Calgary/Ottawa Post-Game - Retro Jerseys now 5-0!
by maimster on Mar 12, 2010 12:45 AM PST
75 comments
Thursday night is beer-league hockey night in San Diego and therefore this game was scheduled to be viewed in full tape-delay mode. As I settled in to watch and spent the first five minutes fast forwarding past Mike Brophy and John Shannon killing time while the glass was being repaired, I had the first of two major revelations on the night. Namely, I was going to regret not taping more than three hours on the DVR! Sure enough, just as Daniel Alfredsson was apparently icing the result with a hooking penalty in the final two minutes, the screen went blank. Oops! I figured I didn't miss much anyway, given the result, but a look at the play by play of the game showed the obligatory Rene Bourque offensive zone penalty and a lot of "SHOT OTT ONGOAL". No sense the Flames making it easy on themselves.
The other revelation was revealed bit by bit throughout the whole game...
...I finally understand what it feels like to be a fan of the Colorado Avalanche this season. The Flames may have had the beautiful retro jerseys on, but they may as well have had the Avs colors. The Flames had everything the Avs have had this season. Great goaltending? Check. Tons of blocked shots? Check. Timely, quick strike goals on relatively few chances? Check. Spend most of the game swimming against the tide? Triple Check. Of the four losses the Flames have to show for their efforts against Colorado this season, there isn't one where the players and the fans weren't convinced they were the better team and lost because of the bounces. If I'm an Ottawa fan, I'm pulling my hair out after tonight's game.
Colorado fans have been pretty convinced that the stats like Corsi are not predictive in any way, and have noted this many times on this site and others. And who can blame them - the Avs continue to hold a playoff spot, and are certainly in a better position than the Flames. Certainly, you could watch the game tonight and say things like "Ottawa really didn't have great chances", "All those blocked shots just showed the Flames wanted it more", "A bend-but-don't-break defense and timely goals will win all the time". You could say those things, but you'd be wrong. Playing that way is like teetering on the knife's edge - it's worked for Colorado longer than we could have guessed, but Calgary can't afford that this time of the year. The only thing separating this game from the 4-0 loss to Minnesota last week was the early goal instead of the early deficit, and a better effort will be necessary Sunday in Vancouver.
OK, enough of that. It's still a win, and right now any way those come is welcome. There were certainly efforts worthy of celebration. For one, those blocked shots. Kent has shown many times in many ways that the Flames don't tend to emphasize blocked shots, and they rarely win that battle. Tonight, however, they were throwing themselves in front of everything. Jay Bouwmeester, Mark Giordano and Cory Sarich all had four or more and even Jarome Iginla had two blocks. Ironically, Robyn Regehr managed no blocks - he must have been too busy knocking guys down in front of the net to get in front of shots. Gotta love Reggie!
A special note of appreciation is reserved for Craig Conroy for being the only Flame with a positive Corsi tonight. It helped that his line was the only one with more offensive zone draws than defensive zone draws (only one more, mind you) and that they saw much more of Matt Cullen than Jason Spezza and Mike Fisher. However, Old Man Conroy has been full value since getting back in the lineup (give or take an egregious own-zone pass or two) and he may have had the set-up of the night had Niklas Hagman taken the time to put the puck in the net. His presence has pushed Mikael Backlund to the press box and makes one wonder why he just wasn't left in Abbotsford coming out of the Olympic break until they really needed him. But this is likely the last go-round for Conroy, and I'm glad he's making the most of it.
I still think "the energy line" plays too much (and yes, I dislike that name). With two minutes left in a 2-0 game, I really don't need to see Eric Nystrom, Curtis Glencross and Jamal Mayers out there against Ottawa's big guns, and icing it no less. However, they did draw the Alfredsson penalty and more importantly, they did score the first goal. It's always a bit of a shock to see a tough guy rifle such a nice shot, but it's easy to forget these guys are all pretty damn talented and Mayers made the most of his opportunity.
Speaking of ice time, it's a little surprising to see the disparity of even strength ice time tonight amongst the forwards. Iggy, Bourque and Matt Stajan had over 16 minutes at EV and the rest of the forwards were within shouting distance of 10 minutes or less. The number of penalty kills were a factor, since the Iggy line doesn't kill penalties. However, coach Sutter clearly made a decision to ride the hot line tonight. Going forward, I believe this will balance out a bit, because Daymond Langkow and Christopher Higgins continue to show they're just as valuable as the first line. (Ales Kotalik continues to show some talent but also that he should be down one line on the depth chart).
Another win and the Flames now need 9 wins in 15 remaining games to hit the "magic" 95 point barrier. The Nashville-San Jose result was pleasing just as the Detroit and Colorado wins were not. The Flames can't rest now, with the Vancouver-Detroit back to backs coming up. Time to file this one away.
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
good job Maimster. The only thing left out that I am curious about is how did Steve “the locker room glue” Staios do?
Flames played poorly
but Kipper got lucky/bailed them out as needed. No bagging on my co-workers for this one, Ottawa played more than well enough to win.
…I finally understand what it feels like to be a fan of the Colorado Avalanche this season.
