Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
No stat is infallible, but no stat should be ignored because it can't be proven 100% linked to results either.
+/- has always been flawed because of circumstances that could build pluses or minuses despite not being the cause of good or bad.
Shots on goal used to mean you out played someone when really it only indicated that most of the time with no actual look to quality of shots
An independent source counting the number of times each team shoots the puck from within a predescribed area on the ice is an accurate and helpful tool. Not all shots from within that home plate are created equal but that doesn't change the fairly tight relationship that teams with more shot attempts in those dangerous areas generally win.
I've done nothing but challenge fancy stats. I just wrote an article that dug deeply into the types of passes each team makes to try and add some clarity as to whether or not the Flames were getting goalies moving enough to actually create a dangerous chance.
I challenge everything.
I don't throw out any information out of some archaic view that the scoreboard is the only thing that matters.
|
I see the value of analytics. I am also one who was not pleased with the style of play under Gulutzan. I really liked how VGK played the game.
I think it would be a good exercise if we could all re-watch one (a few) games from last season where the Flames had great possession numbers (and had Smith in net and were still in the race), a lot of high danger chances but lost.
It would be great to see how the numbers related to video or 'eye' after the fact. Certainly there must be some way to do this. Compare it a VGK game where they had great possession and high danger chances and see the difference between VGK and CGY quality of chances.
I certainly could be wrong when I said CGY just didn't play a good system, perhaps my in the moment fandom tainted my experience - but I just thought VGK style was much better than CGY and produced much higher quality chances.