GDT - Sabres @ Calgary - January 16, 2019 - 9:30 PM - SN360; SN1; MSG-B

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Sustainability is a phantom.  None of this is sustainable.  It's skill + system + effort + luck against skill + system + effort + luck in varying degrees.  Luck is just another way of saying probability.  The best players are the ones that can plays that look unsustainably lucky using the skills they have.  You say Jack's OT winner last night isn't sustainable.  I disagree.  He read the play and determined that, (1) all the Flames thought he was going to go off the ice for a substitution, and (2) there were openings high on the goalie.  The probability is low (less than 50%, perhaps less than 25%) that sniping just inside the post/crossbar on shots like that will go in.  But he tried it anyway and it went in.  Is a 25% chance of success really low though?  If you look at baseball, .250 is a respectable batting average.  It's way above a typical goals/shot percentage in the NHL.  That's why they call situations like Jack found himself in a "scoring chance".  It blows my mind that you would call that goal the result of luck.  It was skill, a better than typical probability of success, and taking advantage of a flaw in the other team's system (not playing as hard against someone they expect to do a line change).  The best players score goals on plays like that; it's not luck.

Well, I never specifically mentioned Jack's goal. I said 2 of the 4.  The deflection and the breakaway are lucky imo for different reasons. The deflection because you have no real control over that and the breakaway because clean cut breakaways happen rarely. 

Actually we know where goals are scored from. We know how they are scored, shot type. We can see it in shot patterns and areas of the ice. I suppose you can call it all luck. We really are talking probability. We would then have to define where we believe luck is on the probability scale.

In hockey I like the 10% mark. A shot that goes in 10% of the time is good (also I think the league average right now is something like 10.2%). This isn't baseball so 25% means nothing here. So let's say you map out a teams shots. Let's say shots from the slot go in at a 15% pace and shots from the point at a 5% pace. That gives you your 10% if the number of shots is the same. Therefore if you want to use probability I would argue that shots +/- 1% of 10% are your average, that 9-11% range. Any shot location + shot type that falls below that 9% has questionable sustainability. Shots above that 9-11% range are more sustainable because on average they have a better chance of going in. In a way that defines the luck of it. 

I honestly haven't thought this fully out but wanted to get some thoughts out for the discussion. What do y'all think?

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Accordingly?  When they win I'm happy.  When they lose I'm sad.  That's reacting accordingly.  I don't need fancystats to know if I should be happy or not.

Okay, but it's not just about you. It's about the rest of the board commenters too, as well as everyone else out in the sports fan world. There are a lot of people who could benefit from understanding why their team is the way it is. So that's why we talk about the "why" of things. 

[Doohicksie]

To back off my position a bit:

Yes, looking at the stats underlying the team's play increases insight into why they win or lose, and that can enhance a fan's experience.  But in my case,. that is all secondary to whether they win or lose. 

I enjoy seeing the statistical breakdowns that people provide free of charge on this forum.  It's a great service some of you provide.  But on the other hand, when people drag the forum down with pessimism when the Sabres win a game they think the stats say we should have lost, I'm going to revert back to my basic "gut feel" version of fandom.  The insight is great, but rather than cry about how the win was unsustainable I'd rather marvel at the win and move on to the next game. 

3 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Okay, but it's not just about you.

To me, it is.  ?

[LGR4GM]

Here's a fun stat... going into the year I believe Dahlin was projected to get 36 points based off the SHL conversion stuff. That was a good number in all honestly because rookie defenders hitting 30 points is rare at his age and 40 points would be historic... so how is our young Rasmus Dahlin doing?

Dahlin: 5g, 21a, 9pp points and 26 total points in 47 games. That means if he plays all 82 games he projects out to: 9g, 37a, 16pp points and 46 total points on the year. 

He's currently 5th on the team in points and only 3 points behind Ristolainen. 

