Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
It has to improve for sure, but it's not as simple as you think.
I had a conversation with the guy that runs naturalstattrick last week when I saw an Edmonton game that had them down in every single count ...
Shots
Shot attempts
Scoring Chances
High Danger Chances
But up on xGF%.
He explained that every high danger chance is weighted by how it occurred and where it was on the ice. So you can have less high danger chances, less shot attempts, less shots, but more expected goals because you had had "bigger" chances inside the high danger category.
Last night the Flames ran the table on all the counts, but also on expected.
While I agree the stats can and will improve, it would be pretty hard to make the case that they didn't dominate in almost every single fashion.
|
This really is excellent and I have no qualms with it whatsoever. I assume in this case you have one observer who is making these observations during the course of the game and then sums it up at the end.
It's an eye test (with some parameters) but with a piece of paper nearby so that you add up your individual observations. Frankly that is the best way to do it IMO. So then what you are left with:
Who had the most chances, weighted for quality using the method you describe?
How did the goalie play?
How effective were shooters with burying chances?
I'm not sure how I'd even weight these in priority.
Last night, Montreal carried 2 and 3 and that's why they won.