Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Having said that ... I do think there is a difference in high danger chances, something that will likely be the next level of advanced stats. If they existed today I think higher high danger + better execution of said chances was firmly in the Oiler corner.
|
Oilers really executed on the High Danger shots better.
Flames:
High Danger Chances: 66
High Danger Shots: 39
High Danger Goals: 6
High Danger Shooting: 15.4%
Oilers:
High Danger Chances: 61
High Danger Shots: 47
High Danger Goals: 13
High Danger Shooting: 27.7%
That was the difference in the series. Part of that was the Oilers being very clinical in front of net, part of it was Markstrom not making enough big saves.
The top team in the league shot 23% High Danger in the regular season, and the league average was 18.8%, so 27.7% was ridiculously high.
Oilers shoot 20% instead of 27.7% and it's 9 goals instead of 13. The goal difference in the series was 5 (20 GF - 25 GA), so this high danger finishing delta is the difference in the series. Flames shooting at their regular season average means 1 more goal for, Oilers shooting at their regular season average meant 4 fewer goals - that's the 5 goal delta right there.
And all of it was driven by McDavid. Overall goals were 18-6 with him on the ice and High Danger goals were 9-0 Oilers with him on the ice. Overall goals were 7-14 without him on the ice, and High Danger was 4-6 without him on the ice. 18 Goals For on an xGF of 9.33 with McDavid on the ice in that series...barf.