He's good when he has to be but he cheats. The Rangers have taken the reigns off more compared to Torts.

That's great. I think he should.

 

[Machinehead]

Speaking of time on ice, I just had a thought. You so often see per 60 stats. Now unless I'm misunderstanding something that's calculated by just prorating actual ice time to 60 minutes. If we're talking about points for example, doesn't composition of the ice time matter? If someone got 15 minutes but 4 of those minutes were PP time, prorating to 60 assumes 16 minutes of PP time, meanwhile someone else might have gotten 15 minutes of ice time with 0 PP time, prorating that would assume 0 minutes of PP time. Or are per 60 stats based on 5 on 5 ice time?

Yeah, per 60 is almost always 5v5 unless otherwise stated.

 

[Ruggs225]

wow. Great convo. U know u have nothing when u speak in video clips or memes.

keep up with the charts that done mean anything. Look forward to then each game.

 

[Machinehead]

wow. Great convo. U know u have nothing when u speak in video clips or memes.

keep up with the charts that done mean anything. Look forward to then each game.

What do you want me to say? Kreider's bar was bigger than you thought it should have been. Ok, awesome. Like, what do you want from me?

People say we shouldn't take stock in a one game sample and then you get mad at me for not micro-analyzing Chris Kreider's shot metrics from one game.

 

[Ruggs225]

What do you want me to say? Kreider's bar was bigger than you thought it should have been. Ok, awesome. Like, what do you want from me?

People say we shouldn't take stock in a one game sample and then you get mad at me for not micro-analyzing Chris Kreider's shot metrics from one game.

i just dont get the purpose of that chaty. It really doesnt show anything useful at all. It doesnt even tell u who had a decent game or not.

it really is just a useless chart which i dont know why u keep showing.

so let me ask u. What do u take away from looking at that chart?

and how does it compare to what u see when u watch the game?

What insights are u getting from the chart?

Im really curious as to that.

 

[Rempe73]

1. BIRTHDAY BOY USA BUCH
2. PANARIN
3. KRAVTSOV HE TRIED HIS BEST STAPLED TO ROONEY THE WOAT

You’re right about Rooney. He is such an unlikable player.

 

[Machinehead]

i just dont get the purpose of that chaty. It really doesnt show anything useful at all. It doesnt even tell u who had a decent game or not.

it really is just a useless chart which i dont know why u keep showing.

so let me ask u. What do u take away from looking at that chart?

and how does it compare to what u see when u watch the game?

What insights are u getting from the chart?

Im really curious as to that.

If guys are to the right of zero, the Rangers had more scoring chances when they were on the ice. If they're to the left, the opponent had more scoring chances when they were on the ice. That's literally it. That's all it tells us. It's not supposed to tell you who had an all-encompassing "decent game" because no single metric can do that.

If you observe repeated patterns, which is what you're supposed to do instead of getting mad about one random player's results in one random game, you'll find that Lindgren is in the top 3-4 in 90% of the games we play, which renders some of the recent criticism of him as a "Jannetty," in my opinion, unfounded.

And then you decided to come in with "guess Panarin was terrible!!!" because you just had to yell at clouds today despite the fact that Panarin was my first star of the game.

If you're not interested in the charts, just ignore them like I ignore your crappy eye test takes.