How about now?
- easY

27th

Radiohead - The Bends
- madmike71

I almost exclusively lurk around. Have to say I’m shocked no one has mentioned Ok Computer in the conversation of greatest 90s albums. At least someone got the band right.

The Flyers had minimal quality scoring chances until Carolina took the foot off the gas in the 3rd period.
- MJL

lol, what?

"I had no problem with Flyers first period tonight, except for the fact that couldn't finish. They had six looks at the net from grade-A or grade-B scoring chance range (see attached) The problem was they kept missing net or not getting off better shots on Mrzek." - Bill

- Philadelphia led in all-situations xG 3.33-1.96
- 31-14 scoring chances in favor
- Corsi 57.68
- The second period outburst was Carolina being opportunistic and the Flyers being horrible in terms of coverage. They had 2 scoring chances in the first 16 minutes of the period and both wound up in their net.

This wasn't a team that "turned" it on in the 3rd. They've been suffering from these symptoms all year: inability to finish despite generating decent chances/driving play, lack of timely goaltending/any goaltending at all , and horrific defensive zone coverage mistakes on a man-to-man system that seems to torment this team. I'm not sure what game you were watching.

lol, what?

"I had no problem with Flyers first period tonight, except for the fact that couldn't finish. They had six looks at the net from grade-A or grade-B scoring chance range (see attached) The problem was they kept missing net or not getting off better shots on Mrzek." - Bill

- Philadelphia led in all-situations xG 3.33-1.96
- 31-14 scoring chances in favor
- Corsi 57.68
- The second period outburst was Carolina being opportunistic and the Flyers being horrible in terms of coverage. They had 2 scoring chances in the first 16 minutes of the period and both wound up in their net.

This wasn't a team that "turned" it on in the 3rd. They've been suffering from these symptoms all year: inability to finish despite generating decent chances/driving play, lack of timely goaltending/any goaltending at all , and horrific defensive zone coverage mistakes on a man-to-man system that seems to torment this team. I'm not sure what game you were watching.
- flyers20032002

I was watching the actual game. The Flyers were a perimeter team that lacked intensity and fire in their game. If you actually watched the game, there was a clear difference in how the Flyers played in the 3rd period versus earlier in the game. If they had played earlier in the game with the same level of urgency, might have been a different outcome. Scoring chance stats are a poor way of looking at a game. The criteria is not sound. Watching the game and assessing the chances a team created is a much better way. The Flyers barely threatened to score in the first two periods.

I was watching the actual game. The Flyers were a perimeter team that lacked intensity and fire in their game. If you actually watched the game, there was a clear difference in how the Flyers played in the 3rd period versus earlier in the game. If they had played earlier in the game with the same level of urgency, might have been a different outcome. Scoring chance stats are a poor way of looking at a game. The criteria is not sound. Watching the game and assessing the chances a team created is a much better way. The Flyers barely threatened to score in the first two periods.
- MJL

"I had no problem with Flyers first period tonight, except for the fact that couldn't finish. They had six looks at the net from grade-A or grade-B scoring chance range (see attached) The problem was they kept missing net or not getting off better shots on Mrzek." - Bill

I guess you didn't read Bill's post, my re-post, so I'll try a third time... bye now

edit: unless of course you think shots from the slot/circles/net-front are not "chances". FWIW, nhl.com now tracks the shot location, so it's fairly hard for you to make stuff up based on your eye test. There's data out there...

"I had no problem with Flyers first period tonight, except for the fact that couldn't finish. They had six looks at the net from grade-A or grade-B scoring chance range (see attached) The problem was they kept missing net or not getting off better shots on Mrzek." - Bill

I guess you didn't read Bill's post, my re-post, so I'll try a third time... bye now

edit: unless of course you think shots from the slot/circles/net-front are not "chances". FWIW, nhl.com now tracks the shot location, so it's fairly hard for you to make stuff up based on your eye test. There's data out there...
- flyers20032002

You're making a very bad assumption about what I did or didn't do. You're doing so because you have no real point. The part that your missing is where I said quality chances. Data just tracks shot location. Location alone does not make a chance a quality chance. This is a basic fundamental of hockey and why actual analysis takes far more than just looking at shot data. So if we look at what Bill wrote and a chance from a certain location where a quality shot was not taken, the "getting off better shots on Mrzek" part, then it's not really a quality chance.
I would suggest putting down the stats spreadsheet and watching the game. Of course it helps to know what you're looking at.

