Rangers @ Leafs - Dec. 28th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590

[princedpw]

https://twitter.com/leafsnews/status/1211108121835442176

This was the pass of the game IMHO.

 

[princedpw]

Here?s my two cents:

* it is awesome the leafs have piled up the wins.  They were really far behind in that playoff race and now they are in the middle of it

* Georgiev was a little better than Andersen and that was a big part of the difference

* but, I don?t think we should just be pointing at expected goal numbers and say ?see, the leafs had more expected goals, deserved to win and will usually win games like this? (perhaps no one is saying exactly that, which is fine). Since expected goals use only shot location (right?), they aren?t capturing key variables (passing, puck and player motion, screens, deflections, space and time for the offensive players to pick their spots, etc) that make a play likely to result in a goal. I like numbers and these numbers may tell us something useful over a long stretch games (or maybe not), but I?m fairly suspicious of them over the course of a single game.  I think some may be giving them a little more weight than they deserve.  For instance, if expected goals are 3-2, how often does the team with 3 actually wind up winning?  I personally have no idea.

* yes, lc9 is way too negative

* but, if you look at the teams the leafs have beaten since Keefe has taken over, I think you?ll see the leafs have beaten very few good teams during the run (Carolina, Colorado but they were missing 2 top-line players, and that?s about it)

* probably everyone thinks there is a ton of room to improve

* What are the odds Lillipad is better than Ceci?

* Will Sandin be back before Muzzin heals? What are the chances we see him in a couple of weeks?

 

[Guilt Trip]

Sandin will be back in a week or so. I believe they said Muzz is week to wee with a broken foot. Liljegren will play before the end of the year with the Leafs.
I think Dermott's play has dropped off a bit because of his partner.
Have to say the last 3 games have been fun to watch.

 

[Bender]

Here?s my two cents:

* it is awesome the leafs have piled up the wins.  They were really far behind in that playoff race and now they are in the middle of it

* Georgiev was a little better than Andersen and that was a big part of the difference

* but, I don?t think we should just be pointing at expected goal numbers and say ?see, the leafs had more expected goals, deserved to win and will usually win games like this? (perhaps no one is saying exactly that, which is fine). Since expected goals use only shot location (right?), they aren?t capturing key variables (passing, puck and player motion, screens, deflections, space and time for the offensive players to pick their spots, etc) that make a play likely to result in a goal. I like numbers and these numbers may tell us something useful over a long stretch games (or maybe not), but I?m fairly suspicious of them over the course of a single game.  I think some may be giving them a little more weight than they deserve.  For instance, if expected goals are 3-2, how often does the team with 3 actually wind up winning?  I personally have no idea.

* yes, lc9 is way too negative

* but, if you look at the teams the leafs have beaten since Keefe has taken over, I think you?ll see the leafs have beaten very few good teams during the run (Carolina, Colorado but they were missing 2 top-line players, and that?s about it)

* probably everyone thinks there is a ton of room to improve

* What are the odds Lillipad is better than Ceci?

* Will Sandin be back before Muzzin heals? What are the chances we see him in a couple of weeks?

The reason we use the numbers is they back up the eye test. I thought the Leafs were far and away the better team yesterday. I mean two goals went right through Andersen on the glove side down the wing. Those are awful goals and we wouldn't be talking about a loss if either or both of those get stopped. But of course there are posters out there who thought the team was complete garbage (probably backed up by the fact that they lost) as the only reference point they're using. What else can you do when it becomes a he said she said scenario?

 

[Hobbes]

Apparently on the 3rd goal (the one that looked a bit soft on Freddie to let in) he had trouble seeing it. Jonas mentioned it in his article this morning where apparently Dermott and Andersen had a somewhat lengthy chat in the next TV timeout.

?Yeah, I was kinda leaking my stick there,? Dermott explained of their chat, which centered around the second of two Strome goals. ?I don?t think I touched (the shot), but I was kinda late getting there so I kinda screened the puck. Even though I?m like a foot in front of it, I still kinda screened it from where (Andersen) doesn?t get that initial angle off the blade. He was just telling me that if I know I?m gonna be a little late there, and kinda hoping at like the last second to get a touch on it, then just leave it because he?ll make that save 99 percent of the time.?

Worth remembering that a lot of our guys are still pretty young and have a ton of learning to do.

 

[Zee]

I can vouch that lc9 posts during wins too.

During wins you'll get one, maybe two posts the entire game saying "good goal" or "that was fun"

During losses you'll get 99 posts talking about how terrible the team is "worst defence in the league"; "this team sucks"; "Rielly isn't an NHL player"; "this team is going nowhere"

And so on and so forth. 

