HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

The success of Anaheim shows that Boudreau is an excellent coach.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-21-2013, 10:14 AM
  #276
LuG61
2015 Playoff Saviour
 
LuG61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ducks
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,119
vCash: 1015
So instead of dumping it in the corner, we just dump it on net everytime, we will deserve our wins?

LuG61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:34 AM
  #277
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalifaxDucks61 View Post
So instead of dumping it in the corner, we just dump it on net everytime, we will deserve our wins?
I'm not sure why so many people have difficulty with this concept.

Teams do not play the games for the simple purpose of accumulating shots, thus these snarky comments about dumping the puck on net from center and taking shots from the point are irrelevant. Teams don't play the game that way.

CORSI and Fenwick help describe what is happening on the ice. They are the X variable, not the Y variable.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:36 AM
  #278
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theridion View Post
Of course you are right. Eventually, this year, the playoffs, or next year, they will lose some games.

Taking more shots but scoring less is bad for winning. It might eventually happen.

Chicago's undefeatedness had to end sometime. Every losing streak has an end. Crosby will eventually retire.

You are predicting something that has to happen.

Now, if you wanna be cool or actually show you know anything that you are talking about, tell me WHEN and WHY. Then it'd be great to read about your insights of hockey.
I have no interest in looking "cool" to people on a message board.

I have no deep insights other than Anaheim will not continue shooting at an absurd 11.5% rate. They will regress towards the league average of 8-8.5%. When that happens, they better start improving their possession game, or else they will start losing a lot.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:38 AM
  #279
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newfie9 View Post
Pittsburgh has a nearly identical shooting % as the Ducks, and the Lightning have a higher % by almost 1. So the Lightning are gonna drop off too? Oh, right..
Tampa isn't very good, so I'm not sure what point you're making there.

The difference between Pittsburgh and Anaheim is that Pittsburgh is a good possession team.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:40 AM
  #280
TheNeutrality
Living out a lie
 
TheNeutrality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Except teams don't play the game to get good CORSI stats. They play to score goals. So they tend to optimize their shooting, and thus they won't just take 45 unscreened wristers from the point because it would result in a loss.
That's exactly the point I tried to make. Shots alone won't win you a game, it's the high quality scoring chances that will make the difference.

But what if your opponent defends so well that you are forced to the perimeter and you simply can't get many high quality chances? Just as an example? There are two possibilities now:

Either you wait for your chance and keep playing the way you did. Or you start to shoot from everywhere and hope that one of this shots goes in, so you can benefit from a possibly rattled opponent.
The first option will lead to certain doom, unless your opponent has the same problem with your defense.
The second option can (and will most likely) lead to a lopsided and deceptive CORSI rating.

It's not like you can just decide if you want to have high quality chances or not. Sometimes you have to adapt to the opponent's play. And especially against the Ducks of this season this is often the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
This is true for small sample sizes. Scoring chances can vary wildly within a game itself, even if shots between teams are fairly equal. But over large samples, it becomes apparent that no team significantly produces higher quality shot attempts, and that much of small-term variation is just pure noise.

In fact, that's the reason why Fenwick is a better indicator of team strength than goals for/against; like you say, the within a game (or ten, or twenty) chances can vary quite wildly, which can result in anomalous shooting and save percentages. Puck possession is a repeatable skill, and much less prone to wild variation.
Are you sure about that? I'm not asking because I don't believe it, but it would surprise me. On the other hand, the teams are playing against 14 different opponents during the season, so I guess it evens out over the time.
I think the high quality shots allowed are more interesting, anyway. Do you have the numbers for those?

Overall agree with your post, though. We simply don't have a sample size which is big enough to make more or less accurate predictions.

TheNeutrality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:41 AM
  #281
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 29,906
vCash: 50
I'd like to know when winning games stopped being a benchmark for a successful team. Now we're applying an asterisk next to a team because they aren't winning the "right" way?

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:42 AM
  #282
Getz2perry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Ah crap...

the penguins are the unsustainable team of the east!

Getz2perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:42 AM
  #283
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,673
vCash: 178
Boudreau was fired because he panicked after the Montreal series. He was in almost as much disbelief as Ovie and co at how they could not simply outscore their problems, especially against a borderline failure Habs squad. Subsequent season saw a complete shift into a mutated defensive hybrid system that Washington could not properly adjust - only serving to stifle their offense and exasperate the problem. Ovie's fractored ego certainly didn't do Bruce any favors, but at the time, I'd argue firing Bruce was the right move. He was not a bad coach, just one who needed a change of scenery.

