tips and rebounds from right near the crease have high xG values associated with them. Rebounds in general increase xG values since it usually means the goalie is not ready for it and distance from the net is one of the main factors of xGs

Oh lord, now I’ll never take that stat seriously. Those types of goals are scored usually by benders who can’t score in any other way.

How is that weak? Tip ins and rebounds are strong scoring chances. Those are generally the only ways you can beat an NHL goalie when he's on, because if he can see it and he's in position and the shot is clean, he's saving it the vast majority of the time. You literally have Joe Pavelski on your team lol, that's how he's scored most of his goals for the last decade.

Ok tip ins you got me, those require a lot of skill, but rebounds are 0% skill base, more or less how fast you hit the puck when the goalie doesn’t expect it.

And that means when a player scores that way, it’s a skilled goal. Not discrediting dirty goals (a goal is a goal), but skilled goals should be more appreciated than dirty goals.

Why? You are much more likely to score from a rebound in the crease than with a wrist shot from 25 feet out when the goalie is ready for it

Exactly, it puts much more meaning into the goal when it’s unlikelier.

I understand how the stat works, the higher the chance the goal goes in, the higher the xG% is. I find a skilled goal more impressive than a rebound goal.

Either which way, it’s a goal, I just don’t think we should praise low end goals who could be scored by basically anyone.

I dont agree with that. Id rather have 2 garbage goals and win the game than have 1 pretty goal and lose. I also think getting rebounds are a skill on its own, if you consistently get to the front of the net and win battles to get a shot off then thats a very valuable trait for a player to have and should be reflected in their xG stats. Having a 'expected nice goals' stat is kinda useless if its not the most efficient way to score

Winning is the number 1 most important thing in hockey, no sh*t you’d rather 2 garbage goals over 1 good goal and a lost. But I’d rather have a 25 goal scorer, who scores skilled goals over a 30 goal scorer who only scores garbage goals. Because chances are that 25 goal scorer contributes more to the outcome of the game than the other guy.

I wouldn’t consider “being good at rebounds” as the first thing to think at a player except if he’s in the middle/bottom 6.

In terms of contract value, sure. In terms of what is more effective at actually putting a goal on the board in an NHL game, a rebound is generally better. Like, Matthews makes 12 million dollars because he can beat goalies with a wrist shot that they see coming like 1 out of 6 times. Not many people can do that, because most NHL goalies are elite and will stop those kinda shots 95%+ of the time easily. So in terms of expected goals, a rebound from a foot away, with the goalie out of position, is more likely to go in, and that's why defensemen get paid to get the puck out of there and/or stop guys from getting to the front of the net for access to these rebounds (like there aren't too many quality rebound chances per game tbh, especially in the playoffs, and you could probably say they have a higher success chance, like maybe 1 in 3 to just throw a number out there). Rebounds, deflections, and one-timers (from a cross-ice pass) are the most dangerous scoring opportunities there are.

A goal is a goal. If winning is the most important thing then why would you discredit some of them?

On an individual level maybe, since the 25 goal scorer will also generate rebounds for his teammates when the goalie makes saves off of his shots. But at a team level, if the team can generate more xG's with rebounds than they can with fancy highlight reel goals then if they want to win they should go for rebounds

I’m talking on an individual level, not team. Team wise obviously the rebounds are most important, cuz that’s how you score the majority of the time. My emphasis is that I’d rather have a Connor McDavid/Mat Barzal over a Chris Kreider/Joe Pavelski type of player because they bring a lot more to the game. Sorry if I didn’t put my message clear enough.

Ok so we agree on a couple of things.

1. Rebounds, deflections, and one-timers (from a cross-ice pass) are the most dangerous scoring opportunities there are. When I went to conditioning camp, there were a lot of higher end player (QMJHL), and pretty much the only goals allowed were those.

2. A rebound is the most effective way to score. That’s why the higher the level you are, the more the coaches shove it in your face (because the goalies get better and better by time). When you play Midget that’s basically the only goals you score (with some exceptions).

I’m not discrediting a rebound goal, I’m just saying that a player who constantly gets goals by tip ins or rebonds like a Kreider or a Pavelski are less important to a team than someone like McDavid, Mackinnon, Barzal, who score a lot of goals on the rush. Sorry if I didn’t put it clear enough.

I mean obviously lol, that’s why McDavid and MacKinnon and Matthews are some of the best players in the world, and get paid the most money. They are among the most effective at scoring off of clean shots due to their high skill. So yeah, obviously it’s great to have guys like that on your team wherever possible. However the odds of them scoring that way are still lower than one of the 3 types of other shots I mentioned (even if it’s a grinder taking the shot), which is why those types of shots count for a higher iXG number for the statistic. And that is also why those types of shots are more rare in a game and more vigorously defended against by the opposing team.

The problem is that an xG model is used at both a team level and individual level. ixG alone is a flawed stat since players who generate the original shot attempt which leads to a rebound for their teammates aren't individually credited for the higher xG value associated with the rebound they set up. But you can't just change the xG model to discredit rebounds and tips since that would also negatively impact the whole lines xGF%, including the guy who made the original shot attempt.

I think you need a combination of both types of players. Having a line full of skill guys who can find a shot lane but can't win a net front battle isn't as effective as a line that has both a skill guy to generate space and get a shot off and a guy in front who can get a rebound. They complement each other

Yeah I agree with you, I just don’t like when we give more credit to the guy who gets the sh*t goals over the guy who gets the more skilled goals.

McDavid and Mackinnon weren’t the best examples considering they’re some of the best players in the sport lol, but even if we’re using a Roope Hintz-Joe Pavelski comparison, I’d rather have Hintz 9/10 times because he contributes more to the game, don’t count these playoffs cuz Hintz disappeared and Pavs shined, but if they did have the same production you’d really rather Hintz. Robo-Hintz would be another debate considering Robo scores half his goals one way, the other half the other way, but you could make a point for either.

Yeah, we have pretty much the same analogy, I just worded it sh*tly. Best example I can think of is the Robo-Roope-Pavs line. Pavs is the tip in guy, Roope is the skill guy (who rushes the puck) and Robo is a bit of both. They compliment each other so well, but at the end of the day I’d take Hintz and/or Robertson over Pavs.

The guy generating the rebound is 100% more important than the guy taking it. And I’d rather look into xGF% than xG% or ixG%, it gives more context to the scenario.

Jon Cooper believes the altitude played a factor in Tampa's performance during Games 1 and 2 of the #StanleyCup Final.

— Chris Johnston (@reporterchris) June 24, 2022

Hear me out:

$1000 on Tampa in 7

Good thing the altitude in game 5 is gonna be lower

You gotta 3elieve! :-D

Yep, agreed. It's a judgment call by the refs-if a player's just getting in the benches and is nowhere near the play, don't call it. Lightning didn't get messed over. It was the right non-call.

sounds like burakovsky and point are out.

Prediction for game 5:
TBL 5-1 COL

4-2 avs