|
Pungry posted:Good point. I'll prepend every post I have from now on apologizing for everything my favorite hockey teams have done that was wrong. Yeah just start each post with one, like a land acknowledgement. A multiplatform callback? They said it couldn't be done. Take that, doubters.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:I'm not proud of it but that would require us to stop being hockey fans altogether and none of us has that much self control I found it shockingly easy to stop watching the beautiful sport of hockey when it turned out that like half of every player, coach, and front office member from every team turned out to be a sex pest or a sex pest enabler. I am sorry that you have not found the strength to do the same, and that you still feel the need to rip on a fan base about their bad cheap owner when your bad cheap owner enabled sexual assault. smh
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Pungry posted:I'm not defending any of what the Coyotes do. I get annoyed when people get mad at the fanbase for defending their team. They're fans. What do you expect? watch a Suns game
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:The Kraken haven't yet covered up any abuse. Their GM "handled" Bill Peters kicking and punching his own players!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Darude - Adam Sandstorm posted:Their GM "handled" Bill Peters kicking and punching his own players! Yeah but we knew that when they hired him so it wasn't a cover up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Francis was already hired by the Kraken when the Peters stuff all was revealed. I'm not sure the Kraken ever publicly commented on it, though Karamanos said that Francis never told him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Darude - Adam Sandstorm posted:Francis was already hired by the Kraken when the Peters stuff all was revealed. I'm not sure the Kraken ever publicly commented on it, though Karamanos said that Francis never told him. I mean sure that’s something I could have easily looked up had I remembered for a second that they hired him well before their inaugural season, but have you considered how much more time that would have taken?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Or better yet, your own team affiliation doesn’t keep you from being able to criticize bad things other teams are doing. Especially when you’re already also being critical of how the people in charge of your team are acting. People are capable of doing both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
I continue to watch and support the Washington Capitals as a protest against our government continuing to recklessly arm Ukraine and line the pockets of defense contractor CEOs. I also like watching Ovie sock dingers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
Jhet posted:Or better yet, your own team affiliation doesn’t keep you from being able to criticize bad things other teams are doing. Especially when you’re already also being critical of how the people in charge of your team are acting. People are capable of doing both. criticize the things the team is doing why poo poo on the fan base for it tho? who does that benefit
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Making your opponent get changed in what appears to be something out of the film Children of Men is some clever psychological warfare. Especially since every visiting team will be hungover from golfing the day before already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Sex pests are just the new enforcers and every team has to have one to protect the reputation of star players
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Wonderllama posted:Sex pests are just the new enforcers and every team has to have one to protect the reputation of star players Sean Avery predicted all dis... Pungry posted:I think it'll be unquestionably Jarry and Kuemper as the main two, and then Maple Leafs legend James Reimer as the 3rd. that's wild. I think Jarry is a pretty good goalie but that's pretty clearly Canada's worst-ever goalie duo/trio. I think the US might be favored against something like: F: Marner-McDavid-Stamkos Huberdeau-Sid-MacKinnon Marchand-O’Reilly-Stone Duchene-Kadri-Point ex: Scheifele? Reinhart? Thomas? Kyrou? Bedard? Tavares? D: Toews-Makar Rielly-Ekblad Theodore-Pietrangelo ex: Letang, Weegar, Hamilton? Doughty? G: Jarry Kuemper Binnington i'm sure I'm forgetting someone. I think the US's roster is better than that. DO YALL WANT A BOXC fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Oct 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/draglikepull/status/1585370549781688320 god drat I love Phil E: this does make me wonder what the magazine was. There's no way he's a sports or news rag guy. DJExile fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Oct 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
