Iceberg
Registered User
- May 4, 2002
- 4,786
- 1,119
Sorry, it was a SLOW day at the office today, but it's finally over and i'm going home now!
But i think it was valid to discuss Duchene's mental health.
GDT: Game 5: Avs in LA | October 18, 2015 | 8 PM MT | Unsustainable Stats Edition
- Thread starter UncleRisto
- Start date
Sorry, it was a SLOW day at the office today, but it's finally over and i'm going home now!
But i think it was valid to discuss Duchene's mental health.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Review the shot chart if you'd like; seven shots on goal from the house in the game.
Duchene's goal was from the house and Landeskog's one timer on the PP was from the house. The shot chart also shows Mitchell and Comeau had shots in close. It also shows MacKinnon with a shot from the house and Soderberg with a couple shots from the house. That makes seven. That doesn't include McCloud's wrap around attempt.
It really doesn't matter whether the shots were 5v5, 5v4, 5v3, 4v5, etc. If it goes in the net it all counts the same on the final score.
InjuredChoker
Registered User
i track those scoring chances by myself and lot of shots from the house aren't scoring chances.
i want to track just 5on5 because it's the most important part of the game. teams that have to rely a lot on pp to create chances and score goals won't last very long in the spring.
The original point was that if the Avs had converted on one more of their shots and they didn't have two breakdowns on goals against they could have beat LA. My follow up post was that the Avs had seven shots from the house and any one of them "could" have gone in. This doesn't include shots that missed the net or shots that were on net but from the point or a bad angle. It also doesn't count shots that were from the point or bad angles that missed the net.
The discussion of whether or not the Avs shots are on the PP, even strength, or on the PK or whether or not they are great scoring chances in your opinion are irrelevant to whether or not they could have beat LA last night. One lucky bounce or deflection and one less brain fart by the Avs and the Avs "could" have come away with a win.
Last edited:
agentblack
Registered User
Landeskog did have a nice opportunity on the one timer but yeah I thought they were on the ice way too long. I'm not sure the second unit would have done much better but the Mac line looked gassed by the end of the PP.
No, they're our best offensive line right now. Maybe swap Tanguay out but MacK and Landy need to be out there.
InjuredChoker
Registered User
that i do agree with. but i'm trying to evaluate the overall process more than one individual game. one can't e expect to win lot of games long-term if they have to rely on lucky bounces to win games.
agentblack
Registered User
Yeah esp considering he was doing nothing and the guy that scored the pp goal was on the bench the whole time. Hell id take Soda too. Put 4 fwds on the 5 on 3
agentblack
Registered User
It was an ok shot, but you can see Quick reading that a mile away, he could have pulled out Atlas Shrugged, finished it and still made the save.
The Shermanator
HFBoards Legend
Yes, I agree with you on that.
That wasn't the point of the thread on whether or not the Avs "could" have won last night though.
As someone who never played this sport I too am very interested in hearing some talk about systems and specifics on what would be good and why this one is bad.
I didn't say anything about the shot, I only commented that he had a nice opportunity.
The shot itself appeared to me like it was an easy save because it was right at Quick's chest. Had Landeskog fired a bullet off the one timer that was blocker side high right in the corner or glove side low right in the corner I don't believe Quick would have had an easy save at all. If fact, a well placed one timer from that range would be very difficult to save for any goalie; even a quick one (yes, pun intended).
