Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Didn’t mean to offend. But they sure as heck did ring the puck around the boards a ton, and get garbage shots from the point
This happened repeatedly and it isn’t in the stats because it isn’t something measured
That’s the whole point. The stats aren’t the be-all end-all
The stats guys know it. There are companies based on this knowledge. The better / more granular stats are paid for
And a guy here or there picking up 5-10 points does not make everything ok. That happens to every team every year.
The guy who has the skill to get 115 and went to 55 is not normal
Quite simply, it’s a cop out to respond to me asking for more stats. My while point is that the existing stats don’t measure the things that are needed to look deeper
|
https://twitter.com/user/status/1644726591325347845
This card suoermatt posted in another thread it's not shot selection but gives you an idea. Missing from the card on another one of her tweets is 27th in high danger scoring chances.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...-shot-quality/
This is an article by Justin Bourne. They are using a NHL advanced stats provider and using player tracking. They will break down playoff teams so we won't get to see our stats but he has a quick blurb that says what everyone has been saying including opposing coaches a lot of volume and hardly any quality. They are tracking some of the stats you talk about.
These stats really make me sour on that xGF model which was becoming evident during the season. To much value on low quality.