Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Yet you did
xGF% is a step up from corsi as it takes into account quality of shot and situation. It will evolve and get better, get replaced, whatever, but not sure where the logic is faulty.
If one team gives up more high danger chances against than for, that will drive their xgf% down. Where is the logic break in that?
|
The faulty logic is in interpretation. Shot-based stats are almost without exception applied with the logic that "big xGF good, therefore if team A has better xGF than team B then that is advantage team A". This just isn't true. It's both bad and good. I already said why in this thread.
All shot-based stats can ever definitively say is this: "With this value in this stat, this team has got these results." No matter how many shot-based stats you combine, this does not change. (Especially since it's all just different spins on mostly the same data.)
You can not use shot-based stats to say a team is playing good or bad, yet they are consistently, in fact almost without failure, used to say just that.
You yourself used shot-based stats to claim that
Quote:
|
The Jets are a poor five on five hockey team.
|
and
This is just nonsense. The Jets are in fact a slightly better 5-on-5 hockey team than the Flames when we look at the primary stats: goals for and against 5-on-5. In the last 20 games they've also gone 12-6-2, which again is hardly a tire fire. They've also scored 64 goals which is not too shabby and has nothing to do with Hellebuyck.
Your claim is the equivalent of looking at the horse powers of a race car and saying it's slow, while ignoring things like actual race times.
Shot-based stats do not measure how "good" or "bad" team plays. It just measures what it measures; shots. No matter whether you call it corsi or xGF or what ever, it all just measures shots. No more, no less.
There will always be more to "good hockey" than shots.