View Single Post
02-03-2013, 12:32 PM
Talkin' MaLarkin
Eastopia's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Sweden
Posts: 958
vCash: 820
Originally Posted by Dacop View Post
I'm not a native english speaker and therefore I do not really know what you mean with "effective" (in german you talk about effective for "doing something good" and efficient for "doing something in a good way")
I'm not a native English speaker either, but effectiveness is how well x brings the desired result while efficiency deals with how much wasted energy there is to achieve it. The percentage of the shots that result in a goal would be the efficiency in this case, while the total amount of goals would be effectiveness. (This is of course not always the case; see for example Lidström shooting for Holmström to deflect. By this measure Lidström would be shown to be less efficient than he really was, as these shots were not meant to end up in goal - the desired effect was a different one. (Even though the desired end result was the same - a goal - the desired result of the shot - a deflection - is what matters here, since that's the effectiveness/efficiency we're measuring. But this is neither here nor there. ))

Originally Posted by Dacop View Post
However, If we look at the percentage of successfull attempts (effectiveness?):

Jonathan Ericsson 0.250 (1/4)
Todd Bertuzzi 0.222 (2/9)
Ian White 0.200 (1/5)
Brian Lashoff 0.200 (1/5)
Pavel Datsyuk 0.200 (3/15)
Henrik Zetterberg 0.147 (5/34)
Damien Brunner 0.138 (4/29)

Otherwise we have Brunner as #2 for goals and shots....not that bad.
Ignoring Filppula as you didn't include his stats, Brunner is here the least efficient shooter, but the second-most effective one.

This is my understanding, at least. Someone else may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Eastopia is offline   Reply With Quote