Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
Not only you, but I find it strange how when describing analytical results there is often a tendency to use hyperbolic metaphors like "massacre" or "caved in" or "crushed".
Is it because analytics acolytes are worried that people won't get the meaning if they don't exaggerate?
I have no idea what Monahan's %CF was tonight, but where is the defining line of being massacred? Like is that less than 50%, or 40%, 30%? Is being caved in better or worse than being massacred? These technical terms can be confounding.
|
I usually stick to words like "dominated", "destroyed", etc.. they all mean the same thing, but the Gaudreau-Monahan-Ritchie line had one of the worst performances I've seen over the last year or so which is why I went the extra mile lol
Using your example of Monahan, the Flames were out-attempted 15-3 (16.67%), out-shot 6-1 (14.29%), out-scored 2-0, out-chanced 10-1 (9.09%) and out-high danger chanced 5-0 with him on the ice, which is why I used "massacred" because it was a truly horrible performance.
Usually, the way I look at things when it comes to analytics (obviously very general without going too much into detail or taking game context into perspective):
65%+ = pure domination
60% = phenomenal
55% = excellent
50% = average
45% = below average
40% = horrible
35% and less = pathetic