Bio not provided
@wendelsfist No, that's not quite it.
1 year, 2 months ago on <!--:en-->An Addendum on Friday Morning’s Scoring Chance Post<!--:-->
@Anthony Petrielli I'm planning on going through it. Haven't looked into it much, but those were just two examples I pulled because both sites are notorious for having pretty quirky data.
If somebody ever points out that Martin Brodeur has a real low career save percentage, just point out that they probably under count shots in New Jersey.
@MLHS_Luke It's a situation that's clearly caused a lot of confusion.
Generally I use scoring chances because they sync up well with possession statistics. It's a good way to get people involved in analytics since they see how much the data syncs up. Over 48 games... perhaps it didn't as well as I'd hoped.
There is still no indication that suppressing scoring chances relative to total shots is a team-level talent. That has yet to be shown.
Some of your conclusions can be explained by arena bias. Arenas track shot locations different. MSG is notorious for putting shots very close to the net. New Jersey had 218 "scoring chances" on the road and just 165 at home. The Rangers had 211 on the road but an amazing 267 at home.
There just isn't the consistency in any way of tracking for us to conclude that ANY of this is at all relevant to the future.