Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
^ Strange brew, I’ve heard all of the high danger shot stats
It clearly wasn’t good enough though, right?
The question is WHY?
The things I am talking about don’t dismiss high danger counts, just looking to connect the things that happened, and the available data, with the clearly unacceptable results
Are the Flames all really bad at shooting, or is there something advanced stats don’t capture?
I gave my view to Bingo, and when he pushed, I documented every shot the Flames took the next game, and described what the goalie was called upon to do
His first response? “I’m not going to read that essay”
The large contingent of fans saying that the hockey is high volume low quality are not wrong
Specific measurable events preceding the shot are how shots are classified.
The defensive posture, the pressure the shooter is under, the actual quality of the shot taken / where it goes on the goalie (directly related to shooter skill and time and space) is absolutely not factored in
Nobody has an easy way to measure those things, so they aren’t available to refine the models
It’s not rocket science. And 31st in cross o zone passes is a huge indicator
|
So the only data point is cross ice passes. And then your personal observations. And some nebulous “ large volume of fans”. Yourself, Paulie wacknuts, and many others for sure.
I don’t see a team chasing the puck around.
I see a team without a ton of finishers. The players who declined:
Huberdeau
Lindholm - not hard to figure out why
Mangiapane - living off unsustainable shooting percentages
Other players met or exceeded their averages.
Not saying I have the answers, or that I’m even right. I’m just looking at some of the numbers that are actually out there. It’s fine if we see it differently, I won’t ask if you actually watch the games.