Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I am starting to see less usefulness of the stats that use subjective qualifiers for certain things. Once the puck makes it's way to McDavid, that was about a 95% likelihood of a goal.
Let's say there's a two on one.
In scenario 1 puck carrier makes a perfect pass to the shooter but the goalie slides across and makes an incredible save.
In scenario 2, puck carrier muffs the pass and no scoring chance.
Scenario 1 is maybe high danger (depends where he receives the pass?) and I assume a high xGF%. But no idea exactly how the xgf% is actually calculated on that play.
Scenario 2 isn't measured by any stat is it?
Yet both scenarios were high danger scoring opps and should tell us something about how both teams were playing. The stats only seem to tell us something about the shooter and the goalie on that play.
I'm not knocking all advanced stats, it just seems hockey is a difficult game to measure accurately that way.
And of course I don't fully understand how these stats are calculated so much of the problem may be on my end.
|
They're certainly not perfect. They likely never will be.
Generally though shots from home plate with a pass, tip or rebound are the most dangerous chances, and getting more of those than your opposition is clearly a good thing.
A shot from where McDavid's powerplay goal was scored is usually not that dangerous unless it's done with a perfect cross crease pass as it was ... which makes it pretty rare.
They are indicators, but you can't take them to the bank.