Post-Game Talk: Leafs lose to Rangers 4-1

[HOF Paul Henderson]

No they aren't. For one most people are smart enough to realize his contract starts next season and not this season.

I’m just happy that we have a player the caliber of AM on the team locked up for 5 years.

We haven’t had someone like him since...when?

 

[Community]

So let me get this straight. Supposedly all of this subjective stuff was taken into account, and last night the Leafs still had 36 HDCF?

Not buying it. The usefulness of stats is only as good as the method used to collect them. FLAWED DATA = FLAWED STATS.

Wrong because the method of collection is perfectly acceptable and is why many people in this industry have been hired as statistical analysts to do this type of work.

The reason it "didnt work" and the Leafs lost last night (in regard to stats) is not because the stats are flawed, but because the team with more high danger scoring chances does not win 100% of the time.

However,when you are outchances in high danger scoring chances by this many I bet you win an awful lot of the time.

These stats analysis leads to predictions with a better chance of accurately predicting the winner than stats like shots, but they obviously dont predict who will win 100% of the time. The purpose of stats like these are NOT to predict who will win, but who will win the majority of the time (and sometimes specifically how much of the time).

Edit: Off to work so I will leave further stat explanations you require to others in this thread that seem to have a great grasp on stats and are probably better equipped to answer you than me!

 

[notDatsyuk]

I wasnt aware those were included, but you are incorrect.

If Ovechkin scores more than average from his zone or has a career shooting percentage higher than most, all you need to do is include an additional factor which will predict scoring much better than if it wasnt included. In this case it also would not be subjective.



Ive done statistics like this many times before (including one of my masters projects) and the more variables you include (even ones that are relatively subjective), the more acurate your statistics are likely to be for predicting the desired outcome (scoring in this case).

For example, if you wanted to figure out the average price of a house near yourself, you could predict to a degree by running statistical analysis like the following:

X = house price

X = ___ bedrooms x ____square feet

If you have all the history of sales you can easily find out how much the price is affected by having additonal bedrooms and how much the house size affects your price.

The factors (the blanks) can be designed in a way that going from 1 - 2 bedrooms doubles the likelihood or has a quadratic/exponential effect or whatever curve best fits.

If you now include a subjective variable such as how nice the neighborhood is, you will likely see a better prediction of thr house value even though you use a subjective variable (hint, even though it is subjective you can make it non biased by saying that for every 1000 annual crimes in this area thr neighnorhood grade goes down or use the average household income as a predictive variable for the neighbourhood quality).

Hopefully this explains why the more variables used (even "subjective" ones), the more accuare the prediction will be. This is a modified and simplified way of how hockey decides what a HDSC is and it should also be pointed out that a HDSC doesnt mean 50% of the time it will go in, but it does mean it is nearly 50% more likely to go in than a normal shot.

Correct. And the stat correctly predicts that shots from that area are more likely to produce goals. (Pretty self-evident, I would say.) However, the fact that on average, over thousands of games, shots from that area produce more goals, does not mean that, because a team in one game had lots of shots from there, that they had a great game. It also doesn't mean they didn't.

It's a common mistake that people apply a statistic to an individual situation. That the Leafs had 36 high danger shots, and high danger shots result in goals almost 20% of the time, does not mean Leafs scored five goals last night, or that they will any other time they get that many shots.

 

[Community]

Correct. And the stat correctly predicts that shots from that area are more likely to produce goals. (Pretty self-evident, I would say.) However, the fact that on average, over thousands of games, shots from that area produce more goals, does not mean that, because a team in one game had lots of shots from there, that they had a great game. It also doesn't mean they didn't.

It's a common mistake that people apply a statistic to an individual situation. That the Leafs had 36 high danger shots, and high danger shots result in goals almost 20% of the time, does not mean Leafs scored five goals last night, or that they will any other time they get that many shots.

For sure! My last post references this. But if they keep playing like that things will work out quite nicely for the Leafs moving forward! Also this isnt an individual situation (which would be just 1 shot), but it is definitely a very low sample size.

Cheers!

 

[Gabriel426]

Seriously, it is just a game on a back to back. The Lesfs got 50shots on goal and only scored once. It had everything to do with the other team goalie stealing the game.
You cannot say the Leafs were outplayed bc if the Rangers had 50 shots and only scored once, Sparks would be hailed as the hero who stole the game for the Leafs on this thread

 

[FlareKnight]

What's really strange is how quickly people have started attacking Matthews since he signed the contract. Honestly, some people seem to post here only to bring everyone else down it feels like.

