Game 41: Kings vs. Ducks - 4/13/13 - Crazy Regulation Win! 2-1

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
49,271
37,351
SoCal
The discussion of *advanced stats* proved the gap between Ducks fans and everyone else.

All it proved was the inclination for a team's fans to defend its success. That isn't a new phenomenon, and no fanbase on here would behave any differently.

It's funny, because the argument against the Kings' cup run is in somewhat the same vein as the Ducks' early success, and the defense of each from the respective fanbases has been roughly the same as well.
 

RonSwanson*

Guest
All it proved was the inclination for a team's fans to defend its success. That isn't a new phenomenon, and no fanbase on here would behave any differently.

It's funny, because the argument against the Kings' cup run is in somewhat the same vein as the Ducks' early success, and the defense of each from the respective fanbases has been roughly the same as well.

The only similarity is that people called them both lucky.

LA was lucky they had no injuries.

Ducks were lucky because they had an unsustainable shooting percentage.

The difference is Kings fans didn't deny that claim while Ducks fans did and still do. Even when your coach literally said it was true.
 

Winger23

Registered User
May 3, 2007
5,759
623
The only similarity is that people called them both lucky.

LA was lucky they had no injuries.

Ducks were lucky because they had an unsustainable shooting percentage.

The difference is Kings fans didn't deny that claim while Ducks fans did and still do. Even when your coach literally said it was true.

Perfect example right here.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
49,271
37,351
SoCal
The only similarity is that people called them both lucky.

LA was lucky they had no injuries.

Ducks were lucky because they had an unsustainable shooting percentage.

The difference is Kings fans didn't deny that claim while Ducks fans did and still do. Even when your coach literally said it was true.

The premise is that both teams played at a higher level for 20 odd games than is maybe indicative of the team as a whole. The kings showed spurts of that last season, but in a very large sample size weren't the team that they showed in the playoff run. Really, it's a very close and interesting comparison.

Does that mean they aren't as good as that playoff run? No. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don't see kings fans acknowledging that anywhere, but there shouldn't be an obligation to.

The difference in our opinions is that I don't expect a team's fans to find fault in winning, because, why should they? Success is fleeting enough to try and find something wrong with it. The notion that Anaheim fans are the only ones that behave that way is naive at best, however.
 

Chazz Reinhold

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
9,214
3,141
The Stanley Cup
The premise is that both teams played at a higher level for 20 odd games than is maybe indicative of the team as a whole. The kings showed spurts of that last season, but in a very large sample size weren't the team that they showed in the playoff run. Really, it's a very close and interesting comparison.

Does that mean they aren't as good as that playoff run? No. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don't see kings fans acknowledging that anywhere, but there shouldn't be an obligation to.

The difference in our opinions is that I don't expect a team's fans to find fault in winning, because, why should they? Success is fleeting enough to try and find something wrong with it. The notion that Anaheim fans are the only ones that behave that way is naive at best, however.
The difference is that the Kings actually WERE one of the best teams last season (especially the last 20 games and throughout the playoffs) when it came to those advanced stats that the Ducks' fans abhor. Ducks most certainly are not at the top of those rankings. The Kings, once again, are the top team when it comes to those advanced stats.

The comparison you're making is not valid because people actually have a legitimate reason to call the Ducks' success "lucky."

http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2011.php?sort=6&section=close

http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2012.php?sort=6&section=close

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/20...ferential-score-adjusted-fenwick-nhl-playoffs

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/4/8/pdo-numbers-by-nhl-team-apr-8
 

RonSwanson*

Guest
The premise is that both teams played at a higher level for 20 odd games than is maybe indicative of the team as a whole. The kings showed spurts of that last season, but in a very large sample size weren't the team that they showed in the playoff run. Really, it's a very close and interesting comparison.

Does that mean they aren't as good as that playoff run? No. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don't see kings fans acknowledging that anywhere, but there shouldn't be an obligation to.

The difference in our opinions is that I don't expect a team's fans to find fault in winning, because, why should they? Success is fleeting enough to try and find something wrong with it. The notion that Anaheim fans are the only ones that behave that way is naive at best, however.

NO ONE here will tell you that Terry Murray Kings last year were a Cup caliber team. We all know that the team had a dramatic surge when they replaced coaches, brought up Nolan and King, and traded for Carter.

