GDT: Game 29: Coyotes @ Red Wings - 5:30 PM - FSAZ PLUS

[WrinkledPossum]

How they win doesn't matter at all to me right now.

This team needs some W's to start gaining some confidence. This is a step in the right direction so I'm happy.

 

[TheLegend]

I don't understand why every thread always has to turn into negativity that usually revolves around bashing Tipp.

I didn't watch the game, but we WON 4-1!

THREE rookies had points!
Crouse and DeAngelo both had goals.
From the last few games, and this scoresheet Crouse really looks to be finding his game. (Glad I picked him up on my fantasy team for this week)
Duke had a point, and from comments it looks like he could be breaking out of his slump.
And as much as the last game stunk, we've won 2 out of our last 3. And have 8 goals for and 9 against, which isn't really that bad.
And Smitty also had another great game.

Duke played much better.

His pass to McGinn from behind the net for the last goal was a real beauty. It was a bang-bang play that we need to see more of.

Plus the McGinn - Holland - Duke line played well enough for Tippett to have them out there multiple shifts the last few minutes of the game.

As for the shot difference in the third. The Wings were down two goals and coming hard, and we got a little into the prevent defense mode again. But it did take 14 1/2 minutes for the Wings to even get a shot on goal in the first. So you can analyze it anyway you want.

 

[hbk]

we all hate the defensive shell but I think I hate gross analytic statements that cite shot totals like a metric that means something when this occurs. Not all shots are created equal and I'm sorry the score doesn't match your hypothesis. Correlation is not causation

 

[SniperHF]

we all hate the defensive shell but I think I hate gross analytic statements that cite shot totals like a metric that means something when this occurs. Not all shots are created equal and I'm sorry the score doesn't match your hypothesis. Correlation is not causation

On a game to game basis, I agree. But even just raw shot differential (no adjustments, 5 on 5 only qualifiers, no attempts/blocks included, etc) are pretty strong indicators of where you are in the standings over a decent sample. Not that I think you disagree with that but it goes to my next point.

I've always found it mildly amusing that the so called advanced possession proxy stats are based (and expanded to be sure) on something every random casual fan in the building has observed ever since they've had shots up on the score board. The phrase Goalie X stole the game has been around forever for a reason.

I think it rankles people that this keeps happening (even in wins, which as I mentioned earlier in the thread in a different environment people would appreciate more) is because a lot don't actually care that much about wins right now. Just prefer to see them trend upward in terms of competitiveness.

Certainly this game was a tick upward from the Pens game in that regard. But the argument that it wasn't really all that strong a game in the general sense has some merit.


One other random thought: I actually agree with Tippett in what he said the other day about the quality of the counting. Worth looking at by the league. Though the idea that the numbers a tad off doesn't have much to do with my own eye test at the moment.

 

[_Del_]

a lot don't actually care that much about wins right now. Just prefer to see them trend upward in terms of competitiveness.

Certainly this game was a tick upward from the Pens game in that regard. But the argument that it wasn't really all that strong a game in the general sense has some merit.

Exadtly. If these games were one-offs, I'd shrug and be happy for a win we didn't deserve. When I can dredge up posts 4 years old that I could copy and paste today and still be relevant regarding sloppiness and try, I'm not that impressed that Mike Smith is stealing games. Well, actually when he makes 59 saves, I am impressed that he is stealing games, but it doesn't mean anythingo in the context of this team improving.

One other random thought: I actually agree with Tippett in what he said the other day about the quality of the counting.

This is a great example of something that is true, but is useless in context. Like you said, nobody with half a brain watching the latest periods of 5-20 shot totals is going to come away going, "Yeah, but only 9 of those shots were HQSCs. It was a lot closer period than it looked". So I'm not even sure why he decided to add that unless it was for people who missed the game and only read the AP summary afterward.

 

[SniperHF]

Exadtly. If these games were one-offs,

There were a lot of different things happening in that game which made it kind of all over the map. The first period where the Coyotes held the Wings shotless for the first 15 min or so as TL pointed out; from what I saw the Coyotes weren't that much better in those first 15 minutes. Coyotes found their passing game toward the latter part of the first resulting in more entries on the rush and that crazy feed from Vrbata to Crouse.

That was the kind of counter attack high quality scoring chance offense you'd expect from Tippett's teams when going well. Same in much of the second. Yandle springs Vrbata and Whitney after a defensive zone shift where the opposition was kept to the outside.

If it were that team last night, I wouldn't have looked at the third with much concern.

 

[hbk]

On a game to game basis, I agree. But even just raw shot differential (no adjustments, 5 on 5 only qualifiers, no attempts/blocks included, etc) are pretty strong indicators of where you are in the standings over a decent sample. Not that I think you disagree with that but it goes to my next point.

