Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
That's exactly my issue with HDSC - it is a subjective stat. There are too many subjective stats, and others that need to be more subjective, if that makes sense. Not all shots are equal. Not all HDSC for and against are equal. Some stuff to me is pure garbage (like PDO).
|
This just demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about.
HDSC isn't subjective at all. It's just shots from a particular area of the ice, where the highest proportion of goals are scored from. Nothing remotely subjective about it.
PDO isn't "garbage". It's just... math. NHL save percentage plus shooting percentage always equals an even 1.000. If your PDO is above 1.000, you're either saving goals at an above average rate, or scoring at an above average rate on your shots, or both. Nothing remotely controversial or subjective about that.
Quote:
|
With that being said, advanced metrics are still incredibly useful. I just don't buy some of the rationales that it concludes. I still take issue with the 'should have won' or 'should have lost' games based on them. For instance, watching Calgary under Hartley, and that was a team (at least until the goaltending caved-in) was SUSTAINABLY winning games even though CORSI was terrible.
|
No, they weren't. You're deluding yourself. There's a reason they got absolutely crushed by the Ducks that season - they were a bad hockey team, the second worst team in the playoffs that year. They won a bunch of games by being the "comeback kids", and if you think that's a sustainable way to win hockey games, you're just... wrong. Comparing the Hartley Flames to the way they are now is totally night and day.