Post-Game Talk: Pucks 2 nite

[bur and 666 others]

Caps were better, but Rangers won. We can even say Caps offered the W to Rangers.

I wouldn't say that. I was at the game, seating behind the Rangers goal when Caps pressured them in the 2nd. Even though we had like 80% of possession and in zone time, we we didn't generate any dangerous chances, all time only passes and passes and then a weak shot. It seemed like Rags played in the middle of the ice, while we were outside, near boards on both ends of the rink. We started having more traffic in front of Lundqvist and be more dangerous around Johanssen goal, but then they scored on PP and we were done. That was a very frustrating game, because it showed that the system either wasn't executed at all or doesn't work against a smart team like Rangers. They were smart and fast, we were dump and slower.

Only bright side was: we got tickets for less than $50 and then sat near to the rink, because there were empty seats.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I wouldn't say that. I was at the game, seating behind the Rangers goal when Caps pressured them in the 2nd. Even though we had like 80% of possession and in zone time, we we didn't generate any dangerous chances, all time only passes and passes and then a weak shot. It seemed like Rags played in the middle of the ice, while we were outside, near boards on both ends of the rink. We started having more traffic in front of Lundqvist and be more dangerous around Johanssen goal, but then they scored on PP and we were done. That was a very frustrating game, because it showed that the system either wasn't executed at all or doesn't work against a smart team like Rangers. They were smart and fast, we were dump and slower.

Only bright side was: we got tickets for less than $50 and then sat near to the rink, because there were empty seats.

The shot chart tells a different story, at least in the Rangers end.

 

[Devil Dancer]

I only saw the third, but Ovie was turning over the puck regularly on blind passes from the boards to the middle of the ice. I hope Trotz gets to work fixing that tendancy.

 

[bur and 666 others]

The shot chart tells a different story, at least in the Rangers end.

Could you point out to the short chart? Sorry, i'm not skilled in that. It should be by time frames, by our possession time. I felt the majority of the time we were on the perimeter passing rather shooting and only tiny of the fraction we were good at generating shots near by their net. We didn't have any open shooting lanes, so only our chance to score was near by at the goal. Also i feel the shot chart should be with additional stats like positions of the players and etc. Probably the chart already has all of that. I was first time seating that close to the net and lots of things were eye opening for me, i saw clearly all deflections, traffic and everything. That's being said, I could be completely wrong, but I felt the Rangers defended really well the majority of the time, except at the end 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd.

 

[ChibiPooky]

Could you point out to the short chart? Sorry, i'm not skilled in that. It should be by time frames, by our possession time. I felt the majority of the time we were on the perimeter passing rather shooting and only tiny of the fraction we were good at generating shots near by their net. We didn't have any open shooting lanes, so only our chance to score was near by at the goal. Also i feel the shot chart should be with additional stats like positions of the players and etc. Probably the chart already has all of that. I was first time seating that close to the net and lots of things were eye opening for me, i saw clearly all deflections, traffic and everything. That's being said, I could be completely wrong, but I felt the Rangers defended really well the majority of the time, except at the end 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd.

I can't access the site at work, but it's on war-on-ice.com.

 

[Blades of Steel]

I can't access the site at work, but it's on war-on-ice.com.

How much of the advanced stats favor the Caps based on the Rangers turtling? I believe it would be quite a bit.

 

[ChibiPooky]

How much of the advanced stats favor the Caps based on the Rangers turtling? I believe it would be quite a bit.

Tough to say, but the shot chart has nothing to do with advanced stats. It just shows the location from which shots were attempted and their result (goal, on net, miss, etc.).

 

[Hivemind]

Tough to say, but the shot chart has nothing to do with advanced stats. It just shows the location from which shots were attempted and their result (goal, on net, miss, etc.).

Which is already more information than most "advanced stats" contain.

 

[Blades of Steel]

Tough to say, but the shot chart has nothing to do with advanced stats. It just shows the location from which shots were attempted and their result (goal, on net, miss, etc.).

Ahh ok, I thought that was part of the statistics you were mentioning.

 

[capitalsrock]

I only saw the third, but Ovie was turning over the puck regularly on blind passes from the boards to the middle of the ice. I hope Trotz gets to work fixing that tendancy.

That's really nothing new for him, but I still thought Ovi was one of our best players last night. He needs to learn to use the boards instead of risky cross ice passes all the time.

 

[caps8]

How much of the advanced stats favor the Caps based on the Rangers turtling? I believe it would be quite a bit.

The score-adjusted numbers (to account for the turtling) were still 57.2 5 on 5 shot attempts versus the Rangers 35.9 shot attempts. Caps dominated, Lundqvist and Caps defensive breakdowns were the difference.

