Disrespected

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

One goal wins vs losses.

Games won when the other team scores first.

Third period comebacks.

 

The numbers say the Rangers have been one of the luckiest teams in Rangers history.

 

Most signs point to a paper tiger. I wish it weren't so. Perhaps the luck can carry on a little further than the ECF appearance 2 years ago though. That's what we have to hope for.

 

People should be prepared for "the disrespect" of a lot of predictions coming in against the Rangers, from the growing list of hockey analysts/journalists who weigh analytics appropriately in conjunction with other things in their predictions.

[Pete]

43 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

One goal wins vs losses.

Games won when the other team scores first.

Third period comebacks.

 

The numbers say the Rangers have been one of the luckiest teams in Rangers history.

I'm flabbergasted that you refer to any and all of that as luck instead of just hard work and sticking with the plan which is something that we did not see under GG.

 

What's specifically lucky about winning one by one goal? 

What's specifically lucky about coming from behind to win? 

What does luck have to do with a third period comeback? 

 

Look at the Montreal game, the Rangers didn't score the first goal, they came back to win.

 

So you're going to sit here and tell me that that's luck, and that the initial Montreal goal from behind the goal line off of the goalies grundle wasn't luck?

 

Nah man. You're way off. 

Edited April 9 by Pete

[siddious]

No one wants to give rangers credit.

 

even chiclets still calling them frauds. 
 

I hope they go 16-0 in the playoffs 

[Karan]

Thank God the media doesn't determine the outcome of the Rangers success in the playoffs eh.

 

[BrooksBurner]

You wanted attention, here you go:

 

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/39902929/nhl-new-york-rangers-playoffs-2024-stanley-cup-analytics-data

 

It's a really good, honest write up. Here's some excerpts.

 

Quote

The Rangers are a confounding team, and not just because they exited the postseason after one round in 2023. On the surface, they've been dominant in the standings and solid on both sides of the puck: Through 78 games, they were sixth in goals and seventh in goals against per game. But look under the hood and one finds a team whose 5-on-5 analytics are utterly pedestrian and in some cases below average.

 

"The New York Rangers are a bit of an anomaly," said Meghan Chayka, co-founder of Stathletes.

 

"Elite special teams and goaltending have boosted average processes and results at 5-on-5," said Mike Kelly, director of analytics and insights at Sportlogiq.

 

Quote

"The Rangers have a very ordinary record this season of 5v5 chance generation," McCurdy said.

 

This season, the Rangers are 23rd in expected goals percentage at 5-on-5 (48.6%) through 78 games and slightly underwater on percentage of shot attempts per 60 minutes (49.8%), ranking 19th overall. During their recent 13-4-1 heater, their percentage of shot attempts has jumped up to 11th in the league.

 

Quote

But the Rangers are still just 21st in expected goals percentage. Their expected goals per 60 minutes is a few percentage points weaker than the average NHL team, and their suppression is a full percentage point lower than average.

 

"This is a little surprising for a team at the top of the standings," McCurdy said. "But while 5-on-5 chance rates are the first and most important thing about any team -- I've repeatedly called them 'the foundation of the sport,' and I stand by that -- they aren't the only thing."

 

Quote

It's not completely analogous, but McCurdy believes that not all goals are created equal, either.

 

"The regulation goals they've scored have come at relatively high-offensive-leverage moments, when they've tipped games in their favor, and less often in games that are still safely decided," he said. "The Rangers have also benefited from the goals they've allowed coming at relatively lower-leverage times than you'd expect from pure chance, so that the goaltending they've got has benefitted them more than you might expect."

 

McCurdy believes these two effects have added upward of nine standings points to the Rangers this season. "They're the second-luckiest team this season in this sense, after Washington," he said.

 

Quote

Chayka noted that the Rangers have some shared DNA in that regard with last season's Presidents' Trophy winners, the Boston Bruins, who led the NHL in winning percentage in one-goal games and when trailing first.

 

"Their playoff fate might indicate something for the Rangers," she said, ominously, referencing the Bruins' shocking first-round loss last year.

 

Quote

Kelly said the Rangers would be in his second tier as a Stanley Cup contender.

 

"I don't think they have fatal flaws, but it is a slippery slope when you rely so heavily on special teams and goaltending," he said. "But that doesn't mean you can't get to a Cup Final or even win the Cup."

"In the small sample size that are the Stanley Cup playoffs, elite shooting talent or luck, coupled with strong goaltending, can be enough to win it all," Kelly noted. "The Rangers are capable of both."

