Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasi
I’m getting tired of these simplistic metrics. We get these reports of 10-5 or 14-7 but not all chances are created equal. Sutter even said post Edmonton they’re getting chances just not enough quality ones. I think these simple metrics that just measure shots of a certain criteria are lacking. Makes me think of baseball where there are metrics on certain categories of hits. I’m sure teams internally have better metrics. My feeling with the Flames is they’re throwing a lot of pucks at the net but winning the high chance battle isn’t really real since not all those chances are of equal quality or danger.
|
Exactly.
People are trying their best with the metrics, but it’s just not that simple.
The stats may rely on position and context / situation or preceding event, but really generally don’t have a way to factor in defensive side
Simple example - a puck passed and shoveled in to a set goalie’s pad from 2 inches away has the same treatment as a cross crease tap in.
High danger probabilities are based on general groupings of shots that share certain attributes, and have and expected likelihood of success, based on large sample sizes, but ignore other really important factors, which actually may make the difference between the successful and unsuccessful attempts .
Shots from 8 inches out might go in 60 percent of the time, but nobody is measuring how many shots had a glove right in front of the puck
You basically need to understand the basis of the statistics, and look at the actual events, and understand how they line up
I think they are great to add to the conversation, but are kind of useless if you are going to just point at them and pretty much yell at clouds