Time to reconsider Expected Goal % as a major stat?

[Doohicksie]

13 minutes ago, inkman said:

Yeah but if homeboy is in the ice for 2X what he scores, he’s not doing you any favors 

That's for the coaches to worry about.  I just want to see wins.

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

But the reverse is not true. Tage Thompson is at 49% 5 on 5. He's also a +12.

The 49% suggests he's a net negative player, when in fact he can just score from anywhere, and is playing like one of the league's top players.

It's just not that great of a stat.

No it doesn't. You're not understanding xgf correctly.

 

[Doohicksie]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

3 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

The 49% suggests he's a net negative player,

No it doesn't. You're not understanding xgf correctly.

Okay then, Mr. Smartypants, what does it suggest, if not that Tage should be a negative player?

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

Okay then, Mr. Smartypants, what does it suggest, if not that Tage should be a negative player?

It tells us that Tage is pretty average defensively when on the ice and that he's clearly an elite shooter because he can score for lower xgf areas. That's about it. 

He shouldn't be a negative player because it's based on league average, tage doesn't have an average shot. 

[Stoner]

Nah. I'm fine with it.

[JoeSchmoe]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No it doesn't. You're not understanding xgf correctly.

 

Check the thread title... Xgf%.

Also, given the number of postgame twitter bar graphs of this stat, its more than just a minor stat you say it is  For most, it seems to be the be all, end all.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, JoeSchmoe said:

Check the thread title... Xgf%.

Also, given the number of postgame twitter bar graphs of this stat, its more than just a minor stat you say it is  For most, it seems to be the be all, end all.

That I'd agree with. But it's just another stat to consider. 

Xgf% is a function of xgf and xga

[Doohicksie]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

He shouldn't be a negative player because it's based on league average, tage doesn't have an average shot. 

I think that's the point of the thread:  The stat doesn't reflect reality very well; you have to take other factors into consideration.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Doohickie said:

I think that's the point of the thread:  The stat doesn't reflect reality very well; you have to take other factors into consideration.

I can say that about everything though. 

Look, I think xgf being applied to individuals has gone a bit overboard. 

[JoeSchmoe]

I think in theory, prior to widespread adoption, xgf could have been used as a Moneyball type analytic point where GMs could mine out diamonds in the rough through Excel table GMing. The reality is, the diamonds in the rough would mostly all be poor shooters, while the so-called overrated guys would be the good shooters. You'd probably need the eye test to tell otherwise but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of diamonds. 

A big part of the problem is hockey is so much more dynamic than baseball, that the eye test is so much bigger of an indicator.

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I think in theory, prior to widespread adoption, xgf could have been used as a Moneyball type analytic point where GMs could mine out diamonds in the rough through Excel table GMing. The reality is, the diamonds in the rough would mostly all be poor shooters, while the so-called overrated guys would be the good shooters. You'd probably need the eye test to tell otherwise but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of diamonds. 

A big part of the problem is hockey is so much more dynamic than baseball, that the eye test is so much bigger of an indicator.

But that's how you've decided to use it. That's not how it is used. Brawndo gave you a glimpse of that.

 

No it isn't. We could say they both deserve equal consideration. 

 

[Weave]

Hockey talk was more funner before it became debates about the validity of hockey math.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Hockey talk was more funner before it became debates about the validity of hockey math.

That’s why I said look at all the data and then get out to see for yourself and talk to people.  
 

I seriously doubt that Adam’s bases decisions on players solely on analytics.  He watches, he talks to his staff, he talks to coaches, he talks to scouts, he talks to people involved in the league.  The best leaders have the ability to effectively use information from multiple sources.  

[French Collection]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Hockey talk was more funner before it became debates about the validity of hockey math.

That’s why I can only talk with grumpy old men.

Edited December 23, 2022 by French Collection

[Curt]

NHL front office analytics teams do not use the simple xG statistics that are available publicly.  They create more sophisticated and targeted metrics to evaluate players/teams.

If anyone is using xG as their singular tool for evaluating players/teams, they are not going to come to very accurate conclusions.  It can be useful, but it’s not the ultimate statistical measuring stick.

[Doohicksie]

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I can say that about everything though. 

Look, I think xgf being applied to individuals has gone a bit overboard. 

I agree with you there.

[JoeSchmoe]

13 hours ago, Doohickie said:

I agree with you there.

Zach ***** leads the league in expected goals with 23.6 (Ovi is in 2nd at 20.6). 

***** is tied for 29th with 15 actual GF. 

[JoeSchmoe]

10 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Zach ***** leads the league in expected goals with 23.6 (Ovi is in 2nd at 20.6). 

***** is tied for 29th with 15 actual GF. 

Didn't realize Zach "Highman's" name wouldn't make it past the censors. 😀

Edited December 25, 2022 by JoeSchmoe
Realized I spelled censors wrong.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Didn't realize Zach "Highman's" name wouldn't make it past the sensors. 😀

Friggin' *****.

(Had to be said.  😉)

Really, a kitty cat gets blocked?  It"s sad, so sad, it's a sad sad situation ...