Updated line up

[ottomaddox]

i see plenty of evidence but then again i'm trying to be objective as opposed to having a pre determined opinion and ignoring any and all evidence like you seem to be doing

I don't think that there's a lot of variation in opinions. Most if not all are pre-determined.

 

[Fogelhund]

Tavares positioning himself below the puck away from the play in the o-zone which pulls him out of the position a C should be in

Hyman always blowing the d-zone before the puck is out of our end

players dragging there asses back on the back check hoping for a turnover so they can get fed up ice in the clear


i could keep going on but it'll be a waste of time since you've already decided it's all Andy's fault we give up so many goals

You've provided no evidence at all... no quotes, no links.

You've provided examples of bad play, which indicates neither intent to pad stats, nor much of anything. We can blame bad play, we can blame coaching, we can blame all kinds of things. But to attribute intent is speculative, and irresponsible. Correlation does not imply causation, with observed events.

Not once, have I blamed Andy for "so many goals", and you won't find evidence that I did so. You are correct in suggesting that forwards didn't play defensively well enough, but the difference being, I'm not attributing intent to it. I'd also suggest that the D core simply wasn't good enough, nor built right, but that's no secret, and it's been said for years now.

But, the assertion that there was intent from our forwards, appears to be baseless.

 

[hotpaws]

You've provided no evidence at all... no quotes, no links.

You've provided examples of bad play, which indicates neither intent to pad stats, nor much of anything. We can blame bad play, we can blame coaching, we can blame all kinds of things. But to attribute intent is speculative, and irresponsible. Correlation does not imply causation, with observed events.

Not once, have I blamed Andy for "so many goals", and you won't find evidence that I did so. You are correct in suggesting that forwards didn't play defensively well enough, but the difference being, I'm not attributing intent to it. I'd also suggest that the D core simply wasn't good enough, nor built right, but that's no secret, and it's been said for years now.

But, the assertion that there was intent from our forwards, appears to be baseless.

actions speak louder than words and why would anyone believe a player would actually come out and say he's cheating on D to try to pad there stats ? i can't blame them however since putting up points gets you paid

 

[Fogelhund]

actions speak louder than words and why would anyone believe a player would actually come out and say he's cheating on D to try to pad there stats ? i can't blame them however since putting up points gets you paid

It's their stats, not there.

I've seen some bad takes here, but this is one of the worst.

Baseless conclusion.

 

[hotpaws]

It's their stats, not there.

I've seen some bad takes here, but this is one of the worst.

Baseless conclusion.

baseless conclusions ?

i didn't give you examples of one off bad defensive plays but examples of consistent styles of play yet instead of supplying any type of rebuttal you give me a grammar lesson and just keep saying baseless conclusion even though as i said i did give you evidence to support my opinion

 

[X66]

and you have shot attempt stats to prove it , lol

love these shot attempt stats like x/goals which now have become gospel but also say

-if Mathews and Marner take a shot from the same area the chances of goal being scored are exactly the same
-don't take into account whether the player taking the shot shot has the time and space to load up and pick a spot or is being checked and just whacking the puck towards the net
-says a shot on a breakaway and a shot from a guy who is being checked have the exact same chance of going in if it's taken from the same area

yup , hell of a great stat if you ignore all the flaws which make it useless

I’ll tell you how to understand it but you’d probably still discredit it.

So, I’ll simplify.

The teams in the top 10 for either xga and xgf are usually the teams you’d expect to be there.

 

[hotpaws]

I’ll tell you how to understand it but you’d probably still discredit it.

So, I’ll simplify.

The teams in the top 10 for either xga and xgf are usually the teams you’d expect to be there.

so good teams have good stats , wow that's next level genius shit right there , lol

no idea what this has to do with what i said but since you can't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why you believe a shot from Mathews/Hyman from the same zone has the exact same chance of going in i guess we'll go with your goal post shift and call it a day

 

[X66]

so good teams have good stats , wow that's next level genius shit right there , lol

no idea what this has to do with what i said but since you can't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why you believe a shot from Mathews/Hyman from the same zone has the exact same chance of going in i guess we'll go with your goal post shift and call it a day

I don't know if your first sentence is ironic or not...lol

You discredit the stats, and then say it's not surprise that good teams have those stats lol.

Are you okay?

No one is saying that those shots are the same, but a high danger shot from any NHL player is still a high danger shot...

And the Leafs are at the top of high danger charts, and that's up and down the line-up...

 

[hotpaws]

I don't know if your first sentence is ironic or not...lol

You discredit the stats, and then say it's not surprise that good teams have those stats lol.

Are you okay?

No one is saying that those shots are the same, but a high danger shot from any NHL player is still a high danger shot...

