Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Please don't fix my posts.
As your fix actually takes away from my point, and adds nothing.
If you don't agree I'm happy to to discuss any points with you, but leave my thoughts alone thanks.
|
Um, ok. I thought fyp’s were generally viewed in a bit of a humorous way, not so sensitive a topic.
To be crystal clear, though, out shooting and out playing are not the same thing.
You must see how the Flames play a slow perimeter game, how their chances are adequate in count as dangerous (based on location), but don’t actually feel dangerous or result in the commensurate quantity of goals and corresponding wins.
Underlying numbers can be fine when supporting a hypothesis, but using them to draw conclusions that disagree with actual results is missing the boat.
You can look at a team that puts up 50 easy shots on 2 New York teams and loses both games handily and you can look at it in different ways
1) trot out the shot counting stats and basically conclude from underlying numbers that the team was good enough, system works, ran in to a hot goalie, got unlucky etc.
2) note however that the team never actually looked like they were going to win either game. Think what is missing and not captured in underlying numbers, that are there in the eye test and in the actual results. (Slow moving, few odd man rushes, few exposed defenders, large number number of perimeter shots.)