Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
The Flames put themselves in the right spot often and didn't score. Treliving decided they didn't have the skill to finish or he wouldn't have reworked his forward roster.
But the perimeter team suggestions aren't really holding water any more.
|
I don't think the arguement I ever made was perimeter. It was speed of transitions and number of transitions. Gully hockey didn't create enough scoring off transitions because:
1) flames played slow in order to keep possession on the transition. They would give up the potential of a 3-on-2 or 2-on-1 because when they got the puck back they were too slow to transition.
2) too passive a forecheck and backcheck to create enough transitions.
Odd man rushes generate more goals than anything else 5-on-5. Speed and number of transitions drive the ability to generate odd man rushes. The flames didn't get enough. Prove me wrong and this is settled. Until then, it's not.
Look at the goals the flames have scored this year. How many are driven the a hard forecheck or hard back check that leads to a quick transition? A very large number. And the flames didn't have enough of them last year.
Two shots from the same high danger area can be completely different scoring chance probabilities depending on the play that generated the chance. If the system is biased towards generating low probability scoring chances in high danger areas, the data isnt comparable across teams and is thus flawed. Because the underlying assumptions will always be that the distribution within a single category is randomly distributed. And that's not necessarily the case.