Post-Game Talk: Tipped Off | Oilers lose series 3-1

[Drivesaitl]

I'd like to see some evidence that scoring is more likely from the point than from in close in the playoffs. I doubt it is true at all. These sorts of stats are not absolute. That's a given. But there is a undeniable correlation between where a shot attempt is initiated from and the likelihood of a goal. Why would this somehow change in the playoffs?

Statistically over 50% of NHL goals are scored within 20 ft of the net. The range between 10ft and 20 ft is the sweet-spot. That distance is the right balance between being close enough to limit the goalies reaction time and far enough away to give the shooter a bigger target. The HDSC are generally unblocked shots in this range or all shots from closer in. Once you are outside 30 ft the chances of a goal drops significantly.

Here is the shot map for Leon this year. He scored virtually all of his goals within this range.

MoneyPuck.com -Shot Maps

5 vs 5 this is even more pronounced.

MoneyPuck.com -Shot Maps

I'd be curious to know who these players are on the Hawks who typically score from further out. Kane for example scored 1 5 vs 5 goal from outside the dot.

MoneyPuck.com -Shot Maps

Kubalik is similar

MoneyPuck.com -Shot Maps

Toews scores from basically right in front of the net

MoneyPuck.com -Shot Maps

The one guy I can think of who might be the exception is OV. He scores from everywhere but he also shoots from everywhere.

Again, this is not to take anything away from Chicago. I think they played as well as they could. I also think that they got every break they could expect. Getting big goals from guys like Matt Highmore is not something one would expect any more than one would have expected Haas to get the game 4 winner. Kkk and Matta are not exactly known for their goal scoring. Keith is really the only defenseman they have who has teh skill you are attributing to the Hawk defensemen.

I don't think I stated more goals are scored from the point. I said in playoffs more of the goals are scored from the point than is the case in the regular season. Things are tighter in playoff hockey, typically, and so that teamss in tight games look more for every way to score. At least teams that know better do.

But again the Hawks scored 10 goals originating from the point. Thats why they won. In anycase the Hawks scored several, that would never even be considered scoring chances under the typical metrics.

I mean kudos to knock yourself out with kinds of stats but I wouldn't be spending that much time on any of until the NHL actually has sensor pucks, sticks, skates etc, and that the data is quantifiable, and accurate.

 

[The Panther]

The Hawks took inspiration from Tippet's name to win the series.

 

[tardigrade81]

Leafs lost.


That is all.

 

[McJadeddog]

I'd like to see some evidence that scoring is more likely from the point than from in close in the playoffs. I doubt it is true at all. These sorts of stats are not absolute. That's a given. But there is a undeniable correlation between where a shot attempt is initiated from and the likelihood of a goal. Why would this somehow change in the playoffs?

Statistically over 50% of NHL goals are scored within 20 ft of the net. The range between 10ft and 20 ft is the sweet-spot. That distance is the right balance between being close enough to limit the goalies reaction time and far enough away to give the shooter a bigger target. The HDSC are generally unblocked shots in this range or all shots from closer in. Once you are outside 30 ft the chances of a goal drops significantly.

Everything you are saying is as obvious as the nose on my face, but it won't be enough evidence for some people.

As for the bolded part, I would bet everything I own that there is still a remarkably high correlation between shot distance and goal % in the playoffs. It might be slightly different in the playoffs, but the rule will still hold to almost the exact same metrics as the regular season. Again, this is obvious.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Leafs lost.


That is all.

This is a W for everybody else. At least I take it that way.

I feel almost as good as if the Oilers won a game today..

In life its important to take pleasure from things.

 

[McJadeddog]

I'd like to see some evidence that scoring is more likely from the point than from in close in the playoffs. I doubt it is true at all. These sorts of stats are not absolute. That's a given. But there is a undeniable correlation between where a shot attempt is initiated from and the likelihood of a goal. Why would this somehow change in the playoffs?

Statistically over 50% of NHL goals are scored within 20 ft of the net. The range between 10ft and 20 ft is the sweet-spot. That distance is the right balance between being close enough to limit the goalies reaction time and far enough away to give the shooter a bigger target. The HDSC are generally unblocked shots in this range or all shots from closer in. Once you are outside 30 ft the chances of a goal drops significantly.