 

[Guilt Trip]

Apparently on the 3rd goal (the one that looked a bit soft on Freddie to let in) he had trouble seeing it. Jonas mentioned it in his article this morning where apparently Dermott and Andersen had a somewhat lengthy chat in the next TV timeout.

?Yeah, I was kinda leaking my stick there,? Dermott explained of their chat, which centered around the second of two Strome goals. ?I don?t think I touched (the shot), but I was kinda late getting there so I kinda screened the puck. Even though I?m like a foot in front of it, I still kinda screened it from where (Andersen) doesn?t get that initial angle off the blade. He was just telling me that if I know I?m gonna be a little late there, and kinda hoping at like the last second to get a touch on it, then just leave it because he?ll make that save 99 percent of the time.?

Worth remembering that a lot of our guys are still pretty young and have a ton of learning to do.

Like Cherry always said, get your stick out of the way.
I like that Andersen had a chat with him during the timeout. I also like the fact that Freddie never shoots darts at his teammates after goals.

 

[princedpw]

Here?s my two cents:

* it is awesome the leafs have piled up the wins.  They were really far behind in that playoff race and now they are in the middle of it

* Georgiev was a little better than Andersen and that was a big part of the difference

* but, I don?t think we should just be pointing at expected goal numbers and say ?see, the leafs had more expected goals, deserved to win and will usually win games like this? (perhaps no one is saying exactly that, which is fine). Since expected goals use only shot location (right?), they aren?t capturing key variables (passing, puck and player motion, screens, deflections, space and time for the offensive players to pick their spots, etc) that make a play likely to result in a goal. I like numbers and these numbers may tell us something useful over a long stretch games (or maybe not), but I?m fairly suspicious of them over the course of a single game.  I think some may be giving them a little more weight than they deserve.  For instance, if expected goals are 3-2, how often does the team with 3 actually wind up winning?  I personally have no idea.

* yes, lc9 is way too negative

* but, if you look at the teams the leafs have beaten since Keefe has taken over, I think you?ll see the leafs have beaten very few good teams during the run (Carolina, Colorado but they were missing 2 top-line players, and that?s about it)

* probably everyone thinks there is a ton of room to improve

* What are the odds Lillipad is better than Ceci?

* Will Sandin be back before Muzzin heals? What are the chances we see him in a couple of weeks?

The reason we use the numbers is they back up the eye test. I thought the Leafs were far and away the better team yesterday. I mean two goals went right through Andersen on the glove side down the wing. Those are awful goals and we wouldn't be talking about a loss if either or both of those get stopped. But of course there are posters out there who thought the team was complete garbage (probably backed up by the fact that they lost) as the only reference point they're using. What else can you do when it becomes a he said she said scenario?

Yes, I understand why numbers are appealing.  But just because the numbers are there doesn?t mean they?ll be able to resolve the dispute. The world is full of misleading statistics. What else can you do? Simply leave the he-said-she-said unresolved perhaps rather than saying expected goals decides it.

The thing is, for me personally, I don?t know how reliable expected goals are as a single-game metric (or even a multi-game metric). The kind of thing that would give me more understanding of the metric would be a plot of expected goal differential vs win percentage or the shape of the distribution of real goals vs expected goals.  (Are the shapes different for different teams?)

On a tangentially-related note, Dom at the Athletic effectively debunked the notion that playing a goalie back-to-back makes much difference:

?Why NHL coaches need to revisit the idea that goalies shouldn?t start on back-to-back nights?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjYr9aWqdvmAhVEheAKHasPCzIQFjABegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheathletic.com%2F1450527%2F2019%2F12%2F12%2Fwhy-nhl-coaches-need-to-revisit-the-idea-that-goalies-shouldnt-start-on-back-to-back-nights%2F&usg=AOvVaw2uGOPv03EJMgLvsr97MsiA

In a nutshell, the early data that suggested there was a big difference in save percentage without rest seems to have been wrong because it was based on a limited (quirky) data set.  In that article, Dom goes on to make conclusions about backups playing every 7-10 days, which I think is very, very sketchy on his part. I think it could easily be the case there are other quirks in the data causing that trend to appear and that it doesnt really have anything to do with the number of days of rest.  Bottom line. Once again, there?s really hardly anything public known about how to get goalies to perform well.  On these boards, I?ve been arguing (wrongly!) for some time that Babcock s back-to-back to deployment strategy is totally reasonable and it still could have been but I now realize that I can?t really say ... I just have no idea.

