Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
My other confusion point is play driving.
Staples earlier this week pointed out that Lucic was one of the Oiler's best in corsi etc. That seemed odd to me so I looked it up and he is.
Fine I thought ... but they must be low impact events ... nope he's up there on scoring chance splits and high danger splits, as well as expected goal splits.
None of that fits with what I saw in Oiler games, but the stats are pretty irrefutable.
Some numbers ...
Flames (14 forwards with 200+ minutes)
James Neal was
12th in CF%
13th in SF%
13th in GF%
13th in xGF%
13th in SCF%
12th in HDCF%
5th in offensive zone starts
His one stat to hang on as an Edmonton fan ... 14th in on ice shooting percentage
Oilers (15 forwards with 200+ minutes)
Milan Lucic was
4th in CF%
5th in SF%
7th in GF%
3rd in xGF%
4th in SCF%
4th in HDCF%
12th in offensive zone starts
10th in on ice shooting percentage
Crazy ... Lucic wasn't sheltered, drove play, and should have been a top five point producer on a bad team.
Will be interesting to watch those numbers in Calgary
|
Glad you brought this up, Bingo, as I was kind of surprised you didn't mention advanced stats in your earlier post.
It seems curious to me that the haters of this deal seem to completely ignore the advanced statistics comparison of the two players which appear to be a win for the Flames. I'm not sure if they just don't put too much stock in those stats or it doesn't fit their narrative.
This trade was a shocker, no doubt, but I can see how Lucic fits onto our team than Neal does. The contract is the downside but it is difficult to compare apples-to-apples on that component of the trade which results in there being a lot to debate about this trade.