Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
I don't know who predicted doom and gloom but losing to Chicago when this is supposed to be a soft spot in the schedule and we have a chance to go on a streak should be unacceptable.
But moving on I think the point highmanlife brought up is really interesting.
Why do Darryl Sutter coached teams have bad shooting %? Everything else they are doing seems to be right in terms of putting on shots creating high danger shots. He has had some talented players but a sample size that big is pretty interesting.
Looks like the LA teams overcame the poor shooting % because they had a goalie who shut the door most nights, and that's why save % matters when you are a team that allows a low volume of shots.
Some people have said save % is irrelevant, but I think on a team coached to play the way we are it might be one of the most important stats.
|
Well first off they don't ... the Flames were 14th in shooting percentage last year.
But the talent has changed and with that less high danger and with that a worse shooting percentage I suppose.
But any team with high shot volume won't be top 5-10 in shooting percentage.
I think the better stat is xGF vs GF.
Last year the Flames had the 5th highest xGF60 at 2.79 and finished with an actual GF60 of 2.96 or +0.17
This year the Flames have the 8th highest xGF60 at 2.80 (scoring is up), so they're creating pretty much exactly the same amount, but not finishing as well with 2.66 (-0.14).
Up to the reader to pick from poorer finishers vs bad luck.
When you look at the league, they're right in the middle for disparity at -0.14.
Teams with no luck ... Ottawa, Colorado, Carolina.
Teams with all luck ... Seattle, Vancouver, Buffalo
(focus on offence and 5 on 5 only)