Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger
I would direct you to this article. on Fenwick. You'll find that a higher Fenwick close , which is shots and missed shots discounting blocked is a very good indicator of team success. The close part means that the game is within one goal in the first or 2nd and tied in the third.
|
Other than the graph being terribly designed (why would you use polar coordinates on linear data?) all that data was telling us something we all happily concede.
I'm not against advanced stats, I believe they can be used in the right context, but was there a huge need to show that graph? Teams that outshoot their opponents are usually the better team. Teams that have possession of the puck more are usually the better team. Is there a large group of people who debate this?
But then you take an actual look at the data and you'll see it's not always the case. The Sharks have some of the highest numbers yet were out in the first round. Columbus and Toronto weren't making the playoffs when they appeared to be good possession teams. You can see Calgary nearing that 0.550 border, it's the 2008-2009 team, where they had some of the best fenwick close% in the league yet couldn't even claim their division and finished fifth in the West. That year the much worse (at least going by the fenwick close %) Canucks won the division - they were below 0.500. Why? You don't need advance stats to figure it out. The 2008-2009 season saw Luongo outplay Kiprusoff. You can blame Keenan for it, but the Flames were letting in too many goals while Luongo was one of the best in the league that year. So yeah sure, if you want to show it's good to have more shots and have the puck more when the game is close and you happen to meet the one person on Earth who disagrees by all means show them that graph. But when the graph isn't taking in account goalies it's already missing a huge part of the story.
Look at it this way. If I told you there was a team that when the game was close they were routinely being outshot, I put it into data by saying the team had a 46.08% close Fenwick percentage. It was second worst in the entire league. What's your first thought? They were terrible team probably if you put weight into that data. So when I told you they made the Conference Semi-Finals that year you might be a little surprised. Some critical thinking though and you'll realize if they are routinely getting outshot when they are close and yet they are still making the playoffs they must have had a goalie stopping a lot of shots. Congratulations you used some data to tell a story.
Everyone else just watched Nashville in 2011-2012 and realized Pekka Rinne was a pretty good goalie.