Everything you are saying is as obvious as the nose on my face, but it won't be enough evidence for some people.

As for the bolded part, I would bet everything I own that there is still a remarkably high correlation between shot distance and goal % in the playoffs. It might be slightly different in the playoffs, but the rule will still hold to almost the exact same metrics as the regular season. Again, this is obvious.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Everything you are saying is as obvious as the nose on my face, but it won't be enough evidence for some people.

As for the bolded part, I would bet everything I own that there is still a remarkably high correlation between shot distance and goal % in the playoffs. It might be slightly different in the playoffs, but the rule will still hold to almost the exact same metrics as the regular season. Again, this is obvious.

it changes in the playoffs for the exact reason I mention. Knowing that games are typically closer checking in the playoffs (except oilers) teams find different ways to score. One of those different ways is firing away from the point, trying to get deflections, trying to bang home rebounds etc. Not as many goals in playoffs are going to be hilite reels or tic tac toe. Those teams going for perfect plays generally go home. As the Leafs did today, or the Oilers on Friday.

What needs to be understood is that many goals in the playoffs start out with such things as shots from the point. While where they are deflected matters, its the mechanism of the point shot that creates the play, and without a touch here and there, isn't even considered a scoring chance.

In fact the funny thing about scoring chance metrics is deflections generally aren't considered scoring chances, and even if the puck goes in. Yet they are certainly scoring chances. That the Hawks scored at least 10 of their goals from the point is just another indication that "scoring chance" metrics are often just noise that don't really mean much of anything.

Hockey is not baseball, and its a hard sport to statistically quantify. It isn't any lack of comprehension on my part to state that, its peeling the onion further to reveal some complexities in hockey, that defy easy analysis.

 

[Cloned]

it changes in the playoffs for the exact reason I mention. Knowing that games are typically closer checking in the playoffs (except oilers) teams find different ways to score. One of those different ways is firing away from the point, trying to get deflections, trying to bang home rebounds etc. Not as many goals in playoffs are going to be hilite reels or tic tac toe. Those teams going for perfect plays generally go home. As the Leafs did today, or the Oilers on Friday.

What needs to be understood is that many goals in the playoffs start out with such things as shots from the point. While where they are deflected matters, its the mechanism of the point shot that creates the play, and without a touch here and there, isn't even considered a scoring chance.

In fact the funny thing about scoring chance metrics is deflections generally aren't considered scoring chances, and even if the puck goes in. Yet they are certainly scoring chances. That the Hawks scored at least 10 of their goals from the point is just another indication that "scoring chance" metrics are often just noise that don't really mean much of anything.

Hockey is not baseball, and its a hard sport to statistically quantify. It isn't any lack of comprehension on my part to state that, its peeling the onion further to reveal some complexities in hockey, that defy easy analysis.

Hockey is at least 50% luck these days. It’s not like the 80s where skill usually won out.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Hockey is at least 50% luck these days. It’s not like the 80s where skill usually won out.

With advanced team systems any game played at a higher level is increasingly about increasing coefficients of those chances. About increasing probability of random events taking place around opponent goal. Players like Smyth understood this. By all means generate some chaos around opponent goal, create rebounds, loose pucks, open chances. Work for point shots, deflections, etc.

You can say that its about luck except the Oilers and Hawks could play several more games in this series and all approaches remaining the same the Hawks probably win because the hawks are doing more of the things that can increase that *luck* quotient. Which i don't buy is sole luck. The old addage is you make your luck, you make your breaks, and generating a ton of pt shots and practicing tipping those home is a good way to cheat code that.

I bet the Hawks spend hours and hours on tip and deflection drills and the Oilers don't . Is that luck?

 

[Cloned]

With advanced team systems any game played at a higher level is increasingly about increasing coefficients of those chances. About increasing probability of random events taking place around opponent goal. Players like Smyth understood this. By all means generate some chaos around opponent goal, create rebounds, loose pucks, open chances. Work for point shots, deflections, etc.

