Discussion in 'Montreal Canadiens' started by WakeUpNHL, Feb 20, 2013.
looks like a coach about to be fired. seriously...
exactly why it's pretty useless without the context provided by an expert observer.
Gomez had lot's of shots during his year without a goal... that he was unable to convert was far more than just "bad luck".
some shots are far FAR better than other, but that won't show up on the stat sheet.
Even if you limit yourself to even strength shots when the score is tied or close, over a long period of time, the correlation is not 100% *1. Heck... the Russian teams from the 70s/80s (puck possession teams) usually were “out shot” by the NHL teams and, from the look of it, they were not, contrary to what most of today’s micro stats would probably tell you, bad teams!
I tend to agree with you here.
*1 It does not mean it is a useless decision helping tool. As I mentioned: micro stats offer you a complementary... lighting. Key word: complementary.
You edited my reply and left out (the blue part) the answer to your reply:
"... The coach, while consulting a micro stats analysis report, realises that, among other things,when this player is on the ice, on even strength when the score is tied or close, his team is outshooting the opponent. He decides to give this guy a chance.
There is nothing “obvious” about the bolded part btw: you need to process a lot of infos to write the aforementioned report and, though you can observe the phenomenon (on even strength when the score is tied or close, his team is outshooting the opponent when player x is on the ice), chances are you won’t be able to record and process it all. The speed of the game, your own personal bias... a lot of things can get in the way of a proper evaluation.
Micro stats offer you a complementary... lighting. Key word: complementary."
doesnt change a thing
Separate names with a comma.