View Single Post
Old
02-07-2013, 02:29 AM
  #200
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
Yeah. So many of these 'advanced metrics' essentially just boil down to an extravagant way of stat-watching. There are aspects of them that are interesting and worth taking a look at, but i don't see a whole lot of validity in many of them.

It's not baseball, there are so many factors at play in this game.

It's stuff like the above mentioned, but also stuff like the fact that SV% while on the ice can be pretty heavily influenced by the type of scoring chances a pairing is giving up. A high SV% on ice might indicate some flukey above average goaltending...but it could also just as easily indicate that high quality scoring opportunities are being limited and a lot of weak shots from the perimeter, due to quality defensive play.

The way some of these metrics are treated like gospel around here...it's like some folks watched 'Moneyball' one too many times.
Regardless of what you think of these stats, there are clearly sustainable ones and unsustainable ones. A .981 sv% is not sustainable over the long haul. No matter how well they play, Ballard and Tanev are not going to finish the season being on the ice for only 5 ES GA which is what they're currently on pace for.

The good news is Ballard and Tanev could triple or quadruple their GA/G and still be in pretty good shape for their 5 on 5 play even when you factor in the competition they're facing.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote