Did anyone mail a v a copy of the rule book. I don’t know all the rules. But think he should.

Whats the expected chance of being struck by lightning? Yet somebody is struck all the time. Whats the expected chance of a traffic accident? Yet thousand die.


- PT21

Completely irrelevant

High danger scoring chances originate with the idea of refining Corsi, to look at shots from areas which empirically lead to greater goals from a huge data set. Fenwick takes out blocked shots with the same goal (refining Corsi) in mind.


Is it perfect? Of course not. Should it be looked at? Of course it should.


- PT21

Showing that you don't understand the stats. Corsi is an attempt to measure puck possession. High danger scoring chances is a look at just that. Scoring chances.

Its called elementary probability.Once you acquaint yourself with the concept, assuming you have the ability, which I have to confess I doubt, you might understand. I am not holding my breath.

Until then though, you will keep making statements like: "expected goals aren't real. they are fantasy."

Bye.
- PT21

Everything has a concept. The real question is can a stat effectively measure something. When you're ready to expand and look at that and be educated, let me know.

Not getting into expected or unexpected. But there are plenty of goals scored from the top of the circle where jvr let it rip. Hate him but Marchand loves sniping from there.
- Peter Richards

Well yea, if you look at data from over 600 players, sure there are plenty of goals. The point is that a shot taken from that distance with the goalie unscreened, the percentage of that shot going in, is very low, yet it went in. So is the expected goal % most important there, or is the fact that it actually went in and was an actual goal scored more important?

EDIT: I did part of the work for you.

https://hockey-graphs.com...scoring-than-corsi-goals/
- PT21

You arrogantly think that people aren't aware of "what's out there" and need to look it up.

Well yea, if you look at data from over 600 players, sure there are plenty of goals. The point is that a shot taken from that distance with the goalie unscreened, the percentage of that shot going in, is very low, yet it went in. So is the expected goal % most important there, or is the fact that it actually went in and was an actual goal scored more important?
- MJL

You tell me.

G and Jake didn’t have their best game, they were below their game 5 performance for sure.

But their line helped certainly played evenly with the top two Isle lines and G’s face off performance was huge last night.

Hart and Hayes were the first two stars, but they don’t win that game without the contributions of G Jake and JvR.
- Marc D

You think so? Hmm, I personally thought there was a huge disparity.

Their top line had 22 shots on goal. Giroux had 2, his line had 6.

Here is a comparison of their high danger scoring chances:

Giroux: 0, Voracek: 1, Laughton 1: Total: 2

Lee: 3, Eberle: 5, Barzal: 3: Total 11.

I personally thought Giroux played a decent checking game and a possession game at best, really. I did not see him create much at all.

Oh I agree. I was just trying to narrow down the subjectivity of Giroux had a good game or not.

The most important elements of yesterday's game were Hart, heart, and Hayes. A few other pieces were also there worthy of mention but overall they were outplayed in a way that was embarrassing and were extremely lucky to come away with the win.
- PT21

The Giroux line wasn't outplayed.

I watched the same game and I have no earthly idea how you could possibly know this? So you're saying that Giroux intended to make a bad pass. This statement lacks any and all common sense and is really just absurd



Giroux didn't play as well as the previous game but as to the faceoff comments. Really? LOL. Giroux took 39 faceoffs to 16 for Thompson. One of these is not the same.



One line last night for the Flyers controlled play. Which one was it?
- MJL

See how mjl happens to respond to bill being questioned... bill and mjl are one in the same.

You tell me.
- Peter Richards

Pretty sure I just did.

Well done.

Hart stole that game. I watched almost all of it, and the Isles were buzzing around and throwing shots at him from every angle and through traffic. He made numerous game-saving stops before you folks finally took over in the 2OT.

I was rooting for you guys, for a combination of reasons, but I genuinely want to see a Philly-TBL conference final. Talk about fire wagon hockey. Isles are just the Blue Jackets cranked up a notch. Boring.
- GalacticStone

Can’t wait!

See how mjl happens to respond to bill being questioned... bill and mjl are one in the same.
- SMS4016

No. But it is slightly entertaining to watch one question everything the other says.

Well yea, if you look at data from over 600 players, sure there are plenty of goals. The point is that a shot taken from that distance with the goalie unscreened, the percentage of that shot going in, is very low, yet it went in. So is the expected goal % most important there, or is the fact that it actually went in and was an actual goal scored more important?
- MJL

You don't measure the effectiveness of strategies by whether it happened to work the times they did.

