Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
And maybe the thing you guys don't see in me is my obsession with getting my bias out of things.
I love having stats that take passion from the view.
With the advent of advanced stats it gives me an overlay to watch the game. When I see a period of play I check the stats when I'm live or later if I'm not to see if the numbers support what I'm seeing.
More often than not they do.
But I'm not arrogant enough to think my view is the only view, or that my view is the correct view so I suggested what I'd do to get rid of another layer of bias is look at those high danger chances.
So I'm not judging anyone.
I'm open to the stats being wrong the whole time.
|
I posted this in the Coyotes PGT but thought here might be a bit more relevant:
I found
this older article (also
part 1 here)which shows that shot location is not a good enough determiner of shot quality. Are the "high danger chances" that are usually tracked just based on shot location, or does it also take into account puck movement prior to the shot? According to this article, goalies still save like 90% of clean shots in the high danger area, even though overall they only save 75-80% of the total shots from that area. On transition shots and deflections, goalies seem to only save ~70% of the shots, and ~76% for shots off rebounds (though the datasets show a lot of variance due to the smaller sample size examined).
A key snippet from the article:
Quote:
|
But by focusing on just the shot type and not the location, it became quite clear that scoring success in the NHL was predicated on movement and deception. If you remove these elements even the worst goaltender in the league begins to look like Dominik Hasek.
|
It would be amazing if we could see this sort of breakdown for the Flames this year vs. past years as well as vs. other teams. Many people here say the eye test says that the Flames aren't getting
real high danger chances, ie. the type that actually has higher chance of scoring, vs. clean shots from the slot (which might show up as as "high danger" chance if shot location is the only thing tracked).
Understanding if Calgary's large number of "high danger" chances this year are real or not will help us understand if it's a matter of luck or not. I would say if Calgary is really generating high numbers of real high danger chances (shots off transition, deflections and rebounds), then that would point more to a luck and/or player execution issue - however if Calgary actually ISN'T generating lots of real high danger chances, and is instead just generating clean shots in the slot, then that points more towards a systems issue.