Imo, puck luck is like a random variable - over a long enough sample period it trends to zero.
At that point xGF vs aGF is an indicator of team finishing quality. And xGF vs league average xGF is an indicator of team chance generation. Flames have struggled a bit with both and I think some of that is roster construction (lack of goal scorers) and some of it is the play of specific top-6 forwards (like Huby). But even so, the flames offense is good enough to make the playoffs.
Meanwhile, over a long enough period xGA vs GA is a measure of goalie quality. While xGA vs league-average GA is an indicator of team defense. Here the data suggests the goalies are below average in stopping medium danger opportunities, while the flames are also below average at allowing medium danger opportunities. That's an unfortunate combination. But in aggregate, team defense isn't the issue as the flames are also above average at suppressing high danger and low danger chances, so the team defense in aggregate is -again - good enough to make the playoffs.
While we can find instances of defensive breakdowns or offensive chances missed or great saves or shots the goalie had no chance on, pointing them out is basically cherry picking data points relative to aggregated date. And what's worse, those chery picked data points are already within the sample set used to create the metrics.
The bottom line is that this season, the offense is good enough. The defense is good enough. The goaltending is not good enough. And they're outside of a playoff spot as a result.
|