Originally Posted by Enoch Root
The first and third statements are very accurate.
I would change the second statement to: The coach is in charge of systems and utilization that maximizes the teams' likelihood of success.
Your use of the words 'out chance' is the problem with your argument, and the source of much of the debate of the last 50 posts or so. And causes a circular argument.
The idea of outchancing the opposition as the goal, or even a primary goal, is fundamentally flawed. Outchancing does serve as a general proxy for outplaying (or more accurately: winning), but it is far from being the goal.
IMO, the biggest dis-service that advanced stats have brought to the analytics of hockey is the notion that chances = success (or good).
Chances do not equal success. There is no question that better teams are probably going to outchance weaker teams, more often than not. But by stating or assuming that chances result in success, you have the logic backwards. Or to put it another way, correlation does not equal causation.
The three primary reasons that the Flames' record does not reflect their 'chances' IMO, have nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with the way they play (their systems, for lack of a better word).
1) The way they defend: the chances that they give up are too acute - too many players are wide open to have enough time, and enough space, to be able to take advantage of their opportunities. The Flames focus on lanes and positioning of their sticks when playing D , instead of covering the man. And it leaves too many people wide open.
2) Special teams: You can talk 5 on 5 possession all you want, but, much like a football game comes down to 4 or 5 plays and who wins the turnover battle, hockey often comes down to special teams. And too often this year, their special teams have lost them games. (Note: it may very well average out later in the year, but lately this has been a huge issue).
3) Style of play: This can be described in a lot of ways: lack of identity, bad systems, whatever. For me, it comes down to the fact that they are far too easy to play against. Particularly at home. It is so easy to see, every night at the Dome (and was very much on display again last night): the Flames are easy to play against, and teams know that they just have to be patient, collapse down low, and wait for their chances (which will come). And if you shut down the Flames' in the neutral zone... relax and put your feet up, because they are not going to be pushing back.
Five on five possession numbers will never evaluate any of these things. And 5 on 5 possession numbers will never be the reason that a team is successful. It amazes me how often this conversation keeps being had, year after year, about so many teams that have good possession numbers, but suck overall (I do not believe that the Flame suck). And yet so many people continue to believe that the answers are there, and that these teams are just unlucky.
|