And the Leafs are at the top of high danger charts, and that's up and down the line-up...

stats like x/g discredit themselves , they don't need any help from me

and no a high danger shot isn't necessarily a high danger shot depending on the circumstances since as i said both these shots are considered to have the exact same chance of going if they were taken from the same area

-player A takes a shot while having plenty of time and space to load up his shot and pick a spot

while

-player B is being checked and has no time and space and just weakly toss the puck at the net

this is just one problem with the x/g stat that you continually ignore so you can keep harping how they some invaluable tool for some reason

and i have no idea how anyone would want to put any faith in such a flawed stat especially since the team could break down game tape thoroughly and come up with exactly how many actual high danger chances there were without being reduced to just counting shots from areas

 

[Martin Skoula]

stats like x/g discredit themselves , they don't need any help from me

and no a high danger shot isn't necessarily a high danger shot depending on the circumstances since as i said both these shots are considered to have the exact same chance of going in

-player A takes a shot while having plenty of time and space to load up his shot and pick a spot

while

-player B is being checked and has no time and space and just weakly toss the puck at the net

this is just one problem with the x/g stat that you continually ignore so you can keep harping how they some invaluable tool for some reason

and i have no idea how anyone would want to put any faith in such a flawed stat especially since the team could break down game tape thoroughly and come up with exactly how many actual high danger chances there are without being reduced to just counting shots from areas

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that xG stats are derived over tens of thousands of data points of shot attempts from every player on every team in the league. It doesn't matter how many of those chances were with time and space or not, we have EVERY chance from those areas recorded and we know how many goals those chances produced. The amount of attempts that were screened or unscreened are literally factored into the data. How is it this hard to understand that taking more shots from that area is good regardless of whether its Matthews or Hyman taking them? The fact that you got into the slot with possession at all is a good thing, the other team does not want you doing that and is actively trying to stop you.

Car A drives uphill in -40 weather and gets 25 miles per gallon

while

Car B drives downhill in +15 weather and gets 35 miles per gallon

Because this one instance resulted in different MPGs, the idea of miles per gallon as a whole is therefore invalid and not a useful way to compare gas efficiency.

 

[X66]

stats like x/g discredit themselves , they don't need any help from me

and no a high danger shot isn't necessarily a high danger shot depending on the circumstances since as i said both these shots are considered to have the exact same chance of going if they were taken from the same area

-player A takes a shot while having plenty of time and space to load up his shot and pick a spot

while

-player B is being checked and has no time and space and just weakly toss the puck at the net

this is just one problem with the x/g stat that you continually ignore so you can keep harping how they some invaluable tool for some reason

and i have no idea how anyone would want to put any faith in such a flawed stat especially since the team could break down game tape thoroughly and come up with exactly how many actual high danger chances there were without being reduced to just counting shots from areas

Again, Hotpaws, take the time and try to understand.

You says stats like xga and xgf discredit themselves, but when some says the best offensive and defensive teams are all in the top 10 you discredit it.

What you continue to fail to understand is that xga factor in things like the type of shot, odd man rushes and breakaways...it's called game situation, check the video below. This should prove why your "Player B" scenario from above wouldn't be registered as a high danger chance.



If this doesn't prove to you WHY people find the stat valuable, it actually shows your unwillingness to understand.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Again, Hotpaws, take the time and try to understand.

You says stats like xga and xgf discredit themselves, but when some says the best offensive and defensive teams are all in the top 10 you discredit it.

What you continue to fail to understand is that xga factor in things like the type of shot, odd man rushes and breakaways...it's called game situation, check the video below. This should prove why your "Player B" scenario from above wouldn't be registered as a high danger chance.



If this doesn't prove to you WHY people find the stat valuable, it actually shows your unwillingness to understand.

My favorite part about this is that the people against it keep talking about "watching the game", but somehow multiple people watching every single shot attempt in every single game played isn't quite good enough for them.

 

[hotpaws]

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that xG stats are derived over tens of thousands of data points of shot attempts from every player on every team in the league. It doesn't matter how many of those chances were with time and space or not, we have EVERY chance from those areas recorded and we know how many goals those chances produced. The amount of attempts that were screened or unscreened are literally factored into the data. How is it this hard to understand that taking more shots from that area is good regardless of whether its Matthews or Hyman taking them? The fact that you got into the slot with possession at all is a good thing, the other team does not want you doing that and is actively trying to stop you.

Car A drives uphill in -40 weather and gets 25 miles per gallon

while

Car B drives downhill in +15 weather and gets 35 miles per gallon

Because this one instance resulted in different MPGs, the idea of miles per gallon as a whole is therefore invalid and not a useful way to compare gas efficiency.

what you keep ignoring is not every team isn't going to give up similar types of high danger shots over the course of the season so lumping them all together effectively renders this stat useless when evaluating individual teams regardless of how hard your trying to spin it

teams like Columbus/NYI will clog the high danger area and tradea higher number of contested shots from high danger areas for fewer but higher quality high danger shots

also there's a reason teams have there own analytical departments and it's not to simply collect the same stats available to the public , hell we don't know which if any of the stats available to the fans are even being used by the teams

 

[X66]

My favorite part about this is that the people against it keep talking about "watching the game", but somehow multiple people watching every single shot attempt in every single game played isn't quite good enough for them.

