View Single Post
03-23-2013, 02:51 PM
Registered User
MastuhNinks's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 6,203
vCash: 500
I'm a supporter of advanced statistics but lately it seems a lot of people are misunderstanding how to use them. Just because a team or player (e.x. Anaheim or Kunitz) is most likely going to regress to the norm in shooting percentage, doesn't necessarily mean they're just getting lucky. It means they're playing unsustainably good, obviously puck-luck is a thing but it's extremely closed minded to suggest the only way someone can have a high shooting percentage is by being lucky. Chris Kunitz is not getting lucky, he's just playing by far the best hockey of his career, and that combined with playing with the best player in the World has lead to him having a high shooting percetage. Is it likely to go down? Definitely, but that doesn't automatically mean it's luck-driven. There's a reason Steven Stamkos has had such a high shooting percentage throughout his career, and it isn't because he's lucky.

MastuhNinks is offline   Reply With Quote