LGR4GM

lol, well played

For public models you are correct. I believe there are private models that take into account pre-shot movement and if the goalie is being screened. Basically you can categorize a shot as more than simply wrist shot, 21.6' from the net in quadrant B7. You can tag it as other stuff and build a more complex model but again, I don't think most of those are publicly available, although I think Micah McCurdy does incorporate some of that into his model which you can pay to access. The short version. We need to be careful about using xGF as some type of end stat, it's a better version of CF/CA.

See this, this is why I pushed back so hard against your "eye test tells me everything" schtick in the other thread.

This is from yesterday at practice: Ellis had his own net meaning he is the likely starter tonight.

This team never wins 3 in a row and they never win the game that puts them over .500 so...

I think looking at xGF% over the course of a week (about 3 games) is a bad idea. xGF is a measure of in part of shot efficiency but also volume impacts it. If my team takes 50 shots from all over and your team takes only 20 from roughly the hd areas, our xGF might end up close. I'd guess what you are seeing in the last week is a Sabres team that played 2 really dominant games and the stats are reflecting that. It is why we have to be careful using stats in the micro, sometimes they look good for a short period of time. The Kansas City Chiefs are a great example. There were loads of stats last year that said they weren't that good of team and they won like 10 one score games. This year they are are like 1-5 in one score games because eventually they got where ppl thought they would. Stats should always be combined with the eye test and should always come with description. Yes, I actually do believe the eye test provides valuable information, contrary to what some might think.

Agreed, you cannot draw conclusions from analytics alone.

Because you keep taking shots at stats and you're flat out wrong. I know it's hard for boomers but we're not required to just let you spout whatever and then not counter it with facts. Stats literally tell you about things happening on the ice. That's what they do, you wanna argue that they are interpreted incorrectly go for it. You don't understand the stats, what they tell us, or even all the ones that exist. I'm not required to also ignore them because of your knowledge gap or to not defend them for the same. There is so much evidence the eye test doesn't tell you everything. Let alone before we introduce bias into the eye test. Eye test is tool, subject to the whims of the watcher.

Interesting. Ik cozens has only 4 ev goals this yr but didn't realize it's only 1 over the last month.

Part of the issue here is the assumption you must say a number and that's that. It isn't and never will or should be. It's why almost everyone on this board who uses numbers adds context. The inverse is not true at all. Lots of ppl make claims that aren't backed up by the numbers.

Yea and sometimes the eye test is total ***** as ppl ascribe things to a player that aren't actually that player. Happens way more than analytics being wrong especially when analytics literally can account for not only linemates but opposition. Stats are literally a reflection of actual performance. You're confusing stats with prediction. Stats tell us what happened, not if it will continue.

I mean, you didn't even list like 90% of the stats or what they do. There's a fundamental misunderstanding and a deliberate downplaying of what stats are for, by you.

Sounds like they are starting Ellis against Philly.

Ellis is getting the start tomorrow most likely. He had the starters net today at practice.