GDT: ECQF 1: FLYERS (H) vs. Canadiens (A) at Toronto, Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2020, 8:00 pm ET

[Ghosts Beer]

You've gone beyond merely making that argument to downright promoting Hagg as as positive. Hence why that had to be addressed.

That AV could be dumb enough to actually play Hagg is a given. Pre-emptively defending that isn't necessary, but you've done it.

Stop projecting.

I made a simple assertion: Anyone who thinks Ghost will play over Hagg in Game 1 is delusional.

You keep trying to change it to who “should” play Game 1.

Keep yelling at the clouds about who you think “should.” I’m talking about reality. It “will” be Hagg, for the reasons I gave.

Trying to change it into an argument of “should” is just moving the goalposts. Not the point I made.

 

[Beef Invictus]

There is a weird Hagg stat - over his career, 130 GF, 107 xGF.
Since this is a large sample, it's unlikely to be due to "luck."

His career PDO is 102, so yeah it easily can be. He's been hauled around by good forwards and better dmen. Everyone does better without him, too, so think of how much better those numbers could be if the team used that ice time on better players over the years.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Stop projecting.

I made a simple assertion: Anyone who thinks Ghost will play over Hagg in Game 1 is delusional.

You keep trying to change it to who “should” play Game 1.

Keep yelling at the clouds about who you think “should.” I’m talking about reality. It “will” be Hagg, for the reasons I gave.

Trying to change it into an argument of “should” is just moving the goalposts. Not the point I made.

You defended the potential decision by defending Hagg. You can't just ignore that you did that. Don't get mad that I addressed the things you were saying.

 

[Magua]

If you want to say that Hagg has some otherworldly, elite defensive ability that somehow makes his goalies save an absurd, league high amount of shots — despite the quality and quantity of chances given up — I’d say you’re probably wrong. His gaps are loose, his bumps are late and don’t change possession, and he makes slow passive reads below his dots. His lack of puck moving means he plays more defense as well. But I’d say there’s a slim, non-zero chance that stats don’t accurately pick up something.

But that goal differential is also due to absurdly high on-ice shooting %s offensively. Numbers elite offensive talents can’t replicate. And there is not a non-zero chance a player with the puck skills, playmaking, and offensive IQ of a pet rock contributes to that. So, yes, luck. It’s not a dirty word, and there is no sample size cut off. Outliers exist.

But he will play tomorrow. I feel it in my bones.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

You defended the potential decision by defending Hagg. You can't just ignore that you did that. Don't get mad that I addressed the things you were saying.

I said what I strongly believe *will* happen & why I feel people who expect the possibility of otherwise are delusional.

You tried to turn it into a *should* argument.

That’s the definition of moving the goalposts.

 

[Striiker]

"He had a better regular season than Ghost. Even outpointed him 12-7 at ES."

That sounds like a "should" argument.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I said what I strongly believe *will* happen & why I feel people who expect the possibility of otherwise are delusional.

You tried to turn it into a *should* argument.

That’s the definition of moving the goalposts.

Again, all I did was address things you said.

That you're trying to completely derail the discussion into this irrelevant argument about semantics is weird and is perhaps indicative that your assertions in defense of a potential bad decision aren't well founded.

 

[Beef Invictus]

"He had a better regular season than Ghost. Even outpointed him 12-7 at ES."

That sounds like a "should" argument.

Don't forget the assertion that the team was winning because of him. Not despite him.

Shit, the Flyers made the playoffs with MacDonald on the roster. That was another "we did this despite having this player" thing not "We did this because he was playing" thing. It happens often that the strongest components of a roster manage to overcome weaknesses. Lundqvist was a one-man example of that phenomenon for years.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Anyway, let's beat Price. Gonna need some strong puck movement to do that. No matter what the rest of Montreal's roster is, it only takes one goalie playing at an elite level to wipe out a high seed early.

 

[deadhead]

His career PDO is 102, so yeah it easily can be. He's been hauled around by good forwards and better dmen. Everyone does better without him, too, so think of how much better those numbers could be if the team used that ice time on better players over the years.

That is far too large a gap over too long a time period to be likely a product of "luck."
And if he's has some magic talent, it would also result in a PDO > 100 (due to higher than expected shooting success).
The fact that PDO generally regresses to 100 doesn't mean it always does.
And better talent would be reflected in a higher xGF, so that doesn't explain it either.
For some reason the team consistently scores more with him on the ice than expected.

It's weird, I don't know what he could do to cause that.
He did have a lower GA than xGA this season as well, but that only occurred this season so it's more likely to be a fluke.

 

[Beef Invictus]

That is far too large a gap over too long a time period to be likely a product of "luck."
And if he's has some magic talent, it would also result in a PDO > 100 (due to higher than expected shooting success).
The fact that PDO generally regresses to 100 doesn't mean it always does.
And better talent would be reflected in a higher xGF, so that doesn't explain it either.
For some reason the team consistently scores more with him on the ice than expected.

It's weird, I don't know what he could do to cause that.
He did have a lower GA than xGA this season as well, but that only occurred this season so it's more likely to be a fluke.

Actually, the gap is small enough that over several years, that PDO discrepancy easily accounts for it. That's not a one or two year sample, it's stretched over 4 years.

 

[deadhead]

Actually, the gap is small enough that over several years, that PDO discrepancy easily accounts for it. That's not a one or two year sample, it's stretched over 4 years.

The gap is not small, 130/107 is 22% higher than expected, which is huge.
ES is 140/107.5 which is even larger.
200 games is a pretty large sample.

Sure, there are outliers, but one that persists this long is pushing really long odds.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Again, all I did was address things you said.

That you're trying to completely derail the discussion into this irrelevant argument about semantics is weird and is perhaps indicative that your assertions in defense of a potential bad decision aren't well founded.

Again with the projection. The “should” is all you. My point was “will.” Do you think I’m wrong that it’s obvious Hagg will play over Ghost in Game 1? Because that’s the debate to be had if you don’t move the goalposts.

 

[Beef Invictus]

But both are unlikely over a large sample, that is, over time PDO generally regresses to 100 and xGF and GF move toward each other. And both discrepancies are probably related to the same cause, that is, if the team scores more than expected, it probably has a higher shooting % than expected, which explains the elevated PDO.

Sure, there are outliers, but one that persists this long is pushing really long odds.

But how do you plan on showing this is due to Hagg, when he has zero offensive ability and tends to drag down the offensive production of players on the ice with him?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Again with the projection. The “should” is all you. My point was “will.” Do you think I’m wrong that it’s obvious Hagg will play over Ghost in Game 1? Because that’s the debate to be had if you don’t move the goalposts.

Considering Hagg is our #9 dman in terms of quality, possibly #10 if we had taken a look at York, no, I do not think it is the assured given you think it is. It is a possibility.


But it sure isn't something I'd consider guaranteed, and I certainly wouldn't go around justifying it by leveling undeserved praise and credit on Hagg.

 

[deadhead]

But how do you plan on showing this is due to Hagg, when he has zero offensive ability and tends to drag down the offensive production of players on the ice with him?

That's the $64K question.
He's doing something, but what?
And note it's on offense, not defense, and it's unlikely to be related to zone exits.

Actually, Hagg is a pretty good offensive defenseman in the O-zone, it's handling the puck in the other two zones where he struggles. He has a good shot, will crash the net with his big body and scores at a decent rate.

Last two seasons, 0.89 and 1.03 pp/60 at 5x5.
Provorov, 0.79, 0.59
Sanheim, 1.11, 1.06
Niskanen, 0.80, 0.92
Myers ---, 0.97
Ghost, 1.06, 0.91, 0.46

So Hagg actually scored 5x5 this season at the same rate as Ghost in 2017-18.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Considering Hagg is our #9 dman in terms of quality, possibly #10 if we had taken a look at York, no, I do not think it is the assured given you think it is. It is a possibility.


But it sure isn't something I'd consider guaranteed, and I certainly wouldn't go around justifying it by leveling undeserved praise and credit on Hagg.

“Undeserved praise?”

I gave facts that supported why it’s delusional to think AV will play Ghost in Game 1 over Hagg.

Simple point. If you’re taking the opposite side, you’re arguing that it’s not delusional to think Ghost will play Game 1 over Hagg. I guess we’ll see.

 

[Tripod]

Hagg will play, and get a glorious goal or assist.

He is our rabbit's foot.

 

[FlyerFaithful17]

Hagg will play, and get a glorious goal or assist.

He is our rabbit's foot.

If that’s what it takes

 

[Chinatown88]

 

[Adtar02]

Hagg has out scored ghost in the round robin. Two goals!!

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Playoffs boys! Let's f***ing do this!

 

[flyersnorth]

otherworldly

I think you spelled that wrong



There is soo much wrong in that one tweet.

 

[Rebels57]

Hopefully the Flyers can assert their dominance over Montreal the same way that Vegas did over Chicago. It took them a period to settle in and I expect the same tonight.

 

[flyersnorth]

Hopefully the Flyers can assert their dominance over Montreal the same way that Vegas did over Chicago. It took them a period to settle in and I expect the same tonight.

Let's effing do this!