How I evaluate his success in Anaheim is Bruce realized his errors with the Caps and made the necessary adjustments with a revamped offensive system; again coaching to his strengths. In many ways, he mirrors how Vancouver fans feel about AV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I'd like to know when winning games stopped being a benchmark for a successful team. Now we're applying an asterisk next to a team because they aren't winning the "right" way?
If you've watched the Canucks since January 2012. You'd know why many of us no longer see them as a "successful team" in the prototypical sense. Winning games almost to spite yourself on a regular basis tend to create far more future problems and/or disappointment. Toronto knows it all too well.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:43 AM
  #284
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I'd like to know when winning games stopped being a benchmark for a successful team. Now we're applying an asterisk next to a team because they aren't winning the "right" way?
Why does it bother you so much that people who are stats-minded like to dig into a greater level of depth than simple wins-losses?

Enjoy your recent success.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:44 AM
  #285
Getz2perry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I'd like to know when winning games stopped being a benchmark for a successful team. Now we're applying an asterisk next to a team because they aren't winning the "right" way?
Get out of here with that crazy talk!

pssssh winning? ha what a joke.

You have to shoot more, possess the puck more... at the same time your shot percentage cant be to high or its unsustainable. And your goalies cant make saves there job is to be sustainable not try and make every save.

Getz2perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:46 AM
  #286
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 29,906
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Why does it bother you so much that people who are stats-minded like to dig into a greater level of depth than simple wins-losses?

Enjoy your recent success.
I find it to be a little insulting to the players that they can consistently win games and still be declared "not very good" by people who can't even be bothered to watch the teams they are passing judgement on.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:46 AM
  #287
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNeutrality View Post
That's exactly the point I tried to make. Shots alone won't win you a game, it's the high quality scoring chances that will make the difference.

But what if your opponent defends so well that you are forced to the perimeter and you simply can't get many high quality chances? Just as an example? There are two possibilities now:

Either you wait for your chance and keep playing the way you did. Or you start to shoot from everywhere and hope that one of this shots goes in, so you can benefit from a possibly rattled opponent.
The first option will lead to certain doom, unless your opponent has the same problem with your defense.
The second option can (and will most likely) lead to a lopsided and deceptive CORSI rating.

It's not like you can just decide if you want to have high quality chances or not. Sometimes you have to adapt to the opponent's play. And especially against the Ducks of this season this is often the case.
Most of this discussion has been about Anaheim's shooting percentage, and thus their offense, so let's keep it there for now. I think their goaltending is unsustainable too, but that's another argument.

You're essentially assuming that Anaheim is better than other teams at creating high quality chances, thus leading to their high shooting percentage. You can certainly believe that, just know that Minnesota Wild fans thought the same thing in December 2011, Colorado Avalanche fans thought the same thing after 2010, and Washington fans thought the same thing after 2009.

Teams that live on the extremes of the percentages will always come back to the middle.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:47 AM
  #288
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I find it to be a little insulting to the players that they can consistently win games and still be declared "not very good" by people who can't even be bothered to watch the teams they are passing judgement on.
Who cares what I think?

Don't be insulted because some stats-minded person on a message board doesn't think your team is good.

I can guarantee you Ryan Getzlaf doesn't give a **** what I think.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:51 AM
  #289
Getz2perry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Why does it bother you so much that people who are stats-minded like to dig into a greater level of depth than simple wins-losses?

Enjoy your recent success.
I dont think it bothers him much, other then the fact that were right there with Chicago but get minimal credit because of "stats" when really before the playoffs the only "stat" that matters is points, and then come playoff time the only "stat" that matters is wins.

You use the word "will" like your the all might predictor of where teams will be by the end of the season, k you have your stats and the stats have percentages and the percentages may not look good, that doesnt make it a fact tho. Give credit when credit is due.

Recent success we've been pretty successful since the 04 lockout.

Getz2perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:53 AM
  #290
LuG61
2015 Playoff Saviour
 
LuG61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ducks
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,119
vCash: 1015
Obviously they aren't going to shoot pucks from center to play for shots on goal. But if their gameplan was to literally dump pucks on net and it happened to give us 8-10 shots a game, we would be a better team. Is what those horse **** stats mean.


