Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Every single time someone challenges Gulutzan (and by extension, you), you run straight to these stats. But, what's interesting about all the teams you named in this post is that about half of them missed the playoffs.
It's almost as if the correlation between these stats and success are far, far weaker than you are willing to admit.
|
You just can't post without inflammatory language can you?
"willing to admit"?
What in my posting style or history has you thinking I wouldn't be willing to admit something? That's terribly weak.
I do see a group of posters that get angry any time someone suggests a deeper dive into anything that changes the course of the conversation of "fire the coach" as a knee jerk response.
The correlation as it looks though?
Four teams in the top 16 clubs have poor underlying numbers, so that's 25%, the other 75% seem to line up reasonably well. These exceptions are Nashville, Washington, Anaheim and Los Angeles.
On the other end most of the worst teams have terrible underlying stats. Notable exceptions are Carolina, Calgary, Montreal and Chicago.
Carolina had terrible goalending. They're an easy solve.
The Blackhawks lost their goaltender for most of the season.
The Habs had a down year from Carey Price.
The Flames stand alone as the hardest club to figure out.