• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

The Fucking Season Thread - Redemption Tour '22

In other words, if you believe Jack is a ~.915 goalie, then he is more likely to play somewhere close to a .915 level than a sub .900 level at any given moment. There will be variance but there's no reason to expect .880 goaltending over a 2 month period just because he was hot early on.
 
True but being hot/cold in hockey isn't a 50/50 split. Its more like its 100% going to happen 90% of the time.

Statistically it doesn't make sense, but thats also why they have a "luck" stat.
 
Of course. Just saying that it was never reasonable to expect Jack to be so poor in these last 2 months JUST because he was really good early on. These two things aren't related. We knew his stats would regress to the mean, but as a goalie it would be better to do that by playing average or even slightly below average for a decently long stretch and not like a dumpster fire; playing like a dumpster fire for 2 months is something different than regressing to the mean.
 
Preston said:
Of course. Just saying that it was never reasonable to expect Jack to be so poor in these last 2 months JUST because he was really good early on. These two things aren't related. We knew his stats would regress to the mean, but as a goalie it would be better to do that by playing average or even slightly below average for a decently long stretch and not like a dumpster fire; playing like a dumpster fire for 2 months is something different than regressing to the mean.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, Jack has regressed to the mean in absolutely the worst way possible. Not in any way defending his play.
 
LeafGm said:
So when are they signing Jack to his 8 year/$6M AAV deal?
Click to expand...

But can we afford him tho?

When this whole extension conversation picked up (mid heater), I mentioned that a Driedger + contract is something we should be aiming for and Jack should be interested in because he was major slump away from chasing 2 yr contracts off of the scrap heap in the summer.

For a guy in Jack's position, it's more important to not fumble the bag than it is to maximize absolute contract value.
 
Last edited:
MindzEye said:
But can we afford him tho?

When this whole extension conversation picked up (mid heater), I mentioned that a Driedger + contract is something we should be aiming for and Jack should be interested in because he was major slump away from chasing 2 yr contracts off of the scrap heap in the summer.

For a guy in Jack's position, it's more important to not fumble the bag than it is to maximize absolute contract value.
Click to expand...


Yeah, if Jack doesn’t have a major rebound from this slump and/or if he ends up largely watching Mrazek from the bench in the playoffs, he can kiss financial security goodbye, at least in the short-term.

If a Dreidger-ish contract was ever on the table for him, he should have taken it.
 
Kyle was too smart to negotiate during his unsustainable heater. Kypreos threw out that fake rumor that they were in negotiations but Jack and his agent immediately denied that. Of course.
 
Preston said:
You flip a coin 10 times and each time you hit heads. Does that mean it's more likely that the next 10 times are tails? No. Your odds are still 50-50. But the larger the sample size, the more likely you regress to the mean. It doesn't mean the odds of hitting tails suddenly increase.
Click to expand...

These are players not coins.
 
Team shoots 1% for 20 games. Does that make them more likely to shoot 20% for the next 20? Or do we expect them to be closer to league or historical average? Option 2 obviously. 20% and 1% over a 20 game sample are improbable, unlikely events that are against basic probabilities. I would bet against either happening every time.
 
Preston said:
Team shoots 1% for 20 games. Does that make them more likely to shoot 20% for the next 20? Or do we expect them to be closer to league or historical average? Option 2 obviously.
Click to expand...

Team shoots 10% for 100gms. Is it likely that there are streaks of both 1% and 20% in there?
 
zeke said:
Team shoots 10% for 100gms. Is it likely that there are streaks of both 1% and 20% in there?
Click to expand...
Variance is expected but over 20 games? No, unlikely. I would bet against that happening. And if you look at the data (some great charts showing this that I recall), Fred's variance in his play was at the top of the league. So for him, I would expect higher variance; Jack did not show that yet throughout his early career. Fred ended up with a similar save percentage by year-end but he was nowhere near consistent at all. League-wide there is a certain amount of dips and surges in a goalies play, but it's not quite at the level we've been used to as Leafs fans.

Plus a 20 game stretch of .940 play has zero predictability on what he does over the next 20 games. It doesn't suddenly mean his next 20 games will be in the .870 range. I need to see data if that's the claim here.
 
Preston said:
Variance is expected but over 20 games? No, unlikely. I would bet against that happening. And if you look at the data (some great charts showing this that I recall), Fred's variance in his play was at the top of the league. So for him, I would expect higher variance; Jack did not show that yet throughout his early career. Fred ended up with a similar save percentage by year-end but he was nowhere near consistent at all. League-wide there is a certain amount of dips and surges in a goalies play, but it's not quite at the level we've been used to as Leafs fans.

Plus a 20 game stretch of .940 play has zero predictability on what he does over the next 20 games. It doesn't suddenly mean his next 20 games will be in the .870 range. I need to see data if that's the claim here.
Click to expand...

I get the coin flip analogy and it is accurate for what it is.

But I have a hunch that players that have scorching hot streaks usually end up around their usual level by the end of the year.
 
And what are we even talking about with Fred anyways - an .883 over his last 10? An .840 over his last 5? I'd say those are well in expected range.
 
If it's a hunch that's fine. But I need to see the data to be convinced personally. I just don't understand how a stretch of 20 games of .940 means he's likely to be AHL caliber for the next 15. Slumps are normal and I'm not disagreeing with that. I just disagree with a hot streak having any sort of predictability for the next batch of games.
 
zeke said:
I get the coin flip analogy and it is accurate for what it is.

But I have a hunch that players that have scorching hot streaks usually end up around their usual level by the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Except we see outlier seasons in player careers all the fucking time and they're not bookended by career worst seasons to satisfy the gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top