 

Kelly certainly knows what he's talking about. You absolutely cannot write off any team with some of the talent, and opportunistic scoring/goaltending that the Rangers are capable of. With that said, they are clearly behind the 8 ball in their approach to the game, relying primarily on getting bounces and luck at the right time.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You wanted attention, here you go:

 

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/39902929/nhl-new-york-rangers-playoffs-2024-stanley-cup-analytics-data

 

It's a really good, honest write up. Here's some excerpts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kelly certainly knows what he's talking about. You absolutely cannot write off any team with some of the talent, and opportunistic scoring/goaltending that the Rangers are capable of. With that said, they are clearly behind the 8 ball in their approach to the game, relying primarily on getting bounces and luck at the right time.

That doesn't read to me like "appropriately weighted analytics".

 

I'll read the whole article later, but the excerpts read as bad analytics equals bad team and we all know that isn't true at this point. 

 

Or, we should.

[LindG1000]

37 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You wanted attention, here you go:

 

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/39902929/nhl-new-york-rangers-playoffs-2024-stanley-cup-analytics-data

 

It's a really good, honest write up. Here's some excerpts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kelly certainly knows what he's talking about. You absolutely cannot write off any team with some of the talent, and opportunistic scoring/goaltending that the Rangers are capable of. With that said, they are clearly behind the 8 ball in their approach to the game, relying primarily on getting bounces and luck at the right time.

Even for you, Brooksie, woof. The cherry-pickers union genuflects to you alone. 

 

On a related note, some farmers are very angry.

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

That doesn't read to me like "appropriately weighted analytics".

 

I'll read the whole article later, but the excerpts read as bad analytics equals bad team and we all know that isn't true at this point. 

 

Or, we should.

 

Re-read the last thing I quoted again. It's not all bad.

 

This thread was why the team is getting disrespected with coverage. Well, my two cents is I think it's a lot to do with a growing belief in a strong correlation of 5v5 analytics to Cup winners over the last 15 years. I said this months ago, that Washington was the only piss poor team at 5v5 to win a Cup and the Rangers would be in that category.This graphic from the article is pretty good depicting that:

 

 

 

 

Opportunistic goal scoring (above average finishing), great special teams, great goaltending, good talent up top. Maybe it's enough, but ultimately the linkage between strong 5v5 play is almost a requirement to winning a Cup and they simply don't have it.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Re-read the last thing I quoted again. It's not all bad.

 

This thread was why the team is getting disrespected with coverage. Well, my two cents is I think it's a lot to do with a growing belief in a strong correlation of 5v5 analytics to Cup winners over the last 15 years. I said this months ago, that Washington was the only piss poor team at 5v5 to win a Cup and the Rangers would be in that category.This graphic from the article is pretty good depicting that:

 

 

 

 

Opportunistic goal scoring (above average finishing), great special teams, great goaltending, good talent up top. Maybe it's enough, but ultimately the linkage between strong 5v5 play is almost a requirement to winning a Cup and they simply don't have it.

I understand why you feel the way you do, I really do. However, the hole in your argument is that they aren't piss poor at five on five. They're kind of even.

 

They're also wildly better on the power play and their finishing than a lot of teams on that chart. They are very good at making something out of nothing. 

 

This team can play any way you want, you want to have a track meet and you're likely to get your ass handed to you. If you want to grind out games, well they've shown to be better at it this year than the past 4-5. They don't push the east-west stuff anymore, they wait for you to make a mistake and capitalize. They're patient. 

 

There's a reason why Carolina loses in the playoffs every season, it's because they're predictable and their style is mapped out at the league knows. There's no game plan to beat the Rangers right now. Teams can't stay out of the box against them, they're getting great goaltending, and they are indeed now scoring five on five. 

 

There's like seven stats on that chart and you're only pointing at two of them and saying it's not likely not enough.

 

And ultimately at the end of the day, and I even said this during the GG tenure, once you're in the playoffs it's a race to 16 wins by Hook or by crook and it really doesn't matter how you get there. That chart is regular season, it doesn't account for players playing hurt, players playing desperate, but there's a whole lot of non-conference games on a Tuesday night in January that get tabulated into that mix.

 

I somehow feel the forum this summer might even devolve into how "lucky" the Rangers were to win the Stanley Cup.

 

Sometimes good is just good and the numbers don't make sense. That's why we all watch sports and not spreadsheets. It's much more entertaining. 

 

 

Edited April 9 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

I understand why you feel the way you do, I really do. However, the hole in your argument is that they aren't piss poor at five on five. They're kind of even.

