Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Not sure why you're laughing out loud.
Your opinion is that the Flames give up higher danger chances than other teams. It's not a fact no matter how many times you try to make it be.
The models do capture those events. They have an outside the home plate goal rate that applies to the Flames low danger high shot volume, they have a goal rate that applies to their within the home plate area without moving a goalie (scoring chance, not a high danger).
|
And those models don’t capture the things that matter, and make a difference between the jobs that goalie A and goalie B are asked to do
Time and space of the shooter, and where they place the shot. What the goalie has to do.
Pretty key things
In terms of analysis, they mask the real problems the team has
My opinion is based in the actual events, not a quantification of a subset of measurable elements of the event
I lol because
- you even agree that the models have limitations
- I have a hypothesis about how the limitations and general observations about the Flames’ play
- I lay out in detail where the gaps are and what the model misses.
- I support it with detail on specific events
It makes me laugh because you on one hand, you talk about my gut or opinion. Then you turn around and say the goalies at the other end are getting the job done and ours aren’t . Sounds like your gut to me. Because I’m telling you how the shots are different.
They are simply not being asked to do the same job.
Although you acknowledge the models have limitations, you steadfastly refuse to accept the general notion that the deviation of the Flames W-L from the model is actually related to the model’s shortcomings.
Just gotta get a save, amirite?