Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Right, okay, but after 160+ games one would think that luck would eventually meander towards the mean and that sample size would indicate that conclusions can be drawn and they wouldnt be 'knee-jerk.'
After 2 full seasons and 160 games can one not conclude that it isnt 'luck?'
That would have to be immensely bad luck, almost systemically bad luck.
|
Well that's an assumption that the whole thing has been constant for 160 games. It hasn't.
The Flames had different problems last year. Their powerplay was top 10, they won on home ice, their shooting percentage was mid pack.
Analytically they were middle of the pack in corsi and shots, and near the bottom in high danger splits.
The Flames were 22nd in terms of missed shots last year, now they're first.
This isn't a running plot for two years, the two seasons are completely different and unique.