 

They're also wildly better on the power play and their finishing than a lot of teams on that chart. They are very good at making something out of nothing. 

 

This team can play any way you want, you want to have a track meet and you're likely to get your ass handed to you. If you want to grind out games, well they've shown to be better at it this year than the past 4-5. They don't push the east-west stuff anymore, they wait for you to make a mistake and capitalize. They're patient. 

 

There's a reason why Carolina loses in the playoffs every season, it's because they're predictable and their style is mapped out at the league knows. There's no game plan to beat the Rangers right now. Teams can't stay out of the box against them, they're getting great goaltending, and they are indeed now scoring five on five. 

 

There's like seven stats on that chart and you're only pointing at two of them and saying it's not likely not enough.

 

And ultimately at the end of the day, and I even said this during the GG tenure, once you're in the playoffs it's a race to 16 wins by Hook or by crook and it really doesn't matter how you get there. That chart is regular season, it doesn't account for players playing hurt, players playing desperate, but there's a whole lot of non-conference games on a Tuesday night in January that get tabulated into that mix.

 

I somehow feel the forum this summer might even devolve into how "lucky" the Rangers were to win the Stanley Cup.

 

Sometimes good is just good and the numbers don't make sense. That's why we all watch sports and not spreadsheets. It's much more entertaining. 

 

 

 

I don't agree with most of this, but we'll be rooting for them to win all the same. The difference is simply I think they need a good bit more luck than you do. It's not that big a deal

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I don't agree with most of this, but we'll be rooting for them to win all the same. The difference is simply I think they need a good bit more luck than you do. It's not that big a deal

You make your own luck, especially in the playoffs. And if they think the Rangers have been lucky this year, it's luck they've created on their own. 

 

Also the more I look at that chart, the more I see how flawed the model is. 

 

Why compare the Rangers to previous winners? The Rangers aren't playing in 2018, they're playing in 2024, so what does it matter with the 2018 team did?

 

What you would want to do is compare each team to their contemporary and then rank based on that. Yeah, maybe the Caps were bad at 5v5 compared to Colorado who won in a different year, but maybe the caps were the highest ranked 5v5 team that season. Maybe they just went on a heater in the playoffs. 

 

All of that to say, none of it matters. 

Edited April 9 by Pete

[Br4d]

They could get the luck.

 

It's been working all season: play hard, get a boost in either the 2nd or the 3rd, luck or however you want to define it, win the game.

 

There's no reason that can't work in the playoffs.  They're going to have to play a team of destiny in there somewhere (my vote being Vancouver) and they're going to have to work very hard and get very lucky to beat that team.

[Steve]

Hate to comment on my own post but after going through the comments I just want to add that I don't live in the New York area and all I expect is at least one or two articles on sports pages that at a minimum point out the Rangers successes this year going down the stretch - even if the Rangers crashed last year and are an anomally in the statistics.

[RodrigueGabriel]

On 4/9/2024 at 4:03 PM, BrooksBurner said:

 

Re-read the last thing I quoted again. It's not all bad.

 

This thread was why the team is getting disrespected with coverage. Well, my two cents is I think it's a lot to do with a growing belief in a strong correlation of 5v5 analytics to Cup winners over the last 15 years. I said this months ago, that Washington was the only piss poor team at 5v5 to win a Cup and the Rangers would be in that category.This graphic from the article is pretty good depicting that:

 

 

 

 

Opportunistic goal scoring (above average finishing), great special teams, great goaltending, good talent up top. Maybe it's enough, but ultimately the linkage between strong 5v5 play is almost a requirement to winning a Cup and they simply don't have it.

 

Valley just shit all over Wyshynsky's analysis on the VincePod, asking WTF he is talking about because NYR are 9th in the league in expected 5v5 goals, not 21st. So, for me, that's a pretty big discrepancy in the measurement of what is being used as THE definitive stat in the evaluation of a team's ability and potential. I come away thinking that advanced stats continue to be illustrative and useful at understanding some things, but require a lot of further development before we use them as the basis for sweeping pronouncements about the relative strength of teams - particularly in the Playoffs where will, emotion, cohesion, intimidation, momentum, and less quantifiable factors take on an oversized role. 

 

Valley also listed a set of qualities in which the Rangers excel - forechecking goals, face-off goals, rebound goals, goals off the rush, in addition to broadly strong defensive metrics - that describe a potent, opportunistic team that makes hay in areas that are not necessarily fleshed out in 5v5 expected goals. I think that his arguments lead me to the conclusion that if the Rangers happen to be successful, it might be due to factors other than luck.

