HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Goldilocks Game, 5-4 Jets

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2017, 09:55 AM
  #126
Jetfaninflorida
Southernmost Jet Fan
 
Jetfaninflorida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,615
vCash: 500
I only saw bits and pieces of this one due to guests at the house. Whenever peeked at the game, the Wild were all over us. I saw the score when we were up 3 zip. Then I saw at the end of the second when it was 4-4. Then, I had the great fortune of seeing the goal for us to go up 5 to 4. Then I had the greater fortune of seeing Buf catch the puck, **** his arm, and throw the puck a mile down the ice. I laughed out loud, and still chuckle thinking about it. I was mesmerized watching the replays, thinking to myself 'what was he thinking'. I can't help but think that he too was laughing inside when he did it before really realizing what exactly he had done.

I was sure we were going to overtime but somehow puck luck was with us.

I was looking forward to seeing Brian Strait play, but unfortunately didn't get enough of the game. Afterall, Chevy had been trying to get him for a few years (I am pretty sure that's what Chevy said), so he must be really really good. Right?


LOL - I see that the auto-censor blocked out one of my words. For the record, the word that I used was in this context as per dictionary: to draw back (one's fist, arm, etc.)


Last edited by Jetfaninflorida: 03-20-2017 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Last sentence
Jetfaninflorida is online now  
Old
03-20-2017, 10:20 AM
  #127
Rambokala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,901
vCash: 50
Fun fact: Laine was the only Finnish player out of 5 who didn't get into the scoreboard.

Rambokala is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 01:02 PM
  #128
Guffman
Strait is Great!
 
Guffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peg View Post
Really a shame the anti-tank thread was closed. I thought it was only going to get shut down when we were mathematically eliminated. Not only are we not eliminated, our odds have actually improved since the thread was closed, and if Nashville loses tonight our odds of getting in double

Sportsclubstats actually shows us having a .2% chance to win Lord Stanley's cup if we run the table to the end of the season. Can it happen????

Let me put it this way, if we can win with a lineup with Strait, Stuart, Melchiori and Thorburn, AND with Hellebuyck getting pulled after letting in 4 goals in 10 minutes, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE
When an extreme optimist like myself has accepted our fate, it's time to move on to next year.

Guffman is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 01:08 PM
  #129
Guffman
Strait is Great!
 
Guffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I think he'll bounce back, if and by how much will depend on how much of a decent back up he has and goalie coaching...

To be fair, analytics suggest that the average expected goals against for the Jets was 4. So he wasn't off overall in performance from expectations, regardless of which ones went in and which ones did not.
How do you compute that? Are you factoring actual roster players (e.g. the butchered D we had), home/road teams, Wild playing on a back to back, actual shots the game, quality of shots etc.

If we were to use this "expected goals against" to justify Hellebuyck's performance, I hope it's factoring all pertinent factors.

Guffman is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 06:12 PM
  #130
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guffman View Post
How do you compute that? Are you factoring actual roster players (e.g. the butchered D we had), home/road teams, Wild playing on a back to back, actual shots the game, quality of shots etc.

If we were to use this "expected goals against" to justify Hellebuyck's performance, I hope it's factoring all pertinent factors.
Expected goal model gives you the average number of goals one should expect given quantity and quality factors.

On average, a team taking as many shots as the Wild did, with the shot quality variables we account for (shot distance, shot angle, handedness of shooter vs side of ice, seconds from last event not in defensive zone, seconds from last shot on net, and historical finishing of shooter) and other adjustment factors (home/away, score of the game, man power, etc.) score 4.34 goals.

I'm not justifying any sort of performance, but it does give context that on average a goalie is expected to allow a similar number of goals against. I will also point out that Hellebuyck on average has been allowing slightly more goals against than expected over the season... so it's not like expected goals excuse Hellebuyck of his performance.



Now for some stats lecturing (feel free to ignore )

In regards to "all" pertinent factors, there is no eye test or model that will actually factor all pertinent factors. However, there is a diminishing return with each additional factor you add for, and models tend to out perform even expert eyetests (and especially layman eyetests).

As I noted to you previously about expected goals, for goal scorers, expected goals explain about 82% of the variation we see in actual goals. This means about 28% is unexplained, which will be things we do not account for and in part just luck/variation/human-ups-and-downs.

Each thing we are missing though will only moderately improve the model. For example: Stamkos scores an extra 49% of goals on average relative to expected prior to adding the historical finishing of shooter. A good part of this is Stamkos' natural ability to improve things we are not measuring: shot speed, shot accuracy, creating one timers, etc. While we are not directly accounting for those things directly, we are in part indirectly with adding a regressed shooter history component to expected goals.

In addition, players who are overall good at most areas will be good at most areas. Example: There is a relationship to players who are better scorers and better shot differential players. Looking at only one skill will catch a little bit of the other, so the addition of each incremental skill set diminishes in value added.



As an aside, I will point out that you are confusing inputs and reasons why inputs may be as they are in your above list. Example: team schedule, like back to backs, is merely a factor that will impact the quantity and quality shot variables.

garret9 is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 06:16 PM
  #131
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Time frame?

I gotta think that Copp is closing the gap on the others.
This season.

His scoring has gone up, but so has his quality of teammate. The overall bump has not been much.

garret9 is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 07:04 PM
  #132
Guardian17
Strong & Free
 
Guardian17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,097
vCash: 500
Scheifele mic'd up.


Guardian17 is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 08:02 PM
  #133
Guffman
Strait is Great!
 
Guffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Expected goal model gives you the average number of goals one should expect given quantity and quality factors.

On average, a team taking as many shots as the Wild did, with the shot quality variables we account for (shot distance, shot angle, handedness of shooter vs side of ice, seconds from last event not in defensive zone, seconds from last shot on net, and historical finishing of shooter) and other adjustment factors (home/away, score of the game, man power, etc.) score 4.34 goals.

I'm not justifying any sort of performance, but it does give context that on average a goalie is expected to allow a similar number of goals against. I will also point out that Hellebuyck on average has been allowing slightly more goals against than expected over the season... so it's not like expected goals excuse Hellebuyck of his performance.



Now for some stats lecturing (feel free to ignore )

In regards to "all" pertinent factors, there is no eye test or model that will actually factor all pertinent factors. However, there is a diminishing return with each additional factor you add for, and models tend to out perform even expert eyetests (and especially layman eyetests).

As I noted to you previously about expected goals, for goal scorers, expected goals explain about 82% of the variation we see in actual goals. This means about 28% is unexplained, which will be things we do not account for and in part just luck/variation/human-ups-and-downs.

Each thing we are missing though will only moderately improve the model. For example: Stamkos scores an extra 49% of goals on average relative to expected prior to adding the historical finishing of shooter. A good part of this is Stamkos' natural ability to improve things we are not measuring: shot speed, shot accuracy, creating one timers, etc. While we are not directly accounting for those things directly, we are in part indirectly with adding a regressed shooter history component to expected goals.

In addition, players who are overall good at most areas will be good at most areas. Example: There is a relationship to players who are better scorers and better shot differential players. Looking at only one skill will catch a little bit of the other, so the addition of each incremental skill set diminishes in value added.



As an aside, I will point out that you are confusing inputs and reasons why inputs may be as they are in your above list. Example: team schedule, like back to backs, is merely a factor that will impact the quantity and quality shot variables.
Oh, I just wanted to understand the inputs. Thanks. That actually sounds reasonably based and I appreciate the time you took to explain it.

Guffman is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 08:37 PM
  #134
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 18,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guffman View Post
Oh, I just wanted to understand the inputs. Thanks. That actually sounds reasonably based and I appreciate the time you took to explain it.
No problem.

I spaced out the stuff so you could stop reading in case I went too much into detail.

garret9 is offline  
Old
03-20-2017, 08:41 PM
  #135
MardyBum
Registered User
 
MardyBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
No problem.

I spaced out the stuff so you could stop reading in case I went too much into detail.
Many of us would like to have a better understanding of new and more advanced methods of tracking player and team performance, but have no idea where to start looking or how to start, so please keep going into more detail on them.

Your WAR posts have me following DTMAH on twitter now and trying to learn more. Keep it up, you're educating a generation of Jets fans (at least on here )

MardyBum is online now  
Old
03-20-2017, 09:12 PM
  #136
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 26,645
vCash: 500
I thought it was a bigger beat-down than this chart seems to suggest...


Whileee is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.