Not really strange and not really new. Matthews play since his latest shoulder injury has been a concern ever since he came back. He's so talented he can put up points even playing the way he has been. But he's been hesitant out there. He's not taking over games like he can and is more playing the opportunist who will disappear for much of a game, but can score when given some chances. That he just signed a contract to make him the second highest paid player in the NHL next year is just bringing the focus back on the issues he's been having for a while. Heck discussion about whether he was playing more cautiously so he wouldn't get hurt before signing his next contract was brought up to explain why he hasn't been himself.

He's the franchise center we drafted. A huge part of this team and a key reason why this team will succeed or fail. If he can't get going then we're in trouble. He'll still look fine in terms of production since he can pounce on chances. But we need him creating his chances and being effective in his own end. This isn't about a contract making people hate a guy, it's a core player not looking right on the ice.

 

[Daisy Jane]

No they aren't. For one most people are smart enough to realize his contract starts next season and not this season.

why does it matter? it shouldn't matter if the contract kicks in next year or not - the expectation isn't gonna change.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

why does it matter? it shouldn't matter if the contract kicks in next year or not - the expectation isn't gonna change.

Because saying he's not earning his contract this season is asinine.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Man, it's pretty impressive that Matthews is almost on a 100 point pace despite having played like crap for 70% of the season, just floating around scared of contact while not making players around him better. You'd almost think that perhaps some of those things can't be true.

This is like the Nylander situation where people are just looking for reasons to be pissed. At least with Willy, you understood the reason for it.

Everyone just thinks he’s going to leave after 5yrs so they’re already pretending like they didn’t want him in the first place.

The ironic thing is that people think he’ll be pricing himself out and we won’t be able to afford him in 5yrs, however the higher they price him 6yrs from now, the better his current contract looks and the more his current years look like RFA dollars and not UFA dollars.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Because saying he's not earning his contract this season is asinine.

why?
again people want to cite how much he and McDavid are on par points per 60. (thus why he deserves that contract)
but for two seasons now after an injury he hasn't been acting very franchise centre-y he's been listless etc. (which if he is playing injured even though being 'capable' of putting points akin to McDavid everything else is lacking) - so i don't think saying he didn't earn the amount he was given is asinine - just because it doesn't kick in until next season. he earned it based off. his play the last three - hence the criticism.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Correct. And the stat correctly predicts that shots from that area are more likely to produce goals. (Pretty self-evident, I would say.) However, the fact that on average, over thousands of games, shots from that area produce more goals, does not mean that, because a team in one game had lots of shots from there, that they had a great game. It also doesn't mean they didn't.

It's a common mistake that people apply a statistic to an individual situation. That the Leafs had 36 high danger shots, and high danger shots result in goals almost 20% of the time, does not mean Leafs scored five goals last night, or that they will any other time they get that many shots.

I have a million dollars. I will show you the HDSC metrics of this game but conceal the score. You have to guess who won. If you guess right, I will give you the million dollars.

Who would you guess and why?

 

[Mr Hockey]

Because saying he's not earning his contract this season is asinine.

I get what your saying but your wrong

 

[Brown Dog]

I thought Sparks was pretty solid for the most part. 3rd goal was bad though, and was a back-breaker.

 

[Kiwi]

I thought Sparks was pretty solid for the most part. 3rd goal was bad though, and was a back-breaker.

Meh, I think the Rangers goalie was in our head long before that

The 3rd goal wasn't good but the way things were going nothing was getting past that dude, to call it frustrating would be an understatement

Complete domination, and we still lost somehow
Gotta love the randomness of hockey

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

why?
again people want to cite how much he and McDavid are on par points per 60. (thus why he deserves that contract)
but for two seasons now after an injury he hasn't been acting very franchise centre-y he's been listless etc. (which if he is playing injured even though being 'capable' of putting points akin to McDavid everything else is lacking) - so i don't think saying he didn't earn the amount he was given is asinine - just because it doesn't kick in until next season. he earned it based off. his play the last three - hence the criticism.

Sounds like youre dismissing his mcdavid-like on ice 5v5 performance over the last 3 seasons in favour of your interpretation of “acting franchise centrey”. I can’t believe Dubas didn’t take that into consideration during negotiations.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

why?
again people want to cite how much he and McDavid are on par points per 60. (thus why he deserves that contract)
but for two seasons now after an injury he hasn't been acting very franchise centre-y he's been listless etc. (which if he is playing injured even though being 'capable' of putting points akin to McDavid everything else is lacking) - so i don't think saying he didn't earn the amount he was given is asinine - just because it doesn't kick in until next season. he earned it based off. his play the last three - hence the criticism.

I get what your saying but your wrong

My point is that people beating him up for this season over a contract that kicks in next season is unfair. Matthews makes less than a million dollars for this season, if were going to bring money into it for this season we have to use what he's actually paid. If we want to argue he's paid too much or contract is bad starting next season by all means that's fair. What's not fair is to use his future contract against his play on this one.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Sounds like youre dismissing his mcdavid-like on ice 5v5 performance over the last 3 seasons in favour of your interpretation of “acting franchise centrey”. I can’t believe Dubas didn’t take that into consideration during negotiations.

considering i mentioned Matthews points total - i didn't.
however, per usual if one is critical over the chosen few - it' means anything you say is just snarked about and dismissed. whatever.

My point is that people beating him up for this season over a contract that kicks in next season is unfair. Matthews makes less than a million dollars for this season, if were going to bring money into it for this season we have to use what he's actually paid. If we want to argue he's paid too much or contract is bad starting next season by all means that's fair. What's not fair is to use his future contract against his play on this one.

again. unless people are saying if the play now warrants the contract he's about to earn. however you don't agreee and this is really not something i'm gonna argue with because I personally don't care. I was just saying that that could be how people view it - which- again isn't asinine or unfair as it's been done with countless other players not just leafs.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

considering i mentioned Matthews points total - i didn't.
however, per usual if one is critical over the chosen few - it' means anything you say is just snarked about and dismissed. whatever.

Yes, you mentioned it, then said he doesn't act franchise centrey. You list franchise centre, elite elite 5v5 scoring metrics, but then you dismiss it as saying he doesn't act franchise centrey.

Hence my post, indicating you dismissed his 5v5 performance (you need to mention it to dismiss it), then followed up with your final take on how you perceive he is "acting" can be taken as not deserving of the contract, despite his elite, elite production.

 

[TheBigThree]

Glad 11.634 million boy coasted this whole game.

 

[tmlms13]

I'd love to see a chart of where all the shots were vertically. Felt like everything was either in the stomach or below the pads.

how many shots forced him to made a save with his arms or shoulders.

Shoot from the high danger spots all you want you aren't going to beat anyone in the butterfly. Unless you're shooting 100mph one timers the 5 hole doesn't exist.

 

[FraumBallard]

It's pretty crazy these days. The hot takes are getting more and more volatile.

When someone says "Hot Take"
it sounds dismissive.
Diversity of thought is a good thing.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

They gotta get McBackup back from the Canes, man does Spark ever suck! PLEASE don't play him ever again.

He does not score goals. Maybe it was a 2-1 loss instead of a 4-1 loss. Big deal either way it was a loss.

Goal 1 2 massive giveaways in our end first by Rielly which Sparlie makes 2 10 bellers bang bang and then Marner gave it away in slot for a wide open shot.

Goal 2 also a wide open shot on a 3 on 2 from a perfect slot shot created because Hainsey gambled on blue line and he does not have NHL speed anymore so he could not get back and help.

Goal 3 was massive garbage but still thanks Matty for totally screening him and then doing the flamingo to get out of the way of a wrister from point. He turns his body to get out of the way of puck. In my day that meant you got benched for a shift for being a p*ssy.

There is no point in scape goats. It was a team loss and the forwards needed to score on their 55 shots. Blaming Sparkie is just total bogus.

 

[SprDaVE]

When someone says "Hot Take"
it sounds dismissive.
Diversity of thought is a good thing.

A well thought out response is one thing, but a hot take is based on a recent event/game purely out of emotion. The hate Matthews is getting right now, or that Babcock needs to be fired... stuff like that is definitely a hot take without much thought put behind it.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I have a million dollars. I will show you the HDSC metrics of this game but conceal the score. You have to guess who won. If you guess right, I will give you the million dollars.

Who would you guess and why?

Because I understand statistics, and why they do not apply to single situations, I would not bet.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Because I understand statistics, and why they do not apply to single situations, I would not bet.

Because you understand statistics, you would not bet in a situation where you can win a million dollars and have nothing to lose. Seems reasonable....