Bwahaha Maimster, that’s EXACTLY what I was going to come here to say. The Avs fans have to watch this 82 times a season, I pity them. Terrible hockey.
It was a terrible game full stop, and I’m (bitterly) glad that even the local papers are acknowledgeing to poor effort. That said, it was probably just one of those games.
Of course when you’re a team that has too many “just one of those games” then you’re “just one of those teams” that blows. Fortunately I think we have seen enough good efforts from the Flames that we can probably just put this one in the backburner.
And I’m happy we won this one, because I can’t remember many instances in the last little while where we’ve won a game we didn’t deserve to win. And too many instances where our hated rivals have won games they didn’t deserve to win.
Also, I had a gander through the scoring chances and my mind was blown. -1 through 2 periods at EV, I thought it would have been nearing double digits!
Still doesn’t prove anything to the Corsi deniers (cough Avs fans). You could imagine a whole whack load of reasonable scenarios in which the kind of territorial advantage the Sens generated would have resulted in ridiculously lopsided chance numbers. Like, say… that third period ;-)
I guess fanning glorious opportunities in the slot over and over and over doesn’t count as a scoring chance.
Precisely. In the first two shifts, the Sens blew exactly 3 glorious “chances and chances” and didn’t even manage to direct the shot on net. That happened a lot last night. Fanned shots in the slot, bobbled passes, etc.
Yeah, I saw them have a lot of presence with puck in the scoring area so that’s where I was getting my “lopsided chances” impression. Although I thought they were missing wide a lot too (the Sens that is).
Exactly – as I was watching I figured the chances were actually pretty close becuase so many Ottawa shots were blocked or missed the net. It worked for the Flames last night, but I wouldn’t want to bank on that being the case (like, cough, Avs fans).
I actually count “missed nets” as scoring chances, depending on where the shot came from (and assuming it actually came close to the net). However, I don’t count shots blocked close to the source and I certainly don’t count fans, whiffs, etc.
Ottawa could have been leading the game 3-0 in the first five minutes. Instead, they didn’t even generate 3 scoring chances. Just one of those nights where pucks bounced over sticks and such.
in brent’s defense, having two of your best PK guys on the ice when the opposition has pulled their goalie is probably not a misstep…. and while i’m not huge on mayers these days (i used to LOVE him in st.lou), he’s a pretty high end fourth liner.
Maybe, but they were out there before the goalie was pulled. They had to stay on when Ottawa pulled Elliot because they’d just iced the puck.
fine, so they were put out on the ice in anticipation of a pull. same thing. the icing is prob just a factor of them being awesome PK guys. :P
by walkinvisible on Mar 12, 2010 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
By the way, I corrected the headline – I guess the Flames are only 5-0 in the retros now (wins against each of the other Canadian teams). Loubardius said they were 5-0 early in the game last night, so I did some simple math, but I guess he was just assuming the Flames already were going to beat Ottawa!
one thing we know for sure: gotta factcheck the msm.
by walkinvisible on Mar 12, 2010 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
Ok agreed
sure, last nights game was not a great game. And I’m drinking the kool-aid on Corsi, which way the ice was tilted, the tug-of-war analogy etc. AND, let’s give the defense and goalie some credit here. It doesn’t feel great standing in front of all of those shots all night and blocking so many and Kiprusoff making 33 saves for a shutout is no simple feat either.
Say we got lucky all you want, but we did win by 2 goals. Luck is going to have to have a pretty heavy hand to make up that margin. Ok, 1-0…2-1…3-2 (like the Col. games) and sure, I’ll bite into luck a bit more…but two goals? That’s pushing it.
Shot prevention last night was very good, by the defense and goalie. Kipper made 33 saves on 33 shots. That is as excellent a performance as one can hope for….with a little luck on his side or not.
Let’s remember…it’s the Sens, not the Capitals. They’ve scored 185 goals this season which is not many more than Calgary. They don’t score a ton, probably around middle of the league, so I don’t think you have to be that much more lucky to shut them out then any normal amount of luck required to get a goose-egg.
If you think about it, we’re due. We deserved to lose but reality dictates you’ll win some you deserve to lose and lose some you deserve to win. The Flames have lost more than their share on both sides of that ledger so it’s high time Luck smiled upon us.
That, plus the fact that the Flames in general have outplayed their opposition more often than not AND the new forwards are, for the most part, good forwards, means I can’t really get too worked up about this one bad game, mainly because we won and we won’t likely get outplayed like that too often again.
But make no mistake, we deserved to lose. Replay that game in a million universes and we lose in more than half of them.
Let’s just hope we didn’t use up all that luck. But the amount of times we’ve been screwed over this season suggests that some’s still left in the bank.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 12, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Say we got lucky all you want, but we did win by 2 goals. Luck is going to have to have a pretty heavy hand to make up that margin.
Two goals in a single game? That’s absolutely peanuts in terms of variance. You start getting statistical power somewhere several hundred to several thousand events. Luck determines games like this every single night in the NHL.