I've always found it mildly amusing that the so called advanced possession proxy stats are based (and expanded to be sure) on something every random casual fan in the building has observed ever since they've had shots up on the score board. The phrase Goalie X stole the game has been around forever for a reason.

I think it rankles people that this keeps happening (even in wins, which as I mentioned earlier in the thread in a different environment people would appreciate more) is because a lot don't actually care that much about wins right now. Just prefer to see them trend upward in terms of competitiveness.

Certainly this game was a tick upward from the Pens game in that regard. But the argument that it wasn't really all that strong a game in the general sense has some merit.


One other random thought: I actually agree with Tippett in what he said the other day about the quality of the counting. Worth looking at by the league. Though the idea that the numbers a tad off doesn't have much to do with my own eye test at the moment.

I just find the typical analytics argument is very lazy. Tanner on hockeybuzz writes a daily article about how bad this team is. And we are bad. The record doesn't lie. However, every now and then we have moments where we play well. We played well in the first, played good in the second, and went into a shell that allowed Detroit to pile on shots so it looks like they carried the game but were victimized by a hot goalie.

Anyone who watched the game saw that and says we won but I hate the defensive shell but we looked good early on. Some positives.

The analytics article. Coyotes are awful and had no business winning.

Lazy. Absolutely lazy.

Refusal to acknowledge anything positive when it doesn't match the analytic narrative. Instead of acknowledgement of small victories we are told we are undeserving. It's insulting to those who watch. And I honestly feel that the analytics writer in particular doesn't actually watch the games.

 

[TheLegend]

I just find the typical analytics argument is very lazy. Tanner on hockeybuzz writes a daily article about how bad this team is. And we are bad. The record doesn't lie. However, every now and then we have moments where we play well. We played well in the first, played good in the second, and went into a shell that allowed Detroit to pile on shots so it looks like they carried the game but were victimized by a hot goalie.

Anyone who watched the game saw that and says we won but I hate the defensive shell but we looked good early on. Some positives.

The analytics article. Coyotes are awful and had no business winning.

Lazy. Absolutely lazy.

Refusal to acknowledge anything positive when it doesn't match the analytic narrative. Instead of acknowledgement of small victories we are told we are undeserving. It's insulting to those who watch. And I honestly feel that the analytics writer in particular doesn't actually watch the games.

Tanner lives in Toronto and makes his analysis based upon game stats and clips from the games. If he actually watches a game it would be a surprise. I would give any HFCoyotes poster more credibility than him.

But then you consider he's writing for Eklund's site, and Eklund is more concerned about click baiting his site than actual reporting..........

 

[SniperHF]

Tanner

The analytics article. Coyotes are awful and had no business winning.

Lazy. Absolutely lazy.

Refusal to acknowledge anything positive when it doesn't match the analytic narrative. Instead of acknowledgement of small victories we are told we are undeserving. It's insulting to those who watch. And I honestly feel that the analytics writer in particular doesn't actually watch the games.

I should have known this had something to do with your justified hatred of all things Tanner

That kind of analysis is the reason there's a running "won the corsi game" joke .

It's fine to say they got out played and won anyway if the circumstances warrant that but that doesn't also mean there weren't legitimate reasons why it happened. 5 bad minutes by the team that did the outplaying can be enough. Which wasn't even really the case in this particular game but you get the idea.

Kinda reminds me of the arguments over which pitching performance is the most dominant of all time. A lot of baseball analytics types who I generally agree with like to cite Kerry Wood's 20 strikeout game as the one even though it wasn't a perfect game. It wasn't even a no hitter. But they'll talk about how the locations of each individual pitches, the total pitch count, number of swings and misses. Real micro level stuff. But when it comes down to it two guys got on base, one of which was directly Wood's fault.

 

[XX]

If someone on hockeybuzz said water is wet, I'd second guess it. I have no idea why you read that garbage hbk.

At no point did the team look "good" last night. Both had breakdowns galore, the Coyotes just capitalized on some ugly ass goals. The Red Wings basically had no interest in playing hockey during the first period and the Coyotes still didn't press much. Very sleepy game.

 

[Jakey53]

Go rewatch a game from last year.

You still didn't answer my question.

 

[crazyhockeylover96]

Tanner lives in Toronto and makes his analysis based upon game stats and clips from the games. If he actually watches a game it would be a surprise. I would give any HFCoyotes poster more credibility than him.

But then you consider he's writing for Eklund's site, and Eklund is more concerned about click baiting his site than actual reporting..........

