Game 43: Leafs @ Capitals - Apr. 16, 7:00pm - TSN, TSN 1050

[Kin]

Being outshot is one thing. Being outshot and outplayed by a large margin is another. You telling me the Devils Didnt have any quality chances last night. Tell you one thing they had more than us. I think most of us feel we have been outplayed badly lately.

I don't think the Devils played all that well last night either. Regardless I don't know why that would be a reason to get down on the team. All teams valley and peak. What separates the good ones from the bad ones, and what the Leafs have been capable of late, is that they're able to stick in games through good defense/goaltending during some valleys long enough to get points and even squeeze out wins like last night. Winning on an off night is a good sign, not a bad one.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I get the nuances.  But your bolded statement is just wrong.  Consistently getting outshot like we have, often by a large margin, means a lot -- in terms of time spent in your zone (and its mirror, the lack of time spent in the offensive zone), the likelihood of getting those HQ scoring chances, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree but shot totals are a lousy way to express that. Scoring a quick goal is one shot and little time in the other team's zone whereas cycling the puck for 2 minutes might yield 6 shots and nothing else.

You don't think over a season those things would even out?

 

[Kin]

I wouldn't say lousy.  Like any single stat, it doesn't tell the whole story.  But it's a good proxy.

I think it's a lousy way of measuring time in the offensive zone when compared to...measuring time in the offensive zone.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

 

[L K]

5-1

Tough break for Scrivens there with the bounce off the boards.

 

[ZBBM]

I wouldn't say lousy.  Like any single stat, it doesn't tell the whole story.  But it's a good proxy.

I think it's a lousy way of measuring time in the offensive zone when compared to...measuring time in the offensive zone.

It's a proxy for several related stats, as I originally mentioned. 

 

[Kin]

You don't think over a season those things would even out?

No but even if I did I'm not sure everything needs to be looked at in a macro level to that degree. If a team scores 4 goals on 15 shots because they converted on high quality chances I think that's a good offensive evening.

 

[Kin]

It's a proxy for several related stats, as I originally mentioned.

Right, I'm saying we don't need it as a proxy for that in particular if we could just count it up on its own.

 

[sneakyray]

guess I shouldn't forget that this is the team that knocked out the B's last year

 

[ZBBM]

It's a proxy for several related stats, as I originally mentioned.

Right, I'm saying we don't need it as a proxy for that in particular if we could just count it up on its own.

Well, sure.  But the context of the discussion was the comment that SOG mean nothing at all.  They obviously do.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You don't think over a season those things would even out?

No but even if I did I'm not sure everything needs to be looked at in a macro level to that degree. If a team scores 4 goals on 15 shots because they converted on high quality chances I think that's a good offensive evening.

I don't see how over a full season it wouldn't even out.  You'd have an unsustainable SH% if it didn't (at least if you were winning any games you would).

 

[PG]

So glad Orr and McLaren showed them who's boss!

 

[Kin]

It's a proxy for several related stats, as I originally mentioned.

Right, I'm saying we don't need it as a proxy for that in particular if we could just count it up on its own.

Well, sure.  But the context of the discussion was the comment that SOG mean nothing at all.  They obviously do.

They are absolutely a good measurement of how many shots a team had.

 

[ZBBM]

It's a proxy for several related stats, as I originally mentioned.

Right, I'm saying we don't need it as a proxy for that in particular if we could just count it up on its own.

Well, sure.  But the context of the discussion was the comment that SOG mean nothing at all.  They obviously do.

They are absolutely a good measurement of how many shots a team had.

And so much more!

 

[azzurri63]

How long before OV jumps on the PP.

 

[azzurri63]

Surprising. Didn't come out.

 

[L K]

So glad Orr and McLaren showed them who's boss!

Orr's misconduct with 5 minutes left in the game is all about protecting Kadri and Kessel.
You just don't see the value in his play.  All of those fights that charged the team up.  He has 12 fights and all of them were in the 1st period.

 

[Kin]

You don't think over a season those things would even out?

No but even if I did I'm not sure everything needs to be looked at in a macro level to that degree. If a team scores 4 goals on 15 shots because they converted on high quality chances I think that's a good offensive evening.

I don't see how over a full season it wouldn't even out.  You'd have an unsustainable SH% if it didn't (at least if you were winning any games you would).

I might be confused a bit as to your question then. What would even out, the number of quick goals teams score? Or the relative chances of every shot going in? Because there's a pretty healthy range of team shooting percentages every year.

 

[pnjunction]

Yeah 6th spot and playing the Southeast winner isn't looking like such a good idea anymore.

Actually facing any team other than Montreal doesn't look good right now.

 

[L K]

You don't think over a season those things would even out?

No but even if I did I'm not sure everything needs to be looked at in a macro level to that degree. If a team scores 4 goals on 15 shots because they converted on high quality chances I think that's a good offensive evening.

I don't see how over a full season it wouldn't even out.  You'd have an unsustainable SH% if it didn't (at least if you were winning any games you would).

I think in general that it would have as much to do with your ability to reproduce those high quality scoring chances. 

Crosby/Ovechkin/Stamkos etc. don't outscore everyone else because they simply take a lot of shots.  They produce higher quality scoring chances because they are able to do so, and thus they score more.

Jason Blake on the other hand shot a lot but didn't create quality scoring chances and didn't score very much.