You can chalk the Jets up to out of nowhere. I don’t think a single person picked them to make the playoffs that I’ve seen
i always get a kick out of the argument that elite goaltending is not also a team driven stats. Guys, there is a reason why Boston always gets elite goaltending and it is not always because of the goaltender. Some teams play a structure that is conducive to good goaltending, not every chances to score is equal. But that is definitely a perfect storm of two very very good goalies playing with a bunch of good grinders playing a system they know to a t.
That's kinda the point of analytics. Boston is a solid team that is like 15 points higher in the standings because of their goaltending.
Do analytics account for context or just where the shot was taken? For example I saw a j fresh thing where he said georgiev saved more goals in a game than expected, but one the goals I saw was a clean shot glove side that georgiev stabbed at with his glove and pushed towards another player and that bounced in. Is that seen as a goal from the slot or like a bad rebound and a negative?
I’ve been on this train for a while. It’s some algorithm based on goals scored from the spot and whatever. I’ve seen some goals by Tkachuk where he jams in a near side puck that the goalie has little chance at, but for some reason is graded as a low-xG chance. There’s so much context into a goal including how fast the puck got to the shooter that I just can’t buy all the way in on this stuff. plus if a defense makes it difficult to get a quality shot then once you get one, it’s not the same as if that shot came easy. So I’m with you on defense systems. Seeing it with Florida too
Before I get stones thrown at me, I do think it’s still the best way to analyse over the eye test. And obviously the good organisation know how to balance this stuff and I imagine that they use it as more of a tool to go take a closer look on some players than a bottom line decision maker
For me, it’s not that analytical models aren’t flawed in a lot of ways- they’re very imperfect. It’s that the “eye test” is less than worthless for virtually anyone that isn’t a pro scout. Our brains are wired to confirm preconceived notions regardless of input. Before analytics, the average fan would probably think Tyler Myers was a great defenseman because he’s a big guy who throws a lot of hits and blocks a lot of shots.
The internal metrics that teams use have preshot movement included in them. They change the numbers for sure but the public models still do a good job of identifying the better teams.
Yeah, from reading what people say who have had access to proprietary models, the ones NHL teams use are an F16 compared to a 737, but public ones compared to the eye test are still a 737 compared to a raft.
Kucherov: the worst player in NHL history with 100 assists in a season Tells ya how exclusive that company is
Steve Valiquette’s analytics service adds a bunch of pre-shot puck tracking that much better quantifies expected goals based on scoring chance type, at least compared to publicly available data. It’s why the Rangers look far better in his models than the public ones, as they lead the league in cross-ice offensive zone passing. He licenses his data set to quite a few teams across the NHL.
Just need the stars to get the point I don’t care after that. Or shit maybe idk. I really don’t know what I want. Almost rather them lose to avoid Vegas for sure
That was fantastic, and I have no idea who that is because he must’ve paired with the second worst broadcasting guy in hockey behind Jack Edwards in Tyson Nash and I couldn’t bring myself to listen to those broadcasts.
Tyson Nash is Jack Edwards minus the subtle racism. Just an abhorrent human who for some reason gets paid to watch hockey games. Nasly voice alone should relegate him to the ECHL where his skill level was anyways.