If you did, you would never manage to distinguish between luck and good play/strategy. The former is after the fact. The latter is a priori.

Like I said, seriously think a little about what the concept of probability means.

That game should have been won in regulation. Bad coaches challenge and Sanheim turnover were awful and should not have happened.

The Giroux line wasn't outplayed.
- MJL

In line statement with bill. Shocker. Because they are the same. Anyone with 2 objective eyes knows g line was severely outplayed overall last night. We got lucky. Accept it and move on. Stop being a g lover. Call a spade a spade. Barzal and hart are clearly the stars of this series and teams

You think so? Hmm, I personally thought there was a huge disparity.

Their top line had 22 shots on goal. Giroux had 2, his line had 6.

Here is a comparison of their high danger scoring chances:

Giroux: 0, Voracek: 1, Laughton 1: Total: 2

Lee: 3, Eberle: 5, Barzal: 3: Total 11.

I personally thought Giroux played a decent checking game and a possession game at best, really. I did not see him create much at all.
- PT21

When Giroux was on the ice at 5 on 5, his team controlled 54.84% of shot attempts. Scoring chances were 8-8. Goals 1-1. HDCF 1-1

...don’t you think watching Barzal is exciting? He generates good scoring chances nearly every time he’s on the ice.
- Marc D

He's fantastic. Dangerous every time he's on the ice.

So you think being dismantled in every phase of the game is a formula for prolonged success?

Hockey is unlike any other team sport. The goaltender can cover up for a million mistakes. Playing the way the Flyers have played in this series and winning isn't sustainable. That said, Hart's stellar play has kept them in this series and they can turn their team game around and play better hockey. Going back to the Montreal series, the team hasn't played well overall.

They played very well in the round robin games. That is the type of hockey they have to start playing.
- PLindbergh31

Enjoy the moment...winning is meant to be enjoyed.

You don't measure the effectiveness of strategies by whether it happened to work the times they did.

If you did, you would never manage to distinguish between luck and good play/strategy. The former is after the fact. The latter is a priori.

Like I said, seriously think a little about what the concept of probability means.
- PT21

Stats have nothing to do with strategies. You're making it up as you go along and are embarrassing yourself. You need to educate yourself on both the sport of hockey and with the shortcomings of the stats you use.

No. But it is slightly entertaining to watch one question everything the other says.
- Peter Richards

Mjl never questions bill. He always agrees with him and expands. Because they are the same. To drive up comments. Mjl stirs up comments with everyone. I figured it out years and years ago. That’s why I rarely debate mjl. Because I know it’s really bill. And I appreciate bill’s contribution to this site and I understand more hits and comments equal more $ for him.

In line statement with bill. Shocker. Because they are the same. Anyone with 2 objective eyes knows g line was severely outplayed overall last night. We got lucky. Accept it and move on. Stop being a g lover. Call a spade a spade. Barzal and hart are clearly the stars of this series and teams
- SMS4016

Bill is a great guy and a great blogger who knew far more about hockey 20 years ago than I will ever know. Its entirely possible he is seeing things that just escaped me. I never intended to say that I am right. I was just making my case.

MJL is just some weird rando who mistakes repetitive obstinate argumentation for debate.

They have nothing in common.

The Giroux line wasn't outplayed.
- MJL

I agree with you, but on so little sleep, I’d be no help to the discussion. G was not quite as great as game 5, but minus one or two instances was very good.

MJL, go get ‘em!

I'd be shocked if Trotz doesn't start Greiss in game 7.
- PLindbergh31

Agreed.

He sharted in his pants when jvr scored.

When Giroux was on the ice at 5 on 5, his team controlled 54.84% of shot attempts. Scoring chances were 8-8. Goals 1-1. HDCF 1-1
- MJL

When g was out there no reaction. When Barzal was out there everyone butthole was clinched. Because Barzal line way outplayed g line. (frank)ing had puck in our zone for extended time over and over. Everything isn’t just a poopty no chance shot on net

See how mjl happens to respond to bill being questioned... bill and mjl are one in the same.
- SMS4016

I very highly doubt that to the point of not even considering it as a possibility.

We need to get our top line away from their fourth line, that seems to be the matchup Trotz wants and they have been good.