You can say that its about luck except the Oilers and Hawks could play several more games in this series and all approaches remaining the same the Hawks probably win because the hawks are doing more of the things that can increase that *luck* quotient. Which i don't buy is sole luck. The old addage is you make your luck, you make your breaks, and generating a ton of pt shots and practicing tipping those home is a good way to cheat code that.

I bet the Hawks spend hours and hours on tip and deflection drills and the Oilers don't . Is that luck?

I agree in part. But your last paragraph - yes it is still luck, because it’s still reliant on bounces going your way.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I agree in part. But your last paragraph - yes it is still luck, because it’s still reliant on bounces going your way.

The way to increase good bounces is to increase and generate the types of plays likely to create those good bounces. One team in the series understood that principal entirely. The other team was looking for real solid Corsi numbers to advance in the series...

Hey, its OK. The Oilers advanced to the first round of the EA sponsored Anayltics cup. The skies the limit.

The funny thing is just look at a player like RNH shooting anytime he gets the chance. Goalie is completely square to him, unscreened, doesn't matter, Nuge keeps shooting. 5 times in the series at least the better play was to pass off to the guy that had a tap in empty net. (often draisaitl) Doesn't matter, once Nuge is stepping forward he's taking that shot into logos everytime. But he has legend Corsi numbers probably. not so great shot percentage numbers though. Man, if Nuge ever faked shot, and passed off at last second he'd fake most opponents never expecting that to occur, because its extremely rare that he does it.

 

[Cloned]

The way to increase good bounces is to increase and generate the types of plays likely to create those good bounces. One team in the series understood that principal entirely. The other team was looking for real solid Corsi numbers to advance in the series...

Hey, its OK. The Oilers advanced to the first round of the EA sponsored Anayltics cup. The skies the limit.

The funny thing is just look at a player like RNH shooting anytime he gets the chance. Goalie is completely square to him, unscreened, doesn't matter, Nuge keeps shooting. 5 times in the series at least the better play was to pass off to the guy that had a tap in empty net. (often draisaitl) Doesn't matter, once Nuge is stepping forward he's taking that shot into logos everytime. But he has legend Corsi numbers probably. not so great shot percentage numbers though. Man, if Nuge ever faked shot, and passed off at last second he'd fake most opponents never expecting that to occur, because its extremely rare that he does it.

I get what you’re saying, I’m just saying that hockey is by nature reliant on bounces and deflections going your way. Even in the 80s this was true, but it’s impact has only increased as systems play and goaltending have evolved.

 

[McJadeddog]

it changes in the playoffs for the exact reason I mention. Knowing that games are typically closer checking in the playoffs (except oilers) teams find different ways to score. One of those different ways is firing away from the point, trying to get deflections, trying to bang home rebounds etc. Not as many goals in playoffs are going to be hilite reels or tic tac toe. Those teams going for perfect plays generally go home. As the Leafs did today, or the Oilers on Friday.

What needs to be understood is that many goals in the playoffs start out with such things as shots from the point. While where they are deflected matters, its the mechanism of the point shot that creates the play, and without a touch here and there, isn't even considered a scoring chance.

In fact the funny thing about scoring chance metrics is deflections generally aren't considered scoring chances, and even if the puck goes in. Yet they are certainly scoring chances. That the Hawks scored at least 10 of their goals from the point is just another indication that "scoring chance" metrics are often just noise that don't really mean much of anything.

Hockey is not baseball, and its a hard sport to statistically quantify. It isn't any lack of comprehension on my part to state that, its peeling the onion further to reveal some complexities in hockey, that defy easy analysis.

This is ALL 100% conjecture. Find me the stats that show more goals in the playoffs are scored from the point, otherwise stop talking about it as if its a fact. I'm not even saying I know you are wrong, I *don't* know that. I think you are wrong because the regular season stats show you being very very wrong, and I don't think it changes that much in the playoffs. But I have certainly been wrong before, lol. You are saying that something is fact, then please try and prove it as such.

