Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
xGA isn’t cutting the mustard, in my opinion
Nobody really measures what is required in order to distinguish between actual real life high danger chances and statistical ones
I’m talking about shooters with time and space to pick their spots, without the immediate pressure to throw them off (often the result of egregious breakdowns)
Shot location, plus some precursor events are useful in terms of establishing reasonable probabilities.
Shot placement is not measured. Time for an unpressured shooter to pick his spot isn’t measured.
Statistically the offense is fine. In reality, it’s not so great. The Flames carry the play but their shooting percentage is brutal. 30th out of 32 teams. It’s the result of lots of shots that are unlikely to find the net, regardless of the average percentages of successful shots taken from that area. (Re-watch the 21 third period shots against Nashville and what I am saying should be crystal clear)
Defensively, same. xGA says they are doing fine. But to me it’s not just ‘make a save’ based on the data. It’s ‘clean up the play’ leading to grade A chances
|
Well I said it's making a save and finishing.
You seemed to reply with finishing and the team not the goalie defensively, which is certainly your thing.
Will never say the stats have evolved to the point where it's perfect, but it's certainly a great way to measure something across all goaltenders and take a personal bias out of it.