Post-Game Talk: Holl wins it in OT. Leafs defeat the Sens 3-2

[zeke]

look at it this way, the advanced stats probably say the Leafs will win every game until seasons end ... where/what are the flaws?

No, the advanced stats say the leafs are likely to win a majority of their games and likely to lose a fair share too.

 

[zeke]

How closely does it match? Should be like 80% or better to be considered reliable, right?

What 2 stats are you saying you think should match?

 

[Gallagbi]

Many are an interpretation of what occurred rather than a record of what occurred.

Id say they're both and that's where understanding the path to the stat helps.

Corsi isn't possession for an example, it's an approximation. It measures shot attempts (ie records), it infers possession. xGF, HDCF, SCF, are similar in they record something (shot location) and use that to eventually infer goals.

 

[Mr Hockey]

It should never match up exactly - goaltending and shooting efficiency and luck are things.

teams being tired and injures, in game coaching mistakes ...

 

[Dreakmur]

What 2 stats are you saying you think should match?

Expected goals and goals should track pretty closely.... unless I’m really not understanding what expected goals is supposed to track!

 

[zeke]

Expected goals and goals should track pretty closely.... unless I’m really not understanding what expected goals is supposed to track!

Do you believe goaltending talent and shooting talent are important?

 

[Zybalto]

How closely does it match? Should be like 80% or better to be considered reliable, right?

7 of the top ten teams for xGF% are also top ten in league standings. The three outside the top ten in the standings have middling overall team save% and/or shooting%.

 

[Dreakmur]

Do you believe goaltending talent and shooting talent are important?

Yes. Those are among the many variables that I think impact a shot’s difficulty.

That’s why I think expected goals is not reliable.

 

[Mr Hockey]

No, the advanced stats say the leafs are likely to win a majority of their games and likely to lose a fair share too.

But the stats say the Leafs should win every game, correct?

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

Matthews is better than anything the sens have drafted since Karlsson. Team is a dumpster fire and Eugene Melnyk is an applaudable joke.

 

[Gallagbi]

But the stats say the Leafs should win every game, correct?

No

 

[Martin Skoula]

The miles per gallon argument actually supports the scepticism for expected goals.

Under different conditions, a car’s fuel economy changes. Under different conditions, a shot’s probability of scoring changes too.

Sure but you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to MPG, you either use a large sample size that includes all sorts of driving conditions to give you a reasonable average or you come up with formulas to convert uphill MPG to generalized flat road MPG if all you have to work with is a small uphill sample.

Call me crazy but allowing an unblocked shot from the slot is bad even if the shooter is John Scott and prime Hasek is in net, I would prefer my team not to allow that type of shot regularly even if in reality Scott only scores 1/100 times.

 

[Gary Nylund]

No different than the hits stat which many on here take as gospel.

I'm trying to think think of any one stat that doesn't need context, nothing comes to mind offhand. Is there an official stat for number of shots that hit the post? If so I suppose that would probably be pretty reliable.

Who says it's unreliable?

Lots of people.

look at it this way, the advanced stats probably say the Leafs will win every game until seasons end ... where/what are the flaws?

Point is to highlight how our goaltending has been the biggest factor in the recent slump.

This just seems like a double standard to me. Nobody posts their full picture analysis with complete backup off the start.

When using the eye test, it's rarely supported by anything more than speculation and usually surface interpretation (those are tough saves, that's a good shot).

I agree that you should use and present all factors to gain a true understanding, but can you think of a single poster who leads this way? Hell, I watched you go after the one who posts the most backup for stats yesterday

Yes and no, but in general the larger the sample the better.

I agree with your earlier point on this that you'd need to look at all factors for GF to be useful. How much was 3on3, ENG, vs. backups etc .

I'd agree that goaltending was the main problem during our slump.

Not sure where the double standard is? Nobody's posts should be taken as a full complete analysis, not sure such a thing is even possible as there are always more things to consider. I think I just wanted to make the point that when someone posts Xgoals over a one game sample of proof of something, I'm not buying it. If other people do, more power to them but I just feel like I know better.

When I first heard of it, I thought sounds like a cool stat - considers bunch of different things and comes up with Xgoals, if it worked that would be a very useful stat. After comparing the numbers to games that I've watched closely, meh. It's not bad but sometimes it's pretty far off. JMHO.

 

[Mr Hockey]

No

according to advanced stats, ottawa has no chance to win against the Leafs, so how do they win?

 

[Dreakmur]

7 of the top ten teams for xGF% are also top ten in league standings. The three outside the top ten in the standings have middling overall team save% and/or shooting%.