Not to say that Kipper wasn’t good or the shot prevention wasn’t good…hell the team was well under water in terms of possession but managed to be only -5 in terms of scoring chance differential. That’s impressive in itself when you spend that much time in your own end.
“Luck determines games like this every single night in the NHL.”
This is simply not true. Likely we’re going to get into an argument over semantics here, so my idea of luck and yours could be vastly different.
You may be talking about statistical variance or some other aspect relative to outliers and such, but that ain’t luck. Luck isn’t the 95th or even 97th percentile, it’s the 99th percentile. Getting out shot and winning is not luck. Goals going in or not is not luck. Perhaps that’s what you call luck, but not me. Luck is going to buy you an extra mm on a cm play. Every event that leads up to a single event such as a goal in hockey is not built on luck, it’s built on strategy, direction, coaching, players etc. You direct a puck towards a net enough times and it finally goes in….is not luck. Luck is when you direct it the other way, and it goes in. That’s luck.
Or this, this is luck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbP7wqCwq8
Like I said, likely this is a different definition of luck, but you’re not lucky that you score two goals, or that the defense blocks numerous shots, or that Kipper makes 33 saves that’s execution. Sure, some nights the other team executes their plan to better efficiency than you do.
Luck is when a goal goes to video replay and an otherwise questionable call falls in your favour against the odds. That’s luck. And that luck, doesn’t make up for margins to the tune of 2 goals per game to tie and 3 to win.
“Replay that game in a million universes and we lose in more than half of them.”
Can you believe I forget things with all I write? I don’t see this statement as luck either.
We’ve replayed the same CGY-COL game 4 times. And 4 out of 4 times Colorado won by the same 1 goal margin. If I held the fate of this team in the same belief in “luck” as you guys, I couldn’t make any conclusions about anything. Colorado may have been lucky in one of those games, I don’t remember, but you can’t keep saying that you’ve been unlucky losing to them every time. You just lost because you played worse 4 out of 4 times. Leaving the fate of a team in the hands of luck is as dubious as leaving it in the hands of the refs, which is why I think blaming either for the bad side of an outcome, or celebrating it for the good side is foolhardy.
Despite what I said below, I have to tell you that I am not entirely on the side of “Colorado is pure luck” and so forth. Players all have a certain personal baseline ability which is what they’ll trend toward for the most part, and I’m sure most people can agree with that. The Colorado games against Calgary were certainly not entirely luck, but Anderson performed above what can be expected of any goaltender (again, upper end of variance), which I would again attribute to “personal luck.” In terms of the two teams, however, Colorado playing the majority of the game in their own end wasn’t the whole story; the Flames consistently chose to shoot the puck directly into Colorado players time and time again, which is a conscious choice (albeit probably a partially reflexive one sometimes) as opposed to any sort of variance in how ones circumstances play out. That was something that helped Colorado win, and I don’t think it was a variance-type phenomenon at all.
Another team example that I think is less attributable to “luck” than people have mentioned is San Jose. Someone (Kent, I believe) mentioned that SJ was “riding the percentages” and was actually being outshot/outchanced most games and was not statistically deserving of their wins. If all teams were created equal I might agree, but there is the aspect of players’ abilities to make good on the chance they have, and SJ’s top 6 has players who are very good at doing that. When they’re playing against teams such as Nashville, for example, they can get outchanced and still expect to win simply because they have Heatley, Pavelski, Marleau, etc. shooting the puck as opposed to Hornqvist and a bunch of no-name mid-level players. Trying to compare teams too directly in terms of statistics can be like deciding which car should win a race based on how hard the driver is pressing the gas pedal in each car; if one car is a Subaru WRX and the other car is a Mazda Protege, you can’t do that with any real-world accuracy.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
I definitely agree with your comment on San Jose.
And I agree with R O’s post below.
And I want to tie them together, so I’ll just do a little copy ’n paste.
“Skills → Scoring Chances → Goals → Wins → Stanleys
A player controls his skills. He owns them and he can use them to do things that he wants. But at every step above, a bit is lost to luck, factors outside the player’s control."
While I agree with this point, I think it is a little overly simplistic. Consider this:
Skills → Scoring Chances → Skills → Goals → Skills → Wins → Stanleys
Now, at each level luck factors in a bit more and skills a bit less. However, the difference is that different players have different kinds of skills, and these skills can skew things such as a scoring chances:goals ratio. A players skill set that allows them to create a scoring chance isn’t the same as their skill set that allows them to capitalize on the scoring chances. For example, shooting accuracy does very little for creating scoring chances, but is critical for goal scoring. Playing a solid defensive game doesn’t help score goals but still helps your team win games. In the case of San Jose, their top line is very good at finishing the chances they get, even if they aren’t getting as many as their opponents.
While I agree with this point, I think it is a little overly simplistic. Consider this:
Skills → Scoring Chances → Skills → Goals → Skills → Wins → Stanleys
Yeah, good point. There are skills needed to finish chances and certainly being “good in pressure situations” is a skill on the face of it (although its effect is basically nil). What I have is a bit simplistic although I’m happy thinking of things that way.