bub spank posted:https://twitter.com/moneypuckdotcom/status/1585249320390926336?s=46&t=2NYqmCdl2y9NYvHejHjKfA Sorry I'm a bit of a hockey newbie: I think I vaguely understand what xGoals are, and xgoals per 60 minutes makes sense to me as a way to rank defender pairings. But I don't know what "xgoal%" is or why that would be better than xgoals per 60? It's weird to me that a couple of Kraken defender pairings show up in the list but actually appear to have pretty mediocre xgoal per 60 minute scores (and generally it seemed commonly accepted to me that Kraken defense is bad). I'm a Kraken fan btw, obviously that's why I'm new. Hi NHL thread peeps!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Sorry I'm a bit of a hockey newbie: I think I vaguely understand what xGoals are, and xgoals per 60 minutes makes sense to me as a way to rank defender pairings. But I don't know what "xgoal%" is or why that would be better than xgoals per 60? It's weird to me that a couple of Kraken defender pairings show up in the list but actually appear to have pretty mediocre xgoal per 60 minute scores (and generally it seemed commonly accepted to me that Kraken defense is bad). xGoal% is taking the total of XGoalsFor and XGoalsAgainst, adding them together and giving you the % of xGoalsFor from that. So if the xGoalsFor is 60 and the XGoalsAgainst is 40, the XGoals% is 60 (60/100)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Sorry I'm a bit of a hockey newbie: I think I vaguely understand what xGoals are, and xgoals per 60 minutes makes sense to me as a way to rank defender pairings. But I don't know what "xgoal%" is or why that would be better than xgoals per 60? It's weird to me that a couple of Kraken defender pairings show up in the list but actually appear to have pretty mediocre xgoal per 60 minute scores (and generally it seemed commonly accepted to me that Kraken defense is bad). It's the ratio of expected for vs expected against. Generation of 2 xGF per 60 and having 1 xGA per 60 would have a 66% xG split.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Sorry I'm a bit of a hockey newbie: I think I vaguely understand what xGoals are, and xgoals per 60 minutes makes sense to me as a way to rank defender pairings. But I don't know what "xgoal%" is or why that would be better than xgoals per 60? It's weird to me that a couple of Kraken defender pairings show up in the list but actually appear to have pretty mediocre xgoal per 60 minute scores (and generally it seemed commonly accepted to me that Kraken defense is bad). It’s the percent of expected goals while the pairing is on the ice. So Soucy-Borgen would be having 61% of the expected goals go for the Kraken while they’re skating. It means they’re more likely to be doing things that will lead to a goal and also defending okay at the same time. They have had some better shifts defensively, but their forward support and breakouts is some left stick forward garbage. It works once in a while like with Geekie the other night against Buffalo, but will also lead to a lot of turnovers and extended d-zone time from not making smart passes to get out of the zone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Sorry I'm a bit of a hockey newbie: I think I vaguely understand what xGoals are, and xgoals per 60 minutes makes sense to me as a way to rank defender pairings. But I don't know what "xgoal%" is or why that would be better than xgoals per 60? It's weird to me that a couple of Kraken defender pairings show up in the list but actually appear to have pretty mediocre xgoal per 60 minute scores (and generally it seemed commonly accepted to me that Kraken defense is bad). The Kraken and the Devils for the last couple of years (the Kraken less so than the Devils) have been ranked pretty highly by the advanced stats nerds in terms of "expected goals". Most of the public data says that it's more of a problem with Seattle + NJ's goalies playing like dog poo poo instead of their team defense being bad. That said, that public data has blind spots (IIRC it doesn't take into account whether a shot happened right after a pass, which we know from other data is more likely to be a goal). The Devils have been "underperforming" for years, and the Kraken have Dave Hakstol as a coach, who apparently throws a wrench into these things, as the available stats can't compensate for his lovely defensive system or whatever. So: I would take those rankings with a big dose of salt. The sample size is obviously small, but they're still fairly flawed, even if they're the best hard data stats available. Unfortunately, there wasn't a 20 year boom period of publicly available research and stat tracking before teams wised up like in baseball. All of the good poo poo goes directly to teams now, even if it's fairly clear most don't use it and instead rely on Grit Score, Toughness Factor, Big Body +/-, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Got it, thanks! So ranking defenders by that seems weird right? Because xG% seems like it is a 5 man effort, while xGA / 60 seems more targeted at the defense specifically? (obviously the other 3 guys play a role there as well, but at least it's a bit more specific to the defender) Edit: And yeah I obviously don't really know what I'm talking about but my impression from the first year and 8 games is that our goalies suck poo poo and the defensive scheme/coaching seems questionable. DancingMachine fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Oct 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Got it, thanks! So ranking defenders by that seems weird right? Because xG% seems like it is a 5 man effort, while xGA / 60 seems more targeted at the defense specifically? (obviously the other 3 guys play a role there as well, but at least it's a bit more specific to the defender) It’s not perfect for sure. It does tell a lot of things, but the terrible games this year have not been just because Grubauer or Jones have been bad, it’s because they’re getting hung out to dry by turnovers and East-West puck