GDT: hcanes @ tbl

Ole Gil

Registered User
May 9, 2009
5,695
8,845
No it’s not, as you yourself just made the case that going from 3% to 7% is trivial improvement, and based mostly on variation in puck luck rather than actually getting better at the job of scoring goals and winning games.

~3% would be the worst power play in the history of hockey by a large margin. The difference between ~3% a and normal really really bad power play numbers is enormous (2 goals in these 7 games, 23 or so in a season).

You said they have to do better to improve their numbers significantly. I'm saying they would improve from the results they are getting now to +23 goals a season (significant) even if they played worse.

That is the mathermatic's at work.
 

zman77

Registered User
Oct 1, 2015
14,309
35,701
itb2FIXZ_bigger.jpg
Fun Cane-alytics‏ @Cane_alytics 14h14 hours ago

Out scoring your problems is obviously harder against top tier teams,
but I also worry that scoring woes will be a problem for the
Canes once the league is settled in.
 

zman77

Registered User
Oct 1, 2015
14,309
35,701
OHL Prospects Retweeted
John Matisz‏Verified account @MatiszJohn 19h19 hours ago

John Matisz Retweeted theScore NHL
'Self-proclaimed grinder' Warren Foegele has been called a moose, a horse and a dog.
Which is weird, without context, but the important thing is that
he's officially arrived in the NHL.
My feature
1f447.png
https://twitter.com/theScoreNHL/status/1052265191616860165 …
John Matisz added,

DpplnT9UwAArt2V.jpg

theScore NHLVerified account @theScoreNHL
From invisible to indispensable:
The story of Warren Foegele
From invisible to indispensable: The story of Warren Foegele
pic.twitter.com/Kqp2vH50Yt
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,983
137,356
Bojangles Parking Lot
~3% would be the worst power play in the history of hockey by a large margin. The difference between ~3% a and normal really really bad power play numbers is enormous (2 goals in these 7 games, 23 or so in a season).

You said they have to do better to improve their numbers significantly. I'm saying they would improve from the results they are getting now to +23 goals a season (significant) even if they played worse.

That is the mathermatic's at work.

That’s like saying you get significantly more wealthy if you go from $1 to $3. Yes, you tripled your wealth, but you’re still poor as ****.

The mathermatical significance of going from 3% to 7% is impressive, but the hockey significance is being terrible and continuing to lose games on the basis of that one factor alone. Similar to our getting .880 goaltending, moving up to .890 is mathermatically significant but not hockey-significant.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,102
That’s like saying you get significantly more wealthy if you go from $1 to $3. Yes, you tripled your wealth, but you’re still poor as ****.

The mathermatical significance of going from 3% to 7% is impressive, but the hockey significance is being terrible and continuing to lose games on the basis of that one factor alone. Similar to our getting .880 goaltending, moving up to .890 is mathermatically significant but not hockey-significant.

That’s 2-3 more pp goals this season. Given that the two games the Canes lost were essentially 1 goal games, those 2-3 goals could have had major hockey significance. Obviously, it would depend on what games they were scored in.

If we play it out for a full season, the difference between 3% and 7% is about 16 more goals, which is significant.

I get what you are saying that the team needs to be even better than that, and I agree. Wally is right though, a jump from 3% to 7% is significant in both math and hockey. (Again depending on when the goals are scored)
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,983
137,356
Bojangles Parking Lot
That’s 2-3 more pp goals this season. Given that the two games the Canes lost were essentially 1 goal games, those 2-3 goals could have had major hockey significance. Obviously, it would depend on what games they were scored in.

If we play it out for a full season, the difference between 3% and 7% is about 16 more goals, which is significant.

I get what you are saying that the team needs to be even better than that, and I agree. Wally is right though, a jump from 3% to 7% is significant in both math and hockey. (Again depending on when the goals are scored)

If it means still having the worst PP by a large margin, in the context of also having a sub-.900 save percentage, what’s the hockey significance? There’s almost no way to be successful as a team while failing both on the PP and in net.

Adding 16 goals sounds great until you factor in the original amount, which is something like 13, and then scatter your ~30 total goals over 82 games. Which isn’t anywhere near enough to change the dreadful final outcome that those numbers imply.

The only conceivable way to overcome the double-handicap of terrible special teams and terrible goaltending is to completely dominate even strength at a level that would make this team unique in the history of hockey.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,102
If it means still having the worst PP by a large margin, in the context of also having a sub-.900 save percentage, what’s the hockey significance? There’s almost no way to be successful as a team while failing both on the PP and in net.

Adding 16 goals sounds great until you factor in the original amount, which is something like 13, and then scatter your ~30 total goals over 82 games. Which isn’t anywhere near enough to change the dreadful final outcome that those numbers imply.

The only conceivable way to overcome the double-handicap of terrible special teams and terrible goaltending is to completely dominate even strength at a level that would make this team unique in the history of hockey.

Wally’s point was simply that the team could make a significant improvement by just getting to 7%, which is true both mathematically and in a hockey sense.

Does the team need to do even better than that? Yes! Of course they do. But that doesn’t mean Wally’s statement is wrong.
 

Ole Gil

Registered User
May 9, 2009
5,695
8,845
The other complication of this, is that we don't know the expected goals result based on their play. We know that league worst is usually about 10% (I said 7 earlier, and was wrong). We know they are at 3.7 or so.

But that's just the floor. We know they can expect at least close to triple the shooting%. But it could be more. Maybe their expected result with how they've played is 12%. Maybe it's 15%.

All we know for sure, is that it's not 3.7%, and that it will improve significantly no matter what.

I'd also add, for the sake of mathermatical accuracy, if they shoot a higher%, they will get less shots on the PP since scoring ends the PP, so doing S% * shots to estimate how many more goals is ballpark, but a little high.
 

RibFrabcus

Bevy of Humanity
Aug 28, 2015
1,307
3,615
Triad, NC
The other complication of this, is that we don't know the expected goals result based on their play. We know that league worst is usually about 10% (I said 7 earlier, and was wrong). We know they are at 3.7 or so.

But that's just the floor. We know they can expect at least close to triple the shooting%. But it could be more. Maybe their expected result with how they've played is 12%. Maybe it's 15%.

All we know for sure, is that it's not 3.7%, and that it will improve significantly no matter what.

I'd also add, for the sake of mathermatical accuracy, if they shoot a higher%, they will get less shots on the PP since scoring ends the PP, so doing S% * shots to estimate how many more goals is ballpark, but a little high.

If my math is right, according to evolving-hockey.com we've generated about 5.8 expected goals in 42 minutes of PP time. We've scored what, 2?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->