Quote:
Originally Posted by squiggs96
I don't think advanced stats are so bloody simple. I say this as a guy who has watched hockey for many years, has been a STH for over a decade, and has excelled in many mathematics courses. The reason they aren't straight forward is they get presented like this:
Even if I understood what each item stood for, which I don't, it's really hard to read what's going on. From looking at that I have zero idea what the team needs to improve on. I don't know how anyone would interpret that chart without an in depth knowledge of advanced analytics. I don't even think it's comparing apples to apples. It might not even be apples to oranges. It could be apples to vehicles.
This, to me, is the major flaw of advanced stats. They are presented in a way that's no immediately grasped, as opposed to points, goals, save percentage, and the advanced stats people get irritated when they have to explain things over and over. If it was that simple, it would be simple.
|
Well you can certainly shoot the graph as a culprit for sure, to each their own.
But the stats themselves aren't that difficult.
Someone counts how many times the Flames attempt a shot for in a game when five on five, and how many times their opposition does.
Inside that are shades ... a scoring chance within a set section of the ice, and a high danger chance that occurs in that same area, but is generated by a list of factors like a pass or rebound or deflection that make it more dangerous.
There's no formula or hypothesis at work, just a count. Not that difficult.
If the graph made it confusing that's on me not the stat.
But as I said ... everything above zero is good. Below zero is bad.
The columns are mostly above = Flames good at offence.
The lines are mostly below = Flames bad at defense.