Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Leafs not at all ready for that stretch pass, jeez

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fancy stats
Sep 9, 2009

A man's man, wears a lot of denim, tells long stories and has oatmeal saved from this morning.



better but still dogshit

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





I am interested in the xG for that period because the Habs took a million shots but it felt like most of them were from as far away as possible

Stretch Marx
Apr 29, 2008

I'm ok with this.

I'm just hoping everyone is having fun.

fancy stats
Sep 9, 2009

A man's man, wears a lot of denim, tells long stories and has oatmeal saved from this morning.



Koopa Kid posted:

I am interested in the xG for that period because the Habs took a million shots but it felt like most of them were from as far away as possible

http://moneypuck.com/g.htm?id=2020020622

Montreal made up ground on a couple of decent chances, but yeah, whole lotta nothing shots from distance.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Koopa Kid posted:

I am interested in the xG for that period because the Habs took a million shots but it felt like most of them were from as far away as possible

Natural stat has the 5v5 numbers as 17 shots to 4 for Montreal. Chances 14 also for Mon and high danger edged 2-1 by Toronto. xG has was 70/30 for Montreal in their model assigning a .35 vs .75 expected goal outcome. The game is nearly evens by Nat Stats numbers with the Leafs creating 5 high dangers and giving up 0 with regular chances being 13 to 2 also in Toronto's favor. Hopefully that provides the context you were looking for

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Lol!

fancy stats
Sep 9, 2009

A man's man, wears a lot of denim, tells long stories and has oatmeal saved from this morning.





beautiful deflection play

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Neat a goal

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





rex rabidorum vires posted:

Natural stat has the 5v5 numbers as 17 shots to 4 for Montreal. Chances 14 also for Mon and high danger edged 2-1 by Toronto. xG has was 70/30 for Montreal in their model assigning a .35 vs .75 expected goal outcome. The game is nearly evens by Nat Stats numbers with the Leafs creating 5 high dangers and giving up 0 with regular chances being 13 to 2 also in Toronto's favor. Hopefully that provides the context you were looking for

tyvm, yeah seems like an obvious edge MTL (as you'd expect) but a whole lotta nothing overall for the period


Also hurray for a totally intentional play!

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Mete totally kicked that towards Brodie

Cocaine Bear
Nov 4, 2011




Good on tj but way to make it hard on yourself. You had an entire half of the bed and you stuffed it into the pads lol.

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





Really need the Leafs to start cashing in on the actual good opportunities they manufacture

Stretch Marx
Apr 29, 2008

I'm ok with this.

Brody I appreciate you

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Leafs woke up

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

"I believe I did, Bob."



I can easily believe the habs losing in regulation but the true habs defeat would be in the first two minutes of OT

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Koopa Kid posted:

tyvm, yeah seems like an obvious edge MTL (as you'd expect) but a whole lotta nothing overall for the period


Also hurray for a totally intentional play!

Yeah and kinda get to see different models at work between Nat Stat and the moneypuck one. I didn't watch a ton since it was bed time for the little one, but it seemed like Montreal got a bunch of those sort of low/mid danger chances where you're looking at like a 5 to 8.5-10% conversion rate vs the high dangers which are 15-20%ish. Which is reflected in both models but somewhat differently.

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





Man the Matthews line just has zero interest in defending against the cycle

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Omg...

Flocons de Jambon
Apr 11, 2015


Tavares' line doing everything but score. Galchenyuk's flying.

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





rex rabidorum vires posted:

Yeah and kinda get to see different models at work between Nat Stat and the moneypuck one. I didn't watch a ton since it was bed time for the little one, but it seemed like Montreal got a bunch of those sort of low/mid danger chances where you're looking at like a 5 to 8.5-10% conversion rate vs the high dangers which are 15-20%ish.

Yeah I'd need to go back and watch somehow but I have a hard time fully reconciling model numbers from game events because a chance =/= a SOG necessarily and there's a certain amount of fuzz around how attempts and their states (off a pass/rebound for instance) are determined. I know broadcasts tend to make point play + crash the net stuff sound more dangerous than it is too which is why I ask because the period sounded exciting but my eyes disagree, but a model that loves, like, flurry chances would probably have a different opinion.

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





Well that was nice

Mister Speaker
May 8, 2007




zack supremacy

grack
Jan 10, 2012

COACH TOTORO SAY REFEREE CAN BANISH WHISTLE TO LAND OF WIND AND GHOSTS!


Hyman breaks it open!

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






MoaM posted:

Leafs woke up

fancy stats
Sep 9, 2009

A man's man, wears a lot of denim, tells long stories and has oatmeal saved from this morning.



this montreal team isn't scoring two more here

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





I don't know what a penalty is anymore but I do know a lot of Habs are hitting the ice along the Leafs boards somehow

Stretch Marx
Apr 29, 2008

I'm ok with this.

Hyman gets a lucky bounce

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





haha well speak of the devil because the slowest trip on the slowest 2 on 1 is clearly a penalty

Aces High
Mar 26, 2010

Nah! A little chocolate will do





woof, I don't remember the last time Avs were down by 3 at the end of the first period. I don't think they're gonna win this one

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Aces High posted:

woof, I don't remember the last time Avs were down by 3 at the end of the first period. I don't think they're gonna win this one

Wow, that score changed fast

fancy stats
Sep 9, 2009

A man's man, wears a lot of denim, tells long stories and has oatmeal saved from this morning.



Koopa Kid posted:

I don't know what a penalty is anymore but I do know a lot of Habs are hitting the ice along the Leafs boards somehow

buncha scoundrels

Cocaine Bear
Nov 4, 2011




The gently caress is wrong with Tavares? He hurt or just get all bad?

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Koopa Kid posted:

Yeah I'd need to go back and watch somehow but I have a hard time fully reconciling model numbers from game events because a chance =/= a SOG necessarily and there's a certain amount of fuzz around how attempts and their states (off a pass/rebound for instance) are determined. I know broadcasts tend to make point play + crash the net stuff sound more dangerous than it is too which is why I ask because the period sounded exciting but my eyes disagree, but a model that loves, like, flurry chances would probably have a different opinion.

Oh yeah. Usually when I make my big dumb posts about it I try to use multiple sources, but for basic mid-game stuff whatever and it's much more about the ratio instead of absolute numbers. Understanding the bias of specific models is also super helpful, as you mention .

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






I'm guessing the whole Islanders taunting thing five decades ago tilted him permanently

Koopa Kid
Aug 21, 2007





Cocaine Bear posted:

The gently caress is wrong with Tavares? He hurt or just get all bad?

imo he broke his hand last year and his shot never came back

Moneypuck has him at -6 goals above expected and one of the unluckiest shooters in the league by true talent, but I think itís possible that heís a little busted. His lack of foot speed is more of an issue now too, he struggles to find space and time.

Tavares not being able to cash in on glorious chances is a big part of why the Leafs lost to Columbus last year.

grassy gnoll
Aug 27, 2006

The pawsting business is tough work.

That sure was a Perry-rear end goal.

rex rabidorum vires
Mar 26, 2007



Lol gently caress corey perry

MoaM
Dec 1, 2009

Believe.






Leafs really gotta work on this non-5v5 thing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fancy stats
Sep 9, 2009

A man's man, wears a lot of denim, tells long stories and has oatmeal saved from this morning.



gently caress corey perry

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply