So I'm curious as to when did expected goals for and against become more relevant than actual goals for and against?

And why do media and consumers of content also hang their outlook on teams present futures based on some made up metric? I just read an article where the author stated canucks are pretenders that don't belong in any contention conversations (paraphrasing) because of "EXPECTED" GF/GA were unsustainable. Doesn't the real game results matter, win or lose? He also stated he was eastern media and hasn't watched Canucks play but is revered as a name in hockey analytics.

Hopefully someone can reply with some sort of an intelligent explanation.
- Makita

Some people think they are important and will try to force everyone into agreeing with them.

So I'm curious as to when did expected goals for and against become more relevant than actual goals for and against?

And why do media and consumers of content also hang their outlook on teams present futures based on some made up metric? I just read an article where the author stated canucks are pretenders that don't belong in any contention conversations (paraphrasing) because of "EXPECTED" GF/GA were unsustainable. Doesn't the real game results matter, win or lose? He also stated he was eastern media and hasn't watched Canucks play but is revered as a name in hockey analytics.

Hopefully someone can reply with some sort of an intelligent explanation.
- Makita

Gen Z and Load Management are the blame.

That is some amazing math, knowing the team was only on a 3 game road trip.
- Reubenkincade

5-2, 2-5, 5-2.

So I'm curious as to when did expected goals for and against become more relevant than actual goals for and against?

And why do media and consumers of content also hang their outlook on teams present futures based on some made up metric? I just read an article where the author stated canucks are pretenders that don't belong in any contention conversations (paraphrasing) because of "EXPECTED" GF/GA were unsustainable. Doesn't the real game results matter, win or lose? He also stated he was eastern media and hasn't watched Canucks play but is revered as a name in hockey analytics.

Hopefully someone can reply with some sort of an intelligent explanation.
- Makita

Sounds like Lefty wrote that actually.

Volcanos in Japan, Washington State, Mexico, Italy and Iceland all heating up today. Sure, Canucks going to win this year but Armageddon going to rip that cup right out of our hands.

Sounds like Lefty wrote that actually.

- boonerbuck

Not ranked: Vancouver Canucks — They’re not this good.

Not even close, actually. At 11-3-1, their record says they should be in consideration for the Top Five by now. Twenty years ago, that would have been enough. But not anymore, because we’re smarter than that now. We know how to dig deeper and figure out when teams are legitimately dominating, and when they’re simply playing well enough with the winds of good luck at their back.

Sean McIndoe has been a senior NHL writer with The Athletic since 2018. He launched Down Goes Brown in 2008 and has been writing about hockey ever since, with stops including Grantland, Sportsnet and Vice Sports.

Not ranked: Vancouver Canucks — They’re not this good.

Not even close, actually. At 11-3-1, their record says they should be in consideration for the Top Five by now. Twenty years ago, that would have been enough. But not anymore, because we’re smarter than that now. We know how to dig deeper and figure out when teams are legitimately dominating, and when they’re simply playing well enough with the winds of good luck at their back.

Sean McIndoe has been a senior NHL writer with The Athletic since 2018. He launched Down Goes Brown in 2008 and has been writing about hockey ever since, with stops including Grantland, Sportsnet and Vice Sports.
- Makita

Post the whole bit:

Not ranked: Vancouver Canucks — They’re not this good.

Not even close, actually. At 11-3-1, their record says they should be in consideration for the Top Five by now. Twenty years ago, that would have been enough. But not anymore, because we’re smarter than that now. We know how to dig deeper and figure out when teams are legitimately dominating, and when they’re simply playing well enough with the winds of good luck at their back.

Coming into the weekend, the Canucks are clearly in that second group, riding a ridiculous PDO north of 107. They were shooting 16 percent as a team, basically the equivalent of having an entire roster of 2001 Joe Sakic clones. Thatcher Demko was stopping everything, including a ridiculously high percentage of high-danger chances. The power play was humming north of 30 percent. Their expected goals were just a bit above 50 percent, but the actual goals were tilted about 70 percent in their favor, which makes no sense. All those numbers dipped a bit after a loss in Toronto and a close-ish win over Montreal, but it hardly matters. None of this is sustainable. None of it can last. We’ve been over this every few years with some team that gets all the bounces for a month. We know how it ends.

Here’s the twist: A lot of Canucks fans seem to realize this.

It’s honestly pretty great. This is the part in the “hot team vs. analytics” script where it’s supposed to get ugly, with fans getting defensive and pounding their chests and telling us that the things their team does well result in a 106.7 PDO, in their opinion. I’m sure I’m missing some of that — Canucks fans are, uh, not exactly notorious for being an especially chill bunch — but I’m not seeing it much so far.

