Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Remarks:
Quality does not equal quantity, and one year does not represent several.
(And shot location is most definitely not a proxy for shot quality)
|
First off, one year? Since 2012/13 (5 seasons!) the Coyotes have given up the 3rd most shots per game of any team in the league at 32.8. For reference, the Flames in that same time period gave up an average of 28.9 shots per game (8th best) and this is through a REBUILD.
Defensive team my ass.
Secondly, I just love when people say "shot location is NOT a reflection of shot quality" in a weak attempt to dismiss high danger, low danger and medium danger save percentages.
When talking about large sample sizes, which is what we are talking about, shot location MOST DEFINITELY DOES reflect shot quality, and that is indisputable.
Evidenced by the difference in league wide HD, MD and LD save %
2016/17 League Average HD sv% -> 81.17%
2016/17 League Average MD sv% -> 92.50%
2016/17 League Average LD sv% -> 97.91%
2013-16 League Average HD sv% -> 80.86%
2013-16 League Average MD sv% -> 92.36%
2013-16 League Average LD sv% -> 97.88%
So if shot location doesn't reflect shot quality in large sample sizes, why do teams score consistently less frequently as the shot location gets further out from the net?
Can one shot from a low danger area be more difficult than one shot from a high danger area? Absolutely.
But in large sample sizes low danger shots are much easier for goalies to save than high danger shots.