It's just not true. They've outscored the opposition every single year but one. They've been over 50% xG every year but two. This includes the last couple of years. The actual GF% is much more important than the xg% here as we're looking at an 8 year 4400 minute sample we're they been outperforming it every single time. This likely has a lot to do with Kreider consistently outperforming his xG because his deflections and screens are not properly accounted for.
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Year[/TD]
[TD]TOI[/TD]
[TD]CF%[/TD]
[TD]GF%[/TD]
[TD]xg%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
1617
[/TD]
[TD]
295
[/TD]
[TD]
53.8
[/TD]
[TD]
53.3
[/TD]
[TD]
57.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
1718
[/TD]
[TD]
453
[/TD]
[TD]
54.9
[/TD]
[TD]
48.6
[/TD]
[TD]
56.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
1819
[/TD]
[TD]
668
[/TD]
[TD]
50.1
[/TD]
[TD]
55
[/TD]
[TD]
53.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
1920
[/TD]
[TD]
448
[/TD]
[TD]
52.1
[/TD]
[TD]
57.1
[/TD]
[TD]
48.2
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
2021
[/TD]
[TD]
389
[/TD]
[TD]
48.2
[/TD]
[TD]
51.9
[/TD]
[TD]
48
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
2122
[/TD]
[TD]
969
[/TD]
[TD]
50.2
[/TD]
[TD]
57.1
[/TD]
[TD]
51.5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
2223
[/TD]
[TD]
626
[/TD]
[TD]
53.3
[/TD]
[TD]
63.6
[/TD]
[TD]
54.8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
2324
[/TD]
[TD]
528
[/TD]
[TD]
50.7
[/TD]
[TD]
59.2
[/TD]
[TD]
50.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
They have outscored the opposition 105-72 the last three years, 57-36 the last two years, and 29-20 this year. Why do we constantly have to talk about breaking these guys up? Because we don't like how it looks? Whatever they're doing is working and has worked for a very long time.