Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Naming leads in games? How 1987 of you!
The 7 game Oiler Duck series featured ...
a) Oilers at 43.9% CF%
b) Simple shots for they averaged only 41% through the 7 games
c) 44.6% in scoring chances through the 7 games
d) 45.8% in high danger scoring chances through the 7 games
Those are simple to look up.
The only game in 7 where the Oilers were the more dangerous and effective team was game 3 where you'd have to look at score adjusted since they lost 6-3
Same metrics for the Flames in their 4 game sweep?
a) 51.2% corsi for, with only one game under 50
b) 52.6% of shots for
c) 53.6% of scoring chances for
d) 52.2% of high danger scoring chances for
This isn't hard stuff to look up, I'm not ignoring metrics that don't fit my view. Talbot good. Elliott bad. End of story.
|
Flames were -14 in shot attempts when the games were tied. And -10 when the score was close. +16 when behind. +7 when leading.
Oilers were -20 when tied. Actually better than the Flames.
-34 when score close, just slightly behind the Flames.
+26 when playing from behind. The biggest difference was their -70 when playing with the lead. I thought they tried to sit on leads too much, and it definitely cost them in the Ducks series. That might just be me projecting my emotions onto the results though. In reality, they had the lead more often than not, so it makes sense that they would be well negative in this column.
So when you look at how great the corsi was for the Flames in their 4 games a lot of that may be because they were always losing.
12 out of the 16 teams in the playoffs had positive shot differentials when behind.
During the regular season 27 teams had positive shot differentials while losing.
We just may be looking at score effects when we are looking for a silver lining in the first round for the Flames.