Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar
Because the Bruins (and Sabres) play a passive defensive system based entirely on allowing a higher quantity of low percentage shots so any type of evaluation based on shot totals is totally useless.
|
Agree to disagree. Statistical analysis on trying to evaluate actual quality of chances just shows that teams that give up more shots give up more quality chances as well. The differences are so minimal that differentiating the two tends to be a waste of time.
I would also argue that teams that play this style are relying on their goaltender more. I think Tim Thomas is an example of somebody who is just really, really good. Using shot total to analyze how often a team relies on their goalie makes perfect sense.
When I meant "passive defensive system", I meant one where the use on light for checking and their defense-man rarely pinch.
Also, just because a team wins one stanley cup, doesn't mean that they're the ultimate example to follow on how to run a hockey team. The Kings won the cup being 29th in scoring in the regular season, are you going to argue that scoring isn't important to winning a championship, despite the massive amount of evidence (IE, other cup winning teams) pointing to the contrary?
Random team X won a cup in random year Y doing Z, so this must be fact, isn't an argument.