You might be able to DM a guy like Blake McCurdy on twitter for these stats if you can't find them anywhere, as I'm sure he'll have them. If I have some time tomorrow I'll take a poke around and see if I can find them as well.

 

[McJadeddog]

With advanced team systems any game played at a higher level is increasingly about increasing coefficients of those chances. About increasing probability of random events taking place around opponent goal. Players like Smyth understood this. By all means generate some chaos around opponent goal, create rebounds, loose pucks, open chances. Work for point shots, deflections, etc.

You can say that its about luck except the Oilers and Hawks could play several more games in this series and all approaches remaining the same the Hawks probably win because the hawks are doing more of the things that can increase that *luck* quotient. Which i don't buy is sole luck. The old addage is you make your luck, you make your breaks, and generating a ton of pt shots and practicing tipping those home is a good way to cheat code that.

I bet the Hawks spend hours and hours on tip and deflection drills and the Oilers don't . Is that luck?

You do realize that just because old-timey hockey guys say something, it doesn't mean its true right? Hell, for decades the thought was that dumping the puck in was just as good of an offensive play as carrying the puck into the zone. Turns out that they were just a BIT off with that one (about 200% off actually). Like, I understand what you are saying, the if you throw enough pucks towards the net and plant your arse in the blue paint, that eventually one of those pucks will deflect off you, or rebound right onto your stick with a waiting wide open net. I'm not disagreeing with that really. What I'm saying is that statistical methods, that take all those things into account (such as HDSC), show that the Oilers had a significant advantage over the Hawks, but yet the Hawks scored more goals. That is almost the very definition of the term "puck luck".

Your last sentence is, again, pure conjecture and you are putting forward no evidence whatsoever to prove it.

 

[iCanada]

I agree in part. But your last paragraph - yes it is still luck, because it’s still reliant on bounces going your way.

Idk, just because there is luck doesn't mean there isn't an expected value to certain choices and doing things a certain way. If you break every hockey shift down into 1000 little hands of poker, thats more or less what you have. Staying on the right side of the puck has a high expected value than not staying on the right side of the puck, etc.

 

[Cloned]

Idk, just because there is luck doesn't mean there isn't an expected value to certain choices and doing things a certain way. If you break every hockey shift down into 1000 little hands of poker, thats more or less what you have. Staying on the right side of the puck has a high expected value than not staying on the right side of the puck, etc.

I didn’t say it’s all luck. But I think it’s greater than 50% these days. As systems and goaltending have evolved, it’s made it more statistically (and practically as well) unlikely to score on any one single chance. You need a certain degree of puck luck to win.

 

[McJadeddog]

The way to increase good bounces is to increase and generate the types of plays likely to create those good bounces. One team in the series understood that principal entirely. The other team was looking for real solid Corsi numbers to advance in the series...

Hey, its OK. The Oilers advanced to the first round of the EA sponsored Anayltics cup. The skies the limit.

The funny thing is just look at a player like RNH shooting anytime he gets the chance. Goalie is completely square to him, unscreened, doesn't matter, Nuge keeps shooting. 5 times in the series at least the better play was to pass off to the guy that had a tap in empty net. (often draisaitl) Doesn't matter, once Nuge is stepping forward he's taking that shot into logos everytime. But he has legend Corsi numbers probably. not so great shot percentage numbers though. Man, if Nuge ever faked shot, and passed off at last second he'd fake most opponents never expecting that to occur, because its extremely rare that he does it.

Again, the facts show you as being wrong.

RNH generally is not very good in corsi (48.5 in his career, and 47.3 this year) while his shooting % is significantly better than league average (11.9% career, and 12.8% this season). The league shooting % has been between 8.5-9% over RNH's career.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Again, the facts show you as being wrong.

RNH generally is not very good in corsi (48.5 in his career, and 47.3 this year) while his shooting % is significantly better than league average (11.9% career, and 12.8% this season). The league shooting % has been between 8.5-9% over RNH's career.

