Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Semantics I guess.
We both agree that stats should and will improve, but I wouldn't call a HD count wrong.
I'd just lean on what it says.
Player X was on the ice for a count of X of the following occurrence. In this case the HD stat is a shot from the home plate that came on a tip, rebound or pass into the home plate.
Once you meet that criteria of course there is a range of danger within that count, but it doesn't make the original count wrong or the stat wrong. It's better to not let tips, rebounds and passes into the most dangerous scoring area on the ice.
Players that give up more of those are probably not playing as well as players that give up fewer.
|
I think that the problem here is that some stats don't measure what they claim to measure. For example, HD chances are determined only by the location from which a shot originated. They don't take into account where the puck was prior to the shot being taken (immediately antecedent lateral puck movement, for example), the position of defenders at the time the shot was taken (potential for blocking a shot or screening the goaltender), position of teammates when a shot was taken (were they screening the goaltender, or did he have to make adjustments for a possible tip or to control the rebound), or the position of the goaltender when a shot was taken. They also don't take into account individual players' characteristics (is it Ovie shooting from the faceoff dot, or Adam Pelech; is the goaltender particularly good at lateral movement, or particularly susceptible to back door shots, etc). So for HD shots to become a better representation of what it claims to measure, the definition of the statistic needs to be updated to take into account these other factors that affect the probability that a player will score on any given opportunity.
As you say, stats can and will improve as they take into account more of the factors that can affect outcomes.