Well, I don’t exactly remember every single CGY-COL game, but I’m fairly sure that every game against them had the same story of Calgary completely dominating the game but not scoring, followed by Colorado making some point shot that bounces off 3 people before finding the back of the net. They were excruciatingly frustrating games to watch. However, I really don’t think you can say Calgary played worse in any of them.
If you wanted a better game to play down the luck factor, perhaps our last loss to MIN is a good example. That one had Calgary with much greater possession (at least in the first and second) even though they really didn’t get many quality chances to show for it. On the other end, MIN was able to finish almost every quality chance they had. In this game you can probably point to bad play on Calgary’s part (even though I personally think luck still had a factor in this one).
I’d say this is certainly a semantic argument. I interpret Kent’s version of luck as being precisely what you said: statistical variance. In terms of hockey games, this would be variance in terms of the performance of the players as well as variance in terms of bounces. e.g. Kipprusoff was on the upper end of his range in terms of stopping ability, and the Ottawa players were on the bottom end in terms of being able to actually finish plays.
I didn’t see a lot in terms of actual bounces that determined the game. I think this one was human variance (which is still realistically a form of luck). Kipper is very good, but it’s not like he went out today and said “today, I stop 100% of pucks”, then did it; nor could anyone ever reasonably expect any goaltender to stop 33 pucks in a game without letting a single one in.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
In terms of hockey games, this would be variance in terms of the performance of the players as well as variance in terms of bounces. e.g. Kipprusoff was on the upper end of his range in terms of stopping ability, and the Ottawa players were on the bottom end in terms of being able to actually finish plays.
And is this not true of every shutout? In a game that the score is 8-0, or the shots are 52-10, or every other possible combination…. The goalie who gets a shutout is at the highest end of his statistical stopping ability and the team shutout was at the lowest end of their ability to convert. You cannot say that every shutout in the NHL is luck because it doesn’t comply with the more common statistics.
I’m saying it’s luck because it’s a part of the statistical variance of a goaltender’s ability. Just because it happens on a regular basis does not mean it’s not luck (again, I’m using luck as a simpler word for variance). It’s not a choice, and it’s not a baseline ability, therefore it’s luck.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
Explain to me how it’s not a choice? or baseline ability?
I certainly is a choice, or a series of choices, which most definitely influence baseline ability. Luck, has a small percent to do with that equation, or the equation RO puts below.
I have no problem accepting this:
Skills → Scoring Chances → Goals → Wins → Stanleys
I also have no problem accepting that at each point a bit is lost to luck….but as you have said it’s “a bit”
Good goalies/players are not good because they are lucky, they are good because they are good. They make the right choices, and they have a baseline ability to support those choices.
If you believe pucks go in the net because you’re unlucky, you should never (or stop) play(ing) as a goalie. Pucks don’t go in because of luck, they go in because you’re bad, and they stay out if you’re good. Otherwise I couldn’t tell you what I did wrong every time someone scores.
Kipper’s baseline ability as expressed by statistics: he will save approximately 92-93% of shots taken on him. 33 of 33 shots being 100%, the shutout is not at his baseline ability and is therefore statistical variance/luck. I think you’re partially misunderstanding what I mean by personal luck, as well.
I’ll use the example of a runner. Say a runner’s average top speed is 25 km/h. Personal luck is not him running 27 km/h because he has a tailwind that particular day; that is circumstantial luck. Personal luck is him waking up on a particular day, feeling more energetic than usual, and running 27 km/h based on the variance of his own abilities.
Baseline abilities are not completely static, they’re homeostatic. Some days a goalie will stop 33 of 33 shots, and some days the goalie will stop only 25 of those shots. That variance is personal luck, as the player cannot choose when to deploy his 100% days versus his 80% days (eg “oh, today my team has scored 6 goals against the other team so I don’t have to stop as many. I’ll save my 100% save percentage for another game”).
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
*I should mention that sometimes the goalie might get fucked over by the bounces, but I’m talking about this situation as though the bounces were held constant for the sake of simplicity
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
You, my friend, are confusing ability with luck/variance.
If you cannot run over 25km/h…ie, that’s what your vo2 max and max heartrate determine, you can’t run faster than that. No matter how much luck/variance you have on your side. It doesn’t matter. Anything that can get you to run as close to your fastest ability as possible is choice.
I said average top speed, or the average of all of a person’s top speeds throughout an extended period of time. That is different from absolute top speed.
And I’m not confusing ability with variance, I’m saying that, within the framework of ability, there is variance. If a person could choose when to perform at the top end of their ability, would athletes break world records in the qualifying rounds of the Olympics and then choke in the medal rounds? Nay. Would players in the NHL choose to score their goals in blowout games against bad teams? Nay; they would ‘save’ their top play for the better teams when their team needed it most (again, not top effort, but top results). This is something that is not entirely in our control; it is variance.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
The problem Lawrence is the higher you go the more you lose to luck. Translating skills to scoring chances isn’t direct but you can see that the process strongly relates the two, guys who can win more battles and pass better and are faster and make better decisions and etc. etc., are overwhelmingly on the better side of their chances. And they can sustain it for years.