You're making a very bad assumption about what I did or didn't do. You're doing so because you have no real point. The part that your missing is where I said quality chances. Data just tracks shot location. Location alone does not make a chance a quality chance. This is a basic fundamental of hockey and why actual analysis takes far more than just looking at shot data. So if we look at what Bill wrote and a chance from a certain location where a quality shot was not taken, the "getting off better shots on Mrzek" part, then it's not really a quality chance.
I would suggest putting down the stats spreadsheet and watching the game. Of course it helps to know what you're looking at.
- MJL

My point is that the Flyers did generate quality chances prior to the third. You don't know what a scoring chance is and that's why you're struggling:

"A scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area – loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a “chance for” if someone on his team has a chance to score and a “chance against” if the opposing team has a chance to score."

My other point was shots generated from the circles/slot/net-front (unless blocked) are indeed prime areas that warrant the Grade A and Grade B types Bill assigned. Go look at where some elite goal scorers do all their damage from: https://hockeyviz.com/spray/. It's in the "home plate" area of the slot and around the circles. This will be my last response as it's clearly not worth going any further. I watched the game and didn't just use the data. The differentiator between you and me is that I use the data to validate what I see. You're just flat-out making stuff up based on what you claim to have seen without any empirical evidence. k thx bye...

My point is that the Flyers did generate quality chances prior to the third. You don't know what a scoring chance is and that's why you're struggling:

"A scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area – loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a “chance for” if someone on his team has a chance to score and a “chance against” if the opposing team has a chance to score."

My other point was shots generated from the circles/slot/net-front (unless blocked) are indeed prime areas that warrant the Grade A and Grade B types Bill assigned. Go look at where some elite goal scorers do all their damage from: https://hockeyviz.com/spray/. It's in the "home plate" area of the slot and around the circles. This will be my last response as it's clearly not worth going any further. I watched the game and didn't just use the data. The differentiator between you and me is that I use the data to validate what I see. You're just flat-out making stuff up based on what you claim to have seen without any empirical evidence. k thx bye...
- flyers20032002

Here is what you're not getting. That's the definition of a scoring chance for keeping statistics. It's BS. The difference between you and I is that you need data to have any view of the game. A shot taken from an elite scorer versus a player who is not a scorer is quite different. You don't understand the nuances of the game and stats have blurred that further. For example, a shot taken form a position on the ice with the goalie stationary and out cutting down the angle is quite different than a shot taken from the same spot on the ice with a cross ice pass and the goalie not stationary and or moving side to side. The quality and speed of the shot is also a factor.

Other than a few chances in the Carolina game in the first two periods, the Flyers did not threaten to score, which is why they actually didn't. Too bad they don't use your data on the score board. If it's not on a web site or a link can't be posted than there is no empirical evidence. LOL. I would never live in that world. I rely on my superior knowledge and experience of the game of hockey. I know what a QUALITY scoring chance is and it's more than just about where the shot was taken. You analyzed that game incorrectly.

The K, thnx and bye stuff isn't doing you any favors. I'm easy to find.

Here is what you're not getting. That's the definition of a scoring chance for keeping statistics. It's BS. The difference between you and I is that you need data to have any view of the game. A shot taken from an elite scorer versus a player who is not a scorer is quite different. You don't understand the nuances of the game and stats have blurred that further. For example, a shot taken form a position on the ice with the goalie stationary and out cutting down the angle is quite different than a shot taken from the same spot on the ice with a cross ice pass and the goalie not stationary and or moving side to side. The quality and speed of the shot is also a factor.

Other than a few chances in the Carolina game in the first two periods, the Flyers did not threaten to score, which is why they actually didn't. Too bad they don't use your data on the score board. If it's not on a web site or a link can't be posted than there is no empirical evidence. LOL. I would never live in that world. I rely on my superior knowledge and experience of the game of hockey. I know what a QUALITY scoring chance is and it's more than just about where the shot was taken. You analyzed that game incorrectly.

The K, thnx and bye stuff isn't doing you any favors. I'm easy to find.
- MJL

Yup, everyone but you is wrong. All hail MJL god. You're a joke and I'd never want to find you, you troll.