I'm not just talking shots here, scoring chances are also something that gets tracked (see here
http://enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.ca/) and Pacioretty is doing fantastic there as well.
His chances for are down from last year by quite a bit but his chances against are down by way morelot.
So you're confirming that he's not generating chances and shots as he was last year. That's all I really said. You don't need advanced stats to tell you that, it's as plain as day.
Also, I don't care that chances against are down. That can be due to many things, things that might not have much to do with Pacioretty anyway. But even if it is because of Pacioretty, all this means is that he's playing better defensively. I haven't claimed otherwise.
I honestly think you'd remember the quality of his chances a lot better if a couple of his ones went in.
Yes, the human mind tends to see patterns where there aren't, and tends to make up narratives to fit their own bias, etc. I'm well aware.
But some people are more adept than others at synthesis and have a good eye for evaluating performance. Not saying I'm one of them but it's annoying to see advanced stats gurus spit the same lines thinking no one can evaluate talent with the naked eye. These comebacks just feel so condescending to me. No, I'd not think differently if Pacioretty had 3 fluke goals right now. Or even if Pacioretty had sniped 3 beauties. He'd still not be generating as many shots, and as many scoring chances as he was in the last year and a half. He's not playing as well offensively. You say he has a better impact defensively ? Eh, maybe. I haven't seen it, but I'd be inclined to believe the stats there if you say that's where they point.
Bottom line is that advanced stats are a tool. You have to use that tool to help you make the difference between two close calls. Advanced stats help when it's time to determine which player is the best between two players who appear to be equal at first sight.
The advanced numbers on Gionta will tell you that he's a terrific ES player that tends to outshoot his opennents. Low and behold, he also consistently has a positive goal differential, has solid ES point totals (especially on goals, his closest comparable in ES goal scoring is a little known winger called Zetterberg), and the best goal differential of any major forward in the Habs current roster over the previous 3 seasons.
Ah yes, that is where advanced stats lie and that is why I brought up Gomez and Gionta. All the advanced stats gurus will tell you that both players are amazing puck possession players who have positive impacts on the game.
Gionta is not as good as these stats say however.
The problem with advanced stats is that the whole philosophy is entirely based on the concept that out-shooting the opposition means puck possession.
When you see Gomez skate through the zone and make the same predictable play every time, passing the puck back to Gionta who trails at the blue line, and Gionta who takes the same predictable 30 foot wrist shot... yeah they got a lot of shots on net and the opponent didn't but the play is dead there and a goal will seldom be scored that way. Gionta almost never scores when he does that. He scores when he goes to the net and gets rebounds or deflects a shot.
Gionta scores at a below 10% shooting percentage. Yeah he scores his 25 goals but really, how many opportunities are wasted for him to get his garbage shots on net all year ?
IMO, that's where advanced stats can lie. In most cases it's true that getting more shots on net typically means your team had the puck more and had more chances, but it's not ALWAYS true.
The whole concept of advanced stats is a bit flawed because the premise is only mostly true, not 100% true. And a lot of people just throw common sense to the wind and use advanced stats to let it shape their opinion regardless of what their eyes tell them.
It also makes hockey discussions impossible because inevitably they will bring up some condescending argument about how you are letting results or lack of results influence your opinion of their play.