 

[Bender]

Here?s my two cents:

* it is awesome the leafs have piled up the wins.  They were really far behind in that playoff race and now they are in the middle of it

* Georgiev was a little better than Andersen and that was a big part of the difference

* but, I don?t think we should just be pointing at expected goal numbers and say ?see, the leafs had more expected goals, deserved to win and will usually win games like this? (perhaps no one is saying exactly that, which is fine). Since expected goals use only shot location (right?), they aren?t capturing key variables (passing, puck and player motion, screens, deflections, space and time for the offensive players to pick their spots, etc) that make a play likely to result in a goal. I like numbers and these numbers may tell us something useful over a long stretch games (or maybe not), but I?m fairly suspicious of them over the course of a single game.  I think some may be giving them a little more weight than they deserve.  For instance, if expected goals are 3-2, how often does the team with 3 actually wind up winning?  I personally have no idea.

* yes, lc9 is way too negative

* but, if you look at the teams the leafs have beaten since Keefe has taken over, I think you?ll see the leafs have beaten very few good teams during the run (Carolina, Colorado but they were missing 2 top-line players, and that?s about it)

* probably everyone thinks there is a ton of room to improve

* What are the odds Lillipad is better than Ceci?

* Will Sandin be back before Muzzin heals? What are the chances we see him in a couple of weeks?

The reason we use the numbers is they back up the eye test. I thought the Leafs were far and away the better team yesterday. I mean two goals went right through Andersen on the glove side down the wing. Those are awful goals and we wouldn't be talking about a loss if either or both of those get stopped. But of course there are posters out there who thought the team was complete garbage (probably backed up by the fact that they lost) as the only reference point they're using. What else can you do when it becomes a he said she said scenario?

Yes, I understand why numbers are appealing.  But just because the numbers are there doesn?t mean they?ll be able to resolve the dispute. The world is full of misleading statistics. What else can you do? Simply leave the he-said-she-said unresolved perhaps rather than saying expected goals decides it.

The thing is, for me personally, I don?t know how reliable expected goals are as a single-game metric (or even a multi-game metric). The kind of thing that would give me more understanding of the metric would be a plot of expected goal differential vs win percentage or the shape of the distribution of real goals vs expected goals.  (Are the shapes different for different teams?)

On a tangentially-related note, Dom at the Athletic effectively debunked the notion that playing a goalie back-to-back makes much difference:

?Why NHL coaches need to revisit the idea that goalies shouldn?t start on back-to-back nights?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjYr9aWqdvmAhVEheAKHasPCzIQFjABegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheathletic.com%2F1450527%2F2019%2F12%2F12%2Fwhy-nhl-coaches-need-to-revisit-the-idea-that-goalies-shouldnt-start-on-back-to-back-nights%2F&usg=AOvVaw2uGOPv03EJMgLvsr97MsiA

In a nutshell, the early data that suggested there was a big difference in save percentage without rest seems to have been wrong because it was based on a limited (quirky) data set.  In that article, Dom goes on to make conclusions about backups playing every 7-10 days, which I think is very, very sketchy on his part. I think it could easily be the case there are other quirks in the data causing that trend to appear and that it doesnt really have anything to do with the number of days of rest.  Bottom line. Once again, there?s really hardly anything public known about how to get goalies to perform well.  On these boards, I?ve been arguing (wrongly!) for some time that Babcock s back-to-back to deployment strategy is totally reasonable and it still could have been but I now realize that I can?t really say ... I just have no idea.

What's the point of having discussions on message boards if your solution to differing opinions, instead of backing up an opinion with relevant data and continuing onward, is to just ignore it and engage with people who agree with you? And even so, you're implying that stats (in this case from Moneypuck) are misleading so we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than using them to illustrate a point. So don't engage with people that disagree, don't use stats. That seems like such a cop out to me. But hey, why don't we just say that team sucks after every loss, it's an easier argument.

*Edit: I'll be the first to concede that goaltending is probably the trickiest thing to get a read on in the NHL. There's a reason why the old saying that goaltending is voodoo persists. I also think it's a lot easier to recognize when and make an argument that a team can play an overall good game in a loss.