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

 

Valley just shit all over Wyshynsky's analysis on the VincePod, asking WTF he is talking about because NYR are 9th in the league in expected 5v5 goals, not 21st. So, for me, that's a pretty big discrepancy in the measurement of what is being used as THE definitive stat in the evaluation of a team's ability and potential. I come away thinking that advanced stats continue to be illustrative and useful at understanding some things, but require a lot of further development before we use them as the basis for sweeping pronouncements about the relative strength of teams - particularly in the Playoffs where will, emotion, cohesion, intimidation, momentum, and less quantifiable factors take on an oversized role. 

 

Valley also listed a set of qualities in which the Rangers excel - forechecking goals, face-off goals, rebound goals, goals off the rush, in addition to broadly strong defensive metrics - that describe a potent, opportunistic team that makes hay in areas that are not necessarily fleshed out in 5v5 expected goals. I think that his arguments lead me to the conclusion that if the Rangers happen to be successful, it might be due to factors other than luck.

Great post. 

 

And like I said in another thread, there's one stat people are hanging their hat on when assessing both the team and players, 5v5 xGF%.

 

The amalytics are great retrospectives, however they don't predict anything, and there's a pretty big flaw and that they don't take into account the individual player. 

 

For example, an uncontested shot from the center of the ice about 10 ft out would be considered a high danger chance. But there's a difference when that shot is taken by Panarin versus Goodrow. That chance is not particularly high danger for a fourth liner, and I would expect the goalie to make the save. Not so with Panarin.

 

Analytics are like political polls, it's a snapshot of a moment in time that makes for great banter, but isn't really predictive of any kind of outcome. It can tell you what has happened but it won't tell you what will happen. 

[BrooksBurner]

43 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

 

Valley just shit all over Wyshynsky's analysis on the VincePod, asking WTF he is talking about because NYR are 9th in the league in expected 5v5 goals, not 21st. So, for me, that's a pretty big discrepancy in the measurement of what is being used as THE definitive stat in the evaluation of a team's ability and potential. I come away thinking that advanced stats continue to be illustrative and useful at understanding some things, but require a lot of further development before we use them as the basis for sweeping pronouncements about the relative strength of teams - particularly in the Playoffs where will, emotion, cohesion, intimidation, momentum, and less quantifiable factors take on an oversized role. 

 

Valley also listed a set of qualities in which the Rangers excel - forechecking goals, face-off goals, rebound goals, goals off the rush, in addition to broadly strong defensive metrics - that describe a potent, opportunistic team that makes hay in areas that are not necessarily fleshed out in 5v5 expected goals. I think that his arguments lead me to the conclusion that if the Rangers happen to be successful, it might be due to factors other than luck.

 

That is a big discrepancy. Naturalstattrick has the Rangers at 23rd in 5v5 xGF and 11th in All Strengths xGF. Valley has been posting all strengths expected goals charts after every game this year through his X account though, so I kind of wonder if that's what he was referring to. I don't expect the best accuracy from a free to use site like NST, but I find it pretty hard to believe (essentially, next to zero chance) it's that far off from what Valley is using if he was indeed talking about 5v5. Especially when the eye test consistently backs up that the Rangers get outplayed at 5v5.

 

 

[Br4d]

It's definitely complicated.  I have not run the 5v5 numbers or done an analysis of the individual game results so I'm not going to suggest that they're definitive markers of given record when luck is factored out.

 

However, last season the Rangers were good at 5v5 vs the non-playoff teams and not so good against the playoff teams.  I also haven't done '21-'22 so I do not know if there is a pattern there or not.

 

I do know that Mika Zibanejad's peak year last year (second peak after the first Covid season) wasn't as good as it looked on the surface.  This year may be better than it looks on the surface but it is also a step down from last season and from his early peak in '19-'20.

 

One thing that has occurred to me is that both GG and Laviolette have relied on the top 6 and the top 2 defensive pairs late in games, with them seeing more ice time in tight games.  Panarin and Fox in particular seem to get odd shifts in the 3rd period that tilt the ice a bit.

[Pete]

40 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

That is a big discrepancy. Naturalstattrick has the Rangers at 23rd in 5v5 xGF and 11th in All Strengths xGF. Valley has been posting all strengths expected goals charts after every game this year through his X account though, so I kind of wonder if that's what he was referring to. I don't expect the best accuracy from a free to use site like NST, but I find it pretty hard to believe (essentially, next to zero chance) it's that far off from what Valley is using if he was indeed talking about 5v5. Especially when the eye test consistently backs up that the Rangers get outplayed at 5v5.

