Neb00rs

No. This is one of the more egregious misunderstandings the lay people of hockeydom have with so-called "advanced stats." - egregious because they're so ready to attack what they demanded in the first place. All of these "advanced stats" that have come about - just as statistics come about in more academic circles - are reactions to questions that are being asked by average fans - it's not just "stats for the experts." Why does Corsi exist? Because average people wondered why certain players who had high-plus minuses and good point totals one year, didn't the next. People have been making the complaint SD is making for years now - decades just about - and so the hockey statistics community and the NHL responded by tracking shot quality - developing and evolving algorithms over the years to do so. The NHL has an API (Application Programming Interface) that tracks detailed information about individual shots in its game summaries (distance, angle, etc...) and this is what advanced stats sites (and mainstream sites like TSN, NHL.com, etc...) use to produce much of their data. Expected goals, for instance, is a direct result of Corsi's shortcomings, and tracks shot quality and the differences between shots. So many stats now are extensions of expected goals and take into account shot quality.

This could not be more ignorant. Amazing.

Henrik Lundqvist does not stink. He's faced 36.16 shots/60 at 5v5 (3rd in the league among goalies with at least 300 minutes played) and he's faced some of the most difficult workloads in the entire league. The Rangers are terrible defensively and especially terrible at preventing high quality shots - they have the highest 5v5 scoring chances against/60 (33.17) and 5v5 expected goals against/60 in the entire league (2.93). All that and Lundqvist has emerged with a .915 save percentage. There's no 4D chess here, the reason he's sitting is so he doesn't get worn out - especially given his age. The very good play of Georgiev has of course, also allowed the Rangers to make this decision right now.

The rulebook actually has two rules in re: goals off the moorings, one which allows for goals to be disallowed on such a play, and one for non-goals to be changed to goals. In essence, this means that the refs call on the ice holds a lot of weight, because the play yesterday was both allowable and disallowable. This rule exists: So then you might say, that was a goal then right? But the NHL offered this rule as explanation: My take here is, again, discretion to the refs and their original call. The guys in Toronto probably asked themselves, "The refs disallowed the goal, was the goal disallow-able." The answer to that would be, yes. They could have allowed it as well. Thus we get the Hischier goal, and the Hall non-goal. Unless we get further explanation that's my best guess.

So the NHL ruled that rule 78.5 (x) comes into effect here, which is under the header of disallowed goals: "When the net becomes displaced accidentally. The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal." So the NHL will probably say, "the Canucks player unintentionally knocked it off it's moorings and thus, the goal should be disallowed." The issue of course, is that on the Hischier play last year, that was changed to a goal, it seemed like Keller also knocked the net off accidentally, or at least no more or less intentionally than Edler today. The NHL is now putting the refs and Toronto in the position of judging intention situation-by-situation. If the puck crosses the line before the whistle and another player knocks the goal off, it should probably be a goal.

I was sincerely confused with his comments there. He said he switched Zacha off the second line because that line wasn't "competing" at the level they needed them to. He then said that after switching Wood onto that line, they were "great." "Great" is maybe a strong word for a line that accomplished a combined one shot and gave up four against in just under nine minutes of ice time. Maybe he's just pissed at Zacha and looking to make a point.

The Devils were fine today. They kept an offensive powerhouse to one goal and only 31 shots. The Canucks average 34.2 shots per game so 31 represents an under-performance for them. The Devils still can't score or generate enough shots/shot attempts at 5v5 though. I know we had a goal stolen from us, but the Devils are having a lot of trouble getting their offense going and with the top six we have, that shouldn't be. The Devils are dead last in the league in 5v5 shot attempts/60 (48.36) and 27th in shots/60 (27.6) and today we were under our averages in both statistical categories (45 and 27 respectively). Gusev is making strides as a bottom nine forward - it's a better spot for him - his linemates are slower and his opposition isn't as good defensively.

If the explanation is anything other than, "The call on the ice was no goal and we could not see the puck fully cross the goal line," I'd be very surprised.

Wow. Maybe the refs couldn't see the puck cross the line and so the call stood.

There was no whistle, at least that I heard. It has to count.

The Devils were a mess tonight - there's no two ways about it. The top PP unit cannot look this bad in mid-November. I mean, it's regressing. At least Hall-Hischier-Palms was good. They had a goal stolen from them and a post - or else they would have had two goals and they finished with a CF% of 71.43 as a line. Near the end of the second period it was around 90.00.

Yeah, it's time to bring down the axe. It'd be one thing if it was just bad goaltending and we had a bunch of those 7-6 games. But we're terrible at scoring and generating offense - that's really not excusable. The not "gelling" thing was cute a few weeks ago - now, with little improvement to be seen, there's not any real way to defend Hynes. Losing the third period shot attempts battle tonight when you desperately need goals - just no good. The thing is, when the guy is putting out lines like Zacha-Hughes-Gusev and Boqvist-Hughes-Bratt, it's almost like he's been told his job isn't under threat.

He actually looks competent so far - the first game in which he has - the bottom nine thing is working for him - it goes more at his pace. Hopefully, I don't eat my words.

