Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Don't agree.
First off a stat like xGF% is considerably better than just shots on goal. It's not even close.
Second, you're naming some examples on a weak stat. If there was xGF% back then you'd see the Oilers were getting out shot, but when they countered with odd man rushes and late arriving defensemen their high danger chances would be large, and with that xGF% also strongly positive.
Getting out shot isn't a big deal if you have the talent to create more high danger chances for than against.
The Jets five on five are the fourth worst team in shot splits, and worst team in xGF%.
That says they get outplayed.
|
I agree with everything that you are saying Bingo (and you have a tonne of patience explaining your thoughts, especially in light of the counter-arguments that seem rather silly!).
One thing that I do come back to however, is the Hartley surprise team. This is why.
The last half of the season the Flames were a decent team - definitely not great, but decent. The following season they catapulted themselves into the playoffs, and into the 2nd round. That team had a tonne of intangibles that I think stats don't properly describe yet (probably never will), but they were a big outlier that year.
What were their xGF% that season? The reason I ask is that there were many games that they got their head caved-in with regards to the analytics, but they didn't SEEM to get out-chanced. I remember many games I felt this way - that they were the more dangerous team on the ice, that it seemed they were the ones dictating play, even if the other team had the puck more. I wasn't alone, as many people posted similar thoughts in many of the PGTs that season.
I still do think that a team can experience legitimate success in the NHL while having SOME poor underlying stats, by being more of a counter-punch team. xGF% is a tough nut to be behind in, even if it is a sometimes subjective stat (after all, how do you measure quality in a quantitative way?).
That season was such a treat as a fan. Of course they out-performed expectations. They won some games that they had no business in winning, but they also lost some games that they controlled. I know the analytics said that the team was lucky, but I felt Hartley had a really good system that year that fit the team. If they tried to play a more puck-possession system, I don't think they would have experienced the same success - they just didn't have the talent to do so, and playing that counter-attack style while (trying) to limit shots to the outside was probably their best bet at any success, not to mention just out-working teams and having some swagger on the ice (physical team or confidence from winning? both?).
The Jets are NOT that team. I see them as a broken team with bad defence that justifies their poor numbers. I think the metrics really lines up with the Jets. The question will be if the Jets are still that team from this past shortened regular season, or if they adjusted and are a bit different. They are reminiscent of the Hartley Flames, but they seem to be relying on their (exceptional) goaltending too much, rather than try and stifle as much down-low as possible like the Flames did that year. They don't seem to be a team that is fully committed to playing with a lot of structure in their game.
Will be an exciting series, but I see the Flames taking advantage of the Jets in this series. Scheifele and Connor scare me, but if you manage to contain them, you win the series. They have Laine of course, and Wheeler, who both need some attention, but it is the aforementioned players that really scare me.
Defence wins championships 9 times out of 10, and the Jets are simply too weak on the blue line, and too uncommitted (unless something has changed) at playing a structured enough game to compensate. I definitely agree with your notion that the Flames are broken too, and we don't know what team is going to show up, and that makes this series interesting. I am just a bit more sure that the more broken team will in fact be the Jets.