 

[Blades of Steel]

The score-adjusted numbers (to account for the turtling) were still 57.2 5 on 5 shot attempts versus the Rangers 35.9 shot attempts. Caps dominated, Lundqvist and Caps defensive breakdowns were the difference.

thanks

curious, how do you adjust that exactly? If the Rangers are sagging back in their zone and allowing the weak shot attempts isn't that a faulty statistic?


Edit*

also just read this gem on twitter..


Mike Kelly @MikeKellyNHL
Capitals are allowing a league low 24.8 shots/game.....are 25th in team save % (.897)

 

[ChibiPooky]

The score-adjusted numbers (to account for the turtling) were still 57.2 5 on 5 shot attempts versus the Rangers 35.9 shot attempts. Caps dominated, Lundqvist and Caps defensive breakdowns were the difference.

thanks

curious, how do you adjust that exactly? If the Rangers are sagging back in their zone and allowing the weak shot attempts isn't that a faulty statistic?


Edit*

also just read this gem on twitter..


Mike Kelly @MikeKellyNHL
Capitals are allowing a league low 24.8 shots/game.....are 25th in team save % (.897)

I'm really not a fan of the score-adjusted numbers. My personal opinion is that they don't really correspond well to what they're supposed to, and they therefore don't really tell us anything useful.

To the tweet, there's actually a demonstrated (albeit small) inverse correlation between shot attempts allowed and save percentage. It's not enough to account for all of that gap, but it's something to keep in mind.

 

[caps8]

I'm really not a fan of the score-adjusted numbers. My personal opinion is that they don't really correspond well to what they're supposed to, and they therefore don't really tell us anything useful.

To the tweet, there's actually a demonstrated (albeit small) inverse correlation between shot attempts allowed and save percentage. It's not enough to account for all of that gap, but it's something to keep in mind.

It makes logical sense, the score-adjusted numbers take the league average for shot-attempts for % in different score situations (trailing by 1, 2, 3+, or leading by 1, 2, 3+ etc.) and use it to evaluate each team according to the score. The Caps went above and beyond the score effects last night by a great margin. Team is currently second in score-adjusted shot attempts %, one of the best indicators of playoff success as witnessed by the last five cup winners. If the Caps keep playing like they are they will be fine.

 

[bur and 666 others]

I can't access the site at work, but it's on war-on-ice.com.

I looked at the site, do you know where is the data behind the shot chart? they showed distance, time, area, person who shot and categorization. Can't find the raw data behind the chart.

 

[bur and 666 others]

I looked at the site, do you know where is the data behind the shot chart? they showed distance, time, area, person who shot and categorization. Can't find the raw data behind the chart.

ok, i wasn't able to find the raw data, so i just looked at the shots in the high scoring area and manually create a table with some info. As you can see almost all shots were generated at the last 6 minutes of the 2nd and first 6 minutes of the 3rd. That's less than 12 minutes we were "dangerous" as I observed yesterday. Also out of 18 shots, only 1 was a rebound.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

thanks

curious, how do you adjust that exactly? If the Rangers are sagging back in their zone and allowing the weak shot attempts isn't that a faulty statistic?


Edit*

also just read this gem on twitter..


Mike Kelly @MikeKellyNHL
Capitals are allowing a league low 24.8 shots/game.....are 25th in team save % (.897)

If the keepers can get their numbers up, the team D would be stifling.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I looked at the site, do you know where is the data behind the shot chart? they showed distance, time, area, person who shot and categorization. Can't find the raw data behind the chart.

It's scraped from the NHL's text play-by-play.

 

[ChibiPooky]

ok, i wasn't able to find the raw data, so i just looked at the shots in the high scoring area and manually create a table with some info. As you can see almost all shots were generated at the last 6 minutes of the 2nd and first 6 minutes of the 3rd. That's less than 12 minutes we were "dangerous" as I observed yesterday. Also out of 18 shots, only 1 was a rebound.

That's not the point I was addressing. You said the Caps' shots were kept largely to the outside. They weren't. When they were generating any opportunities at all, they were good ones. Lundqvist was better, and, as you noted, wasn't giving up any rebounds (or at least the Caps couldn't get their stick on them).

 

[bur and 666 others]

That's not the point I was addressing. You said the Caps' shots were kept largely to the outside. They weren't. When they were generating any opportunities at all, they were good ones. Lundqvist was better, and, as you noted, wasn't giving up any rebounds (or at least the Caps couldn't get their stick on them).

That wasn't the point I addressed either. I said they were largely kept to the outside: the players, not shots. I said while they were outside, they tended to pass and didn't shoot (hence no shot stats for that time). I said they couldn't generate much largely, but small fraction of the time which resulted to the shots you see and all these shots which are inside were generated at the end of the 2 and the beginning of the 3rd, total of 12 minutes and were around of the Johansson's goal (you can tell they resulted to the Johansson's goal). So more than 48 minutes we were kept outside.