That powerplay was just horrendous. Inexcusable.

I'm just not setting my expectations high - it's up to the team in front of Schneider to win the game - in both ends of the ice - we're far past hoping that "this is the one where Schneider is vintage Schneider." I'm interested to see what the Triple J line looks like out there.

Supply and demand.

True about Rooney - the only player with at least 100 minutes of TOI (usually that's about 9/10 games for a 4th line player) and not a single goal against at 5v5. 4th line players aren't on the ice enough to allow many goals - but it's been a good run nonetheless, and he stands alone with zero against. Rooney isn't the best 4th line player we've ever seen, but he's a solid one - and has enough speed to make things look okay next to Miles Wood. The one criticism could be that Wood-Rooney-Hayden, as a trio, hasn't generated enough offensive chances relative to their opponents (a difficult criticism of a fourth line to be fair) but Wood-Rooney-Simmonds, with a small sample size of 22:16 TOI at 5v5 has a CF% of 56.82 or 25-19 shots attempts for vs. against. That combination seems to be a good fourth line- though, Simmonds isn't necessarily a fourth liner.

I really don't have much issue with the U.S. hockey media - they generally ask the right questions related to hockey, but they are not as aggressive when dealing with more personal things, whether contract or behavior-related. You can probably find exceptions, but I think it's fair to say that for the most part, the Canadian media is willing to get their hands a bit dirtier - which is good for the game of hockey, because it adds to the drama, gets clicks, views, engagement, etc...

Letting go of the Devils fan in me, it's nice that the Canadian media is a little more aggressive - in the American hockey landscape, there's a very pacifistic media culture across almost the entire league in the 50 states.

First you point how how Butcher should have headed back towards Blackwood and then you deny he should have done so. You should have stuck with your initial stance. I shouldn't have to explain how a straight line is an advantage over a curved line over the same distance - Gaudreau is very fast but it was Butcher's best play. There's not much to debate - it's one play, it's over, I'm not calling for Butcher to be benched.

Whether Gusev plays or not, if Bratt plays, all logic says to me the top two lines tonight should be: Hall-Hughes-Palms Zacha-Hischier-Bratt

It's jibber-jabber because I don't really understand what you're contention is - Though now I suppose it's "Butcher did nothing wrong, except he did something wrong by not making the right decision." I'm not vindicating Tennyson, nor did I at first. The only point is that Butcher could have made a better play where instead he made somewhat of a stupid decision. The reason Tennyson was out of position by the way, was that he wasn't skating directly south - he was skating away from Gaudreau at first, because he was trying to play a potential 2-on-1. There's a lack of awareness there in not seeing Butcher coming in - true. In any case, the green line in which you mark Tennyson's better position, is irrelevant - he was beat long before that, as the puck was coming out of the o-zone. Here: I'm not sure why Tennyson didn't let Butcher pick up Monahan, but Tennyson isn't good we know that. Butcher is the one who could have made a better decision - and had a much better chance to cut off the play in the defensive zone - already having forward speed skating south from the neutral zone.

There's a lot of jibber-jabber going on here but ultimately I'm not really clear on your point. Tennyson was beat as soon as the play left the offensive zone. We know he sucks. We know his lack of ability caused that goal. I'm not here to waste my time assigning percentages of fault. But you seem to understand where Butcher should have gone and why that's a better choice. You're right, the goal still might have happened because Gaudreau is so fast, but that was our best chance. Butcher did try to do too much - which again, was my point, and he did so in a very stupid, physics inept way - this is the NHL, he knows who is coming down the line, he know Tennyson is screwed, and he made somewhat of mystifying decision in the moment.

Such a poor read by Butcher to think he can cut this pass off - look at him, that's Johnny Gaudreau and he's skating cross-ice at him.

The problem was not Taylor Hall, let's just move past that now. He did make some mistakes, but I'm not going to point the finger at him when his overall game was strong. Hynes' lineup decisions, though I've mostly defended them so far, played a significant role in this loss. Tennyson is clearly an AHL defenseman. Mueller isn't good, but I don't see why he wouldn't play him over Tennyson. I suppose neither answer is that thrilling. Tennyson got beat twice, yes, but Butcher made a bad choice on that fifth goal, he decided to skate cross-ice to try and catch Gaudreau rather than read the play and just turn back and skate in a straight line towards the net - the latter option might have prevented the goal. The other thing is Hughes-Gusev. Yes, I get it, they scored, but they were terrible together and got destroyed all game except for that one moment where Jack made a great play and Gusev, yes, finished nicely. They were also okay in the third when it was too late. The way Hughes-Gusev hurt us most, was that we're almost missing a line - we spend so much time on our heels with them out there, and don't spend time generating chances. On top of that, Hughes-Gusev took a combined three penalties. After Gusev's second one (which led to a 4v4 Flames goal), he came back on the ice and the Hughes-Gusev disarray instantly led to a 2-1 scoring chance for Calgary. Funny enough, even after saying all of that, tonight was probably a step forward for Gusev. Hopefully Bratt is back tmw and that line experiment ends.