Jump to content

Time to reconsider Expected Goal % as a major stat?


JoeSchmoe

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

But the reverse is not true. Tage Thompson is at 49% 5 on 5. He's also a +12.

The 49% suggests he's a net negative player, when in fact he can just score from anywhere, and is playing like one of the league's top players.

It's just not that great of a stat.

No it doesn't. You're not understanding xgf correctly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

Okay then, Mr. Smartypants, what does it suggest, if not that Tage should be a negative player?

It tells us that Tage is pretty average defensively when on the ice and that he's clearly an elite shooter because he can score for lower xgf areas. That's about it. 

He shouldn't be a negative player because it's based on league average, tage doesn't have an average shot. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeSchmoe said:

Check the thread title... Xgf%.

Also, given the number of postgame twitter bar graphs of this stat, its more than just a minor stat you say it is  For most, it seems to be the be all, end all.

That I'd agree with. But it's just another stat to consider. 

Xgf% is a function of xgf and xga

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doohickie said:

I think that's the point of the thread:  The stat doesn't reflect reality very well; you have to take other factors into consideration.

I can say that about everything though. 

Look, I think xgf being applied to individuals has gone a bit overboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in theory, prior to widespread adoption, xgf could have been used as a Moneyball type analytic point where GMs could mine out diamonds in the rough through Excel table GMing. The reality is, the diamonds in the rough would mostly all be poor shooters, while the so-called overrated guys would be the good shooters. You'd probably need the eye test to tell otherwise but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of diamonds. 

A big part of the problem is hockey is so much more dynamic than baseball, that the eye test is so much bigger of an indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I think in theory, prior to widespread adoption, xgf could have been used as a Moneyball type analytic point where GMs could mine out diamonds in the rough through Excel table GMing. The reality is, the diamonds in the rough would mostly all be poor shooters, while the so-called overrated guys would be the good shooters. You'd probably need the eye test to tell otherwise but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of diamonds. 

A big part of the problem is hockey is so much more dynamic than baseball, that the eye test is so much bigger of an indicator.

But that's how you've decided to use it. That's not how it is used. Brawndo gave you a glimpse of that.

 

No it isn't. We could say they both deserve equal consideration. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Hockey talk was more funner before it became debates about the validity of hockey math.

That’s why I said look at all the data and then get out to see for yourself and talk to people.  
 

I seriously doubt that Adam’s bases decisions on players solely on analytics.  He watches, he talks to his staff, he talks to coaches, he talks to scouts, he talks to people involved in the league.  The best leaders have the ability to effectively use information from multiple sources.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHL front office analytics teams do not use the simple xG statistics that are available publicly.  They create more sophisticated and targeted metrics to evaluate players/teams.

If anyone is using xG as their singular tool for evaluating players/teams, they are not going to come to very accurate conclusions.  It can be useful, but it’s not the ultimate statistical measuring stick.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Zach ***** leads the league in expected goals with 23.6 (Ovi is in 2nd at 20.6). 

***** is tied for 29th with 15 actual GF. 

Didn't realize Zach "Highman's" name wouldn't make it past the censors. 😀

Edited by JoeSchmoe
Realized I spelled censors wrong.
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...