Scoring chances to goals, well here you lose a lot to luck. Not even the best finishers in this league will score close to a rate of once in every two chances so already the Hockey Gods take away a huge chunk of change at that stage. Still, there is a non-negligible difference between the best and worst finishers. Same for the best and worst savers.
Goals to wins, is hugely affected by the notion of “timely goals” which is heavily luck driven. Gut feel says so, simple math says so.
And wins to Stanleys is the ultimate kick in the nards, since “timely wins” are commonplace. And if we’ve learned anything it’s that “timely” is synonymous to “lucky” a lot of the time.
This is relatively, the same for both teams. So, you can then take it out of the equation. Every individual in the event is subject to the same parameters, the same possible variance. Somebody has to win…that’s certain. You can say all you want….luck this, luck that…or change out the word variance, but it doesn’t change a thing.
If you can show me how luck/variance stopped any of those shots last night be my guest, but it ain’t going to happen. Saying Kipper saved 100% and he normally saves 92.3% means he was lucky is silly. Or even that there was a variance. He’s not a robot, or a formula, he’s a human being and sometimes he makes the right choice, and sometimes the wrong one. Luck/Variance doesn’t make for the 7.7% swing – choice does. Luck may make for 1% of that.
Kippers ability is to save 100%, choice probably affects 10% and variance/luck 1-2%. So, if he makes all the right choices and eats his wheaties he’s humming along at 98-99%. On 33 shots he saves 32. We still win….2-1
This is relatively, the same for both teams
Hold up here, this is just not true. For individual games, some teams just get luckier than others, that’s verifiable fact. Over individual seasons, even.
The nature of luck is that it’s never even until you live forever. You can approximate “forever” with “a really long time” but in this case “a really long time” does take a really long time.
For seasons (goals→wins):
http://www.matchsticksandgasoline.com/2009/12/17/1205951/misconceptions
For half-seasons (territorial advantage→scoring chances→goals):
http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/05/possession-is-everything.html
http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2008/03/he-was-fuckin-lucky.html
And we could go all the way down to individual games but I won’t bother. I’ll just throw out a comment on “sample size” and you know why I always get on that.
How bout start with this question:
Is ‘luck’ more or less at play in a shootout than in regular 60 minute play? Why?
Uh, well, I’m not sure what you mean. Intuition says shootouts are way more luck-driven, and I don’t remember who did it but there was a post once on the unsustainability of shootout results from single seasons.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that individual 60 minute games are also heavily luck driven. Less so than shootouts but we’re talking about the difference between a weighted coin flip and a weighted dice roll.
Depends on which aspect. In terms of personal luck of the goaltender, it may be more at play as it is just the goaltender versus a single player. If the goaltender is ‘on’ that game, then the personal luck is likely to favour the goaltender more heavily than during the 60 minutes of game time where there are many more variables working against the goalie’s ‘on’ night (bounces, mistakes by teammates, etc). It does, as I just mentioned, take away most of the circustantial luck from the situation, however.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t get to see the game last night (sigh) but all it takes for a lucky goal is one point shot that deflects off someone and goes in. There is simply no way a human is going to be able to save the perfect deflection and it really doesn’t matter what level of skill they have or what positioning choice they make.
Now, it can be said that the fact that the shot was deflected is a measure of the shooters/deflectors skill. However, EVERY NHL team has made a least one of these type of shots in any given season, and it’s lucky that Kipper just happened to not be victim to one last night.
Ok, I’m past my lunch break here, so I gotta go. But my parting words for you guys are:
“There is simply no way a human is going to be able to save the perfect deflection and it really doesn’t matter what level of skill they have or what positioning choice they make.”
This is just wrong, plain and simply wrong. In fact, if I have the correct positioning, you will never score more than 1 in a hundred shots on me. Never.
Now you are talking about what I am talking about. You may be able to convince me that luck could play a role in .5-1 goals per game variance, but not two.
I tell you what. We meet at the rink some day. I’ll blindfold myself, so it relies on just positioning. You shoot from anywhere on the ice, as long as it’s on the ice. Bank-shots and all are allowed. I won’t lie on the goal-line, I’ll stay on my knees. You score more than twice on me in a hundred shots and I’ll buy you a car.
This is just wrong, plain and simply wrong. In fact, if I have the correct positioning, you will never score more than 1 in a hundred shots on me. Never.
Yeah, I can agree there. If you can see a shot’s trajectory and are in position for it I bet you can’t even score one in a thousand times.
The problem of course is that shots change course all the time and all it takes is one errant skate or shinpad to deflect it past your perfect position. And a good chunk of the time the skate or shinpad’s owner could not have predicted or even meant to deflect the puck off course.
And of course, we can talk about goalies just not being in position for some shots or shooters just not bearing on their some chances and I would agree that a bunch of that is just skill. Some players just finish or save better than others, to use one of my hated expressions (blech) they make their own luck.
However nobody is perfect and nobody can bear down all the time. The best are simply those who can minimize their inability to finish or save. But they still have moments when they can’t do either. And if we’re going to pin all of that on skill then we get to the notion of “timely” events. Timely goals, timely saves, etc.
