Thoughts on this Goal
- Thread starter Dicdonya
- Start date
It was a good shot, but absolutely saveable. It sucks that the defense allowed a good chance like that, but you still hope your goalie can stop it.
Something between 4 and 5 lets say 4.5
Jones played it about as well as he could have. Challenged past the top of his crease and Bourque wizzed it by his ear, there's really nothing he could have done apart from guessing/cheating on that location. Perfect shot.
The goaltender shold be one of the last people you think about assigning blame on that goal
Jones played it about as well as he could have. Challenged past the top of his crease and Bourque wizzed it by his ear, there's really nothing he could have done apart from guessing/cheating on that location. Perfect shot.
The goaltender shold be one of the last people you think about assigning blame on that goal
Clint Eastwood
Eff the Habs
- Nov 11, 2018
- 5,105
- 9,479
Dicdonya
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2011
- 4,444
- 2,590
If it's on anyone it's Burns. The puck starts hopping like a rat just when it gets to him, bad break, but what you're supposed to do in that situation is get your body in front of it and keep it along the boards until you can make a pass. Instead it looked like he didn't want to battle. Are the minutes catching up with him?
Dicdonya
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2011
- 4,444
- 2,590
Yeah he tried to get cute and attempted to backhand the puck down low to himself as he attempted to juke the defender but missed the puck/Conner stick checked him, and at the point Burns had already had his momentum going the other way.
Option 4. Can’t really fault the goalie on that. Perfect shot, coming in with tons of speed. Most goalies won’t stop that
tony d
New poll series coming from me on June 3
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,642
- 10,953
Mc5RingsAndABeer
5-14-6-1
- May 25, 2011
- 20,184
- 1,385
Voted 4, was between 3 and 4 as I didn't have a good angle of the exact shot, but I'd take the point of view that if you give NHLers a chance from there with that little pressure there's a decent chance they'll make it near-impossible for the goaltender, and that all the goaltender can do is take up as much net as possible and pray the shooter doesn't put it in an area he can't cover.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
It’s not something you necessarily blame the goaltender for, but the fact is that this ends up being a goal significantly less than 50% of the time.
It was from far out though, near the top of the circles. Even the best snipers like Ovechkin aren’t burying that even 50% or half the time.
I’m sure it can be proven analytically by looking at shots from that location in similar context (after a giveaway by the defense) and see what the Shooting % is.
I’d venture league average is 20-ish% on that kind of shot.
But you certainly can’t fault the goalie when the player makes the shot and puts the puck where Borque did.
You might know. What’s the expected shooting % on a shot from that location? And can you account for the turnover/giveaway component?
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Moneypuck’s expected goal model gave this shot a 3.7% chance of scoring. I don’t believe their model accounted for the turnover/giveaway component. I think there are some models that account for that stuff but I don’t think they will accurately account for the degree to which the odds of this particular shot scoring were increased by that component. I definitely think this shot had a greater chance of being a goal than 3.7%, but I think it was a hell of a lot closer to that than it was to 50%.
Wow, that’s crazily inaccurate imo. yeah I don’t buy that at all. But their odds might be affected by this thing going on...
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
That issue with tracking has since been fixed. The odds of this goal should not be effected by that at all.
Having said that, I do believe that this one was tracked slightly further from the net than where the puck was actually released from.
However, they aren't far apart. Bourque wasn't even parallel to the top of the circle when the puck was released. Jones had time to get square to the shooter. This shot, far more often than not, is not a goal. Maybe the shooter did a better job than most on the shot itself.
Mc5RingsAndABeer
5-14-6-1
- May 25, 2011
- 20,184
- 1,385
Correct me if I'm wrong but expected goals doesn't take into account defenders between the puck and the net or pressure on the shooter. I think that makes a big difference
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
The puck moved across the goaltender right before the shot which means this is probably a green chance.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
No, it doesn’t take that into account and that definitely does make a big difference. But I don’t buy that it bumps this shot up from a 3.7% chance of scoring, all the way to a 50% chance of scoring. That’s ridiculous.
Well, I voted for the last option, but second-the-last would work, too.
The thing is, it's a nice shot, high glove. It's from the very best scoring sector, the one where you just can't allow any shots from. The general expectation is that any good shot from that sector will be a goal, and I think this was a good shot. It's also after horizontal movement by the goaltender.
"50%" or whatever number you're quoting would be for any shot in that scoring chance, even ones that miss, or hit the crest. If it's a good shot like this one, the scoring chance goes way up. 50% might even be selling this one short.
Maybe? It's not tough to see if you have your eyes open.
The thing is, it's a nice shot, high glove. It's from the very best scoring sector, the one where you just can't allow any shots from. The general expectation is that any good shot from that sector will be a goal, and I think this was a good shot. It's also after horizontal movement by the goaltender.
What? 3.7%? It's the best scoring sector, squarely in the middle.
"50%" or whatever number you're quoting would be for any shot in that scoring chance, even ones that miss, or hit the crest. If it's a good shot like this one, the scoring chance goes way up. 50% might even be selling this one short.
Maybe? It's not tough to see if you have your eyes open.
1) Correct me if i'm wrong, but that appears to be Corsi shooting % right? So it's taking into accounts blocks and misses, and not just shots that made it on goal.
2) 44 feet is wildly inaccurate. Here is him after just releasing the puck, he's almost at the top hash mark. He was in full flight toward the net with the puck loaded on his stick, so he gained distance fast, inaccurate recording. faceoff dots are 20 feet from the goal line, he's at most 25-30 feet upon release.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Confirmed with Link: Sheldon Keefe Fired -- New Coach Discussion Thread
- Latest: Action Jackson
Upcoming events
-
Game 4 Providence Bruins @ Hartford Wolf Pack - Hartford Wolf Pack leads series 2-1Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 4 Belleville Senators @ Cleveland Monsters - Cleveland Monsters leads series 2-1Wagers: 2Staked: $125.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Game 5 Syracuse Crunch @ Rochester Americans - Series tied 2-2Wagers: 2Staked: $1,100.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
SEMIFINAL GAME 2 - Minnesota @ Toronto - Toronto leads 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $150.00Event closes- Updated:
