dlbalr

2016-17 NHL Season Thread

902 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, Commandant said:

Switch the goalies and the series is 2-0 Nashville. 

Agree to disagree. I'm sure Crosby and Malkin would be able to figure "Lord Murray" out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Commandant said:

Switch the goalies and the series is 2-0 Nashville. 

 

I'm not sure why people are disagreeing with that. Maybe you could say the more obvious "switch the goalie performances and the series is 2-0 Nashville".

 

Clearly, Nashville has had no goaltending support in this series. That's not ripping on Rinne's performance in the first three rounds.

 

But also look at the goals off Fiddler and Ekholm. These are purely the Pens getting lucky, which the preds aren't getting. Preds players deserve to have a tie series at this point IMO. They've controlled a crazy amount of the play. Unfortunately for them, Rinne's numbers are awful, and Murray's are great. Partially due to a number of bad breaks for Nashville.

 

I'm impartial to who wins, that's just how I see it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the reason is? The Pens scored off 3 odd man rushes in the third period and no goalie in the world would have stopped Malkin's snipe. That's the point, the Penguins are more dangerous than Nashville because they have players like Crosby, Malkin, Kessel and even Guetzel who can score on any given shot. Nashville has physical leader Mike Fisher and Jarnkrok missing empty nets. They have to rely on players like Scissons, Arvidsson and Aberg to win a cup and eventually that will catch up with them.

 

On one hand we're hearing that goaltending is the reason and on the other hand we're hearing about Pittsburgh's lucky bounces. Well it's good to know that for whatever reason Murray would have stopped those lucky bounces if he were on Nashville.

 

Pittsburgh's the better team, has more experience, and will win the cup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Agree to disagree. I'm sure Crosby and Malkin would be able to figure "Lord Murray" out.

 

Malkin has been rather quiet.  He only got one shot in all of game two.  He's not dominant out there.  Its rinne being a sieve. 

 

From how far out Malkin shot, and with no traffic.  The goalie has to make that save.  

 

The goalie also shouldn't be kicking rebounds out in the slot on simple plays ten seconds into a period. 

 

He also can't let a goal go in through his body. 

 

 

In game one he can't all 4 goals on 11 shots. 

 

 

This is mad.  His save percentage is under 800, thats not "figuring out" a goalie.  No NHL goalie should be stopping less than 80% of the shots.  He's just playing poorly. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Malkin has been rather quiet.  He only got one shot in all of game two.  He's not dominant out there.  Its rinne being a sieve. 

 

From how far out Malkin shot, and with no traffic.  The goalie has to make that save.  

 

The goalie also shouldn't be kicking rebounds out in the slot on simple plays ten seconds into a period. 

 

He also can't let a goal go in through his body. 

 

 

In game one he can't all 4 goals on 11 shots. 

 

 

This is mad.  His save percentage is under 800, thats not "figuring out" a goalie.  No NHL goalie should be stopping less than 80% of the shots.  He's just playing poorly. 

I don't  think he even moved on the Malkin shot - and it wasn't like he didn't have time and as you've said, he had a clear view. He's been so bad, it's like he's forgotten how to play goal.

 

this is the worst performance in the finals by a goalie since the year philly lost to Chicago, or philly lost to Detroit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure and let's just ignore the fact that once again all three goals in the 3rd period were odd man rushes. One 3 on 2 and two 2 on 1s. Those types of situations don't increase the level of probability that a goal will be scored or anything. :sarcasm_on: Guetzel's goal was relatively weak and then Nashville as a team broke down trying to press too hard and Pittsburgh capitalized on two 2 on 1 rushes. That's not only on the goalie any way you slice it.