So rather than be one of those ignorant doubters who wants to use the Terry Murray half season in your argument, I'll save you the trouble. Don't.

LA in the second half of the season last year was the top team and that continued into the playoffs.
 

Puck U

2012 SC CHAMPIONS !
Aug 2, 2005
8,344
1
Apple Valley, CA.
Anyway, to the bigger point: Lewis has seemed to me to be faster than last year. Especially last night. Dude still can't finish though, and it's really beginning to scare me. I can't recall the last time the 3rd line scored...yet it is getting plenty of ice time last few games.

KING - Mar 25 '13 LAK @ CHI
STOLL - Mar 25 '13 LAK @ CHI
LEWIS - Mar 28 '13 LAK @ STL

That line could really use a better complimentary player than D. King IMO, Stoll and Lewis have been pretty good together, but King really isn't bringing much to that line, he's not even using his size to help create much space out there for the other two, as it's more been Stoll and Lewis's speed doing that, I kind of like Clifford with them but Cliffy and Stoll and the same line is begging for a Penalty to happen, so ? Maybe try switching Nolan and King ? or maybe Toffoli ?
 

Raccoon Jesus

We were right there
Oct 30, 2008
63,358
66,191
I.E.
NO ONE here will tell you that Terry Murray Kings last year were a Cup caliber team. We all know that the team had a dramatic surge when they replaced coaches, brought up Nolan and King, and traded for Carter.

So rather than be one of those ignorant doubters who wants to use the Terry Murray half season in your argument, I'll save you the trouble. Don't.

LA in the second half of the season last year was the top team and that continued into the playoffs.

Not trying ot be a contrarian because I am a big fan of advanced stats myself, but to be fair to the ducks, results only, the Boudreau Ducks have a similar record to the Sutter Kings.
 

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
49,271
37,351
SoCal
The difference is that the Kings actually WERE one of the best teams last season (especially the last 20 games and throughout the playoffs) when it came to those advanced stats that the Ducks' fans abhor. Ducks most certainly are not at the top of those rankings. The Kings, once again, are the top team when it comes to those advanced stats.

The comparison you're making is not valid because people actually have a legitimate reason to call the Ducks' success "lucky."

http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2011.php?sort=6&section=close

http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2012.php?sort=6&section=close

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/20...ferential-score-adjusted-fenwick-nhl-playoffs

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/4/8/pdo-numbers-by-nhl-team-apr-8

There are always different ways to look at advanced stats, however. As an avid sabremetric baseball fan, I know that just as well as you do. For one thing, a hot goalie can skew numbers all on his own. LA had a .924 save percentage installed in its advanced stats. This year it's just .902. How much do you attribute that to a hot run or a slow start?

Last year LA was dead last in shooting percentage. This year, 11th. Do you attribute that fluctuation as an adjustment to the mean, or are the players just shooting better?

In fact, LA's shooting percentage has fluctuated more from last year to this year than Anaheim's. Does that mean anything? I don't know. Do you?

The point wasn't to get into a math argument, but more an interesting commentary on what you denounce as ridiculous really not being any different than what goes on here, if with different tangents.
 
Last edited:

Chazz Reinhold

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
9,214
3,141
The Stanley Cup
There are always different ways to look at advanced stats, however. As an avid sabremetric baseball fan, I know that just as well as you do. For one thing, a hot goalie can skew numbers all on his own. LA had a .924 save percentage installed in its advanced stats. This year it's just .902. How much do you attribute that to a hot run or a slow start?

Last year LA was dead last in shooting percentage. This year, 11th. Do you attribute that fluctuation as an adjustment to the mean, or are the players just shooting better?

In fact, LA's shooting percentage has fluctuated more from last year to this year than Anaheim's. Does that mean anything? I don't know. Do you?

The point wasn't to get into a math argument, but more a an interesting commentary on what you denounce as ridiculous really not being any different than what goes on here, if with different tangents.

Fair enough. My comments were more geared towards the majority of Ducks fans that seem to get genuinely offended when people say the Ducks have been the beneficiary of decent luck this season. I wasn't trying to single you out. Obviously statistics can be interpreted in any number of different ways. When Kings fans point to the Ducks being lucky this season, they're pointing to the same underlying numbers that say the Kings weren't a fluke winning the Cup last season, and I think that's where the difference is.