I think I only read Tanner a few times before boycotting his trash. It was obvious he didn't actually know anything regarding the Coyotes. He seems to barely pay attention to other article trash and then later recycles as his own insights. At one point he wrote an entire article about a game situation but had the wrong player (forward instead of a defenseman). Player positions and lineups are incorrectly all over the place. He makes Tippett's lineups look brilliant.

I would expect Tanner to report the starting lineup as:

Cunningham Pronger Doan
Datsyuk OEL
Domi

 

[BUX7PHX]

Someone please rewatch a game from early last year and look at how dynamic Domi and Duke were and what our record was while they were playing that way, and then look at this season and tell me how much they are developing and improving. Bonus points if you can keep a straight face.

Last year is last year. We have talked ad nauseum regarding Duclair's shooting percentage and how it was likely to regress. Regression can happen in many forms - maybe there was a chance that we simply got lucky as **** last year with how well they stepped in.

Wasn't it Domi who scored his first NHL goal on on a broken looking play that involved us creating a turnover (off of dump and chase, no less)? He had just jumped over the boards on the ice, and the puck just happened to be pushed along to him. Is that Domi's dynamic play, or is that just simply a broken play off of a turnover where he just happened to be the beneficiary of open spacing and poor defense/reaction by the Kings? Teams now have video to see tendencies of what was done, but also get an understanding of how to disrupt Domi. Are teams playing him more physical to draw his ire? Are teams realizing that he may have some 1-on-1 failures when forced to his backhand? Or that there are certain ways to disrupt his rhythm and flow in the game?

Not everything is as cut and dry as you want to make it sound.

 

[cactus shake]

One other random thought: I actually agree with Tippett in what he said the other day about the quality of the counting. Worth looking at by the league. Though the idea that the numbers a tad off doesn't have much to do with my own eye test at the moment.

I think the beauty of shot attempts & even shot on target counts, is that there are so many events that over a large enough sample (say 20 games) the inaccuracies that are present in the publicly available data becomes less and less significant, almost background noise, allowing something like corsi to be the good measure it is of a team's play & a better tool than the points standings in trying to predict future success. So while Tippett may be right that the people responsible for shot counts at GRA do have itchy trigger fingers, I don't think it would have much of an effect on the statistical analysis bloggers do. Which is basically what you said. It's also depressing to think our shots for totals might be artificially inflated!

It's another instance where it's a shame it's not a market where Tippett can be encouraged to give a few examples of the data he collects. I will take any reason to be optimistic about the team's play. Or more creative spin. It's frustrating enough never hearing anything specific of Chayka's strategy / view of the game, instead of every move made being labelled by the media as 'analytically motivated.'

I've probably pimped it before, but I thought this week's pdocast with Jonathan Willis was a really good listen, & actually touched on a ton of subjects discussed on this page. https://hockeypdocast.com/2016/12/14/episode-122-chiarellis-razor/

 

[XX]

It's very convenient for a coach that's struggling with defense and shot counts to question the validity of the statistics. Large sample sizes don't lie.

 

[cactus shake]

Yeah it seemed like the standard coach line of their team being the ones to successfully keep shots to the outside. Unfortunately we're also bottom of the league by some distance in corsica's attempt at quantifying shot quality, xGF%.
(apologies for the hockeybuzzian post - knowing how to sort corsica tables is the extent of my own understanding of stats and I do look at them in part because I can watch so few games).

 

[_Del_]

Unfortunately for Dave shot tables are available these days, so you can check and see of your eyes are lying to you, and in fact, no. Not only are we heavily outshot, a disproportionate number of those are from between the circles down low.

 

[XX]

Unfortunately for Dave shot tables are available these days, so you can check and see of your eyes are lying to you, and in fact, no. Not only are we heavily outshot, a disproportionate number of those are from between the circles down low.

The Stars generated +277 shots compared to the Coyotes last year. Avg shot distance was within half a foot. If the Coyotes' shooting percentage stayed the same, they'd have scored only 3 goals fewer. Generating shots is absolutely key. Clamping down on shots against is key.

The Coyotes are giving up 3 more shots a game than the next worst team in the league, and ten more per game than the Kings.

Toronto has the 9th best offense and is generating the 2nd most shots. The Coyotes the worst offense and bottom 3 in shots for. That's the difference between a team that is fun to watch and growing in front of your eyes and whatever you want to call Tippett slop fests.

 

[_Del_]

I'm not a fancy stat guy at all. In large part I agree that all shots are not created equal. But when you're dead last in the league in FA60 (by a fair margin) and FF%, and then you look at the charts of the shot locations, I'm not sure how you can defend your performance by saying, "well, the shot counters are trigger happy". Does not pass the smell test.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I look at shots as on goal, not on goal, and shots leading to odd man rushes against. I wonder how teams rank on that paradigm.