Instead, I see a fan base that understands this is all very silly, and that it won’t last. When Harman digs into the start and explains why it’s unsustainable, nobody seems to be having a tantrum. They’re just enjoying the ride.

And that’s what they should be doing, because this team is insanely fun to watch right now. The goalie’s hot and everything is going in at the other end. What’s not to love?

The beauty of all this is even if this hot start isn’t “real” in some philosophical sense, it’s very real on the standings page. All these points count. And even if the luck runs out tomorrow, the Canucks have still built themselves a very nice cushion in the Western playoff race. Remember, regression means coming back to earth. It doesn’t mean that there necessarily has to be a cold streak somewhere down the line to balance this out. All these points are in the bank, and at some point that adds up to a playoff spot, even when the luck runs out.

If it ever does. That’s the fun of a run like this — you can talk yourself into anything while it’s going on. You don’t need top-five validation from some Eastern writer who’s never seen your team play, or anyone’s permission to enjoy it while it lasts.

Disagree on what you want, but don't just pull parts of it

Also, if you follow along the comment section in the Athletic, he's making a joke as Canucks fans (as well as others) always tell him he doesn't even watch the team. Or at least that's how I read it.

Not ranked: Vancouver Canucks — They’re not this good.

Not even close, actually. At 11-3-1, their record says they should be in consideration for the Top Five by now. Twenty years ago, that would have been enough. But not anymore, because we’re smarter than that now. We know how to dig deeper and figure out when teams are legitimately dominating, and when they’re simply playing well enough with the winds of good luck at their back.

Sean McIndoe has been a senior NHL writer with The Athletic since 2018. He launched Down Goes Brown in 2008 and has been writing about hockey ever since, with stops including Grantland, Sportsnet and Vice Sports.
- Makita

I'm not sure any realistic fan thinks this pace will last the entire season. It's just dumb to think the only other scenario is crash and burn. This heater is buying them a lot of wiggle room to make the playoffs. This guy is a single minded (frank)tard.

Edit: Never mind...

Post the whole bit:



Disagree on what you want, but don't just pull parts of it

Also, if you follow along the comment section in the Athletic, he's making a joke as Canucks fans (as well as others) always tell him he doesn't even watch the team. Or at least that's how I read it.
- NewYorkNuck

There was no need as I paraphrased his thoughts earlier, which is why I asked to have an intelligent explanation. 15 games in and still clinging to expected as the be all end all, why?

I'm not sure any realistic fan thinks this pace will last the entire season. It's just dumb to think the only other scenario is crash and burn. This heater is buying them a lot of wiggle room to make the playoffs. This guy is a single minded (frank)tard.

Edit: Never mind...
- boonerbuck

We are 10 days away from US thanksgiving which most people use as benchmark on if a team will make the playoffs or not. I think we are sitting pretty good.

There was no need as I paraphrased his thoughts earlier, which is why I asked to have an intelligent explanation. 15 games in and still clinging to expected as the be all end all, why?
- Makita

It's not the end all be all. It's just another tool/metric to predict how the season will go. The Canucks sample size (11 games) is small in comparison to the season.

McIndoe talks a lot about PDO... which is the sum of a team's save percentage plus shooting percentage. By the end of the season most teams hover around 100. Right now the Canucks are 106.7... which might be possible over the season, but due to the amount of data over the past however many seasons with all the teams, probably isn't. Here's an article if you want to read about it in depth: https://medium.com/hockey...-part-3-of-4-d3f319f2e1f1 (I have no idea if it's good, I don't really follow PDO/analytics too much and just Googled that)

A couple of charts to illustrate their point if you don't want to dive in...

Individual players over a season:



Teams over a season with explanation:



Below, I colored the top and bottom three teams based on PDO after 10 games played. Additionally, the Lightning are shown in pink as they dominated the regular season with a final record of 62–16–4. Vasilevskiy won the Vezina and Kucherov was the points (128) and assists (87) leader, earning him the Hart Trophy. They ended the season with a PDO of 101.9, third highest in the league. Number one was claimed by the Islanders with a PDO of 102.2.

Overall, the trend is exactly as we described. There is a lot of variation in the beginning, but over time, team PDO’s regress towards the mean. For example, the Ducks started out well but quickly fell to ~100, and the Golden Knights did the opposite. The Lightning show a different pattern and actually show what appears to be a steady or even slight incline over 100 as the season went on.

