Jump to content

Game #26 - Montreal Slafkovskies vs Seattle Wrights 10pm EST


How would you rate Harris today?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Rate Harris’ play this season

    • Poor - He needs significant improvement
      0
    • Average - He is a middling Dman
      3
    • Above average - He is mostly solid
      10
    • Outstanding - He is a franchise player
      0


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


8 shots after two periods is awful but a .500 % is even worse. 
 

Please score some goals Slafkovsky 

 

Suzuki is a legit top end player 

the Caufield Suzuki chemistry is something most teams can only dream of with their top 2 guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Allen was great but I think we got lucky tonight 

xG was 3.03 to 1.75 for the Kraken, according to Natural Stat Trick. Allen saved one goal more than expected but the Habs scored 2.25 more than expected, which is all the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen played well, and shot my prediction down the drain. Good for him and for the team.

 

:bonk: Pezzetta looked intensely from the bench when Caufield scored, that has to count for something 🤪

:P  expected, expectation above minutes played (xXaMp) was sky high :P 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Commandant said:

Bit of a lucky win.  Martin Jones didnt stop anything.

  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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

  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.

 

 

 

At a certain point you want your goalie to make a save on at least one of those chances.  You can't give up 4 goals on the first 8 shots of the game.  

 

The Habs expected goals based on quality of chances was 1.75.  So giving up 4 has to be seen as a bad night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DON said:

Just 6 shifts, 4:50 for Xhekaj, 1 shift in 3rd period?

 

5 points out of 8, successful west road trip.


Good catch/comment.  I was also wondering about this, it doesn’t seem MSL style to bench a kid so dramatically so figured it must be a mild injury?

As in if someone went down with bigger injury he could fill in but didn’t want to aggravate it?  

 

Since I Am on the road, watched game in a bar w/o sound, with plenty of distractions so figured I’d missed him getting ejected or injured…now just curious as based on your post he was on bench while time..no news today that I’ve seen…???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

  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.

I looked at Natural Stat Trick after the first period. I think Martin was 0/2 on high-danger shots, 0/1 on medium danger ones and 4/5 on low-danger ones. And for the game overall, the Habs were roughly 2xG but 4 actual goals scored ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

I looked at Natural Stat Trick after the first period. I think Martin was 0/2 on high-danger shots, 0/1 on medium danger ones and 4/5 on low-danger ones. And for the game overall, the Habs were roughly 2xG but 4 actual goals scored ...


Indont understand how you are referring to the stats, I would like to understand.

 

can you please explain a bit more 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin didn’t make a single save on a high-danger or medium-danger shot. With average goaltending, the Habs should have scored two goals, but they actually scored four.

 

These numbers support Martin having had a bad game and a brutal first period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tomh009 said:

Martin didn’t make a single save on a high-danger or medium-danger shot. With average goaltending, the Habs should have scored two goals, but they actually scored four.

 

These numbers support Martin having had a bad game and a brutal first period.

 

If this game is played 4 times, the Habs would be expected to score 2 goals in three of those games, and 1 goal in one of those games.... the xG was 1.75

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

If this game is played 4 times, the Habs would be expected to score 2 goals in three of those games, and 1 goal in one of those games.... the xG was 1.75

  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. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you overestimate the number of times that teams convert on 2 on 1s. 

 

While they are good chances, NHL goalies often make saves on 2 on 1s.  Sure its not the 905 save percentage that they average on all opportunities.... a scoring chance on a 2 on 1 is better than 9.5% but at 32% that is triple the chances of scoring on a typical shot.  The model is pretty good there, and the goalie needs to make some saves. 

 

NHL goalies stop these kinds of chances all the time, but Jones simply made no saves.  You can't expect that every game out of the opponent.  You are going to expect the opponent to make some saves where fans say "he robbed us" or "i cant believe it didn't' go in" and Jones simply made none of them on Tuesday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Commandant said:

I think you overestimate the number of times that teams convert on 2 on 1s. 

 

While they are good chances, NHL goalies often make saves on 2 on 1s.  Sure its not the 905 save percentage that they average on all opportunities.... a scoring chance on a 2 on 1 is better than 9.5% but at 32% that is triple the chances of scoring on a typical shot.  The model is pretty good there, and the goalie needs to make some saves. 

 

NHL goalies stop these kinds of chances all the time, but Jones simply made no saves.  You can't expect that every game out of the opponent.  You are going to expect the opponent to make some saves where fans say "he robbed us" or "i cant believe it didn't' go in" and Jones simply made none of them on Tuesday. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

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. 

 

False... "This average includes plays where the forward fails to collect the pass and also plays where his shot misses the net."  It does include missing the net.  It does not include missed passes, there must be a shot attempt. 

 

"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."  GSAX (goals saved above expected) is the top goalie stat out there right now, even more useful that save percentage.  Of course its not perfect but its pretty darn good.  And sorry 4 goals on 8 shots, with not one save on a high danger or medium danger chance is bad.  Goalies have to make some saves even the hard ones.  There is a reason why Jones is considered one of the worst goalies in the NHL, and its not just this game, its regular with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • tomh009 changed the title to Game #26 - Montreal Slafkovskies vs Seattle Wrights 10pm EST

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...