And that’s a dangerous place to be because whatever effect “timely” has must be so incredibly small because its effect on results looks for all the world to be identical to what luck alone would dictate.
The same cannot be said for generating territorial advantage and scoring chances. A ton of sustain in those two, mathemagically speaking. That’s how it plays out in reality (bonus!), players with good skills can really outchance and it shows and it lasts.
And of course, we can talk about goalies just not being in position for some shots or shooters just not bearing on their some chances and I would agree that a bunch of that is just skill. Some players just finish or save better than others, to use one of my hated expressions (blech) they make their own luck.
Exactly. (I’ve got a short break). So what you’re saying is that most NHL goalies have a sv% of well into the 90’s% of percentile, right? Kipper for example this year saves 92.3% of shots based on positioning, technique, skill etc. AND there are a whole slew of plays where he can be outskilled to the point where he is out of position, or he chooses to be to aggressive, to passive, plays too deep, attempts a poke check, butterflies at the wrong time etc. etc. ONLY to the tune of 7.7% error on choice alone. So he makes a mistake 8 out of every 100 shots. So what’s luck doing? .05% influence? 1 goal out of every 200? probably about that. Like Steve Smith’s goal, which stats see equally as a 2 on 1 top shelf shot.
I can assure you, Kipper makes those mistakes, he chooses (or as you guys say ‘guesses’ wrong). That ain’t luck or some factor out of his control. The players determine the game, and what the outcome results in is primarily determined by their choices and ability, and those collective effects on other choices.
Therefore, it’s safe to assume that with all players on the ice. This is the reason why I say that we didn’t play the best game last night, but we played a good enough game to beat Ottawa 2-0 on that day. Sure, being heavily out-shot every night is not the path to the cup, but solid shot prevention is. Good goaltending is. I made the comment that we should give credit for that.
I also made the comment that luck….as one of you guys said “a bounce shot off three different players shin-pads” and in the net is an unlikely event, combined with a 50% chance of being saved, is probably not going to give the Sens the three goals they needed to win. Sure, the Flames want a different path to the same outcome, but they did, at least in part, earn that outcome as much as the Sens let it slip away.
Puck on the ice, that’s what he’s saying. My assumption is he hears where you’re shooting from, butterflies over, and the puck goes off the pads almost every time.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
No, how wide is a net? 6’ right? that’s 72" My pads are 35"+1, so 36" tall and 12" wide…that’s 72" in a butterfly, plus a glove and a stick to back up a five hole and how are you going to score along the ice when I’m on my knees? It’s mathematically impossible. On my knees I can have my legs from post to post + some.
Combine that with the fact that Francois Allaire proved long ago that 90-95% of goals go in in the bottom 12" of ice, and you understand why goaltending has evolved the way it has and why tall goalies with long legs are all the rage, and why sv%’s are going through the roof.
So, talk to me about positioning? I don’t need to see the puck to know how to save it, and if only 10% of shots are going in in the top three feet, I don’t HAVE to save many to achieve a 93% sv% do I? That’s not including ability/choices. That’s just positioning and math.
AND, if I tell you to keep the puck on the ice, I’ll give you 300 shots!, you’re still not going to luck one through…and you’ll owe me, I won’t owe you. What, you can shoot so hard it’ll go through my leg?
You guy makes hockey more complicated than it is. The goalies just have to get hit, and there is no luck needed for that, just pads. Now add some defenders in front and you’ll need more than a little luck to score three goals on Miikka Kiprusoff, you’ll need skill, which the Sens didn’t have last night.
FIre 90 shots at the net if you want, if they aren’t quality, they ain’t going in.
Ok, I understand what you’re saying. However, that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was a deflected shot. There are shots that no one can stop. Do you really think that if a shot it deflected past a goalie that it’s because the goalie should have realized that the puck was going to be deflected and set up 1 foot to the right? It’s not a matter of the goalie making a mistake in position. Sure, most goals go in the bottom of the net. That doesn’t mean that a goalie can just go into a butterfly and no one will ever score on him.
Skills → Scoring Chances → Goals → Wins → Stanleys
A player controls his skills. He owns them and he can use them to do things that he wants. But at every step above, a bit is lost to luck, factors outside the player’s control.
It’s not a hard argument to make although it’s a hard argument to accept. But players only control so much and converting what you can control, as an individual, into success, as a team… well, you need the Hockey Gods to stay out of the way.
Just because the factor is outside the player’s control, it does not mean it’s 100% luck. I agree with what you are saying, but maybe that should be phrased differently.
Unless you mean it’s not overall luck, but luck specific to that player?
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 12, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
He isn’t saying that anything is 100% luck. He’s saying that luck factors in a bit more at every stage.
If it was 100% luck, it means that Calgary would have just as good a chance at winning the Cup with ME in net.
Ah, yes. That makes much more sense. Now I feel like a moron.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 12, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
As much as I’m a huge fan of the Hockey Gods (Please don’t smite my team!), are we using the word “luck” in this sense to describe all factors outside a player’s control rather than just randomness? I mean, is it really “luck” when a player is playing to the maximum of his skill level, but runs into someone who is just plain better? I would suggest the same logic applies to the teams as well.
