Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Agree with all of that for sure.
Would add though that shot attempts really isn't the stat to hang your hat on with the advances in quality added to xGF and xGA etc.
And for sure it's not predictive, but that doesn't make the history with a decent sample size important, because "all other things held equal" is a decent way to start looking at things going forward.
If a hockey team consistently gets out played you should be concerned as a team or a fan. Won't mean you can predict the next loss, but you certainly can't be happy either relying on a goaltender night in and night out or a shooting percentage from your skaters that isn't sustainable versus historical averages.
So agree ... all stats have to be taken with a grain of salt as the past doesn't equal the future in anything. But if a team like Vancouver over states their playoff success based on the game results and game scores and ignores the fact that they were almost run out of the building it's at their own peril, especially since said playoff metrics were pretty close to the regular season.
|
I was referring to them all aggregately. These are no different, they just further catagorize shot attempts by zone. Of course a high danger shot is more likely to result in a goal than a non-high danger shot. But the arguments I made about quality apply equally when looking at HD shots vs HD shots as they do when comparing non HD shots to non HD shots..