The shots stats actually proved my impression, that we couldn't do anything and New York defended well, except the time when we got desperate and they became more comfortable (trailing by 3 goals). At this time we created the Johansson's goal, but then they scored again and killed our will. After their last goal and at the end of the 3rd we didn't shoot at all. There weren't almost any shots at the end of 3rd.

btw, thanks for the info!

 

[Xaroc]

That wasn't the point I addressed either. I said they were largely kept to the outside: the players, not shots.

How are players that are kept outside generate inside shot attempts (as the chart indicates)? They don't have 20 foot arms. They racked up 33 scoring chances 7 in the first and 13 in each of the final two periods. That doesn't support your narrative at all.

 

[bur and 666 others]

How are players that are kept outside generate inside shot attempts (as the chart indicates)? They don't have 20 foot arms. They racked up 33 scoring chances 7 in the first and 13 in each of the final two periods. That doesn't support your narrative at all.

because all shots that were inside came in 12 minutes time frame about which i mentioned. I said that they were kept outside most of the game, but the end of 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd. Comprende? the shot chart supports my narrative actually.

 

[bur and 666 others]

How are players that are kept outside generate inside shot attempts (as the chart indicates)? They don't have 20 foot arms. They racked up 33 scoring chances 7 in the first and 13 in each of the final two periods. That doesn't support your narrative at all.

i really tried and made a huge effort to support my 'narratives' and even went to the web-site and track the time of the shots that came from the inside and listed them above! Yes, they racked up 33 shots. are you arguing that 7 in the first and 13 in each of the final two period came from the inside? If so, then yes, the players have 20 foot arms.

 

[BobRouse]

I wouldn't say that. I was at the game, seating behind the Rangers goal when Caps pressured them in the 2nd. Even though we had like 80% of possession and in zone time, we we didn't generate any dangerous chances, all time only passes and passes and then a weak shot. It seemed like Rags played in the middle of the ice, while we were outside, near boards on both ends of the rink. We started having more traffic in front of Lundqvist and be more dangerous around Johanssen goal, but then they scored on PP and we were done. That was a very frustrating game, because it showed that the system either wasn't executed at all or doesn't work against a smart team like Rangers. They were smart and fast, we were dump and slower.

Only bright side was: we got tickets for less than $50 and then sat near to the rink, because there were empty seats.

Caps had 33 scoring chances. Rangers had 33 shot attempts....

That INSANE!

Caps dominated. Rational Ranger fans even feel so:

- Like I said in the headline, you take these points and you run so far away you don't even remember where you're running. You run until your legs give out and you feel your body crash to the cold, unforgiving earth. And you pray that you weren't followed. The Rangers got slaughtered in this game the final 40 minutes. They had a good first period, and then the wheels fell off the wagon.

- Here's some raw statistics. The Rangers had 33 shot attempts in the game (the Capitals had 62) while the Capitals had 33 scoring chances in the game. No matter how you slice this game it's a disaster. I've already seen a few people say the Rangers had a good first and third period. I'm beginning to suspect that's because they're against metrics and don't want to admit that the eye test on its own doesn't work. One team did dominate this game, but that team lost 5-2.

- The Rangers won for two reasons: 1) Henrik Lundqvist, and 2) The Rangers actually finished their chances on offense. They took two shots in the second period and scored on both of them.


http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2015/11/4/9668556/rangers-vs-capitals-take-those-two-points-and-run-away

Any fan who disagrees is being intellectually dishonest.

Some games you just don't get the bounces. That was one of them.

 

[usiel]

Caps had 33 scoring chances. Rangers had 33 shot attempts....

That INSANE!

Caps dominated. Rational Ranger fans even feel so:

- Like I said in the headline, you take these points and you run so far away you don't even remember where you're running. You run until your legs give out and you feel your body crash to the cold, unforgiving earth. And you pray that you weren't followed. The Rangers got slaughtered in this game the final 40 minutes. They had a good first period, and then the wheels fell off the wagon.

- Here's some raw statistics. The Rangers had 33 shot attempts in the game (the Capitals had 62) while the Capitals had 33 scoring chances in the game. No matter how you slice this game it's a disaster. I've already seen a few people say the Rangers had a good first and third period. I'm beginning to suspect that's because they're against metrics and don't want to admit that the eye test on its own doesn't work. One team did dominate this game, but that team lost 5-2.

- The Rangers won for two reasons: 1) Henrik Lundqvist, and 2) The Rangers actually finished their chances on offense. They took two shots in the second period and scored on both of them.


http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2015/11/4/9668556/rangers-vs-capitals-take-those-two-points-and-run-away

Any fan who disagrees is being intellectually dishonest.

Some games you just don't get the bounces. That was one of them.

Where the hell have you been slacker...