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

The Motherfucking 2021 Season Thread

Artnes said:
Does this line up? Eye test be damned but something doesnt smell right

Click to expand...


It might be. He's been on the ice for more real goals than most of the leafs.

But the xGAs continue to look different than the rest of the defensive numbers both for team and for matthews so it's debatable as to what the stats are really showing.

Relative to team (the lower the better for these defensive numbers):

-1.28 ca/60
-0.27 fa/60
-0.30 sa/60
+0.06 xga/60
+0.91 ga/60

Bottom 5 on-ice save%:

18. Matthews .904
19. Boyd .904
20. Petan .903
21. Vesey .902
22. Simmonds .902


So he looks excellent defensively by all the shot attempts metrics, but not so great by the quality chance and actual goal metrics. And as I mentioned before there's evidence that pure shot metrics are better for judging defense.

Not sure which way to lean here but there's definitely lots of wiggle room in the numbers here if your eye test disagrees one way or the other.
 
I personally don't think he's very good defensively based on my eye test but I also give absolutely 0 fucks. He's definitely not McDavid or Drai bad.
 
I think it could also be impacted by prior years depending on the RAPM model. I know a big twitter dispute is whether or not models should include players priors. Evolving Wild doesn't, but others do.

But also Mitchy for Selke:



#underpaid
 
Artnes said:
Does this line up? Eye test be damned but something doesnt smell right

Click to expand...


I'm struggling with understanding the models on this one yeah, and quizzed up the evolving hockey guy on twitter recently with his response being basically that usage should be built in to the model, though he didn't seem sure or how it functioned exactly.

But when you go to the raw numbers that they're probably plugging in: Matthews is 25th out of 126 in CA/60 (5v5 adjusted, centres only, 200 minutes or more). 70th in xGA/60...which I think has a huge component of usage here, Eichel is 3rd ffs but almost never sees a zone start in his own end. 35th in SCA/60, 42nd in HDCA/60. He's 59th in defensive zone starts/60 (very few high quality offensive players are higher than he is. Kopitar, Aho, Pavelski, ROR, Couture, Giroux) where as other elite centres are way at the back (Crosby 111th, McDavid 104th, Eichel 92nd) and only 55th in offensive zone starts (Malkin 2, Pettersson 4, Barzal 7, Point 8, Mack 9, Crosby 11, McDavid 22) So it's pretty obvious that Matthews is maybe the only top 10 centre in the league whose coach regularly puts him over the boards regularly in every 5 on 5 situation and isn't sheltering him at all.

So when you look at the chance results, compounded with his unsheltered usage, I fucking struggle with how the models are showing him to be below average defensively. My bet is that they just don't have usage/qoc figured out at all yet for defensive metrics.
 
I also struggle with Marner being ranked so high, and Matthews being ranked so poorly

CA/60

Matthews: 48.43
Marner: 49.36

xGA

Matthews: 2.20
Marner: 2.19

Mitchy has him in zone starts though, so with near identical outcomes and harder usage I'd have no problem with the models ranking Mitchy higher than Auston...but that much fucking higher?
 
I love seeing draglikemoron and Mirtle trying to use PDO to tell us that a 17-4-2 pace isn't sustainable. Thanks tips.

They got dominated by one simple tweet:
 



Looks like Matthews just gets punished in the model because Mitchy's numbers are good in the limited sample they are separated.
 
Preston said:
I love seeing draglikemoron and Mirtle trying to use PDO to tell us that a 17-4-2 pace isn't sustainable. Thanks tips.

They got dominated by one simple tweet:
Click to expand...


Tampa is 1st in the league in PDO

Also, PDO isn't just "luck", there's a large skill/system component. We don't take a lot of point shots and our 5 highest volume shooters are:

Career SH%

Matthews: 16.2!!! (he's pretty fucking good)
Marner: 11.4%
Tavares: 13.2%
Hyman: 12%
Willy: 11.8%

Those 5 have 303 shots.

Also, very conveniently equaling 303 shots on the season is basically the rest of the fucking team:

Rielly,Mikky, Muzzin, Spezza, Kerfoot, Vesey, Engvall, Simmonds, Brodie, Bogo, Dermott, Holl have a combined 303 shots

So when damn near half of your teams shots come off of the stick of 5 guys with way above average career shooting%, your team SH% is always going to look high.
 
Preston said:
I love seeing draglikemoron and Mirtle trying to use PDO to tell us that a 17-4-2 pace isn't sustainable. Thanks tips.

They got dominated by one simple tweet:
Click to expand...


Dom noted this morning that not all teams will regress to the mean and he expects the Leafs to be one that will always ride higher than 100

115 from last game is not sustainable however
 
yeah, the problem with PDO is people ignore that it is not just luck, its a combination of luck and skill. And high/low PDO's may regress/progress, but every team's PDO does not regress towards the mean.

Shooting and goaltending talent is not distributed evenly. Neither is luck.
 
Artnes said:
Dom noted this morning that not all teams will regress to the mean and he expects the Leafs to be one that will always ride higher than 100

115 from last game is not sustainable however
Click to expand...

The Leafs should be expected to shoot somewhere in the range of 9.5% which is way above average. It's a function of their system and talent, and they've shown it to be a durable expectation. When league average is usually about 8%, you're already running at a PDO of 115 as your baseline. Now heaven forbid you have both shooting talent and better than average goaltending....
 
Preston said:
One may argue that PDO actually measures talent better than luck. But it does neither really. It's useless.
Click to expand...

It can help identify short sample performance outliers. But this idea that you have to regress to the mean in team SH% & SV% is obviously fucking ridiculous. Tampa Bay will very, very likely receive above-average goaltending every year for the next decade. There is no rational reason to expect that to drift back to the mean because reasons and statistics.
 
Obviously PDO is a misleading combo of two very different stats.

With our goalies I'd probably expect regression towards league average sv%.

But with our elite scoring talent and our decision not to fire away with low percentage shots, we should always expect out sh% to be league leading elite level.
 
zeke said:
It might be. He's been on the ice for more real goals than most of the leafs.

But the xGAs continue to look different than the rest of the defensive numbers both for team and for matthews so it's debatable as to what the stats are really showing.

Relative to team (the lower the better for these defensive numbers):

-1.28 ca/60
-0.27 fa/60
-0.30 sa/60
+0.06 xga/60
+0.91 ga/60

Bottom 5 on-ice save%:

18. Matthews .904
19. Boyd .904
20. Petan .903
21. Vesey .902
22. Simmonds .902


So he looks excellent defensively by all the shot attempts metrics, but not so great by the quality chance and actual goal metrics. And as I mentioned before there's evidence that pure shot metrics are better for judging defense.

Not sure which way to lean here but there's definitely lots of wiggle room in the numbers here if your eye test disagrees one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Micah has a different story. Seems like a lot of these guys with models are starting to fall in love with the smell of their own farts

I would like to have access to Sportlogiq just to compare how these models are stacking up.

 
Never forget that guy who got himself fired from a plum job with the Habs because he refused to consider qoc in re: Weber and Subban and lost his shit with his boss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top