Don't you know, our eye test is better than the team that tracks nearly 300,000 shots league wide...by hand.

HFboards

 

[hotpaws]

My favorite part about this is that the people against it keep talking about "watching the game", but somehow multiple people watching every single shot attempt in every single game played isn't quite good enough for them.

my favorite part is how i used to be told corsi was the bestest , now it's x/g and tomorrow it'll be something else . lol

and x/g isn't determining what is an actual high danger shot . x/g counts shots from areas

but hey i guess we can dump all the scouts and anyone who has any experience in the game since the way to run/coach a team should be based on shots so all a team needs is a few guys with math degree's to run/coach the team

 

[X66]

my favorite part is how i used to be told corsi was the bestest , now it's x/g , and tomorrow it'll be something else . lol

and x/g isn't determining what is an actual high danger shot . x/g counts shots from areas

but hey i guess we can dump all the scouts and anyone who has any experience in the game since the way to run/coach a team should be based on shots so all a team needs is a few guys with math degree's to run/coach the team

Read my post and it will show that it does account for a lot more than from where the shot was taken...

And your last paragraph makes no sense. This is not something scouting/experience can determine lol, all it is are the results...you know, things that have already happened? The real point is, if your team has done well scouting wise and implements a good system, you’ll be on the right end of xga/xgf

 

[Martin Skoula]

what you keep ignoring is not every team isn't going to give up similar types of high danger shots over the course of the season so lumping them all together effectively renders this stat useless when evaluating individual teams regardless of how hard your trying to spin it

teams like Columbus/NYI will clog the high danger area and tradea higher number of contested shots from high danger areas for fewer but higher quality high danger shots

also there's a reason teams have there own analytical departments and it's not to simply collect the same stats available to the public , hell we don't know which if any of the stats available to the fans are even being used by the teams

Why do you keep saying that if something isn't 100% perfectly accurate it must be useless? xG also accounts for more than where the shot is taken from, you know that right? Whether the shot is contested or comes off a cross seam pass is accounted for.

I thought the narrative was that Columbus keeps everything to the outside? Once that was disproven it turned into "they let you shoot from HD areas on purpose obviously". It's their plan to have their goalie have to put up 35 saves and Hasek level save%.

As they're currently defined, do you think it's better for the Leafs to take more or less HD shots? Do you think it's better for the Leafs to allow more or less HD shots?

 

[hotpaws]

Read my post and it will show that it does account for a lot more than from where the shot was taken...

And your last paragraph makes no sense. This is not something scouting/experience can determine lol, all it is are the results...you know, things that have already happened? The real point is, if your team has done well scouting wise and implements a good system, you’ll be on the right end of xga/xgf

lets stop arguing over the stat since it's getting us no where and i'd like to know what you believe are it's uses in running the team going forward

also not in a general sense since every team is always looking to improve but in a more of which players does this stat single out that should be moved

 

[hotpaws]

Why do you keep saying that if something isn't 100% perfectly accurate it must be useless? xG also accounts for more than where the shot is taken from, you know that right? Whether the shot is contested or comes off a cross seam pass is accounted for.

I thought the narrative was that Columbus keeps everything to the outside? Once that was disproven it turned into "they let you shoot from HD areas on purpose obviously". It's their plan to have their goalie have to put up 35 saves and Hasek level save%.

As they're currently defined, do you think it's better for the Leafs to take more or less HD shots? Do you think it's better for the Leafs to allow more or less HD shots?

the Leafs have more than enough resources to break down exactly what happened in each and every one of their games and don't need to rely on outside information so why shouldn't they be 100@ accurate in a stat ?

to answer your question , sure it's better to take more high danger shots but it's also better that those shots come from Mathews than say Hyman

this stat is like telling a basketball fan that it doesn't matter who takes the 3 point shot because the chances of it going in is the same whether the shot is taken by Curry or Noah

 

[hotpaws]

Don't you know, our eye test is better than the team that tracks nearly 300,000 shots league wide...by hand.

HFboards

the problem is we'll not discussing league wide averages but what happened in one particular game or trends one particular team may have over the course of the season

 

[Martin Skoula]

the Leafs have more than enough resources to break down exactly what happened in each and every one of their games and don't need to rely on outside information so why shouldn't they be 100@ accurate in a stat ?

to answer your question , sure it's better to take more high danger shots but it's also better that those shots come from Mathews than say Hyman

this stat is like telling a basketball fan that it doesn't matter who takes the 3 point shot because the chances of it going in is the same whether the shot is taken by Curry or Noah

No predictive stat is 100% accurate. Once they have enough data points on whatever they're tracking internally, they can start testing changes to see if they improve or hurt those numbers.

