Optimist Alert- Shooting % Regress to Norm

[JoeSchmoe]

I'm pessimistic on the makeup of this team, but we've got a small sample size here, and the team has actually played ok... They just haven't buried pucks. If our shooting percentages were at their norms, we're likely sitting 1-1-1 or 2-1-0.

Game 1 Moneypuck gives us a >70% win chance based on the scoring chances... Even though NJ sat back with the lead, teams can and do come back when the scoring chances are that lopsided. 

Game 2 was a NJ win through and through and is likely the source of our frustration.

Game 3 Moneypuck has us at over 80% win chance based on scoring chances. We dominated the game... 3rd period maybe not as much, but their chances were pretty limited IMO.

Eye test wise, I can't recall a stretch over the last two years where we've missed on so many Grade A scoring opportunities.

Hate to be behind the 8-ball already, but there's still hope!

 

[Doohicksie]

So you're saying our goaltending sucks.

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, Doohicksie said:

So you're saying our goaltending sucks.

how many goalies win 3 games in a row 1-0, 1-0, 1-0?

[mjd1001]

Statistically, if every Sabres player was shooting at their career percentage, with the shots they have taken, the math says at their career percentage the team SHOULD have 7.25 goals right now. They have 3.

[JoeSchmoe]

10 minutes ago, Doohicksie said:

So you're saying our goaltending sucks.

I'm saying our shooting percentage sucks.

[JoeSchmoe]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

Statistically, if every Sabres player was shooting at their career percentage, with the shots they have taken, the math says at their career percentage the team SHOULD have 7.25 goals right now. They have 3.

Moneypuck says our expected goals should be 9.75. That metric doesn't factor in shooter skill, but it still we should have a lot more goals than we do.

[Stoner]

Smart people who are dumb as *****.

[mjd1001]

4 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Moneypuck says our expected goals should be 9.75. That metric doesn't factor in shooter skill, but it still we should have a lot more goals than we do.

I just looked at how many shots each player has taken, multiplied that number by their career shooting percentage, and added it up.  Regardless, the results are the same...based on the shots, number of shots, quality of shots, who took the shots, they should have a lot more goals.

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, Stoner said:

Smart people who are dumb as *****.

I think they’ve done a good job figuring out which numbers often correlate to success. There’s still a massive chasm re: identifying the how and why of when they aren’t predictive 

They often are not painted as an avenue for success, but rather the achievement of success itself. “It’s only a matter of time, if the numbers say this.”

erroneous. They are missing a trick: the factors preventing the numbers from bearing out in the macro 

Edited October 11 by Thorner

[thewookie1]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I'm pessimistic on the makeup of this team, but we've got a small sample size here, and the team has actually played ok... They just haven't buried pucks. If our shooting percentages were at their norms, we're likely sitting 1-1-1 or 2-1-0.

Game 1 Moneypuck gives us a >70% win chance based on the scoring chances... Even though NJ sat back with the lead, teams can and do come back when the scoring chances are that lopsided. 

Game 2 was a NJ win through and through and is likely the source of our frustration.

Game 3 Moneypuck has us at over 80% win chance based on scoring chances. We dominated the game... 3rd period maybe not as much, but their chances were pretty limited IMO.

Eye test wise, I can't recall a stretch over the last two years where we've missed on so many Grade A scoring opportunities.

Hate to be behind the 8-ball already, but there's still hope!

 

Makes sense, most specifically in the case of Thompson who looked very effective last night including a great 200ft play but couldn't find the net on his shots. 

Thompson is a slow starter so I don't expect him to get rolling until late October which is when he tends to explode. It seems as if it takes him a handful of games to fully lock-on target with his howitzer 

[zow2]

The age old term in hockey is "puck luck".  And through 3 games the Sabres are on the polar opposite end of that. 

[Jorcus]

The problem is they are going to get back to normal in one game. They will hang 9 on the Jackets or the Blackhawks but at the end of the day it will only be 2 points, then it's back to fighting hard to get 2 in the net. Well I hope it doesn't go that way but they are going to have to win or at least get loser points in the tough ones. They do seem a bit snake bit to start. 

[Drag0nDan]

17 minutes ago, zow2 said:

The age old term in hockey is "puck luck".  And through 3 games the Sabres are on the polar opposite end of that. 

Even watching loose pucks it seems like the pucks bouncing around in our zone directly onto the opponents sticks. 

[PerreaultForever]

Personally I don't care about goal scoring. Winning 6-5 can be exciting, but winning 1-0 is also still a win (as is losing in reverse). The complete picture is what matters and this team will not win many games unless we get greasier. Still way too many easy perimeter shots. We will make goalies look good this way, stats be damned. 

[JoeSchmoe]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Personally I don't care about goal scoring. Winning 6-5 can be exciting, but winning 1-0 is also still a win (as is losing in reverse). The complete picture is what matters and this team will not win many games unless we get greasier. Still way too many easy perimeter shots. We will make goalies look good this way, stats be damned. 

Last night's game was NOT this... Not even close. 

https://moneypuck.com/g.htm?id=2024020012

 

 

[JoeSchmoe]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Makes sense, most specifically in the case of Thompson who looked very effective last night including a great 200ft play but couldn't find the net on his shots. 

Thompson is a slow starter so I don't expect him to get rolling until late October which is when he tends to explode. It seems as if it takes him a handful of games to fully lock-on target with his howitzer 

I'm one of Thompson's biggest critics but he worked his a$$ off last night. Hopefully we see more of that.

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, zow2 said:

The age old term in hockey is "puck luck".  And through 3 games the Sabres are on the polar opposite end of that. 

That's hockey.... stretches of poor puck luck happens throughout the course of the season.   

One of these next couple games the floodgates will open.

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Last night's game was NOT this... Not even close. 

https://moneypuck.com/g.htm?id=2024020012

 

 

The guy wouldn't care if the team becomes the Atlanta Sabres of course he's not going to care about a reasonable discussion that perhaps we're not playing as bad as our record.

I appreciate you bringing up this data.  

[TheAud]

9 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I'm pessimistic on the makeup of this team, but we've got a small sample size here, and the team has actually played ok... They just haven't buried pucks. If our shooting percentages were at their norms, we're likely sitting 1-1-1 or 2-1-0.

Game 1 Moneypuck gives us a >70% win chance based on the scoring chances... Even though NJ sat back with the lead, teams can and do come back when the scoring chances are that lopsided. 

Game 2 was a NJ win through and through and is likely the source of our frustration.

Game 3 Moneypuck has us at over 80% win chance based on scoring chances. We dominated the game... 3rd period maybe not as much, but their chances were pretty limited IMO.

Eye test wise, I can't recall a stretch over the last two years where we've missed on so many Grade A scoring opportunities.

Hate to be behind the 8-ball already, but there's still hope!

 

People often dislike data that doesn’t fit their personal narrative. 
 

[JoeSchmoe]

3 minutes ago, TheAud said:

People often dislike data that doesn’t fit their personal narrative. 
 

My personal narrative is that Adams put together a team where almost everything has to come into place just right for us to make the playoffs. Given that almost never happens, the streak will continue.

That said, I know what I saw last night and Lindy had the team was moving north / south like we did 2 years ago when we were 3rd in the league in scoring. 

As I said in the original post, there's hope.

[Thorner]

The floodgates definitely WILL open at some point, not a prediction, a certainty. There will be positive regression, they aren’t going to average one goal a game that’s ridiculous - The Hawks finished 32nd in gpg last year at 2.17. We are at 1.00. We’ll explode at some point even just to get back to normal bad. Then who knows from there