 

You can keep calling it a fluke that Pittsburgh has already won twice and frankly you can keep calling it a fluke based on only one factor (goaltending) once Pittsburgh wins their 4th. It doesn't really matter. In my opinion they have more skill and experience and will win the cup largely in part to that.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goalies don't have sub 800 save percentages on 2 on 1s. .... 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rinne maybe shouldve had one or two of those but it also looks like some bad luck bounces on his own dmen.

by the way...  it is scary that its been so long since the habs has been in a finals that now people here starts cheering as hard for other teams as they do for the habs. Even arguing like the preds actually would be habs in the wrong jerseys...

please let us cheer for the team in red, white and blue in the finals soon.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goalies don't face 2 on 1s unless the team breaks down. :lol:

 

Rinne hasn't played great but he's a solid goalie. It's a weird argument because Rinne is praised for similar things that Price is, such as playing the puck and rebound control in general. If this was Price, and Price has looked like this in a playoff round before, what would the point be? I would get that Price is having a bad series from that argument. Not that Pittsburgh shouldn't have won and the reason really would be, because they are Pittsburgh. A team with this era's and the only ever other Gretzky.

 

Alright, Rinne is having a bad series so far but what happened in game 1 is nothing new. Teams get outshot and win ALL the time. 

 

I argue that Pittsburgh is better on paper and whether it's looked that way in the first two games, I still believe it. We're talking about arguably a better dynasty than Chicago who everyone praises and all of a sudden Pittsburgh is the underdog against newcomer Nashville after they beat perennial contender San Jose just last year. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price has never had a playoff series where his save percentage is in the 700s. 

 

Thats a special level of terrible here. 

 

And the shots have not been that bad. 

 

Guentzel's game 1 winner is a guy coming in one-on-one with a defenceman... no screen... and shooting a wrist shot high on the short side.  That should never go in. 

 

Game 2 a puck goes through his body... another is kicking out a terrible rebound on a 2 on 2... another is letting in another wrist shot with no traffic. 

 

 

And yeah he was very good in the first three rounds... thats not disputed. 

 

But it really shouldn't be disputed that goaltending is the difference in the last two games.  Nashville has had more chances and better chances.  One goalie is playing great, the other is at a level that is epic in its futility right now.  Make a save. 

 

And who called pittsburgh the underdog?  I didn't, and I don't see anyone else doing so.  They were always the favorite in this series, on betting lines, with more people selecting them, with home ice, being the defending champs, etc.... The thing i took issue with was you saying Nashville isn't in their class.  Nashville has proven they can play with the Penguins.  In fact in many ways (outside of goaltending) they've been the better team. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preds in 6

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand what the arguing is about. Rinne has something like the 4th worst totals of any goalie in Finals history over the past few decades. He is obviously melting down disastrously. No team can win - especially not in the Finals against elite competition - when their goalie can't stop a beach-ball. Commentators are in pretty much universal agreement that NASH has been the better team even without Ryan Johansen. This is on Rinne. (It's vaguely reminiscent of the Habs in 2016, when we had the worst goaltending in hockey. You didn't need to look far for an explanation for the lack of team success; if your goalie can't stop the puck, you lose, period).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree Nashville has been the better overall team they are not that dangerous offensively and Murray isn't really working that hard tbh. There wasn't a lot of shots yesterday that made me think he had to stand on his head. While Pitts seems to be very dangerous with their offensive chances even though they don't have many.

 

In regards to Rinne playing terribly is nothing new really, this is the same goalie that had a meltdown last year in the playoffs and the same goalie that Weber played in front of all those years. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Goalies don't face 2 on 1s unless the team breaks down. :lol:

 

Rinne hasn't played great but he's a solid goalie. It's a weird argument because Rinne is praised for similar things that Price is, such as playing the puck and rebound control in general. If this was Price, and Price has looked like this in a playoff round before, what would the point be? I would get that Price is having a bad series from that argument. Not that Pittsburgh shouldn't have won and the reason really would be, because they are Pittsburgh. A team with this era's and the only ever other Gretzky.

 

Alright, Rinne is having a bad series so far but what happened in game 1 is nothing new. Teams get outshot and win ALL the time. 

 

I argue that Pittsburgh is better on paper and whether it's looked that way in the first two games, I still believe it. We're talking about arguably a better dynasty than Chicago who everyone praises and all of a sudden Pittsburgh is the underdog against newcomer Nashville after they beat perennial contender San Jose just last year. 