movement. Carolina exploited this a ton, and the 5 goals for Chicago were mostly bad turnovers leading to breaks. They’re very invested in playing really fast up the ice with the D noticeably involved in the rush this year. I’d love to see passing stats, but I don’t know anywhere with that level of granularity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Got it, thanks! So ranking defenders by that seems weird right? Because xG% seems like it is a 5 man effort, while xGA / 60 seems more targeted at the defense specifically? (obviously the other 3 guys play a role there as well, but at least it's a bit more specific to the defender) Well at a very basic level the job of a hockey team is to score more goals on the opponent than they allow, so trying to record whether that is happening while an individual player is on the ice is a reasonable thing to do, whether their primary job is scoring goals or preventing goals. There is a metric called plus minus which was kind of viewed this way by hockey traditionalists, which was simply the difference between the number of goals scored vs. allowed while an individual player was on the ice at 5v5 (actually also included goals scored while on the PK and allowed while on the PP but in a large part it was a 5v5 stat). The thing is people realized that there were things happening on the ice and influencing these goal totals that were hypothesized to be largely outside of an individual player's control (the shooting / goaltending "luck" at either end of the rink while they were on the ice*). The expected goals formulas are an attempt to normalize shooting and goaltending out of the equation and just look at how many events are happening at what locations on the ice to get an idea of who is doing a good job of driving play. *The question of whether players can influence the shooting outcomes of other players for or against while on the ice is highly contentious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Got it, thanks! So ranking defenders by that seems weird right? Because xG% seems like it is a 5 man effort, while xGA / 60 seems more targeted at the defense specifically? (obviously the other 3 guys play a role there as well, but at least it's a bit more specific to the defender) Not really, to be honest. Hockey is such a team sport and defensemen are increasingly part of the offense. This has been a trend going back 50 years to Bobby Orr, who revolutionized the sport in the west by being the first guy to do it, and by the increasing philosophical prevalence of "defenders have to join the offense" (the old Soviet teams revolutionized this, as they brought "total hockey" or "positionless hockey" to the sport and dominated). Teams have realized that puck possession and controlling the play is better than just "defending", so a lot of the guys that would be the "best" at xGA / 60 are actually just the guys who don't ever give up the puck and keep the puck in the offensive zone. The best defense is a good offense, etc. You'll still see stuff on broadcasts about "this guy is in the top 5 in blocks AND hits". Generally speaking, if you're near the top as a defenseman for blocks and hits, you're probably giving up a ton of chances every game, otherwise how would you have the opportunity to hit and block that many shots? Even if you play against really tough competition and play a lot of minutes, it's generally not a good sign if you are hitting a lot and blocking a lot of shots. You'd rather be taking shots. This is also the reason why players who have more "giveaways" generally tend to be better players--they have the puck a lot more and are focused more on offense. xG% is fine to rank defenders as a starting point. It's also helpful to look at who the defenders play with. NHL teams don't really run consistent 5-man units (I wish!) like the Soviets did, but generally better players play with better players, especially offensively. The Rangers, mine and God's favorite team, tend to play our rookie 3rd-line defensive pairing with our 4th-line. It's, uh, very hard to have good stats and look good with our 4th line in particular, so those two defenseman generally get the shorter end of the stick. It's not as easy as in baseball with something like WAR, or even basketball when the best players are out there for 4/5ths of the game. xG% is fine to start with, then look at teammates, context, deployment, etc. Here's a clip because I'm an unapologetic fanboy about the Soviet teams that describes their contribution to hockey strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv3B-MLt8q8 The whole doc is really good if you're getting more into hockey!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Got it, thanks! So ranking defenders by that seems weird right? Because xG% seems like it is a 5 man effort, while xGA / 60 seems more targeted at the defense specifically? (obviously the other 3 guys play a role there as well, but at least it's a bit more specific to the defender) % is probably the better but!ber to look at since there are defencemen that are specifically really good at driving offence but mediocre or outright bad at defending (or vice versa) so looking at only 1/2 of the equation would overrate or underrate certain guys. Like if the league averages 2 goals a game, and your top D pairing averages 3 xGA/60, that might look bad until you also see they are getting 4 xG/60 so who cares if they give up a some extra goals if they are still a net positive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
