Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Yeah like does a high shot volume strategy work offensively?
My first look at that would be GF60-xGF60. If you have a flawed model and a low quality high volume approach should show a big disparity xGF60/GF60.
23 teams are with 1/4 goal of that target which is pretty significant.
Teams that are hurting compared to expected totals.
1. Ottawa -0.84
2. Carolina -0.48
3. Nashville - 0.42
Teams that get more than they "deserve" based on models ...
1. Seattle +0.69
2. Boston +0.29
And that's it on the positive side.
The Flames are right in the middle.
Ottawa and Carolina are certainly high shot volume teams across most metrics, but then so too are Calgary, Jersey and Florida and they're all middle of the pack for disparity.
|
Thanks. And could high shot volume have a correlation to what you give up? The whole theory behind Corsi was that shots are a proxy for possession and possession is good.
But there might be something about low quality shots resulting in loss of possession. And that generating a high volume of low quality chances leaves you exposed mentally or physically to chances against you. I think you have alluded to it before, it takes a certain amount of discipline to stick to an approach that requires you to outshoot the opposition by a wide margin, especially when you're not always rewarded on the scoresheet. The margin is always going to be small.
IMO the Flames don't really have the horses to do it any other way.
Which is also why I don't put it all on the goalies.