Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I don't get the impression you understand my argument at all. Maybe I haven't done a good job of making my point.
I'm not defending a stat.
I've admitted they should improve.
I just don't think the existing stat is flawed if you view it as I do ... a count of location events on the ice, to which more is worse than less.
Period.
If three guys play on a line and give up more immediate slot chances than other lines they've likely given up more than the other lines. Then you look at matchups and how much responsibility they are given. Or you can look at other games and see if they've given up more or less of those immediate slot chances.
That's it.
|
But people (including you) don't just count them up as location events on the ice, they use the results to argue whether a player had a good or a bad game.
"Player X got caved in, with 37% HD chances, for and against last night" And people buy into that like it's a fact and it is representing useful information.
But in reality, the player was on the ice for 3 home plate shots for, and 5 home plate shots against. Great, but it completely ignores all the other things that happened, and that have been listed in this discussion, which would add a great deal more colour to the situation. For instance, maybe they set up their linemate for a perfect, cross-crease empty netter (which didn't happen in home plate). And many other relevant events.
But no worries, it's a stat. So, they got caved in.