It's Galchenyuk. It's possibly Clayton Keller, but Galchenyuk has hit 30 before.
- James_Tanner

Keller >>>>> Galchenyuk

I get that we currently live in a society where it is common to assume that the person saying something you don't agree with is stupid, biased or flawed in some way, rather than re-examining what you already believe.

- James_Tanner

You mean like how you never question your dumbass use of "advanced" statistics, even though you have been beaten on this board so many times someone should open a shelter, just for you.

I agree with James the Coyotes are extremely offensive.

This is why just relying on what you think you see can be deceiving.

The Coyotes dominated the first period with almost 60% possession but finished the period down 2-0. You might think score effects played a big part, but up 2-0 the Sabres played a very even second period.

The Coyotes pressed in the third and had 70% of the shot-attempts.

Overall the Coyotes had possession for 60% of the game. They outshot the Sabres by ten 5v5, and outchanced them by 9.

The Coyotes had 13 high-danger scoring chances vs nine for the Sabres.

Overall, the game was a complete domination by Arizona, and they would have won that game almost every time.

Your eyes clearly told you what you wanted to see, but it was not backed up by the stats, courtesy Naturalstattrick.com
- James_Tanner

You can see on the graph that it was even, then the Sabres scored, then the Coyotes pushed, then they waned, the Sabres scored again, then they pushed, like you said the second period was relatively even with the Sabres getting it back to almost even, and then they sat back and the Coyotes got a ton of attempts, especially in the third when the Sabres were defending the lead. The same thing happened in the Boston game, and even though the Sabres "dominated" they really never had a chance. The graphs are similar, albeit a bit more extreme in the Boston game.





The Sabres got killed in that game, they had 1 legit high danger chance and a couple that counted as high danger, but were really not dangerous at all.

Panik had a "high danger chance" a clean shot right in the slot just beyond the hash marks, however, it was among the easiest saves a goalie can make, Panik never made Ullmark move, he shot it directly into him. Those were the vast majority of the type of high danger chances the Coyotes had, they had a couple that could've been goals, but the majority were like the Panik one, Ullmark saw the puck the whole way, had all the time in the world and there was no one anywhere near him. If you watched the game you'd have seen that. That was the easiest shutout Ullmark will have in his career.

Both watching and stats are important. Relying on either one to an extreme does not work. You seem to think Ryan O'Reilly is among the best players in the NHL despite the fact that his 5v5 offense is downright bad. Jason Pominville had 4 more points at 5v5 in 150 less minutes. Evan Rodrigues had 3 less in 650! less minutes. Kyle Okposo had the same in 200 less minutes. ROR is not good at 5v5. He wins a ton of face-offs and is solid on defense, but he is painfully slow, bad at offense, and disappears for weeks at a time, which you'd only know by watching the games. And I'm a fan of his.

Keller >>>>> Galchenyuk
- Aetherial

Right now? Maybe not, but he will be by the end of this year, next at the outside. Kid is dynamite.

Tamsy, I like you man. But I’ve gotta say, you have a knack for being spectacularly wrong in your predictions! I’ve never come across anyone who maintains such a smug air of superiority despite being so wildly inaccurate! I appreciate that you stick to your crazy guns. Keep your chin up!

[quote=ABC123]
I concur. They have like the 9th best amount of scoring chances in the league. Also because they have one of the best rosters in the league, and are powerfully unlucky, they will begin to score on many of those chances soon. Because the alternative answer being the reason they aren't scoring on those chances is because they really aren't that good and can't score, is preposterous. If anybody thinks differently, I'll have to refer you to corsi.

James Tanner: Powerfully Unlucky Coyotes Due for Some Goals and Wins
- James_Tanner

Still in denial that this isn't a good team.

This is why just relying on what you think you see can be deceiving.

The Coyotes dominated the first period with almost 60% possession but finished the period down 2-0. You might think score effects played a big part, but up 2-0 the Sabres played a very even second period.

The Coyotes pressed in the third and had 70% of the shot-attempts.

Overall the Coyotes had possession for 60% of the game. They outshot the Sabres by ten 5v5, and outchanced them by 9.

The Coyotes had 13 high-danger scoring chances vs nine for the Sabres.

Overall, the game was a complete domination by Arizona, and they would have won that game almost every time.

Your eyes clearly told you what you wanted to see, but it was not backed up by the stats, courtesy Naturalstattrick.com
- James_Tanner

This is why advanced stats are overrated...

[quote=leonkennedy]

You're right, Leon. It can't be that they just don't have the talent to finish. Just powerfully unlucky.

Still in denial that this isn't a good team.
- Reveen.

THEY ARE GOOD, REVEEN!!!!

JUST UNLUCKY! POWERFULLY UNLUCKY!

THEY ARE GOOD, REVEEN!!!!

JUST UNLUCKY! POWERFULLY UNLUCKY!
- Isleshockeyman

I dunno, I guess you can think whatever you want, but the evidence is virtually insurmountable, so this reminds me of the time I heard a lady in sweatpants at walmart make fun of her son for liking to read books.

You can see on the graph that it was even, then the Sabres scored, then the Coyotes pushed, then they waned, the Sabres scored again, then they pushed, like you said the second period was relatively even with the Sabres getting it back to almost even, and then they sat back and the Coyotes got a ton of attempts, especially in the third when the Sabres were defending the lead. The same thing happened in the Boston game, and even though the Sabres "dominated" they really never had a chance. The graphs are similar, albeit a bit more extreme in the Boston game.





The Sabres got killed in that game, they had 1 legit high danger chance and a couple that counted as high danger, but were really not dangerous at all.