And I think the two examples you brought up regarding the Kings have pretty simple explanations: Quick's back surgery and a "full" season under Sutter's system compared to Murray's with some regression to the mean mixed in there.
 

cyclones22

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
5,044
5,550
Eastvale
Not trying ot be a contrarian because I am a big fan of advanced stats myself, but to be fair to the ducks, results only, the Boudreau Ducks have a similar record to the Sutter Kings.

Boudreau is a very good coach. But his style hasn't proven to be successful in the playoffs yet, where style of play really tightens up. His teams to me are akin to the Steve Nash run Phoenix Suns. Elite regular season teams, but come playoff time, come up short. The pace and physicality is completely different in the post-season. That being said, if your goaltender is off, you're toast anyway unless your offense is overwhelming.

Crazy stuff happens in work stoppage shortened seasons. Who the heck would've thought that both the Leafs and Canadiens would be near the top of the EC standings? I thought the Ducks could be back in the playoffs, but certainly not a top 2 seed. But no training camps and out of shape/injured players is the great equalizer to start a season. You establish chemistry before other teams do, and you're off to the races.

As far as the Kings being lucky or just a hot team and won the Cup that way, that notion should now be dispelled. With this season's success combined with last season's finish (even discounting the Cup run), the Kings have been an elite team going 37-19-7 in the regular season. That's a 105 point pace. With the playoff run included, it's a 50+ win season and 112 point pace. All the while dominating the league in advanced stats as well. This ain't a hot streak. This is 83 games. Adding Sutter, King and Nolan changed the Kings direction. Adding Carter changed the Kings fortunes and made the team truly elite. The record doesn't lie. The statistical numbers don't lie. The names of the Kings on the Cup don't lie either.

Remember 10 games into the season when the Kings were the worst team to ever win the Cup? Now, according the latest HF poll, the Kings are the community's 4th most favored team to win it all. Funny how quick things change. Of course, short of winning it all again, the hivemind will be back in full force in quick fashion, I'm sure. I only lament on how good this team would be if Mitchell and Greene were healthy. So it goes.
 

Chazz Reinhold

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
9,214
3,141
The Stanley Cup
Boudreau is a very good coach. But his style hasn't proven to be successful in the playoffs yet, where style of play really tightens up. His teams to me are akin to the Steve Nash run Phoenix Suns. Elite regular season teams, but come playoff time, come up short. The pace and physicality is completely different in the post-season. That being said, if your goaltender is off, you're toast anyway unless your offense is overwhelming.

Crazy stuff happens in work stoppage shortened seasons. Who the heck would've thought that both the Leafs and Canadiens would be near the top of the EC standings? I thought the Ducks could be back in the playoffs, but certainly not a top 2 seed. But no training camps and out of shape/injured players is the great equalizer to start a season. You establish chemistry before other teams do, and you're off to the races.

As far as the Kings being lucky or just a hot team and won the Cup that way, that notion should now be dispelled. With this season's success combined with last season's finish (even discounting the Cup run), the Kings have been an elite team going 37-19-7 in the regular season. That's a 105 point pace. With the playoff run included, it's a 50+ win season and 112 point pace. All the while dominating the league in advanced stats as well. This ain't a hot streak. This is 83 games. Adding Sutter, King and Nolan changed the Kings direction. Adding Carter changed the Kings fortunes and made the team truly elite. The record doesn't lie. The statistical numbers don't lie. The names of the Kings on the Cup don't lie either.

Remember 10 games into the season when the Kings were the worst team to ever win the Cup? Now, according the latest HF poll, the Kings are the community's 4th most favored team to win it all. Funny how quick things change. Of course, short of winning it all again, the hivemind will be back in full force in quick fashion, I'm sure. I only lament on how good this team would be if Mitchell and Greene were healthy. So it goes.
You should post more often. Your posts are always top notch.
 

tsanuri

Registered User
Jun 27, 2012
6,823
342
Central Coast CA
There are always different ways to look at advanced stats, however. As an avid sabremetric baseball fan, I know that just as well as you do. For one thing, a hot goalie can skew numbers all on his own. LA had a .924 save percentage installed in its advanced stats. This year it's just .902. How much do you attribute that to a hot run or a slow start?

