Post-Game Talk: PS 2 - Niagara Falls.................... - Buffalo 4 BRUINS 1

[JOKER 192]

every stat has too many variables for them to be reliabley used to compare players. It's why people get paid to do these things such as scouts and analytics teams. It's about mitigating these variables in multiple ways, not finding one stat to act as the end all be all, which is why advanced stats are still a useful piece of the puzzle.

No argument here.

 

[GordonHowe]

Agreed, I would rather the growing pains of playing someone young and that the monotony of someone like heinen or brown.

I would like to see what Brown can bring though.

DH doesn't exactly move the needle.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"this stat" (expected goals for percentage) basically just says "When Alex Chiasson was on the ice at 5v5 67.23% of the scoring chances were for his team".
t's not a "score" or a "grade" of a player. It's just "here's what happened when this guy was on the ice". Drawing conclusions like "X was the top player" are not what this stat says or is meant for. You always need context and other information to draw any significant conclusions about how an individual player performed. I cannot stress enough: NOBODY ON THIS BOARD IS CLAIMING THAT XGF% ALONE CAN TELL YOU IF A PLAYER PLAYED WELL.

As for whether it's "reliable", It's no less reliable than any other stat because it comes from generally reliable underlying data. It's all based on the most common basic stats that have been counted for many years now (shots, shot attempts, shot locations). As an indicator of individual player effectiveness it absolutely is more useful than +/- since it's based on shot data that's much higher volume than goal data (more data = more reliable). And small sample size of data is only one of the multiple flaws with +/- as an individual stat. Expected goals by itself doesn't tell you enough to evaluate an individual player's performance but it gets you a whole hell of a lot closer than +/-.

And yet I was responding to a post that was simply this stat with no context or other information or other statistics.

Question?
What is considered a scoring chance for this stat.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

And yet I was responding to a post that was simply this stat with no context or other information or other statistics.

Question?
What is considered a scoring chance for this stat.

From the Hockey Reference site:

Expected GF/GA and +/-

While Corsi and Fenwick count shot attempts, they don't account for quality of the shot. Expected +/- considers the shot location, and uses league-wide averages to determine the likelihood of that shot being a goal. It doesn't factor in whether the shot actually resulted in a goal or not. Instead, it's giving a sense of shot quality by looking at the odds of scoring a goal from that location.

A team which has an Actual Goal Differential exceeding its Expected Goal Differential ('axDiff') indicates a team converting or stopping an inordinate amount of good chances compared to league average. This could indicate the team has great shooters, a prolific goalie, or is just getting lucky.

A negative differential would indicate a team is getting more good chances than its opponent, but is not converting or is allowing more than league norms. This could mean bad shooting, bad goaltending, or just being unlucky.

Scoring Chances and High-Danger Scoring Chances

As originally defined by War On Ice, 'Scoring Chances' indicate shots attempts that are taken from areas of the ice where goals are more likely to be scored. Attempts made from the attacking team's neutral or defensive zones are excluded.

Inside the zone, a shot is assigned a value of 1,2 or 3, depending on where it was from. A rebound shot (defined as any attempt made within 3 seconds of another blocked, missed or saved attempt without a stoppage in play in between) adds a point to this value. A blocked shot decreases the value by 1.

'Scoring Chances' are any shot attempts with a final value of 2 or higher. 'High-Danger Scoring Chances' are any shot attempt with a final value of 3 or higher.

Advanced Hockey Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Explanation of advanced hockey stats like Corsi and Fenwick

www.hockey-reference.com

Still pretty subjective and cloaked in a certain level of mystery, but that's the basics of it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

From the Hockey Reference site:

Expected GF/GA and +/-

While Corsi and Fenwick count shot attempts, they don't account for quality of the shot. Expected +/- considers the shot location, and uses league-wide averages to determine the likelihood of that shot being a goal. It doesn't factor in whether the shot actually resulted in a goal or not. Instead, it's giving a sense of shot quality by looking at the odds of scoring a goal from that location.

A team which has an Actual Goal Differential exceeding its Expected Goal Differential ('axDiff') indicates a team converting or stopping an inordinate amount of good chances compared to league average. This could indicate the team has great shooters, a prolific goalie, or is just getting lucky.

A negative differential would indicate a team is getting more good chances than its opponent, but is not converting or is allowing more than league norms. This could mean bad shooting, bad goaltending, or just being unlucky.

Scoring Chances and High-Danger Scoring Chances

As originally defined by War On Ice, 'Scoring Chances' indicate shots attempts that are taken from areas of the ice where goals are more likely to be scored. Attempts made from the attacking team's neutral or defensive zones are excluded.

Inside the zone, a shot is assigned a value of 1,2 or 3, depending on where it was from. A rebound shot (defined as any attempt made within 3 seconds of another blocked, missed or saved attempt without a stoppage in play in between) adds a point to this value. A blocked shot decreases the value by 1.

'Scoring Chances' are any shot attempts with a final value of 2 or higher. 'High-Danger Scoring Chances' are any shot attempt with a final value of 3 or higher.

Advanced Hockey Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Explanation of advanced hockey stats like Corsi and Fenwick

www.hockey-reference.com

Still pretty subjective and cloaked in a certain level of mystery, but that's the basics of it.

Thanks!

That helps a lot.

 

[Blowfish]

Mitchell threw his hat into the ring. Beecher kept his in it. Lohrei got his feet wet early and went swimmingly as the game went on. The plan I sent to Blowfish to kidnap Benson and get him on the bus back to Boston went bust when he slipped through Blowfish's hands due to the grease on them from all the chicken wings.

Just seeing this now...Way too funny. I wouldn't let the grease stop me however my bloated stomach is another story.

My oh my Benson at 18 going to be good. Spidey senses out there. He makes the team and helps propel the Sabres into the playoffs.

 

[Blowfish]

Your binky should clearly be on the cut list.

Heinen won’t be cut yet. I think Merkulov gets one more chance in a better lineup.

Sorry I missed you at the game?

Dude created chances, strong on his skates, Merk/Topo 3rd period chemistry, lost count how many plays he disrupted for Buffalo, speed/energy, hard forecheck, NHL shot. He may be cut but he will play in Boston this year.

 

[Guelph Bruin]

Just seeing this now...Way too funny. I wouldn't let the grease stop me however my bloated stomach is another story.

My oh my Benson at 18 going to be good. Spidey senses out there. He makes the team and helps propel the Sabres into the playoffs.

Benson was a near top 10 pick by most draft speculations, some as high as 3-4 ...must be his size that made him drop. Best comparable is Mitch Marner top end talent, his ceiling is really high. Buffalo did well, must have been drooling when he fell to 13th. Not sure he'll make the big club this year ...unless they keep him buffalo to feed him wings to put some weight on.

 

[whatsbruin]

Agreed, I would rather the growing pains of playing someone young and that the monotony of someone like heinen or brown.

I don't think that's the Bruins way. Always go with old vet who won't help or hurt, rather than the young player who may gain experience and get better as the season progresses.

 

[NDiesel]

I don't think that's the Bruins way. Always go with old vet who won't help or hurt, rather than the young player who may gain experience and get better as the season progresses.

To a point you're correct...but McAvoy, Pasta, Marchand, Debrusk, Carlo, Frederic, Swayman (not to mention guys who are gone like Wheeler, Krug, Krejci, Bergy etc.) all earned spots over vets at the time. When you show you belong the Bruins have shown they are more than happy to make a spot for you.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

And yet I was responding to a post that was simply this stat with no context or other information or other statistics.

Question?
What is considered a scoring chance for this stat.

look, I just gave you a long, well thought out post trying to explain and clarify and I feel like you're frustrated that you weren't spoon-fed even more info.

These stats have been around for years now. I don't think people need to post definitions of them every time they use them on a message board. The person you originally replied to probably assumed people here watched the game & had most of the context, so listing xGF% results is just added info.

At some point if you really want to engage with any of these stats, it's on you to take a little time to learn about them on your own. You can easily google "NHL expected goals" and find an article explaining the whole thought process & methodology behind it if you're genuinely interested. It's like 5-10 minutes of reading. Everyone talks about stats like this as if it's some cryptic, unknowable thing, but it really requires minimal effort to understand and the concepts are not as complicated as they might seem.

To help speed up the search, here's a couple of good pages from the first handful of google search results:

Advanced Hockey Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Explanation of advanced hockey stats like Corsi and Fenwick

www.hockey-reference.com

Inside the Stats: Expected Goals | Inside The Rink

Expected goals are one of the most useful analytics concepts. They are also the most heavily criticized – some of which is warranted, and some not so much. One thing that is certain is expected goals has ballooned in popularity in recent years. For those who haven’t heard of it or have heard of...

insidetherink.com

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

look, I just gave you a long, well thought out post trying to explain and clarify and I feel like you're frustrated that you weren't spoon-fed even more info.

These stats have been around for years now. I don't think people need to post definitions of them every time they use them on a message board. The person you originally replied to probably assumed people here watched the game & had most of the context, so listing xGF% results is just added info.

At some point if you really want to engage with any of these stats, it's on you to take a little time to learn about them on your own. You can easily google "NHL expected goals" and find an article explaining the whole thought process & methodology behind it if you're genuinely interested. It's like 5-10 minutes of reading. Everyone talks about stats like this as if it's some cryptic, unknowable thing, but it really requires minimal effort to understand and the concepts are not as complicated as they might seem.

To help speed up the search, here's a couple of good pages from the first handful of google search results:

Advanced Hockey Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Explanation of advanced hockey stats like Corsi and Fenwick

www.hockey-reference.com

Inside the Stats: Expected Goals | Inside The Rink

Expected goals are one of the most useful analytics concepts. They are also the most heavily criticized – some of which is warranted, and some not so much. One thing that is certain is expected goals has ballooned in popularity in recent years. For those who haven’t heard of it or have heard of...

insidetherink.com

Aussie already answered my question quite thoroughly.