I forgot he was anywhere else but Chicago.
- JRR1285

He was. My idiot savant is only helpful for random sport poop.

Huh? So Devils had 21 shots in the last 40, and 20 of those (95%) are considered chances? Rangers had 13 shots and only 7 are considered chances (54%).

From someone who works with data daily, it can be completely b.s. You can paint any picture you want if you try hard enough.

Edit: I suppose you can get a chance without taking a shot, but is it really?
- TC88

I imagine the guy who is keeping track of "chances" during the game is a guy who is also looking at his phone a lot, so can we trust he didnt miss anything?

Huh? So Devils had 21 shots in the last 40, and 20 of those (95%) are considered chances? Rangers had 13 shots and only 7 are considered chances (54%).

From someone who works with data daily, it can be completely b.s. You can paint any picture you want if you try hard enough.

Edit: I suppose you can get a chance without taking a shot, but is it really?
- TC88

ok.

https://www.naturalstattr...eason=20222023&game=30141

Even better then zero shots.....NJ PP had zero shot attempts!!!
How is that even possible?

Even better then zero shots.....NJ PP had zero shot attempts!!!
How is that even possible?
- rrentz

If read some of the Devils columns, word used a lot was jitters. Missed net on six of first nine attempts. I will but part of that but the D structure was very good.

it's just regular Joe Schmoes using google sheets

it's just regular TOM Schmoes using google sheets


- jimbro83

FTFY

ok.

https://www.naturalstattr...eason=20222023&game=30141
- tomburton99

I’ll have to watch it again. Idk how anyone can say the Devils had 58 chances in that game. They pushed play for sure but most chances were one and done. 28 shots vs 58 chances just seems a little silly.

FTFY
- JRR1285

nice

I’ll have to watch it again. Idk how anyone can say the Devils had 58 chances in that game. They pushed play for sure but most chances were one and done. 28 shots vs 58 chances just seems a little silly.
- TC88

Anytime a team enters the zone:

FTFY
- JRR1285

I’ll have to watch it again. Idk how anyone can say the Devils had 58 chances in that game. They pushed play for sure but most chances were one and done. 28 shots vs 58 chances just seems a little silly.
- TC88

its probably this cturco devil fan manipulating the data

nice
- jimbro83

It was weird watching a playoff game last night and not getting all that upset.

- tomburton99

It was weird watching a playoff game last night and not getting all that upset.
- JRR1285

that Lindgren goal was the key

because every game lately between Rangers and Devils when somebody took a 2-0 lead they seem to lose

Huh? So Devils had 21 shots in the last 40, and 20 of those (95%) are considered chances? Rangers had 13 shots and only 7 are considered chances (54%).

From someone who works with data daily, it can be completely b.s. You can paint any picture you want if you try hard enough.

Edit: I suppose you can get a chance without taking a shot, but is it really?
- TC88

The shots don't necessarily have to hit the net to be considered a scoring chance. Shot Attempts aren't measured the same way as "Shots" That's where the discrepency lies.

I also take issue with the way the "Danger" of scoring chances are measured. It's based on location on the ice and lacks context.

Wacking away while the goalie is sealed to the post is less dangerous than a screened shot from above the circles, but the former will go down as "High Danger" while the latter will be considered medium.

Anytime a team enters the zone:


- JRR1285

that Lindgren goal was the key

because every game lately between Rangers and Devils when somebody took a 2-0 lead they seem to lose
- jimbro83

Yeah, that Lindgren goal was the pressure release. Goal 4 was nice too.

The shots don't necessarily have to hit the net to be considered a scoring chance. Shot Attempts aren't measured the same way as "Shots" That's where the discrepency lies.

I also take issue with the way the "Danger" of scoring chances are measured. It's based on location on the ice and lacks context.

Wacking away while the goalie is sealed to the post is less dangerous than a screened shot from above the circles, but the former will go down as "High Danger" while the latter will be considered medium.
- BINGO!

This has been covered, multiple times. Just say the analytics hate the Rangers, I'm an idiot troll, and move on.

This has been covered, multiple times. Just say the analytics hate the Rangers, I'm an idiot troll, and move on.
- tomburton99

Bingo with these high effort posts when all we want to do is fight.

Bingo with these high effort posts when all we want to do is fight.
- JRR1285

I don't. Nothing from last night or today should get you (or anybody else) mad. It's all been pretty measured.

Bingo with these high effort posts when all we want to do is fight.
- JRR1285

I just want somebody to convince me that Natural Stat Trick is 100% accurate and fool proof

if we have to see these stats, is seems a reasonable request

How early in the game tonight is Dallas’ first run at Dumba?

Jack Eichel waited 7 years for his first playoff game

0 points
Minus 3
33% on faceoffs

Woof
- ELew11

And I'm here for all of it!!!!!

How early in the game tonight is Dallas’ first run at Dumba?
- airjan23

Opening faceoff line fight.