 

 

Lots of NHL teams use Clear Sight analytics. I would trust their numbers above anyone else's. 

 

The eye test does not support the Rangers consistently getting outplayed five on five. That's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

There are ebbs and flows where they have to withstand a barrage and there are times where they're creating a barrage of their own. The Islander game is a great example, The stats and eyes show they got pummeled in the first period yet two of the goals that went in had strange redirects, one of them needed a double deflection. But you don't see that on spreadsheets. The Rangers caved the Islanders for two out of three periods, where Varlamov off was the difference. 

 

What the stats do support is that more often than not they score on their barrage (finishing). And the eye test says they missed a lot of easy goals, Lafreniere had an especially bad stretch, and yet now he's cashing in on those opportunities. So yeah the past data shows him missing nets, but now our eyeballs tell us he's not doing that as much but it's impossible to predict.

 

But at the end of the day, what Valley is saying is that you're not using the numbers that really matter. There's a bunch of things that the Rangers do really well that matter in the playoffs, and that's what he's pointing at.

Edited April 11 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Lots of NHL teams use Clear Sight analytics. I would trust their numbers above anyone else's. 

 

The eye test does not support the Rangers consistently getting outplayed five on five. That's all in the eye of the beholder. There are ebbs and flows where they have to withstand a barrage and there are times where they're creating a barrage of their own. What the stats do support is that more often than not they score on their barrage (finishing). And the eye test says they missed a lot of easy goals, Lafreniere had an especially bad stretch, and yet now he's cashing in on those opportunities. So yeah the past data shows him missing nets, but now our eyeballs tell us he's not doing that as much but it's impossible to predict.

 

But at the end of the day, what Valley is saying is that you're not using the numbers that really matter. There's a bunch of things that the Rangers do really well that matter in the playoffs, and that's what he's pointing at.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. He understands 5v5 matters a lot, which is why he's picking a fight on the topic with ESPN/Wys/other analysts who work for legitimate professional hockey analytics companies contributed to that article. In addition to those professional companies, the free ones in Natural Stat Trick, Evolving Hockey, Moneypuck, HockeyViz, are all in fairly close correlation with each other in where the Rangers rank in this regard. The data from all these sources is saying the same thing, but CSA, which Valley founded, has an apparently outlier difference of opinion?

 

Lafreniere's 5v5 expected numbers were good, and his actual production lagged behind. The actual production has elevated to be closer to the expected. Just based on that info, without even watching games, anyone could have just told you he must be finishing the chances he wasn't previously. This is a great example of how expected goals can tell a story.

[RodrigueGabriel]

45 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. He understands 5v5 matters a lot, which is why he's picking a fight on the topic with ESPN/Wys/other analysts who work for legitimate professional hockey analytics companies contributed to that article. In addition to those professional companies, the free ones in Natural Stat Trick, Evolving Hockey, Moneypuck, HockeyViz, are all in fairly close correlation with each other in where the Rangers rank in this regard. The data from all these sources is saying the same thing, but CSA, which Valley founded, has an apparently outlier difference of opinion?

 

Lafreniere's 5v5 expected numbers were good, and his actual production lagged behind. The actual production has elevated to be closer to the expected. Just based on that info, without even watching games, anyone could have just told you he must be finishing the chances he wasn't previously. This is a great example of how expected goals can tell a story.

 

Later on in the show, Vince explains in fairly simple terms why CSA evaluation is more likely to be accurate. To his telling, the public sites like NST and Evolving hockey assess the danger level of chances through an algorithm that is based on shot location. Vally's shop has people evaluating each chance through video analysis and, on that basis, are able to bring more situational nuance to what comes out the other end. I'm not the one to judge the differential impact, but it does appear to be a fundamentally different approach.

Edited April 11 by RodrigueGabriel

[Pete]

58 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. He understands 5v5 matters a lot, which is why he's picking a fight on the topic with ESPN/Wys/other analysts who work for legitimate professional hockey analytics companies contributed to that article. In addition to those professional companies, the free ones in Natural Stat Trick, Evolving Hockey, Moneypuck, HockeyViz, are all in fairly close correlation with each other in where the Rangers rank in this regard. The data from all these sources is saying the same thing, but CSA, which Valley founded, has an apparently outlier difference of opinion?

