Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
They likely are already doing so, but I'd get the analytics team to look at the Bruins, Lightning, etc and the Flames for a random ten game (or more segment) and isolate each high danger chance the teams get and give. Then compile this data and look at why they are different, perhaps assigning a measure 1 (really freaking dangerous), 2 (kind of dangerous) and 3 (in the correct zone but not very dangerous).
But this isn't as simple as "perimeter team winning the corsi battle" because they have great scoring chance totals and great scoring chance differentials.
|
There is a consideration with that - even with the "really freaking dangerous" shots: where other players are positioned at the time of the shot.
Somehow one needs to look at each shot in several lights: how close was it to the net? where were the G and D positioned for the other team? where were the F supporting the shot? There are a LOT of shades of grey there -- a shot from close in (what they like to call the "high danger" area) is a lot less dangerous if the goalie is square to the puck, a D-man is beside him and your only F nearby is the guy taking the shot.
OTOH, if the F is supported by 2 other Fs right beside him it's a MUCH higher chance shot. Even a drifting light shot from the point is more dangerous if there is an F or two close in front of the net - deflections or rebounds are much more likely.
The Flames get guys in close fairly regularly - but only one at a time. There's just no puck support so rebounds are easily cleared.
A "dangerous" shot with a low "likelihood" of recovery, rebound or deflection is really just a shot.
*If* they evaluate this way, then it may show something. The heat maps sure don't some days - they're all over the ice shooting, but clearly there is no one in position to put the puck away.