But shot quality obviously exists. There are certainly problems with quantifying it (arena bias or deciding which and how the recorded parameters should define the quality of the shot), but clearly some shots are more likely to result in goals than others. The shooting percentage for rebounds and breakaways is something around 30% whereas unscreened shots from the point are in the low single digits. Saying that poorer shot quality can't account for a lower shooting percentage, especially over a small sample, is silly IMO. Why wouldn't a team that fires shots from the perimeter have a lower shooting percentage compared to one that can get to the net more easily?
Over a large sample against 29 other opponents I can certainly see how this would even out over time, but in a few playoff series where you play the same team 5-7 times? Some of their struggles are definitely bad luck, but IMO a good portion of it is also a struggle to produce excellent scoring chances and an unfortunate habit of flubbing some of the chances they do produce.
That's not to say that their low shooting percentage has any predictive power or that it's even sustainable, but I'm hesitant to chalk up all of their struggles up simply to luck just because they're generating a decent number of shots.
I don't entirely disagree with you. I'm just saying that nobody has published any quantitative analysis that makes this a really useful approach, except anecdotally. Heck, it's not just bad luck in the sense of bounces: in their past 5 playoff series, the Canucks have played, Rinne, Niemi, Thomas, Quick, and Niemi. In every series but the first one against Niemi, you could argue that each goaltender has been one of the three best players at that position in a given season. That in itself could drive the Canucks shooting percentage down to 6.5-7%.
I think on an intuitive level I agree with you that there is a difference in a playoff series, and my gut tells me that the adaptability of a coach
and roster to new tactics to exploit opponent weakness and adapt to an opponent's attempt to do the same might play a larger role in the post-season than in the regular season. Over a season, most teams will see ups and downs, and make tactical adjustments, and one team taking a game or two longer to do so likely won't make statistical difference over 82 games. But over 7 games, it just might. We can't really say.
Still, I thought the Canucks looked very good on Friday, with the exception of their permissive d-zone coverage. They could have easily won that game.