Why do you keep making it Matthews vs Hyman? What we're talking about is Hyman shooting from the slot off a cross-seam pass vs Hyman shooting from the top of the circle. I want all of Hyman's shots to be HD shots. I want all of Matthews' shots to be HD shots. To put it another way, would you rather have an unscreened Matthews shot from the blueline or a Hyman shot from 2 feet out?

The basketball analogy isn't great considering there's no 3-goal zone to shoot from. If you got 2 goals for scoring from beyond the blueline that might be a valid discussion to change tactics to prioritize those types of shots. When every type of shot results in the same amount of goals, all you care about is how often the shot type goes in and how often you can set that shot type up.

xG is shooter agnostic, a good shooter will outperform it and a bad shooter will underperform it. We're not measuring the quality of the shooter, we're looking the ability of their team to play in a way that allows someone to take shots from valuable areas and prevent it on their side.

 

[hotpaws]

No predictive stat is 100% accurate. Once they have enough data points on whatever they're tracking internally, they can start testing changes to see if they improve or hurt those numbers.

Why do you keep making it Matthews vs Hyman? What we're talking about is Hyman shooting from the slot off a cross-seam pass vs Hyman shooting from the top of the circle. I want all of Hyman's shots to be HD shots. I want all of Matthews' shots to be HD shots. To put it another way, would you rather have an unscreened Matthews shot from the blueline or a Hyman shot from 2 feet out?

The basketball analogy isn't great considering there's no 3-goal zone to shoot from. If you got 2 goals for scoring from beyond the blueline that might be a valid discussion to change tactics to prioritize those types of shots. When every type of shot results in the same amount of goals, all you care about is how often the shot type goes in and how often you can set that shot type up.

xG is shooter agnostic, a good shooter will outperform it and a bad shooter will underperform it. We're not measuring the quality of the shooter, we're looking the ability of their team to play in a way that allows someone to take shots from valuable areas and prevent it on their side.

the basketball analogy fits perfectly since we're not counting how many points are scored but the % of shots that go in from a certain area just like xg is doing in hockey , you just don't like it because you know how absurd it sounds to not take into account who's taking the shot

for me stats are of value if they help the GM/Coach in his decision making moving forward and not by telling the them what happened in a game where all there'd need to do is re watch the tape to see exactly what happened

since we don't know what teams track nor what they believe has value all we're doing is going around in circles .

 

[Martin Skoula]

the basketball analogy fits perfectly since we're not counting how many points are scored but the % of shots that go in from a certain area just like xg is doing in hockey , you just don't like it because you know how absurd it sounds to not take into account who's taking the shot

for me stats are of value if they help the GM/Coach in his decision making moving forward and not by telling the them what happened in a game where all there'd need to do is re watch the tape to see exactly what happened

since we don't know what teams track nor what they believe have value all we're doing is going around in circles .

What? If field goals were worth 2 points no team would prioritize taking field goal attempts, all the traffic would be from higher conversion areas close to the net.

Nobody is denying shooter quality doesn't matter lol, I don't know why you picked that hill to die on. Obviously you want Matthews taking the shot over Hyman, but he isn't on the ice 60 minutes a game and it's better if Hyman takes shots close to the net, how is this remotely controversial?

 

[hotpaws]

What? If field goals were worth 2 points no team would prioritize taking field goal attempts, all the traffic would be from higher conversion areas close to the net.

Nobody is denying shooter quality doesn't matter lol, I don't know why you picked that hill to die on. Obviously you want Matthews taking the shot over Hyman, but he isn't on the ice 60 minutes a game and it's better if Hyman takes shots close to the net, how is this remotely controversial?

some field goals are worth 2pts others are worth 3 and in the NBA they prioritize scoring in the paint or scoring from beyond the arc , the difference between hockey and basketball is the limited possessions so they try to score as efficiently as possible (this however is a different topic)

it's not a hill i'm dying on , it's a flaw i keep bringing up because you kept ignoring it until now and my main point is you can't apply this stat which takes a league wide macro look at scoring and apply it in a micro way

 

[X66]

the problem is we'll not discussing league wide averages but what happened in one particular game or trends one particular team may have over the course of the season

But you still haven't acknowledged that xga/xgf take INTO account for things like breakaways, odd man rushes and tap ins etc. They DO NOT take into account those flutter shots etc, which is why people find value in the stats.

There is a reason why the teams you expect to be at the top for xga are there, and there is a reason the teams you expect to see at the top for xgf are there.

Over the course of a season, playoff series, playoff run - the stats are a great indicator to tell you a teams strengths and weaknesses.