Nuge's career shooting percentage and ability does not befit somebody that was a #1 pick and that was chosen for offensive capabilitty. Um, yeah, I would expect a #1 pick alleged to have high scoring ability to be better than league average...jesus

 

[Drivesaitl]

You do realize that just because old-timey hockey guys say something, it doesn't mean its true right? Hell, for decades the thought was that dumping the puck in was just as good of an offensive play as carrying the puck into the zone. Turns out that they were just a BIT off with that one (about 200% off actually). Like, I understand what you are saying, the if you throw enough pucks towards the net and plant your arse in the blue paint, that eventually one of those pucks will deflect off you, or rebound right onto your stick with a waiting wide open net. I'm not disagreeing with that really. What I'm saying is that statistical methods, that take all those things into account (such as HDSC), show that the Oilers had a significant advantage over the Hawks, but yet the Hawks scored more goals. That is almost the very definition of the term "puck luck".

Your last sentence is, again, pure conjecture and you are putting forward no evidence whatsoever to prove it.

The HDSC do not take all those point shots and deflections into account, and yet, they are goals. The attempt to define hockey, and what are scoring chances, and what are not, is problematic at best.

I had a good chuckle in one of the stats accounts where an Oilers line in one game was outscored 2-0 and yet had a 5-1 Scoring chance advantage in the game. Which really amounts to nothing. I mean people must be really bored to keep stats like this and frankly I wonder why they waste their time. Find better hobbies..

 

[Drivesaitl]

This is ALL 100% conjecture. Find me the stats that show more goals in the playoffs are scored from the point, otherwise stop talking about it as if its a fact. I'm not even saying I know you are wrong, I *don't* know that. I think you are wrong because the regular season stats show you being very very wrong, and I don't think it changes that much in the playoffs. But I have certainly been wrong before, lol. You are saying that something is fact, then please try and prove it as such.

You might be able to DM a guy like Blake McCurdy on twitter for these stats if you can't find them anywhere, as I'm sure he'll have them. If I have some time tomorrow I'll take a poke around and see if I can find them as well.

I'm not sure how I could word this more clearly and still have people misinterpret what I'm stating. Again, more shots from the point result in goals in the playoffs, than is the case in the regular season. because in the playoffs teams increasingly, in tight coverage, look for different ways to grind out some goals.

I have not stated that most goals in playoffs are generated from the point. That was never my argument. Just that the proportion coming from the point increases in the playoffs.

hope this is clear

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Dave Tippett still sucks ass. Complete fraud of a coach.

But the Leafs losing makes this funny.

 

[Gordy Elbows]

I blame it on him not taking my advice and growing his moustache again. Absolute shame.

Nuge stepped up with his porn / racetrack number...killed the karma in the room.

 

[Gordy Elbows]

When we talk generally, there's only a subtle difference in the terms "cautious" and "responsible". In hockey coaching, there is a big difference between those terms. Tippett's main pro experience comes from Arizona: a siberia for skill and talent, and pay cheques were earned by hard-nosed checking hockey. That's how they stayed alive....and every player had to be cautious (defend first and foremost).
Alternatively, there is "responsible" play. Offence is at least an equal part of the game plan and structure and skilled players are on the roster. They are coached to be responsible when playing without the puck (think Jon Cooper - Tampa) but never discouraged from being creative and forceful on the attack.

We needed a good dose of Tippett to get our collective heads into defensive play and appreciating why that mattered (think playoffs). But it may be time to take a bigger step toward responsible play and rekindle offence (not at expense of defence, but in collaboration). We have a lacking 5v5 track record which is the telling of offensive success. (PP aren't as hard to figure.) And we need to build confidence and commitment to the offensive side. Tippett won't get us there.

 

[McDNicks17]

The HDSC do not take all those point shots and deflections into account, and yet, they are goals. The attempt to define hockey, and what are scoring chances, and what are not, is problematic at best.

I had a good chuckle in one of the stats accounts where an Oilers line in one game was outscored 2-0 and yet had a 5-1 Scoring chance advantage in the game. Which really amounts to nothing. I mean people must be really bored to keep stats like this and frankly I wonder why they waste their time. Find better hobbies..

That was from a post on here and was 5-1 for high danger chances not scoring chances, by the way.

 

[bellagiobob]