How 'bout them Sabres

What is it 8 games in a row and in the Wildcard hunt

Advanced stat nerds (mostly 72o), how much stock would you put in a line's xGoals % compared to their actual Goals %?

I'm thinking specifically of the Habs young line grouping of Kapanen-Slaf-Demigod.

Looking at xG% they are awful. 40.7% and the worst Habs line that has played over 50 minutes together. They only produce 2.09 xG per 60, which is atrocious.

However, in real output, they've been turning it on lately and have a Goals% of 56.3% and G per 60 of 3.91.

One interesting thing I read recently, is that some guys, Brady Tkachuk notably, will just shovel pucks non-stop at the net, even if they aren't really high skill shots, they're just getting tons of shots off. As a result, Tkachuk is an xG darling, but in reality, he has had at least 3+ fewer actual goals per season LESS than his xG in EVERY single season, and sometimes as many as 12-13 fewer. So in terms of actual output, he will never be anywhere near where xG would rate him.

Guys like Slafkovsky and Demidov were rarely shooting, instead often opting to work the puck around and find the perfect opportunity to score. This will likely mean that their actual output will usually outpace their expected output.

So as a coach, would you think that this young line is working well together? Eyetest seems to say they're starting to play really well together, especially as Slaf and Demi are gaining confidence and finding more spots to shoot, but xG% does not back that up. It could be a case where xG isn't really telling the whole story.

8 in a row which is a miracle

got chicago +4.5 in the first period at -120 when it should have been around -180

obviously doesn't go well and they are losing 7-2 until bertuzzi tucks away a miracle garbage time goal with time expiring to save me

Nice!

I took Detroit money line at +220 when they were down 1-0.

Buffalo 9 in a row and Winnipeg one spot closer to the bottom

Habs are the comeback kids

it's been years since i've followed the advanced stats discourse, but iirc xg generally correlates pretty closely with actual goals, which is why people favour it as a metric. i believe there are outliers where high skill guys perform well on like 45% xg because of how good they are, but in most cases you probably want to have a good number there.

and yeah conversely net-front guys like tkachuk can underperform their xg because of the nature of those shots + how they're tracked and stuff, but i assume the statisticians are improving that year by year.

also a lot of young skill players can have low xg until they get stronger, figure out the pro game, etc. are the habs young guns the type to become superstars? i have no idea, but 41% xg is a pretty bad number, and i would guess they're running hot to a big degree. but i could see a situation where 3 talented young players together are good at creating high quality chances, but it still seems bad to be getting outplayed that badly, plus a slice of maybe being too selective with their shots. the latter reminds me of the sedins, but then again they were usually excellent possession players.

and them as a line is probably a something something sample size deal, though the bigger sample of them individually leans into what you're saying:

slafkovsky - 2801 minutes, 53% goals for, 49% expected goals for
demidov - 463 minutes, 52% goals for, 46% expected goals for
kapanen - 609 minutes, 47% goals for, 39% expected goals for

so it's possible msl thought or hoped putting those 3 guys together might produce these kind of results, who knows. i almost never watch the habs, and never watch them closely enough to say much about it, you guys tell me

Wyatt Johnston still leading and his teammate Jason Robertson at 9.

Analytics 5 on 5 needs to be better, but goal tending has been bailing them out.

Weren't the Devils supposed to be good one of these years?

There are some exceptions around defined real shooting talent; there have been guys like Stamkos who outperformed their xG% simply because they have a proven ability that a shot from location X might be a 5% chance to score shot across the league, but for Stamkos it's a 10% chance to score.

However, with that, you'd like to see a long history of that player having a higher than normal shooting percentage. Until you have that, what you usually see is just a hot streak, and nothing more. If you apply it to a line, I'd say it's even moreso.

Your example about Brady Tkachuk might make more sense if you were talking Corsi which just measures shot share. If Brady is just shovelling 1% shots towards the net, he's going to have to massively outshoot the other team to gain an xG% edge, and if he's able to do that, it's certainly indicative that the puck is nearly constantly in his offensive zone with his team having possession.

That was shocking last night. Actual effort and a shutout!

The more I watch Gavin Mckenna i kinda think he may be a bust pick at #1

Stars 16-5-3 record playing on NYE, facing the Sabres who are trying to win a franchise record 10th game in a row with Lindy Ruff (former head coach of the Stars).

Rematch of last year when Stars won 4-2. And the team they beat in 1999 to win the cup (with Sabres head coach Lindy Ruff).

Of course I'm betting the Stars, but I'm a homer.

and that's 10 in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sabres roll

Pleased I saw one of the games on their streak @ kraken

If you guys really need a win, let me know and I'll bet on their opponent for you.

And it appears Jason Robertson will make the USA Olympic hockey team.

Last year at this time Jets were in first this year they are last
Lost 10 of the last 11 games

A buddy called me the other day and when we were chatting I said "I'm gonna suggest something I never thought I'd do again.....let's go to a Sabres game."

I mean they will probably crash and burn but whatevs, it's currently fun.

That's the Buffalo spirit!

hockey has by far the most variance of all professional sports - precisely because the nature of goals is that over half of all nhl goals are not the product of setting up a good pass or ripping in an amazing shot but rather the puck takes a fortunate bounce in front of the net

hence why it's so difficult to know if a goalie is great but unlucky or just replacement level but lucky

and as you noted, people and teams who concentrate the puck to the net are going to look better than those who don't

but... there's a very strong correlation between shots on goal and winning games - you can explain away all you want with "they are setting up higher quality shots" but at the end of the day if they are getting outshot then they are probably getting out played

it's far more likely that they are taking less shots because they are getting outplayed than they are taking less shots out of choice

Waves at Hammerhands.