Good teams generally have the puck more than bad teams. Teams that have the puck more will generally get more scoring chances. Teams that get more scoring chances will generally have more high quality scoring chances.

What stat are we really tracking?

 

[zeke]

Yes. Those are among the many variables that I think impact a shot’s difficulty.

That’s why I think expected goals is not reliable.

That doesn't make them unreliable.

The starting point is that merely looking at goals scored does not give us reliable information, so we look at the underlying numbers to reveal what goal scoring is earned and what is flukey. Note: we have always done this, before analytics were even a thing.

But anyways, for your edification, Leafs this year:

#4 3.35 goals for per 60
#2 3.25 expected goals for per 60

 

[Gary Nylund]

No, the advanced stats say the leafs are likely to win a majority of their games and likely to lose a fair share too.

I would hope they say more than that, if not then they're completely useless as I doubt anyone needs advanced stats to tell them that, a peek at the standings should be plenty.

Matthews is better than anything the sens have drafted since Karlsson. Team is a dumpster fire and Eugene Melnyk is an applaudable joke.

The Karlsson qualifier isn't required - Matthews is better than Karlsson. JMHO.

 

[zeke]

I would hope they say more than that, if not then they're completely useless as I doubt anyone needs advanced stats to tell them that, a peek at the standings should be plenty.

I was responding to a poster who thought advanced stats said the leafs would win every game.

 

[cookie]

Watching game highlights from around the league is a little jarring when compared to the Leafs’ play this game. Corralling the puck looked awful, passes were terrible, lots of missed shots... maybe it’s my eyes playing tricks on me but it looked like a bunch of beer league players at times, even after considering the bad ice

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

I would hope they say more than that, if not then they're completely useless as I doubt anyone needs advanced stats to tell them that, a peek at the standings should be plenty.



The Karlsson qualifier isn't required - Matthews is better than Karlsson. JMHO.

You're alright in my books.

 

[Dreakmur]

That doesn't make them unreliable.

The starting point is that merely looking at goals scored does not give us reliable information, so we look at the underlying numbers to reveal what goal scoring is earned and what is flukey. Note: we have always done this, before analytics were even a thing.

But anyways, for your edification, Leafs this year:

#4 3.35 goals for per 60
#2 3.25 expected goals for per 60

It doesn’t necessarily make it u reliable, no. We should just be careful to ensure our stats are actually measuring what we think they are.

Gingivitis is strongly correlated to tanned skin. What does that tell us?

 

[Mr Hockey]

I was responding to a poster who thought advanced stats said the leafs would win every game.

the team going into a game with the higher xGF% should win right, that is your go too stat?

 

[BlackTipReefer]

Good teams generally have the puck more than bad teams. Teams that have the puck more will generally get more scoring chances. Teams that get more scoring chances will generally have more high quality scoring chances.

What stat are we really tracking?

I lost track of your argument.

Someone used data to show how the top GF% teams are also the best teams in the standings. Now you are saying yes of course, because the best teams have players that do the things that raise xGF%.

Are you not just agreeing, then, that xGF% is a decent predictor of success?

 

[Gallagbi]

Not sure where the double standard is? Nobody's posts should be taken as a full complete analysis, not sure such a thing is even possible as there are always more things to consider. I think I just wanted to make the point that when someone posts Xgoals over a one game sample of proof of something, I'm not buying it. If other people do, more power to them but I just feel like I know better.

Let's think of it this way, what posters are you thinking of that only use xGF without any other context? How often do you follow-up with them.

When I first heard of it, I thought sounds like a cool stat - considers bunch of different things and comes up with Xgoals, if it worked that would be a very useful stat. After comparing the numbers to games that I've watched closely, meh. It's not bad but sometimes it's pretty far off. JMHO.

So I think this is a good example of the above point. We want to use all factors, but you're willing to discredit based on some games you don't agree with the outcome/measure. What are the factors you're balancing against?

 

[therealkoho]

*Disclaimer, These of course are only my opinions, no animals were injured in the typing of this post!

The Good: The Leafs dominate practically everywhere except for the scoreboard, which is where it counts. Nice seeing "Bobby Holl Goal Scorer!" bury the winner, the march now starts to claim Alex Ovechkins' league record, only 21 to go Hollsie, we know you can do it!

The Bad: This is sounding like a broken friggin record, but considering the money they pay, the NHL has to be able to find better, or certainly more observant people to act as on ice officials. Oh btw is there actually a diving penalty? I was pretty sure there was, but over the last few games I'm not really sure if there is anymore.

The Ugly: I never thought I'd say this but the Leafs PP is red monkeyass ugly