 

Lafreniere's 5v5 expected numbers were good, and his actual production lagged behind. The actual production has elevated to be closer to the expected. Just based on that info, without even watching games, anyone could have just told you he must be finishing the chances he wasn't previously. This is a great example of how expected goals can tell a story.

 

17 minutes ago, RodrigueGabriel said:

 

Later on in the show, Vince explains in fairly simple terms why CSA evaluation is more likely to be accurate. To his telling, the public sites like NST and Evolving hockey assess the danger level of chances through an algorithm that is based on shot location. Vally's shop has people evaluating each chance through video analysis and, on that basis, are able to bring more situational nuance to what comes out the other end. I'm not the one to judge the differential impact, but it does appear to be a fundamentally different approach.

 

Per ChatGPT:

Quote

 

Expected goals for (xG) isn't a simple calculation, but rather a complex model that considers various factors to estimate the likelihood of a shot becoming a goal. Here's a breakdown:

Factors considered by xG models:

• Shot Location: Where the shot is taken on the ice has a big impact. Areas closer to the net and directly in front have a higher chance of going in.
• Shot Type: Slap shots, wrist shots, backhands, etc. all have different success rates.
• Shot Angle: The angle relative to the goal affects how much the goalie needs to stretch.
• Game Situation: Power plays, breakaways, and rebounds all influence goal probability.
• Time Since Last Event: How much time has passed since the previous play can affect goalie readiness.
• Team Strength: Some models consider the goalie's skill and team defensive strategy.

The Process:

1. Data Collection: Stats like shot location, type, and game situation are collected for every shot attempt.
2. Model Training: The data is used to train a computer model to assign an "expected goals" value to each shot based on its characteristics. This value represents the likelihood of that specific shot finding the net.
3. Summation: The expected goals for (xG) for a team or player is the sum of the expected goals values of all their individual shot attempts.

Important points to remember about xG:

• It's a probability, not a guarantee. A high xG doesn't mean a guaranteed goal, just a higher chance.
• Different models may weigh factors slightly differently, leading to some variation in xG values between sources.
• xG is a valuable tool to assess team and player performance beyond just goals scored.

 

 

So, that said, I trust the human watching and analyzing over a model. A great example of how xG doesn't tell a story=Kakko. High xG on that Zib line that never manifest. MacKinnon has 36 goals but an ixG of 20.

 

This is one stat that's being used to weave an entire narrative and not at all indicative of the complete picture of the team. They are a mediocre 5v5 team, but they rarely get "caved" 5v5, and what's more important is that they rarely get caved by the same team twice, especially when they play the same team a few days later. We've seen this happen, CBJ and TOR come to mind in recent memory. We'll see with Isles on Saturday.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

 

 

Per ChatGPT:

 

So, that said, I trust the human watching and analyzing over a model. A great example of how xG doesn't tell a story=Kakko. High xG on that Zib line that never manifest. MacKinnon has 36 goals but an ixG of 20.

 

This is one stat that's being used to weave an entire narrative and not at all indicative of the complete picture of the team. They are a mediocre 5v5 team, but they rarely get "caved" 5v5, and what's more important is that they rarely get caved by the same team twice, especially when they play the same team a few days later. We've seen this happen, CBJ and TOR come to mind in recent memory. We'll see with Isles on Saturday.

 

 

You trust the human watching, but the non-human writing

 

[BrooksBurner]

BTW, if you think Naturalstattrick, EvolvingHockey, moneypuck, hockeyviz, etc., are all that far off from “real data” like Valley’s company, don’t let me catch you cherry picking stats from those sites to prove a point like what you just tried to do with Kakko and MacKinnon.

Edited April 11 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

You trust the human watching, but the non-human writing

 

 

2 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

BTW, if you think Naturalstattrick, EvolvingHockey, moneypuck, hockeyviz, etc., are all that far off from “real data” like Valley’s company, don’t let me catch you cherry picking stats from those sites to prove a point like what you just tried to do with Kakko and MacKinnon.

Firstly, it's not even cherry picking so I don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, it's both data sets are coming from the same source, then it's apples to apples. 

 

Secondly, I don't see an actual response to the point in either of these posts.

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

 

Firstly, it's not even cherry picking so I don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, it's both data sets are coming from the same source, then it's apples to apples. 

 

Secondly, I don't see an actual response to the point in either of these posts.

 

You belittled a source, then used it to try and prove a point. I responded to that. I did not respond to your 2nd paragraph because you didn't make any new points. It's regurgitating.

 

I just like to look to the data to provide hope, rather than hope just because they're my favorite team, so we just won't agree and it's time to move on.