Rarely has a team EVER won a playoff game when they've only got 14 or 15 shots on goal.  I can't of any other game I've seen.

 

EVERY analyst has said they lost because Of Rinne and that was statistically the worst GAA ever in a playoff game.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Rarely has a team EVER won a playoff game when they've only got 14 or 15 shots on goal.  I can't of any other game I've seen.

 

EVERY analyst has said they lost because Of Rinne and that was statistically the worst GAA ever in a playoff game.

And when the Bruins were outshot in 16 of their 25 games in 2011 they won the cup. Tim Thomas was praised but all people remember is that the Bruins won the cup. 

 

The team who outshoots their opponents wins less than 50% of the games in the NHL and now because it's Nashville who is losing this way, everyone cares. The reason for that stat is because shots on goal doesn't take into account how dangerous a scoring chance it was. The Habs have outshot their oppponents many a time to no avail because most of their shots were from the outside and that goes to the point that Nashville's offense isn't that dangerous. They can shoot all they want but they don't have the skill Pittsburgh does, especially up the middle. EVERY analyst agrees with that. They have heart and will win a game or two but Pittsburgh will win the cup. Now I'm not sure what the argument with that is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

And when the Bruins were outshot in 16 of their 25 games in 2011 they won the cup. Tim Thomas was praised but all people remember is that the Bruins won the cup. 

 

The team who outshoots their opponents wins less than 50% of the games in the NHL and now because it's Nashville who is losing this way, everyone cares. The reason for that stat is because shots on goal doesn't take into account how dangerous a scoring chance it was. The Habs have outshot their oppponents many a time to no avail because most of their shots were from the outside and that goes to the point that Nashville's offense isn't that dangerous. They can shoot all they want but they don't have the skill Pittsburgh does, especially up the middle. EVERY analyst agrees with that. They have heart and will win a game or two but Pittsburgh will win the cup. Now I'm not sure what the argument with that is.

There's a difference between being outshot and having your goalie steal a game, and totally out shooting your opponent, scoring 3 goals AND still losing because your goalie basically had around the same save percentage as a pylon would.  This is no comparison to the way the bruins won in 2011.  At no point did the bruins only get 13 shots on luongo and have luongo let 4 goals in.  Murray did not shut-out the preds in game 1.

 

The pens offence, defence and goalie did not win them game one.  Rinne won game one one for the pens.   He let in 4 goals on 13 shots!!!!!!!  That's a save percentage of .692.  Worst ever in a playoff game in NHL HISTORY.  No other goalie has ever played worse in a NHL playoff game, let alone a Stanley cup final game.  My 9 year old daghter could have been in net and put up the same numbers as Rinne did in that game.

 

Did you even watch the game?  

 

Right from rom the start of the series, the analysts all said, this was a series of Pittsburgh' lethal offence against the best defence in the league.  And no, not every analyst picked the pens at the start of this series.  It was pretty close to a 50-50 split, at worst it was 60-40 for the pens.

 

In game one the preds D did their job.  Totally shut down the pens offence.  Unfortunately for them, their goalie played worse than most pee wee goalies and even worse than some timbits goalies.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

And when the Bruins were outshot in 16 of their 25 games in 2011 they won the cup. Tim Thomas was praised but all people remember is that the Bruins won the cup. 

 

The team who outshoots their opponents wins less than 50% of the games in the NHL and now because it's Nashville who is losing this way, everyone cares. The reason for that stat is because shots on goal doesn't take into account how dangerous a scoring chance it was. The Habs have outshot their oppponents many a time to no avail because most of their shots were from the outside and that goes to the point that Nashville's offense isn't that dangerous. They can shoot all they want but they don't have the skill Pittsburgh does, especially up the middle. EVERY analyst agrees with that. They have heart and will win a game or two but Pittsburgh will win the cup. Now I'm not sure what the argument with that is.

 

The team who wins the corsi battle wins 70% of games. 

 

I'm not sure where you get your 50% stat from. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

The team who wins the corsi battle wins 70% of games. 

 

I'm not sure where you get your 50% stat from. 

