I don't know that the aesthetic color scheme is poor, per se, but for me the transition from Mickey Mouse org to Cup winner is closely associated with the move from green to black
it's weird when teams wear throwback jerseys that hearken back to eras when they sucked. i panicked momentarily when we took the ice at Winter Classic wearing the red pants. i thought, 'oh god, nothing good ever happened in this outfit.'
ok, i think the guy for the post/russian machine site who does all the stats is annoying as hell--hockey is just not a stats game--but how can a team have more scoring chances than it has shots? don't you have to have a shot in order to have a chance to score?
i mean, in the absence of a goalie pulled own-goal or something.
ok, i think the guy for the post/russian machine site who does all the stats is annoying as hell--hockey is just not a stats game--but how can a team have more scoring chances than it has shots? don't you have to have a shot in order to have a chance to score?
i mean, in the absence of a goalie pulled own-goal or something.
A scoring chance isn't the same as a shot, never has been. Missing an empty net is a scoring chance you didn't finish. I'm not sure if there's an official definition, but it's definitely not connected directly to shots.
A scoring chance isn't the same as a shot, never has been. Missing an empty net is a scoring chance you didn't finish. I'm not sure if there's an official definition, but it's definitely not connected directly to shots.
which i guess again illustrates why hockey's just not a game of stats. anything that's subjective is, damn near by definition, not measurable, not quantifiable, and therefore not subject to statistical analysis.
A scoring chance isn't the same as a shot, never has been. Missing an empty net is a scoring chance you didn't finish. I'm not sure if there's an official definition, but it's definitely not connected directly to shots.
Missing an empty net means you took a shot, just not a shot on goal. Shots and shots on goal are not synonymous.
If there is an official definition of scoring chance, I've never seen or heard of it.
which i guess again illustrates why hockey's just not a game of stats. anything that's subjective is, damn near by definition, not measurable, not quantifiable, and therefore not subject to statistical analysis.
so says me. i took a statistics class once.
Scoring chances are useful as long as they're defined in some way. Unless you assume the guy recording it is using uneven criteria for the two teams (which would be moronic) it's not like it's meaningless.
Hockey has plenty of stats, and some of them are pretty interesting in context. Certainly adds something to the discussion other than "I saw it and it happened this way." Although Greenberg gets tiresome sometimes when he doesn't seem to know enough about the stats he is using.
ok, i think the guy for the post/russian machine site who does all the stats is annoying as hell--hockey is just not a stats game--but how can a team have more scoring chances than it has shots? don't you have to have a shot in order to have a chance to score?
i mean, in the absence of a goalie pulled own-goal or something.
Hitting the post isnt counted as a SOG. i would say hitting the post should be a scoring chance.
but anyways i tend to agree, statgeeks who try to make hockey a SABR game like baseball really show they are more of fanboys then anything.
yeah, the hitting the post thing is a good example. someone mentioned another one the other night. i commented on mojo ripping pucks off left and right while backchecking--it was absurd. he did it like 4 shifts in a row. and yet, he was not credited with a takeaway.