Last year LA was dead last in shooting percentage. This year, 11th. Do you attribute that fluctuation as an adjustment to the mean, or are the players just shooting better?

In fact, LA's shooting percentage has fluctuated more from last year to this year than Anaheim's. Does that mean anything? I don't know. Do you?

The point wasn't to get into a math argument, but more an interesting commentary on what you denounce as ridiculous really not being any different than what goes on here, if with different tangents.

I think just the fact of how much better the power play is doing compared to last year would raise the percentage. And I know just about every Kings fan is happy that Kompon didn't get resigned. And I think most would agree that with the talent the Kings have that last year it under-preformed. But with only 49 goals last year on the power play and 30 this year at what is the halfway mark is huge.
 

OCSportsfan

Registered User
Sep 30, 2011
1,474
273
I only took offense because of the comment that Ducks fans were uninformed and bandwaggons. This just is not true, as was my comment about Kings fans starting to like them when Wayne was traded for.

Every team board in here has fans that are uninformed and "homers" where their team can do no wrong. We all admit there are Ducks fans that are like that, but if you actually read our site, I rarely see many who think this team is the top team in the division. We have the 2nd most points but have many issues. We have more people complaining about the GM, the line up and our coach than your site from what I have seen. Yes, as with every site, we love when we win and hate when we lose, and often times look for an excuse. That is natural and I have read it here.

Many Ducks fans, including myself just do not think the advanced stats are a catch all for success. All it shows is what "should" happen in the games based on shots, etc. It has nothing to do with our record, I would have the same opinion if we were in last. There are too many variables that go into a hockey game to assume the team with the best stats should win the cup.

I for one thought the Kings were the best team going into the playoffs last year and bet on them to win the cup. They were not lucky, they just played great (similar to the Ducks run). This year I think they are probably the best team in the West, and although I would love to see a playoff series wtih them, I hope we dont have to play them until the Conference finals. But to say the Ducks are lucky to have the record we have, well that is just wrong.
 

bobafettish*

Guest
maybe you shouldn't go on to other teams boards, just a thought.
 

MOGlLNY

Registered User
Jan 5, 2008
12,365
12,682
I only took offense because of the comment that Ducks fans were uninformed and bandwaggons. This just is not true, as was my comment about Kings fans starting to like them when Wayne was traded for.

Every team board in here has fans that are uninformed and "homers" where their team can do no wrong. We all admit there are Ducks fans that are like that, but if you actually read our site, I rarely see many who think this team is the top team in the division. We have the 2nd most points but have many issues. We have more people complaining about the GM, the line up and our coach than your site from what I have seen. Yes, as with every site, we love when we win and hate when we lose, and often times look for an excuse. That is natural and I have read it here.

Many Ducks fans, including myself just do not think the advanced stats are a catch all for success. All it shows is what "should" happen in the games based on shots, etc. It has nothing to do with our record, I would have the same opinion if we were in last. There are too many variables that go into a hockey game to assume the team with the best stats should win the cup.

I for one thought the Kings were the best team going into the playoffs last year and bet on them to win the cup. They were not lucky, they just played great (similar to the Ducks run). This year I think they are probably the best team in the West, and although I would love to see a playoff series wtih them, I hope we dont have to play them until the Conference finals. But to say the Ducks are lucky to have the record we have, well that is just wrong.

Respectable answer and I understand where you are coming from, I would hate to be labeled as someone who just started liking the Kings after they won the cup last year. :handclap:
 

OCSportsfan

Registered User
Sep 30, 2011
1,474
273
maybe you shouldn't go on to other teams boards, just a thought.

Point taken, but then how could I ever hear the other side of the story.

Also, I started as a Kings fan in the 80's, so I do have a bit of an interest in their team. It seems like these boards have the most insight, and many of you do know what you are talking about.
 
Jul 29, 2003
31,823
5,598
Saskatoon
Visit site
Boudreau is a very good coach. But his style hasn't proven to be successful in the playoffs yet, where style of play really tightens up. His teams to me are akin to the Steve Nash run Phoenix Suns. Elite regular season teams, but come playoff time, come up short. The pace and physicality is completely different in the post-season. That being said, if your goaltender is off, you're toast anyway unless your offense is overwhelming.