--

I'm going to bed so will respond tomorrow if need be

We are 10 days away from US thanksgiving which most people use as benchmark on if a team will make the playoffs or not. I think we are sitting pretty good.
- VANTEL

It's not the end all be all. It's just another tool/metric to predict how the season will go. The Canucks sample size (11 games) is small in comparison to the season.

McIndoe talks a lot about PDO... which is the sum of a team's save percentage plus shooting percentage. By the end of the season most teams hover around 100. Right now the Canucks are 106.7... which might be possible over the season, but due to the amount of data over the past however many seasons with all the teams, probably isn't. Here's an article if you want to read about it in depth: https://medium.com/hockey...-part-3-of-4-d3f319f2e1f1 (I have no idea if it's good, I don't really follow PDO/analytics too much and just Googled that)

A couple of charts to illustrate their point if you don't want to dive in...

Individual players over a season:



Teams over a season with explanation:



Below, I colored the top and bottom three teams based on PDO after 10 games played. Additionally, the Lightning are shown in pink as they dominated the regular season with a final record of 62–16–4. Vasilevskiy won the Vezina and Kucherov was the points (128) and assists (87) leader, earning him the Hart Trophy. They ended the season with a PDO of 101.9, third highest in the league. Number one was claimed by the Islanders with a PDO of 102.2.

Overall, the trend is exactly as we described. There is a lot of variation in the beginning, but over time, team PDO’s regress towards the mean. For example, the Ducks started out well but quickly fell to ~100, and the Golden Knights did the opposite. The Lightning show a different pattern and actually show what appears to be a steady or even slight incline over 100 as the season went on.

--

I'm going to bed so will respond tomorrow if need be
- NewYorkNuck

I still prefer watching the game.

I'm not sure any realistic fan thinks this pace will last the entire season. It's just dumb to think the only other scenario is crash and burn. This heater is buying them a lot of wiggle room to make the playoffs. This guy is a single minded (frank)tard.

Edit: Never mind...
- boonerbuck

Realist fans understand the game and the intricacies of a well structured team, of course there are wins and losses, games where there are poopshows and blowouts. It is a evolving process not based on expected outcomes that define a team.

can you see Tocchets pregame speech, "Ok guys the expected GF/GA is unsustainable, so let's get out there and play to the regression I know we are capable of, this is expected of us so no more 5-2 games, we need a 2-1 win, now get out there and play mediocre so the analytics guys can beat their chests"

Realist fans understand the game and the intricacies of a well structured team, of course there are wins and losses, games where there are poopshows and blowouts. It is a evolving process not based on expected outcomes that define a team.

can you see Tocchets pregame speech, "Ok guys the expected GF/GA is unsustainable, so let's get out there and play to the regression I know we are capable of, this is expected of us so no more 5-2 games, we need a 2-1 win, now get out there and play mediocre so the analytics guys can beat their chests"
- Makita

I still prefer watching the game.
- Marwood

Boiled down yup 👍

Forgetting the wins…

2-0 loss to Philly was an early wake up call to get back to basics aka structure & the total buy in.

4-3 loss next game to TB showed signs it was getting back on the rails.

4-3 OT loss to NYR back on the rails in a game between hot tenders. Won’t win every game.

5-2 loss to the Leafs showed how if not bringing the A game for 60mins against dangerous teams a bad loss is there. All teams face this.

Summary: crap does happen but comes back to the response & short memory. 1 game at a time. Forget the lows & don’t relish wins. Team identity is a constant goal & the process is the answer to sustainability. Team game gets team wins from the top on down.

I still prefer watching the game.
- Marwood

Turning hockey into MLB stats wise never got my interest. MLB is far too individually based compared to team sports based metrics.

It’s boring poop & ignores all of the nuances in the game. There is no travel involved in the stats or any other tangible decisions coaches make or the in game momentum shifts.

Gimme stats that more encompass all that happens in games. Line changes effect if smooth or not. TOI that varies every game shift to shift dictated by deployment factors etc etc.

Accumulated stats are flawed.

Turning hockey into MLB stats wise never got my interest. MLB is far too individually based compared to team sports based metrics.

It’s boring poop & ignores all of the nuances in the game. There is no travel involved in the stats or any other tangible decisions coaches make or the in game momentum shifts.

Gimme stats that more encompass all that happens in games. Line changes effect if smooth or not. TOI that varies every game shift to shift dictated by deployment factors etc etc.