 

[princedpw]

Here?s my two cents:

* it is awesome the leafs have piled up the wins.  They were really far behind in that playoff race and now they are in the middle of it

* Georgiev was a little better than Andersen and that was a big part of the difference

* but, I don?t think we should just be pointing at expected goal numbers and say ?see, the leafs had more expected goals, deserved to win and will usually win games like this? (perhaps no one is saying exactly that, which is fine). Since expected goals use only shot location (right?), they aren?t capturing key variables (passing, puck and player motion, screens, deflections, space and time for the offensive players to pick their spots, etc) that make a play likely to result in a goal. I like numbers and these numbers may tell us something useful over a long stretch games (or maybe not), but I?m fairly suspicious of them over the course of a single game.  I think some may be giving them a little more weight than they deserve.  For instance, if expected goals are 3-2, how often does the team with 3 actually wind up winning?  I personally have no idea.

* yes, lc9 is way too negative

* but, if you look at the teams the leafs have beaten since Keefe has taken over, I think you?ll see the leafs have beaten very few good teams during the run (Carolina, Colorado but they were missing 2 top-line players, and that?s about it)

* probably everyone thinks there is a ton of room to improve

* What are the odds Lillipad is better than Ceci?

* Will Sandin be back before Muzzin heals? What are the chances we see him in a couple of weeks?

The reason we use the numbers is they back up the eye test. I thought the Leafs were far and away the better team yesterday. I mean two goals went right through Andersen on the glove side down the wing. Those are awful goals and we wouldn't be talking about a loss if either or both of those get stopped. But of course there are posters out there who thought the team was complete garbage (probably backed up by the fact that they lost) as the only reference point they're using. What else can you do when it becomes a he said she said scenario?

Yes, I understand why numbers are appealing.  But just because the numbers are there doesn?t mean they?ll be able to resolve the dispute. The world is full of misleading statistics. What else can you do? Simply leave the he-said-she-said unresolved perhaps rather than saying expected goals decides it.

The thing is, for me personally, I don?t know how reliable expected goals are as a single-game metric (or even a multi-game metric). The kind of thing that would give me more understanding of the metric would be a plot of expected goal differential vs win percentage or the shape of the distribution of real goals vs expected goals.  (Are the shapes different for different teams?)

On a tangentially-related note, Dom at the Athletic effectively debunked the notion that playing a goalie back-to-back makes much difference:

?Why NHL coaches need to revisit the idea that goalies shouldn?t start on back-to-back nights?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjYr9aWqdvmAhVEheAKHasPCzIQFjABegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheathletic.com%2F1450527%2F2019%2F12%2F12%2Fwhy-nhl-coaches-need-to-revisit-the-idea-that-goalies-shouldnt-start-on-back-to-back-nights%2F&usg=AOvVaw2uGOPv03EJMgLvsr97MsiA

In a nutshell, the early data that suggested there was a big difference in save percentage without rest seems to have been wrong because it was based on a limited (quirky) data set.  In that article, Dom goes on to make conclusions about backups playing every 7-10 days, which I think is very, very sketchy on his part. I think it could easily be the case there are other quirks in the data causing that trend to appear and that it doesnt really have anything to do with the number of days of rest.  Bottom line. Once again, there?s really hardly anything public known about how to get goalies to perform well.  On these boards, I?ve been arguing (wrongly!) for some time that Babcock s back-to-back to deployment strategy is totally reasonable and it still could have been but I now realize that I can?t really say ... I just have no idea.

What's the point of having discussions on message boards if your solution to differing opinions, instead of backing up an opinion with relevant data and continuing onward, is to just ignore it and engage with people who agree with you? And even so, you're implying that stats (in this case from Moneypuck) are misleading so we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than using them to illustrate a point. So don't engage with people that disagree, don't use stats. That seems like such a cop out to me. But hey, why don't we just say that team sucks after every loss, it's an easier argument.

*Edit: I'll be the first to concede that goaltending is probably the trickiest thing to get a read on in the NHL. There's a reason why the old saying that goaltending is voodoo persists. I also think it's a lot easier to recognize when and make an argument that a team can play an overall good game in a loss.

I think you are over-generalizing here. Im far from against thinking about and deploying statistics.  I do think that the expected goals rate, like Corsi, tell us something about what happened during the game. You seem to be ignoring the more nuanced point I was trying to make (perhaps I was making it badly ? that Im not sure how much expected goals are telling us.)

As for why I read these boards ? I dont do it to try ?argue? and ?win arguments? with people. When I get a sense that Im in an ?argument? as opposed to a ?discussion?, I usually stop posting.  I do like these boards (when they arent hostile) because I learn lots of interesting things. I like finding out how others saw the game and then comparing it to the way I saw it. I also like finding things out about various statistics and what they say about the team.  I do think we should have a healthy skepticism about hockey stats until they mature further.