Dear Michel Therrien,
View Single Post
03-08-2014, 01:37 PM
Join Date: Aug 2008
Originally Posted by
I guess you came down to that conclusion by looking at stats and such? Stats don't say how shots and time in the offensive zone were had. A good shots attempt differential doesn't mean an incredible control of the puck and a good cycling game. In our case, more often than not, whether people like it or not, we we DID and STILL do get our shots and many opportunities by creating turnovers in the offensive zone, and it very often is the result of hustling and working extra hard to do so.
I'm sorry stats are so difficult for you to understand that you default to your 'stats don't mean anything' defense off the bat. I didn't even mention stats. You can see it all for yourself if you just open your eyes, start up your DVR and watch some games from last year. We were on the puck all the time. Our cycle game and transition were excellent. Even when we lost a few games towards the end with shaky goaltending, we were still usually the better team.
The fact that we had one of the best 5v5 goal scoring rates in the league definitely drives home the theory, but that's far from being some difficult mathematical gymnastic of a concept. It's as simple as they come. Goals scored greater than goals against? Good. Caveman math. Bad puck possession teams very, very rarely do well in that regard. Especially over large samples.
Of course we still get goals form 'working hard' etc. and causing turnovers. Just nowhere near as many. Your argument is as weak as they come. Suivant, next.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by overlords