[Stoner]

I was very surprised to learn they scored on their only three shots in the third and overtime. Was it even brought up during the play by play or in this GDT? Wonder why that is? Maybe the eye test didn't suggest they were being savaged statistically. Common sense should prevail over "hockey by numbers."

10 hours ago, darksabre said:

Ullmark deserves Friday against Vancouver. He's earned it. 

The Dominator-like save moments after the Canucks tied the game (8:07 or so left) was incredible. Drop the stick, spin around, fall down, throw up your right leg and right arm and stop it with your blocker. Oh well, probably too lucky. How can he possibly reliably replicate that on the spreadsheets? Die, joy, die.

4 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Yeesh. Happy to learn of a win, but ... that’s not good.

Speaking of which. You know what's next.

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

I prefer wins that are reliably predictive of future wins, not a function of PDO.

There it is!

2 hours ago, ... said:

That's because his play in the offensive zone just prior led to a turn over.

It's three on three. It's not hockey.

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

Yup. We are consistently bad at getting shots on goal from the "dirty areas". We get there, but other teams are doing a good job of preventing any actual scoring opportunities.

3 of our 4 goals last night were basically luck, including Jack's OT winner which was shot from an angle where most goalies have the entire net covered. It was a true seeing-eye shot. Dahlin's goal was tipped by a Calgary player. McCabe's was nice but mostly the product of a good but rare screen.

You need to be a little lucky to win games like this. And the Sabres had the luck last night.

Maybe Jack put it there because that area wasn't covered. If that goal was basically luck, let's just shut the sport down and do something else. My God, you people.

54 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytics_(ice_hockey)#PDO 

And the coup de grace. A Wikipedia link to a made-up "stat" whose name literally stands for nothing.

43 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

The Sabres won.  It's all that matters.

But it's not. Don't you see where this is headed? They don't want the scoreboard to mean anything. That's the end game. Imagine if this elite clique of anonymous people can control the REAL outcome of the games? The fortunes, the power! As we've gotten a whiff of in this thread, goals are all about, or mostly, luck. It's capricious and arbitrary and unfair to say Buffalo 4, Calgary 3. It's toxic masculinity, I tell ya. Always having to count and apportion and assign "victory." The real and socially just final score last night was Calgary .894, Buffalo .795. Duh!

[LGR4GM]

@PA 

[LGR4GM]

As long as the Sabres continue to find themselves in 1 goal wins/losses luck will be an important factor. Bounces going this way or that. That's why you want to be as good as possible because then you have the ability to overcome some of that luck. If you are better you have more opportunities yourself to be lucky. It's why I want the Sabres adding talent over the long run and not just for this year or next. They need to generate more luck/probability then they currently are. 

In this context luck means positive probability or a positive event happening for your team. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by LGR4GM

[darksabre]

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I was very surprised to learn they scored on their only three shots in the third and overtime. Was it even brought up during the play by play or in this GDT? Wonder why that is? Maybe the eye test didn't suggest they were being savaged statistically. Common sense should prevail over "hockey by numbers."

The Dominator-like save moments after the Canucks tied the game (8:07 or so left) was incredible. Drop the stick, spin around, fall down, throw up your right leg and right arm and stop it with your blocker. Oh well, probably too lucky. How can he possibly reliably replicate that on the spreadsheets? Die, joy, die.

Speaking of which. You know what's next.

There it is!

It's three on three. It's not hockey.

Maybe Jack put it there because that area wasn't covered. If that goal was basically luck, let's just shut the sport down and do something else. My God, you people.

And the coup de grace. A Wikipedia link to a made-up "stat" whose name literally stands for nothing.

But it's not. Don't you see where this is headed? They don't want the scoreboard to mean anything. That's the end game. Imagine if this elite clique of anonymous people can control the REAL outcome of the games? The fortunes, the power! As we've gotten a whiff of in this thread, goals are all about, or mostly, luck. It's capricious and arbitrary and unfair to say Buffalo 4, Calgary 3. It's toxic masculinity, I tell ya. Always having to count and apportion and assign "victory." The real and socially just final score last night was Calgary .894, Buffalo .795. Duh!