 

http://www.eightleaves.com/2014/11/measuring-performance-in-the-nhl

 

 

Does shot difference make a difference?

But is it necessary for teams to outshoot opponents in order to outscore them? Not in every game, of course, but is it true on average? In the shots for and against stats for the 2009/10 season, the correlation between the shot difference and winning percentage is fairly high (0.63). On average, it appears winning teams tend to outshoot their opponents. This seems to support the idea that the Corsi number can be used as a proxy for performance.

 

But, if you take a closer look, the support falters. Teams that outshot their opponents won 580 games in the season. How many games did the outshot teams win? 588! More teams had a higher winning percentage when they were behind on shots (19) than when they were ahead (11). And a team’s winning percentage didn’t change by much whether it outshot or it was outshot by opponents — about 8% on average. If outshooting opponents is pivotal to winning games, we’d expect this difference to be wider. Instead, we see that a team’s ability to win games was fairly independent of its ability to outshoot opponents. Why?

 

The incentive to shoot

Teams shoot to score goals. And, depending on who’s ahead, each team’s incentive to score another goal (and hence take shots) is different. It’s always more important for the team that’s ahead to prevent a goal than to score a goal. Similarly, it’s always more important for the team that’s trailing to score a goal than prevent a goal. To put it in economic terms, the marginal value of a goal is higher for the team that’s behind than it is for the team that’s ahead, and the marginal cost of a goal allowed is higher for the team that’s ahead than it is for the team that’s behind.

The biggest problem with the Corsi number is that it assumes that incentives stay the same throughout a game. It penalizes players when they’re protecting a lead and have little to gain by venturing aggressively into the offensive zone. And it rewards players who are taking the space their opponents give them and taking shots from all angles without affecting the outcome of a game"

 

Or 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are using data from 8 years ago. 

 

You are making no allowances for 5v5 play vs PP

 

You are also making no allowances for a team outshooting another by significant margins or if its by 1 or 2 shots.  There is no data analyzed there. You are also making no allowances for score effects. 

 

 

The research done on this in the last 8 years greatly contradicts that study. 

 

Corsi vs regulation wins... plotted. 

433348e18a774433a30dc5189e61b43f?fit=max

 

and

 

http://objectivenhl.blogspot.ca/2011/02/shots-fenwick-and-corsi.html

 

and 

 

http://thehockeywriters.com/corsi-close-does-puck-possession-equal-points/

 

and

 

http://objectivenhl.blogspot.ca/2011/03/loose-ends-part-i-predictive-validity.html

 

and

 

http://www.jewelsfromthecrown.com/2013/11/8/5081592/corsi-explained

and

 

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/passing-shot-generation-and-winning/

 

and

 

http://kuklaskorner.com/index.php/psh/comments/correlation_of_fenwick_number_with_team_points

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams that score more goals against thier opponents, win 100% of the time. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stat of the day.... In two games, the Penguins have had 10 High Danger Scoring Chances.  They've scored 8 goals on those 10 high danger shots. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gutsy move to play Rinne again. I guess play with the guy who got you there. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Gutsy move to play Rinne again. I guess play with the guy who got you there. 

At the start of the game it l looked like it was going to blow up in their face.  He looked like he was fighting the puck for most of the first period.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

At the start of the game it l looked like it was going to blow up in their face.  He looked like he was fighting the puck for most of the first period.

Yeah this has been a terrible final for Rinne. Good they got the win there but without Ekholm-Subban shutting the best Penguins forwards down this is a 3-0 series with Rinne in net.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

Yeah this has been a terrible final for Rinne. Good they got the win there but without Ekholm-Subban shutting the best Penguins forwards down this is a 3-0 series with Rinne in net.

Yep, no shots for Crosby, Malkin and kessel didn't get one until his breakaway with a minute left and another unit on.  Team Canada's brain trust was dead on about subban.  He is way too high risk to be trusted in a big game!

 

and another classic subban moment with Crosby at the end of the game.  But I bet if he made the listerint comment as a Hab, that probably would have pissed off MB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now