Accumulated stats are flawed.
- Nighthawk

Also, in baseball, it's easier to quantify metrics because you're only dealing with pitcher vs batter or batter vs fielder, etc. Baseball also is a fairly static game as well where hockey is more fluid and dynamic and things such as bad ice, poor surfacing, weird glass/stanchions, warping and imperfections on the puck and tape on the stick, unseen damage to sticks via wear and tear all can have an impact on the play.

Also, in baseball, it's easier to quantify metrics because you're only dealing with pitcher vs batter or batter vs fielder, etc. Baseball also is a fairly static game as well where hockey is more fluid and dynamic and things such as bad ice, poor surfacing, weird glass/stanchions, warping and imperfections on the puck and tape on the stick, unseen damage to sticks via wear and tear all can have an impact on the play.
- DariusKnight

Exactly to my point. Stats are cold & ignore the fluidity of the game. Only takes one bad hop or shot deflection etc. MLB has zero physicality or flow.

What stat shows rebound control?
Puck watching stats?
Deflections off of D?
Poor line changes?
Tired lines hemmed in own end?
Good vs poor dumps ins?
Neutral zone giveaways results?
D zone poor clearances?
Forecheck hits leading to whatever?

Stats that tell more about a game(s).

It's not the end all be all. It's just another tool/metric to predict how the season will go. The Canucks sample size (11 games) is small in comparison to the season.

McIndoe talks a lot about PDO... which is the sum of a team's save percentage plus shooting percentage. By the end of the season most teams hover around 100. Right now the Canucks are 106.7... which might be possible over the season, but due to the amount of data over the past however many seasons with all the teams, probably isn't. Here's an article if you want to read about it in depth: https://medium.com/hockey...-part-3-of-4-d3f319f2e1f1 (I have no idea if it's good, I don't really follow PDO/analytics too much and just Googled that)

A couple of charts to illustrate their point if you don't want to dive in...

Individual players over a season:



Teams over a season with explanation:



Below, I colored the top and bottom three teams based on PDO after 10 games played. Additionally, the Lightning are shown in pink as they dominated the regular season with a final record of 62–16–4. Vasilevskiy won the Vezina and Kucherov was the points (128) and assists (87) leader, earning him the Hart Trophy. They ended the season with a PDO of 101.9, third highest in the league. Number one was claimed by the Islanders with a PDO of 102.2.

Overall, the trend is exactly as we described. There is a lot of variation in the beginning, but over time, team PDO’s regress towards the mean. For example, the Ducks started out well but quickly fell to ~100, and the Golden Knights did the opposite. The Lightning show a different pattern and actually show what appears to be a steady or even slight incline over 100 as the season went on.

--

I'm going to bed so will respond tomorrow if need be
- NewYorkNuck

Thank you, honestly, I appreciate the response.

I do understand the PDO effect that these guys like to rely on, but I don't understand how they can make absolute statements such as "They’re not this good. Not even close, actually." The team is 11-3-1 in 15, what will their narrative be the if they are 15-4-1 after 20, or 17-6-2 after 25, just short sighted close-minded bias

Another question, Canucks aren't this good based on PDO, is the opponent not that bad based on the Canucks not being that good, shouldn't be allowed to count the canucks unsustainable lucky bounces against,

Thank you, honestly, I appreciate the response.

I do understand the PDO effect that these guys like to rely on, but I don't understand how they can make absolute statements such as "They’re not this good. Not even close, actually." The team is 11-3-1 in 15, what will their narrative be the if they are 15-4-1 after 20, or 17-6-2 after 25, just short sighted close-minded bias

Another question, Canucks aren't this good based on PDO, is the opponent not that bad based on the Canucks not being that good, shouldn't be allowed to count the canucks unsustainable lucky bounces against,
- Makita

PDO doesn’t explain shot selection in the slightest. Screens not included. Amount of shooters on a team. Structure that goalies can expect & can react to.

Teams can shoot from everywhere & get lower s%. Some players let rip as often as possible. Quantity is not quality. Just one example that PDO is lacking therefore painting a very blurred picture.

Thank you, honestly, I appreciate the response.

I do understand the PDO effect that these guys like to rely on, but I don't understand how they can make absolute statements such as "They’re not this good. Not even close, actually." The team is 11-3-1 in 15, what will their narrative be the if they are 15-4-1 after 20, or 17-6-2 after 25, just short sighted close-minded bias

Another question, Canucks aren't this good based on PDO, is the opponent not that bad based on the Canucks not being that good, shouldn't be allowed to count the canucks unsustainable lucky bounces against,
- Makita

That last graph, with some Emerson, Lake & Palmer, burgundy wine and some Window Pane acid ...