Panik had a "high danger chance" a clean shot right in the slot just beyond the hash marks, however, it was among the easiest saves a goalie can make, Panik never made Ullmark move, he shot it directly into him. Those were the vast majority of the type of high danger chances the Coyotes had, they had a couple that could've been goals, but the majority were like the Panik one, Ullmark saw the puck the whole way, had all the time in the world and there was no one anywhere near him. If you watched the game you'd have seen that. That was the easiest shutout Ullmark will have in his career.

Both watching and stats are important. Relying on either one to an extreme does not work. You seem to think Ryan O'Reilly is among the best players in the NHL despite the fact that his 5v5 offense is downright bad. Jason Pominville had 4 more points at 5v5 in 150 less minutes. Evan Rodrigues had 3 less in 650! less minutes. Kyle Okposo had the same in 200 less minutes. ROR is not good at 5v5. He wins a ton of face-offs and is solid on defense, but he is painfully slow, bad at offense, and disappears for weeks at a time, which you'd only know by watching the games. And I'm a fan of his.
- Wetbandit1

High danger scoring chances based on where the shot is from is hilarious. I could see using this stat based over 100 games? 1000 games? Using it for 1 game without noticing the time & space the player has is just (frank)ing lazy and useless.

This is why advanced stats are overrated...
- Reveen.

“I think we’re still in the infancy of hockey analytics,” says Johannes Wheeldon, who has written on the history of hockey analytics for The Hockey Writers, in conversation with Cantech Letter. “Today, the most commonly referred to stat is Corsi, but there are serious caveats with Corsi. Do teams with better possession score more goals? The short answer is they don’t, and teams with good Corsi ratings are not guaranteed to be good hockey teams.”

“Corsi is easy to manipulate,” says Salim Valji, statistician for TSN’s Montreal Canadiens broadcasts, to Cantech Letter. “That makes it less reliable. Edmonton is one of the worst NHL teams yet has the second-best Corsi, which goes to show that there’s still work to be done regarding the accuracy of these numbers and what they mean.”

This is why advanced stats are overrated...
- Reveen.

“Any of the models that are out there modelling the game through Corsi and Fenwick and PDO and stuff like this, they don’t get down to the root of it, of understanding player performance in my opinion,” says Statlethes CEO Neil Lane, to the Edmonton Journal.

“The fact of the matter is there’s only so much data available to the general public and people are trying to do the best they can with what they have,” says Lane. “That’s why we built this business, to bring more data and do better.”

“I think we’re still in the infancy of hockey analytics,” says Johannes Wheeldon, who has written on the history of hockey analytics for The Hockey Writers, in conversation with Cantech Letter. “Today, the most commonly referred to stat is Corsi, but there are serious caveats with Corsi. Do teams with better possession score more goals? The short answer is they don’t, and teams with good Corsi ratings are not guaranteed to be good hockey teams.”

“Corsi is easy to manipulate,” says Salim Valji, statistician for TSN’s Montreal Canadiens broadcasts, to Cantech Letter. “That makes it less reliable. Edmonton is one of the worst NHL teams yet has the second-best Corsi, which goes to show that there’s still work to be done regarding the accuracy of these numbers and what they mean.”
- Atomic Wedgie

Should you quote someone on the basis of them being a stats expert when the quote you use takes one unusual example and uses it to make a complete statement? No, you should not.

Should you quote someone on the basis of them being a stats expert when the quote you use takes one unusual example and uses it to make a complete statement? No, you should not.
- James_Tanner

Been to an NHL game yet?

I dunno, I guess you can think whatever you want, but the evidence is virtually insurmountable, so this reminds me of the time I heard a lady in sweatpants at walmart make fun of her son for liking to read books.
- James_Tanner

Your wife should not have done that!

Literally, Without a doubt, 100% for sure, Anybody with even a slight degree of hockey knowledge could have told you that the Yote's would have a hard time scoring goals this year.
And all of a sudden exactly what everyone expected......They can't score...And no! It has nothing to do with luck!....Ok, Maybe a little(that shooting% will go up slightly) But the truth probably lies somewhere between what you are preaching, And what i am selling!

Been to an NHL game yet?
- Atomic Wedgie

Thats what I figured. You have nothing. Your bad quotes prove nothing, and anyone who tries to tell you that stats are limited or used badly has an agenda. Waste of your time to post all that.

High danger scoring chances based on where the shot is from is hilarious. I could see using this stat based over 100 games? 1000 games? Using it for 1 game without noticing the time & space the player has is just (frank)ing lazy and useless.
- Garnie

It's not totally, rebounds add points to make some shots high danger, same with "rush chances". But yeah, not all clean shots from the mid-slot are dangerous. Traffic in front has much more to do with danger levels than from where the shot was taken.

Thats what I figured. You have nothing. Your bad quotes prove nothing, and anyone who tries to tell you that stats are limited or used badly has an agenda. Waste of your time to post all that.
- James_Tanner

That's a lot of aggression, Tanner.

Probably time to regroup

It's not totally, rebounds add points to make some shots high danger, same with "rush chances". But yeah, not all clean shots from the mid-slot are dangerous. Traffic in front has much more to do with danger levels than from where the shot was taken.
- Wetbandit1

agreed

Goligoski is pretty nice to have on the third pairing
- James_Tanner

Goligoski is actually on the second pair with Hjalmarsson, and on the 2nd PP unit as well...

Goligoski is actually on the second pair with Hjalmarsson, and on the 2nd PP unit as well...
- VeryModernMan

Yes but Chychrun is injured.