This is pretty true, but we'll have to wait a bit before we throw out Boudreau's system entirely. His Washington teams never wanted to seem to play defense, and never had good goaltending. You look this year, where Anaheim's one of the top shot blocking teams in the league, one of the better teams in terms of keeping shots away from their goalies, and two pretty solid netminders to boot. That already is a huge difference. His system might simply not be a good playoff system, or he simply might have been at the helm of a team that simply wasn't built for the playoffs. We'll see.

As far as advanced stats go, I know some Ducks fans, myself included, mainly take offense at the notion of what those stats attempt to imply. The Ducks don't have a great Fenwick or Corsi, so it's assumed they're not that great of a team. But it's worth pointing out that both of those stats have two potentially fatal flaws, and that's that the thing they measure and the thing they attempt to measure are not necessarily the same thing. Both of those stats attempt to measure possession, however they don't necessarily measure that, they measure attempted shots. When you have a team like the Ducks, who are very selective of their shots and don't put a lot on net, and who also encourage a lot of shots from low percentage areas, you know right away they're going to be on the lower end of those stats. With a lot of their shots being quality scoring chances, and the lack of shots they take, it's not too surprising their shooting percentage is high.
 

Chazz Reinhold

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
9,214
3,141
The Stanley Cup
This is pretty true, but we'll have to wait a bit before we throw out Boudreau's system entirely. His Washington teams never wanted to seem to play defense, and never had good goaltending. You look this year, where Anaheim's one of the top shot blocking teams in the league, one of the better teams in terms of keeping shots away from their goalies, and two pretty solid netminders to boot. That already is a huge difference. His system might simply not be a good playoff system, or he simply might have been at the helm of a team that simply wasn't built for the playoffs. We'll see.

As far as advanced stats go, I know some Ducks fans, myself included, mainly take offense at the notion of what those stats attempt to imply. The Ducks don't have a great Fenwick or Corsi, so it's assumed they're not that great of a team. But it's worth pointing out that both of those stats have two potentially fatal flaws, and that's that the thing they measure and the thing they attempt to measure are not necessarily the same thing. Both of those stats attempt to measure possession, however they don't necessarily measure that, they measure attempted shots. When you have a team like the Ducks, who are very selective of their shots and don't put a lot on net, and who also encourage a lot of shots from low percentage areas, you know right away they're going to be on the lower end of those stats. With a lot of their shots being quality scoring chances, and the lack of shots they take, it's not too surprising their shooting percentage is high.
I get where you're coming from and, honestly, I used to share the same viewpoint. The more I've read about relevance of advanced statistics, the more I've come around. The main reason people point to Fenwick is because it is a strong indicator of successful teams. Having a strong Fenwick percentage correlates heavily to winning.

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/4/4/4178716/why-possession-matters-a-visual-guide-to-fenwick
 

LAX attack*

Guest
This just shows my point. Ducks fans are not educated about Boudreau teams. In fact, they haven't watched that one program that basically showed why he is a crappy coach. Anyone who has played a sport will understand this - a dude who yells and screams and curses like Boudreau will inevitably get tuned out over the long run as a silly blowhard. And that's exactly what the Caps did, at first they responded well but then he lost credibility. SAme thing happening with the Ducks. IMO that team is just delaying a longer rebuild.
 
Jul 29, 2003
31,823
5,598
Saskatoon
Visit site
This just shows my point. Ducks fans are not educated about Boudreau teams. In fact, they haven't watched that one program that basically showed why he is a crappy coach. Anyone who has played a sport will understand this - a dude who yells and screams and curses like Boudreau will inevitably get tuned out over the long run as a silly blowhard. And that's exactly what the Caps did, at first they responded well but then he lost credibility. SAme thing happening with the Ducks. IMO that team is just delaying a longer rebuild.

That would actually describe a guy like Ken Hitchcock, who always seems to have a good deal of success and then eventually loses the room. He's a great coach, but there's a reason he moves around a decent bit. With Boudreau, you are actually the one who doesn't seem to lack in education. Boudreau came into the Caps as an ultimate players coach, which seemed like a good idea considering some of the guys in that room, and after they were failing in the playoffs, he tried to turn into a defensive-minded disciplinarian in 2011-2012, hence their terrible start and his firing soon after. You can't go from a player's coach to a tough coach in front of the same guys, you won't be taken seriously. That's exactly what happened in Washington, and they had an immediate turnaround last year after an even tougher Dale Hunter came in.