In this critical path to the Stanley Cup you’re using, it seems to me that “luck” (randomness) has its biggest impact in the conversion of Scoring Chances to Goals. In the other steps I think it is less of a factor than skill (or collective skill), and therefore within the control of the player/team/coach/manager (as applies to each decision). Without any empirical support, I believe the Stanley Cup champ is usually the most skilled and rarely just the “luckiest” team, although Kent might have some math to prove me wrong.
We can call it whatever we like (luck, randomness, chance, chaos) but my general point was that players can only control so much.
No player is perfect. The best goalie will fail more than 3 times in 50 attempts of the time. They don’t track puck battles won but my sense of it is that you couldn’t possibly win more than 4 in 5 battles (and that’s probably a huge overestimation). The best shooters probably don’t bury 1 in every 2 chances. And so on.
Luck, or inability to control events, or what have you, it has a huge effect here. It’s absurd on the face of it to say that players will control when they fail or when they succeed to a perfect degree or even a significant degree (i.e. the “timely” effect), after all shit happens, both in hockey and in life.
For events like puck battles, zone time, scoring chances, etc. there is a high degree of control since they happen so frequently and they are very tightly linked in reality to the basic skills that hockey players possess and control.
For events like goals in a single game, wins in a single season, Stanleys in a generation… there are so many factors out of the player’s control. An errant skate blade, a wonky bounce off the backboards, freak injuries, unexpectedly good health, a boneheaded officiating decision… these are the things that can separate success from failure when it’s measured in goals, wins and Stanleys.
And unfortunately the line between success and failure in any single game can be one goal, for a season a few wins is all it takes, and in the post-season the margins are slimmest. One untimely bad play (and remember, everyone makes them and it’s extremely difficult to control the timing) or one loss of concentration by the official or one crazy bounce off a rut in the crease and in or one lucky guess on a point blank chance – these are factors that have separated champs from chumps. Have, do and will.
Caveat: the time frame matters. If you’re going to look at, say, Iginla as a player. Then it’s not a bad idea to look at how much he’s outscored his opposition over the course of his career, relative to the role he’s played during his career. Is that valid?
Probably. You’re looking at what will eventually be 15-ish seasons of goal scoring, at that point the relationship between outchancing + high level of finish to outscoring will be outstanding. If Iggy has outscored a ton, then you coudl work back and say he must have outchanced a ton plus finished too. And then work back from that and say, damn, Iggy’s been a fine player!
Of course, second caveat: everything’s a moving target. Ability changes over time, so does role. So one sticks to shorter windows and scoring chances (or influence on territorial advantage), and you get a more precise look.
It’s absurd on the face of it to say that players will control when they fail or when they succeed to a perfect degree or even a significant degree (i.e. the "timely" effect), after all shit happens, both in hockey and in life.
To me, what you’re saying is: 1. All players/teams are relatively equal and luck/randomness/chaos differentiates who succeeds and fails approximately 75% of the time.
vs.
Whereas I say: 2. Luck/Randomness/Chaos is relatively equal (to the tune of 75%+ of the time) what really makes or breaks the gains are player/team skill, choices, ability etc.
I understand that Alex O. will school me every day of the week because as skill is less equal, luck plays a smaller role, but even IN the NHL the skill divide is VAST. A team of all Alex Ovechkin’s will always beat a team of all Eric Nystroms. Or Martin Brodeur’s will always beat Roberto Luongo’s (Cause Luongo can’t shoot, ha!)
So their is an inherent ‘quality’ divide in that. I am particularily interested in shot quality, which all of the “luck/randomness/chaos” readings I have ever stumbled upon through those really working this topic disregard it. That’s silly. I think it’s because of the line above^^^ and the 1. vs 2. logic.
I would argue that Ottawa is just as ‘lucky’ that Calgary didn’t have 2 MORE goals bounce in as they are unlucky that they didn’t have two bounce in. Then you’re talking some kind of “delta luck?” That’s just silly, trying to measure out who has chaos/luck/randomness touched more 1 team or the other? Then you start blaming refs/bounces for losses, and if you’re doing that, you just aren’t skilled enough in the first place.
I think what he’s saying (and what I’m saying) is that luck attenuates the results of a player or team’s skill. Yes, Ovechkin is ten times better than, for example Nystrom. However, on occasion a team of Nystroms may well beat a team of Ovechkins despite the vast skill differential – that is a combination of circumstantial and personal variance. Or in a one-on-one scenario, let’s say that Ovechkin is trying to deke around Nystrom. In a thousand runs of the same scenario, Ovechkin would be successful maybe 950 times, for sake of argument. But perhaps 20 of those times Nystrom manages to follow him the entire way and takes him off the puck, another 30 times the puck bobbles a bit and hops over Ovie’s stick (circumstantial), and the final 50 times Ovechkin just overextends himself on one of the moves and flat out loses it (personal variance).