It's fine to just admit you like watching hockey but don't actually care to understand it.

[MODO Hockey]

Looking at highlights im seeing Linus Ullmark coming closer to what he really is.

He is the next king, just need to step some sh1t up and he will be alright. He almost got it now

[WildCard]

Just now, MODO Hockey said:

Looking at highlights im seeing Linus Ullmark coming closer to what he really is.

He is the next king, just need to step some sh1t up and he will be alright. He almost got it now

Ullmark really has come into his own. Gives me a lot of faith going forward

[MODO Hockey]

Just now, WildCard said:

Ullmark really has come into his own. Gives me a lot of faith going forward

If you are happy, i am too.

 

But yea, as u know i might be the one that sometimes blames his efforts the most but that is just between me and him, i know for 110% what he can achive if he just somehow finds his real mojo over there. 

To be the best at what you do you also must create the best enviroment around your life on and off the ice, if he finds that, he will prove to everyone what he really can do as a goalie. Last night was just a glimse, how he can handle stress is amazing and one of the keypoints to success

[darksabre]

7 minutes ago, MODO Hockey said:

Looking at highlights im seeing Linus Ullmark coming closer to what he really is.

He is the next king, just need to step some sh1t up and he will be alright. He almost got it now

Agreed. My hope was that with more playing time he would refine his movements and find some consistency. It appears to be happening and I'm glad.

[Doohicksie]

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

In this context luck means positive probability or a positive event happening for your team. 

I knew I could have an effect on you.  ?

[Stoner]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

@PA 

You care! You put a ton of work into that gif!

[...]

34 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It's three on three. It's not hockey.

I have no idea why you included this in your point on how stats are muffling the joy of watching a hockey game.

Anyway, to the quoted: you have clearly and obviously not played street or pond hockey.  That is where the joy of the sport is created in kids.  3x3 with or without goalies is definitely, without question, hockey.

19 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's fine to just admit you like watching hockey but don't actually care to understand it.

I wish people would do this for economics, civics, religion, philosophy, history and politics.  But, no, the world is one big GDT of people who think they know everything.

Edited January 17, 2019 by ...

[nfreeman]

Overall, I thought the Sabres played pretty well in the 1st and 2nd, but played like they knew they were going to lose in the 3rd, and got bailed out by a couple of soft goals on point shots in the 3rd, plus a great conversion on a breakaway by Jack in OT.

I thought Ullmark made some great saves but overall looked kinda shaky.  I didn't come away thinking he should get the next start, although I'm fine if he does get it.

I'm not feeling very confident about where the Sabres are.  As I posted last night, I think something is wrong with Eichel.  He was mostly ineffective last night until the GWG, and I don't think the Sabres can win consistently if he isn't a major force.  I also think the goaltending has regressed from excellent to average.

OTOH, I think the D is still playing pretty well and there have been signs of life in the bottom 9 forwards from Pommer and ERod.

Let's see how they do vs the Canucks. 

[Stoner]

15 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's fine to just admit you like watching hockey but don't actually care to understand it.

I think generations of hockey people and fans understood the sport just fine without the made-up, data-flawed nonsense of analytics, 99% of which 99% of you don't even understand. Your comment implies that folks have to go to pdo.com to understand the sport. It can be read as a passive-aggressive comment: if you want to be ignorant and just watch the pretty skating, fine.

I'm to the point of calling for a dedicated club for analytics and its banning from normal threads. I bet I'd get a majority, maybe a very strong majority of posters, to support it. People got fed up with hearing about Trump. The same could soon be true for adjusted in tight Corsi underwear.

[Stoner]

4 minutes ago, ... said:

I have no idea why you included this in your point on how stats are muffling the joy of watching a hockey game.

Anyway, to the quoted: you have clearly and obviously not played street or pond hockey.  That is where the joy of the sport is created in kids.  3x3 with or without goalies is definitely, without question, hockey.