Last edited by LuG61: 03-21-2013 at 11:03 AM.
LuG61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 10:58 AM
  #291
gratefulyours
Great 8 = T. Selanne
 
gratefulyours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Oakland
Country: United States
Posts: 5,432
vCash: 902
unsustainable, that's what you are
unsustainable though near or far
Like a song of love that clings to me
How the thought of you does things to me
Never before has someone been more

unsustainable in every way
And forever more, that's how you'll stay
That's why, darling, it's incredible
That someone so unsustainable
Thinks that I am unsustainable too

unsustainable in every way
And forever more, that's how you'll stay
That's why, darling, it's incredible
That someone so unsustainable
Thinks that I am unsustainable too

gratefulyours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:03 AM
  #292
Getz2perry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gratefulyours View Post
unsustainable, that's what you are
unsustainable though near or far
Like a song of love that clings to me
How the thought of you does things to me
Never before has someone been more

unsustainable in every way
And forever more, that's how you'll stay
That's why, darling, it's incredible
That someone so unsustainable
Thinks that I am unsustainable too

unsustainable in every way
And forever more, that's how you'll stay
That's why, darling, it's incredible
That someone so unsustainable
Thinks that I am unsustainable too
I liked the beginning of our rewritten version on the ducks boards.

Getz2perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:06 AM
  #293
TheNeutrality
Living out a lie
 
TheNeutrality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Most of this discussion has been about Anaheim's shooting percentage, and thus their offense, so let's keep it there for now. I think their goaltending is unsustainable too, but that's another argument.

You're essentially assuming that Anaheim is better than other teams at creating high quality chances, thus leading to their high shooting percentage. You can certainly believe that, just know that Minnesota Wild fans thought the same thing in December 2011, Colorado Avalanche fans thought the same thing after 2010, and Washington fans thought the same thing after 2009.
It could be an explanation, I guess. Doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Teams that live on the extremes of the percentages will always come back to the middle.
That's where I agree with you. But the main factor in this is WHEN they start to regress. It could be right now, but it also could be next season. We simply don't know.

TheNeutrality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:07 AM
  #294
LuG61
2015 Playoff Saviour
 
LuG61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ducks
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,119
vCash: 1015
It just boggles my mind how anyway who has played the game of hockey can put 100 % faith into these stats

LuG61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:18 AM
  #295
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 13,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I'd like to know when winning games stopped being a benchmark for a successful team. Now we're applying an asterisk next to a team because they aren't winning the "right" way?
I think people are just saying an .828 p% is not sustainable. That's a 136 point pace, which would be the best in history. How much they regress is up for debate, but i don't think there's much of a doubt that they will. Heck i don't even think the pens' .743 p% is sustainable. They've been more of a .650ish p% team historically under Bylsma.

Luigi Lemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:20 AM
  #296
Lyons71
Registered User
 
Lyons71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fullerton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,068
vCash: 500
When they get up by a few goals they don't shoot as much. They also just got steckle. That should help with f/o. I think when they start getting shut out they'll shoot more.

I'm not a fan of these statistics. Please tell me from what you have watched makes the ducks not very good.

Lyons71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:27 AM
  #297
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 29,906
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luigi Lemieux View Post
I think people are just saying an .828 p% is not sustainable. That's a 136 point pace, which would be the best in history. How much they regress is up for debate, but i don't think there's much of a doubt that they will. Heck i don't even think the pens' .743 p% is sustainable. They've been more of a .650ish p% team historically under Bylsma.
I don't think any team can be expected to maintain that type of win percentage long term. I have zero problem with someone saying that. It's more the insinuation by some that they aren't a good team or, worse, that watching their games isn't necessary to determine if they are a good team. There have been more than a few comments along those lines.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 11:30 AM
  #298
Diggy
Registered User
 
Diggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County
Country: United States
Posts: 774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
CORSI and Fenwick help describe what is happening on the ice.
You are right, the problem is definitely with the Ducks and in no way could be with advanced stat system.

Seriously, you seem to have a lot invested and faith put into these advanced stat system. While they are useful in helping to decipher lots of information, it is important to always remember that they are all flawed in one way or another and in no way can predict the future with absolute certainty.

Diggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:02 PM
  #299
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggy View Post
You are right, the problem is definitely with the Ducks and in no way could be with advanced stat system.

Seriously, you seem to have a lot invested and faith put into these advanced stat system. While they are useful in helping to decipher lots of information, it is important to always remember that they are all flawed in one way or another and in no way can predict the future with absolute certainty.
No, they can't. If you flip a coin one hundred times in a row, it's extremely unlikely that you'll guess the exact number of heads and tails.

That doesn't mean that guessing 50/50 isn't the most likely to be accurate play.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:02 PM
  #300
MMonarchs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Once again, no team has been able to maintain an 11.5% shooting percentage over the long term in the modern era. You can drum up all the semantics you want, but that's a fact.

Unless you think the Ducks are so special that they found some magic elixir that every team in the last ten years has yet to find, expect a sizable regression. I'm not sure when it will happen, but it will.

And hey, maybe Anaheim gets better at possession somehow. That could happen, and they could still keep winning. But if they keep playing the way they're playing, they will start losing games, and a lot of them.
Appreciate this post. It displays without a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about (statistics-wise).

MMonarchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:53 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.