DJExile posted:https://twitter.com/draglikepull/status/1585370549781688320 Is there a hot dog trade magazine out there
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:Well at a very basic level the job of a hockey team is to score more goals on the opponent than they allow, so trying to record whether that is happening while an individual player is on the ice is a reasonable thing to do, whether their primary job is scoring goals or preventing goals. There is a metric called plus minus which was kind of viewed this way by hockey traditionalists, which was simply the difference between the number of goals scored vs. allowed while an individual player was on the ice at 5v5 (actually also included goals scored while on the PK and allowed while on the PP but in a large part it was a 5v5 stat). The thing is people realized that there were things happening on the ice and influencing these goal totals that were hypothesized to be largely outside of an individual player's control (the shooting / goaltending "luck" at either end of the rink while they were on the ice*). The expected goals formulas are an attempt to normalize shooting and goaltending out of the equation and just look at how many events are happening at what locations on the ice to get an idea of who is doing a good job of driving play. This is a good example of what I was talking about when I mentioned earlier that the teams have the best access to the good poo poo. Former NHL goalie and current Rangers TV analyst Steve Valiquette has a company that he owns that tracks way more poo poo than what's in the public and sells that to NHL teams:  They claim to track passes that lead to high-percentage scoring chances, and as a teaser put out their ranking of the top guys:  as well as for both medium-and-high:  But we don't have public insight into that methodology, data, etc., so while the intuitive thing would be to say "of course some players influence shooting outcomes of other players, look up Rob Brown's stats when he played with Lemieux", it's really hard to prove that with the data we have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A BOXC posted:But we don't have public insight into that methodology, data, etc., so while the intuitive thing would be to say "of course some players influence shooting outcomes of other players, look up Rob Brown's stats when he played with Lemieux", it's really hard to prove that with the data we have. yeah and I mean the same thing works the other way on the defensive side too.. If there's a broken play in the attacking zone which results in a foot race and a potential breakaway and your two options to defend are Cale Makar and Jani Hakanpaa then it seems pretty likely that if Makar is on the ice he has a very good chance of disrupting the play so there is no scoring chance and if it's Hakanpaa it's a clear breakaway for the other team with maybe a 20-30% chance to score a goal. It's just that for the vast majority of players any individual impact they might have on their goaltender's save percentage while they are on the ice or how many shots their team converts into goals seems to be swamped by the variance in outcomes... the same shot from the same location gets taken and for whatever reason the goaltender reads the play a half second quicker and makes an amazing save or he gets fouled up by his own player's skate and it's a wide open net.. Starsfan fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Oct 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Aportzline/status/1585379719452758036?t=gJ-zPBsbp9ZJQlx3P0drZA&s=19 Jiricek has four points in his first five AHL/North American games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
DJExile posted:https://twitter.com/draglikepull/status/1585370549781688320 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A BOXC posted:Sean Avery predicted all dis... Wilson, Tom
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
DJExile posted:https://twitter.com/draglikepull/status/1585370549781688320 I have a source close to the family, it was a MAD Magazine and he was laughing really loud
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maurojorgfan/status/1585103137769394176?s=20&t=a_irUuU2tQ9UbciTaXTBuQ petition for a new thread title
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the detailed and educational responses!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
one thing to consider about all those stats is they're stupid and the only thing that matters is getting w's
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
That's true of all stats though
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
yeah but lots of them don't need eight fuckin paragraphs to be explained
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
don't confuse rex paragraphs for explanations of actual stats
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
xG is simple. It is how often you would expect a given shot or scoring chance to go in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
rex rabidorum vires posted:xG is simple. It is how often you would expect a given shot or scoring chance to go in. A butterfly with *Rangers shot total over the last two games on it* Is this xG?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:45 |
|
|
Variance or noise depending on how you would like to term it. Scoring 0 on 3.5 expected is pretty funny though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:35
|
|