Your first point lost me. I'll clarify my comment based on your second point. Three on three is not NHL hockey. It's an exhibition. I'm not going to criticize Sheary for a turnover in regular season OT. Eichel shot it wide and around the boards against Edmonton and McDavid came down and scored to the win the game. I wasn't mad at Eichel.

[SwampD]

That was a fun game. And I know that 3rd and OT shot total should bring me down,... it doesn't, but what was the attempted shot totals. I can't find it anywhere and I'm sure it makes the game appear closer.

Johnny Hockey is really good. He's fun to watch.

[...]

15 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Your first point lost me. I'll clarify my comment based on your second point. Three on three is not NHL hockey. It's an exhibition. I'm not going to criticize Sheary for a turnover in regular season OT. Eichel shot it wide and around the boards against Edmonton and McDavid came down and scored to the win the game. I wasn't mad at Eichel.

I think you're being too generous, then.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

This was a very good and entertaining game.

The Sabres played a vastly superior team (on paper and in the standings) in their building and came out with the victory.

That is awesome and really all that matters.  If some choose to look at it in more detail then so be it.

Onward ...

[LGR4GM]

25 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think generations of hockey people and fans understood the sport just fine without the made-up, data-flawed nonsense of analytics, 99% of which 99% of you don't even understand. Your comment implies that folks have to go to pdo.com to understand the sport. It can be read as a passive-aggressive comment: if you want to be ignorant and just watch the pretty skating, fine.

I'm to the point of calling for a dedicated club for analytics and its banning from normal threads. I bet I'd get a majority, maybe a very strong majority of posters, to support it. People got fed up with hearing about Trump. The same could soon be true for adjusted in tight Corsi underwear.

Good way to get people to stop posting here. Maybe I don't want to read takes from people saying "Pilut obviously should be sat because Phil knows best" when I can show using data that wasn't true. If you are fed up with hearing about it, block the posters who talk about it or don't read them. 

[Swedesessed]

What a great win last night against a very tough opponent on the road and was so happy to be wrong with my prediction.

 

I like Hutton, but this Sabres team just seems to play different with Linus is between the pipes. I agree Linus has some improvements that he can make and are reasonable to attain. I don't think Housley needs to overload Linus at this point but 60-40 for games played favoring Linus would be a good start.

That is the kind of win that could turn a season around.

[Swedesessed]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Good way to get people to stop posting here. Maybe I don't want to read takes from people saying "Pilut obviously should be sat because Phil knows best" when I can show using data that wasn't true. If you are fed up with hearing about it, block the posters who talk about it or don't read them. 

I agree. Analytics have a place in hockey, does it mean it is the end all that be all to analyze a player? No. Does it provide data that could show drastic differences in two players where the naked eye might suggest otherwise and can be used to better the team? Sure. Why cant knowing the sport and analytics just all get along?

[darksabre]

40 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think generations of hockey people and fans understood the sport just fine without the made-up, data-flawed nonsense of analytics, 99% of which 99% of you don't even understand. Your comment implies that folks have to go to pdo.com to understand the sport. It can be read as a passive-aggressive comment: if you want to be ignorant and just watch the pretty skating, fine.

I'm to the point of calling for a dedicated club for analytics and its banning from normal threads. I bet I'd get a majority, maybe a very strong majority of posters, to support it. People got fed up with hearing about Trump. The same could soon be true for adjusted in tight Corsi underwear.

This argument only makes sense if you can argue that hockey is the same as it has always been and nothing has changed.

That's obviously not true though. Guys don't show up for camp with a pack of Marlboros after taking the summer off anymore. And you can't be successful as a GM by evaluating talent like the game is still stuck in that era either.

We're learning a ton about the game, especially as the game has changed. Every single player in the NHL is faster, stronger and better trained than at any point in the history of the game. 

This isn't Perrault scoring on a low slapper because the goalies had no concept of the butterfly anymore. Those days are gone. The game is no longer that simple. And neither is how we analyze and discuss it.