Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming Homer
I think advanced stats are too black and white though. When the game is more of a full scale of contrast between black and white. You can take a analytics number to support a larger argument for sure. But when I see guys #### post a bunch of lines of 10 different percentages as if that alone shows who is a good player or not I shake my head.
I would expect a guy like Ritchie to have good analytics he's got a never ending motor. He wins puck battles. Has a big body. But he handles the puck like a grenade. So although he might drive possession he has zero finish. The only stat I know that accurately shows a players finish is goals. And that's why the Flames as a whole have been analytics darlings yet the end result has been lackluster. Alot of effort. Win on the shot clock. Yet no finish. The story 2 games into this season is the same story going back to Gulutzan. I remember outshooting opponents then as well.
|
Brett Ritchie isn't usually a play driving guy or an underlying stats darling. Last year he was 19th on the Flames in CF% and 21st in xGF%. So really he fits more with your eyes than with the stats that we've seen in the first two games.
He may just fit better into a fourth line role on a quick play Sutter team than he did last year trying to move up the lineup and provide a physical presence on a line with better players.
But other than that I'm not sure I agree.
You can't just use goals to judge players or you're going to miss or misinterpret too much. Honestly 9 times out of 10 the whole of an analytics look matches the eye test anyway.