- Feb 3, 2015
- 4,244
- 4,913
xGF% indicates more about a teams system/coaching or team play than it does the individual talent of it's players. It's kind of a "how well is the team playing if you ignore the actual score?" stat. There's so much volatility(or luck) in goal-tending and goal-scoring on a game to game basis, xGF% attempts to remove those variables and quantify what is left over.
Teams with a good xGF% are good at maintaining possession and creating chances in the offensive zone, while also minimizing offensive possession and chances against.
And conversely teams with poor xGF% are bad at maintaining possession and creating chances in the offensive zone, while also allowing a lot of offensive possession and chances against.
That's why you get teams like Carolina who consistently dominate the xGF% rankings season after season. They are well coached and play a strong system that they execute to a high level. But they lack high end offensive talent on the roster, so their finishing lags their chance generation.
And then you have the Sabres. Consistently poorly coached, no team cohesion or execution of a system. But they have a lot of incredible scoring talent. So they outscore their xGF.
Teams with a good xGF% are good at maintaining possession and creating chances in the offensive zone, while also minimizing offensive possession and chances against.
And conversely teams with poor xGF% are bad at maintaining possession and creating chances in the offensive zone, while also allowing a lot of offensive possession and chances against.
That's why you get teams like Carolina who consistently dominate the xGF% rankings season after season. They are well coached and play a strong system that they execute to a high level. But they lack high end offensive talent on the roster, so their finishing lags their chance generation.
And then you have the Sabres. Consistently poorly coached, no team cohesion or execution of a system. But they have a lot of incredible scoring talent. So they outscore their xGF.
