Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
The Jets were taking many of their shots from the middle of the ice, yes. But the Flames blocked or deflected a lot of them, and they were rushed on most of them. There were very few where they had the time, or the setup, for a real scoring chance. Like I said, I watched the game again, looking at the scoring chances for each team, and the Jets had surprisingly few. It is interesting to watch a second time, because you can do so without the stress of worrying about what is going to happen next - will the goalie save it, etc. And you know when/where the goals, penalties, and such happen, so you can just evaluate plays for what they are.
To be clear, I am not suggesting the stats were recorded improperly or anything like that, but the fact is that they have to follow strict criteria, meaning a really good chance, that is a couple feet outside of home plate, doesn't count as a high danger chance, while some shots from inside home plate are not dangerous at all. Yes, that averages out over time, which is why stats need large sample sizes to be useful. In smaller samples (individual games) they can err by large margins. IMO, last night was one of those nights.
|
Totally know what you mean! Such a different perspective.
If I have a game PVR'd but someone texts me "what a game!!!!" I have an inkling I can chill when I watch it.
And agreed. Plus the stats aren't 100% indicative of what's happening. They're evolving, but there are still way too many variables to make them 100% in a single game sample size.
There's been a few games (or periods) when team X has more shot attempts, scoring chances and high danger chances but less in terms of the expected goals splits, which puzzles me.
You can be high on high danger, but lose the split because of shot volume, but when you're up in all three but down overall I can't make it work.