Peter Puck

I too have higher hopes for the Dmen. I think Mailloux will probably end up being the best of the four. I think there is a good chance he becomes a top pairing defenceman. He's the first round pick and who knows how much of a setback he suffers due to missing so many games. But I think he can overcome that. Predicting Hutson's future seems like making wild guesses. I think the most likely outcome for him is something like Mete. I guess Roy will end up as a solid 3rd line player and Kidney will be a bottom 6 player if he makes it.

As far as I can see, all this discussion about ruining players by rushing them into the NHL is just conformation bias. Every player who doesn't spend time in the minors and then doesn't meet expectations is declared to have been ruined by being rushed. Maybe these guys were just destined to fail. How do we know that players who don't meet expectations after years in the minors weren't ruined by being denied the opportunity to play early in the NHL? Even players like Chara, Thornton, and Carey Price who succeed after being "rushed" are ignored in the analysis. Maybe some of these players only succeeded because they were "rushed".

Mailloux served a 1 game suspension for his actions in and around a scrum at the end of the previous game.

How many times can we fumble the puck away in our own end?

That's Mailloux's 20th OHL goal in 54 OHL games. I think that may be the fastest ever to 20 by a Dman in the OHL.

This is the third straight game he has played centre. He has just been so effective carrying the puck.

Dach has looked great the past week.

Yes, I couldn't understand why the US used their top power play unit in the final 5 minutes of the game.

tsn announcers credited Oliver Kapanen for the first goal but I think it was scored by Konsta Kapanen,

Good period. We were much better at protecting the puck. Very few giveaways unlike most games.

I agree that goalies often stop 2 on 1s. But most 2 on 1s are not like the first and third goal in this game. The model awards those shots 0.1 xG and 0.13 xG because the data predicts that is the average outcome. This average includes plays where the forward fails to collect the pass and also plays where his shot misses the net. The problem here is the calculation of expected goals and trying to use them to measure a goalie's performance. If the Habs play the Oilers and McDavid gets a breakaway his wrist shot from 12 feet out is something like 0.30 xG. If Pezzetta then gets a breakaway and misses the net on his wrist shot that is still worth 0.30xG. If McDavid scores then Allen let in a full goal on a play worth only 0.3xG. Conversely Skinner is credited with saving on a chance worth 0.30xG even though the shot missed the net. In the game against the Kraken, all 3 Habs scored by taking really good shots. The model (I think) does not take into account that the shot by Pitlick was roofed into the net. Nor that Caufield's goal came immediately after a rink wide pass to an uncovered forward (although some models may account for some of this). These facts should be taken into account when we measure Jones' performance.

The first goal was a "low danger" shot. It was a screened shot from the point that isn't an expected goal. He probably should have stopped it but I am not sure when he saw the shot. The next 3 goals were all 2 on 1's. The first was a Caufield goal on a cross ice pass from Suzuki. That shot was 0.1 expected goals. I am pretty sure that Caufield scores more than once if he gets to take that shot 10 times. Probably more like 6 times in 10. The third goal was by Pitlick standing uncovered beside the goal when Jake Evans broke in 2 on 1. He passed it to Pitlick who rifled it into the roof of the net from 6 feet out. Natural Stat Trick lists this as 0.13 xG. Again way too low. I would say most NHL forwards score there 70% of the time. Goal 2 was by Anderson on a 2 on 1. This was 0.09 xG. He got a cross crease pass from Dvorak 12 feet out right in front of the net. Anderson scores more that 10% of the time in that situation. Kovacevic's goal came on a shot judged worth 0.03xG. This is probably reasonably accurate. I agree it would have been great for Jones if he had stopped one of the last 3 goals. But awarding those 3 chances a total of 0.32 expected goals isn't accurate. The model doesn't account for enough variables. That's okay, there is only so much data available. But we can watch the game and see that those three chances don't yield less than a third of a goal.

I don't think you can really blame Martin Jones. The first 3 goals came on gold-plated chances. Even the 4th goal wasn't a bad goal to give up.

29-46-2-4 = 64 pts 8th in the Atlantic 31st in the league 41 goals.

Whoops. Have edited the opening post. All goals Cole Caufield scores in any shootouts will count in his goal total. But only goals scored while a Hab. Thanks for pointing out my errors.