Someone playing well or poorly, relative to their skill level and expectations, is certainly partially their own doing (mental preparation, physical preparation, etc). I say it is also partially out of their control. Sometimes you get a brain fart and you just make the wrong decision, despite the fact that you would make the right one 9 times out of 10. That is personal variance. Or you’re just tired for the day and it’s not through any direct fault of your own; maybe you slept poorly for no apparent reason. Also personal variance.
You states a variance effect of 75% of the time for argument. I’d say that, in terms of how well a player does at a given time, that player controls 90+% of their own personal circumstances, leaving a small but noticeable amount of personal variance. Then on top of that, there is however much circumstantial variance as well as the variance of the opposing teams and players around them (ie if your entire team is playing at the bottom end of their variance, the opposing team at the top end of theirs, and the circumstances are all favouring the opponents, you can play a game in ‘dominating fashion’ against a fairly poor opponent and you will still lose).
I’m certainly not trying to say that immediate luck is the majority factor in terms of these outcomes, but it plays a substantial role, and it can be the determining factor when looking at a specific game, or perhaps even a run of games. To use the example of poker, you can have a player who wins an average of 60% of the hands he plays and is generally a very good player due to his reads and strategy. Despite this, he can still lose a hundred hands in a row if the cards drop the wrong way. Life is the same. We control part of it, but we’re still playing with a (much larger, more complex) deck of cards, and occasionally you’ll get a bad run and you will lose regardless of how well you play your hands.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t buy it. Poker or any other games/gambling are poor examples because there is no atheletic skill involved. Slot machines PLAY the numbers, but Kipper isn’t a slot machine.
Your 950 times out of 1000 example would be one action in a series of actions to an end result with each having it’s own personal variance, circumstantial variance, skill, knowledge, coaching etc. To try and boil down one puck hop as an indicator of the outcome of the game is ridiculous, especially when the puck is likely hopping for both teams. This is my point, I don’t disagree these factors exist, I’m just saying that they are impossible to isolate and measure with any confidence. So to say one team was more lucky than another is silly, as likely every scenario where one team beats the other team will defy the numbers. One goalie played well, one didn’t, one shooters skill was too great, the others not good enough etc.
I’m not saying Luck/Chaos/Variance doesn’t exist, I’m just saying it’s impossible to measure for each team and then compare against one another to assess if it was a determining factor. My thought is, that it’s not.
That’s not to say that a player cannot have a ‘lucky’ year and shoot at an unsustainable 20%, cause certainly that can be true, but that doesn’t mean that his team somehow was infected by this same luck and that lead to them winning lucky games and finishing in a lucky 6th place, which lead to a lucky Stanley Cup finals appearance.
Hell, Tomas Vokoun could be having the luckiest year of his career with a .943 evsv%, that doesn’t necessarily correlate to “he just wins” does it? No. Maybe he has caught a few bounces over the season, but it likely hasn’t changed the fortunes of the Panthers much or at all, cause I’m sure he’s had a whole hell of a lot of unlucky bounces too.
I wasn’t trying to say that you can boil it down to one puck hop/etc, but moreso using highly simplified examples to illustrate where I’m coming from. As far as poker goes, I argue that it is a good example because mental skill is involved, which is analogous to athletic skill (and is additionally a useful part of hockey).
I realize a game can’t be boiled down to “team x outshot team y, but team y won, therefore team y’s win was a result of variance.” Fully agreed on that. However, I do think that these statistical measures are the most useful persistent tool we have of ascertaining, to some degree, whether a team is playing well or not. Not perfect by any means, nor the entire story either, but the best of the tools. The only other thing we can do is watch the games, and our memory is not good or focused enough (nor should it be, it is just hockey, after all) to clearly remember the events of all the games of a year. The stats are an imperfect substitute, but they have their merits.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 12, 2010 7:02 PM PST up reply actions
By the way, maimster, on the Bourque penalty to end the game: one of the chinciest calls ever. Bourque goes to lift buddy’s stick and buddy puts his arm around Borky’s stick and pulls it out his hands.
I made the observation in the last OTT-CGY game that OTT has a lot of dirty players and I stand by it.
San Diego, eh?
Do you by any chance play roller hockey at 4S Ranch? I’ve run into a few other Flames fans up there…
Man you guys really cranked it up a notch this postgame thread. I have never seen such a detailed analysis on the word ‘luck.’ Speaking of luck, its back to Chatroulette for me, I’m bound to see Adam Pardy on there at some point. Since Staios is 4-0 and not looking back, I figure Pardy has got nothing but time to kill up in the press box.
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 12, 2010 11:50 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Nice discussion…made for great reading while I ate my Saturday morning Mini-Wheats. However, I think you’re all missing the main point: Retro Jerseys now 5-0. Plus, they look effin A. Where is all the statistical analysis for the application of retros to corsi?
It’s like the Black Stamps jerseys with the revolvers on them. I think they were 11-0 with them, and as soon as they lost, they were never worn again.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 13, 2010 5:38 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Sat 09/25 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
Phoenix
|
Tue 09/28 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Wed 09/29 | 5:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/10 | L 3 - 7 |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 04/08 | SO - L 1 - 2 |
|
San Jose
|
Tue 04/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 04/04 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Fri 04/02 | W 2 - 1 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