Don't believe everything you see on an edited TV show. 24/7 was probably the worst thing to happen to him, as HBO painted him as a loudmouth who swore and yelled at everyone. Wasn't really that true. And even if it was, we're still in the phase where it leads to winning. Considering how long Carlyle lasted despite being well worse in that regard, I'm fine with it.

I get where you're coming from and, honestly, I used to share the same viewpoint. The more I've read about relevance of advanced statistics, the more I've come around. The main reason people point to Fenwick is because it is a strong indicator of successful teams. Having a strong Fenwick percentage correlates heavily to winning.

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2013/4/4/4178716/why-possession-matters-a-visual-guide-to-fenwick

To be honest, I agree, and like the concept, although I'd much rather see the league track actual puck possession times along with time spent in the zone. I see the Ducks as an exception rather than the rule that disproves Fenwick/Corsi, they're clearly a team whose strategy conflicts with the theory Fenwick/Corsi supports. I don't even think it's a Boudreau thing, they had similar tendencies under Carlyle.

And even for those Ducks fans who don't understand those advanced stats that well, can you really blame them for acting out? Their team's enjoying success, and watching the games they know their guys are typically playing pretty well. Then you have a bunch of people who know nothing of their team or style of play telling them they get outplayed every game and are only good because they're lucky(not all, but a vocal minority stated that for sure). Any fan, rational or otherwise, would probably take offense to that.
 

Chazz Reinhold

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
9,214
3,141
The Stanley Cup
To be honest, I agree, and like the concept, although I'd much rather see the league track actual puck possession times along with time spent in the zone. I see the Ducks as an exception rather than the rule that disproves Fenwick/Corsi, they're clearly a team whose strategy conflicts with the theory Fenwick/Corsi supports. I don't even think it's a Boudreau thing, they had similar tendencies under Carlyle.

And even for those Ducks fans who don't understand those advanced stats that well, can you really blame them for acting out? Their team's enjoying success, and watching the games they know their guys are typically playing pretty well. Then you have a bunch of people who know nothing of their team or style of play telling them they get outplayed every game and are only good because they're lucky(not all, but a vocal minority stated that for sure). Any fan, rational or otherwise, would probably take offense to that.

That's a pretty fair point. Actual puck possession time would be great, but it seems like shot differential is the best indicator until they actually start tracking time with the puck (which will happen eventually; I mean, it has to, right?). It's definitely possible that the Ducks are an exception to the "rule."

When you put the reaction to the "lucky" card that way, it does make sense. I don't think people are trying to say the Ducks are terrible, because any team with Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Selanne, Palmieri, etc. is not going to be terrible. I think people are trying to show that the Ducks have overachieved based on a framework that seems to explain teams' successes fairly well.
 
Jul 29, 2003
31,823
5,598
Saskatoon
Visit site
That's a pretty fair point. Actual puck possession time would be great, but it seems like shot differential is the best indicator until they actually start tracking time with the puck (which will happen eventually; I mean, it has to, right?). It's definitely possible that the Ducks are an exception to the "rule."

When you put the reaction to the "lucky" card that way, it does make sense. I don't think people are trying to say the Ducks are terrible, because any team with Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Selanne, Palmieri, etc. is not going to be terrible. I think people are trying to show that the Ducks have overachieved based on a framework that seems to explain teams' successes fairly well.

You would think so, but there were quite a few proclaiming that the Ducks really weren't a good team at all, and it's not too hard to see why. They finished low last year, aren't a high profile team, and then went in this year and put up a high PDO and a low Fenwick, which right away would alert some people. Those who knew the team and watched them play knew they were simply more fortunate than some others, but others flat out proclaimed they were the next team to get hot and bottom right out.

Stuff like this is bound to happen with advanced stats making it's foray into hockey, though. Too many people(well, one is too many, really) who want to use them to appear superior to others and be condescending, rather than using them to further learn the game and gain an understanding of certain aspects. It'll phase out eventually.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad