Post-Game Talk: Pucks 2 nite

[Raikkonen]

The loss vs Rangers was what doctor ordered for us. Fancy stats or not, it will help to keep the team down to earth and working to fix the wrong.

Speaking about fancy stats, we just need to invent our own system.

 

[BobRouse]

The loss vs Rangers was what doctor ordered for us. Fancy stats or not, it will help to keep the team down to earth and working to fix the wrong.

Speaking about fancy stats, we just need to invent our own system.

Can't win them all anyhow.

Where the hell have you been slacker...

Eating too many Cheetos (can't type with layers of Cheeto dust on my fingers) and busy working on my plans for world domination.

Should be around a bit more especially after the new year.

 

[bur and 666 others]

The loss vs Rangers was what doctor ordered for us. Fancy stats or not, it will help to keep the team down to earth and working to fix the wrong.

Speaking about fancy stats, we just need to invent our own system.

well, that's why you need stats to see if you are biased or not. I felt differently than BobRouse. We dominated in shots stats, because we were trailing the whole game and played the catch up game. We kind of had to dominate, that's a nhl team for god sake.

As for inventing the own system, I'm arguing on this site that shots have more than 2 dimensions (more than x_coord, y_coord). I'm arguing that shots have at least 'time' dimension too. So you can't look at the shots location only, need to factor time as well. I agree we dominated Rags, but we dominated them when we trailed by 3 goals and mostly in 12 minutes span.

 

[Xaroc]

well, that's why you need stats to see if you are biased or not. I felt differently than BobRouse. We dominated in shots stats, because we were trailing the whole game and played the catch up game. We kind of had to dominate, that's a nhl team for god sake.

As for inventing the own system, I'm arguing on this site that shots have more than 2 dimensions (more than x_coord, y_coord). I'm arguing that shots have at least 'time' dimension too. So you can't look at the shots location only, need to factor time as well. I agree we dominated Rags, but we dominated them when we trailed by 3 goals and mostly in 12 minutes span.

We started dominating them at about the 23-25 minute mark at least looking at shot attempts and scoring chances. At around 45 minutes in we plateaued. So not 12 minutes, closer to 2x that. So not even that part is right. Also, it started when we were down 2 not 3.

 

[bur and 666 others]

We started dominating them at about the 23-25 minute mark at least looking at shot attempts and scoring chances. At around 45 minutes in we plateaued. So not 12 minutes, closer to 2x that. So not even that part is right. Also, it started when we were down 2 not 3.

honestly i'm tired of this. I had some impression after being on the game and seating right behind the Rangers goal. I admit I'm not a skillful hockey fan and my understanding of the game could be totally wrong. So I made an effort to understand the game better by analyzing the data (only shot attempts). I presented the data above (was lazy to put all 33 shots, so listed only shots from the dangerous zones) that actually shows that we were kept outside most of the game hence the shots that were inside came mostly in 12 minutes span (about which i mentioned)... And now that again???....

I gave up and not going to argue anymore. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, just want to add that for me dominating the game doesn't mean puck possession since I saw we had puck possession almost the entire game since we were trailing, but we couldn't do much besides this tiny frame of the time. Even though we were in the Rags zone and had puck all these time, i felt we were actually dangerous only at the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd.

Plus it's hard to argue with people who come here say something vaguely without presenting any data and backing up their words. I at least added everywhere that what i say it's my beliefs and were more specifics why i believed so.