Hradek loves the Wings

[auxlepli 17]

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...ame%3dhradek_ej

This season, Mike Babcock's team has picked up where it left off last year. Through their first 12 games, the Wings have already compiled a league-best 141-shot differential. That number is nearly double of the next best club (the Rangers are second with a plus-72 shot differential).

I knew the Wings had a big advantage in this category but I didn't realize it was that impressive.

Which team has the largest goal differential? Scotty Bowman says that's a good indicator how well a team is playing.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...ame%3dhradek_ej

I knew the Wings had a big advantage in this category but I didn't realize it was that impressive.

Which team has the largest goal differential? Scotty Bowman says that's a good indicator how well a team is playing.

I wish that mattered come playoff time. Let's face it, if shot differential meant winning, then we'd win about 70 games each year. Come playoff time, it's scoring the clutch goals that counts. This statistic doesn't surprise me, and it doesn't impress me anymore either, since it has become common with the Wings. But, it's better than giving up way more shots than you're receiving, so I'll take it.

[Heaton 1]

I wish that mattered come playoff time. Let's face it, if shot differential meant winning, then we'd win about 70 games each year. Come playoff time, it's scoring the clutch goals that counts. This statistic doesn't surprise me, and it doesn't impress me anymore either, since it has become common with the Wings. But, it's better than giving up way more shots than you're receiving, so I'll take it.

It does matter, a lot. The more shots you take is an indicator of how much you are in the offensive zone as opposed to the defensive zone. So far this year the Wings have basically camped out in the opponents zone for long stretches during the game and in turn it wears the other team out and suffocates them ot death.

The problem in years past like against Anaheim in 2004 and Edmonton in 2006 is the Wings defense wasn't nearly as stingy as it has been since Babcock put his stamp on the team. If this were 2004, then sure, big shot totals don't mean much if there's defensive breakdowns. But this year? When you're throwing 40 shots and only giving up 15? Yeah, it's really impressive.

[WingNutt 12]

I can't stand Hradek, the guy doesen't know the game for spit

[goredwings 4]

I can't stand Hradek, the guy doesen't know the game for spit

Really and I think you have lost you mind.

IF we could get a goalie with a save percentage better than .800 then we would without a doubt win 70 games a year but until then we can only win 50. Sigh.

[Guest Hatethedrake!]

Scoring chances is a much better indicator how how well a team is playing. I mean think about it. A player can go in all alone on a break away and hit the goal post and it doesn't count as a shot on goal. Whereas a player can shoot the puck from centre ice on goal and it counts as a shot even though it has no chance of going in unless of course Dan Cloutier is playing. I wish there was a stat for time of possession in the offensive zone as well. We all know, being Wings fans, that they control the puck most of the time. We win most of our face offs and we keep the puck more than other teams do. Our transition game is second to none and we kill teams with our quick passing. It's tough for teams to match up with us if we are skating hard and hustling and winning the 1 on 1 battles. It's no fluke why the Wings win so many games.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Hatethedrake!

[irishtemper14+25 11]

yea the announcers were talking about this the another night and i was shocked as to how many behind the next team was

[Dabura 12,232]

Scoring chances is a much better indicator how how well a team is playing.

Not really. The shots differential is a "holistic stat"; it can help you see the big picture, e.g. "Team A's offense generally overpowered Team B's defense." It's harder to get a good feel for what's going on if you're just looking at scoring chances -- at least half of which can usually be chalked up to individual players' brain farts, which are rarely indicative of their teams' overall performance.

[WingNutt 12]

Really and I think you have lost you mind.

IF we could get a goalie with a save percentage better than .800 then we would without a doubt win 70 games a year but until then we can only win 50. Sigh.

did you read any of his articles from last years playoffs??

[Guest Canadian Wings]

hradek is alright, i think he does like the wings tho lol

i prefer scott burnside more, if anyone from ESPN

i think most of them are idiots.

[Bluedevils_13 0]

I love this quote by Hradek in the article....

The 27-year-old forward is absolutely challenging Sidney Crosby for the unofficial title of league's best player.

[Kp-Wings 3]

That's something you don't often see. The media actually being pro-Red Wings.

I guess the next lunar eclipse has come early.

[BlueMonk 102]

It is very impressive, at least with this particular team. They're going to the net, taking quality shots. The Red Wings teams that struggled to score in the playoffs were putting up a ton of shots, but they were the kind that came from the perimeter and in situations where the goalie wasn't being screened. The stat can be misleading in situations like that.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Not really. The shots differential is a "holistic stat"; it can help you see the big picture, e.g. "Team A's offense generally overpowered Team B's defense." It's harder to get a good feel for what's going on if you're just looking at scoring chances -- at least half of which can usually be chalked up to individual players' brain farts, which are rarely indicative of their teams' overall performance.

I'm not quite sold on that. I believe scoring chances tell a different story, a more true story as to how the game was. For instance, if the Wings are playing the Ducks, and outshoot them 50-10, that sounds like the Wings dominated the play. But if the Ducks actually had 10 shots that hit the post, and a few breakaways to give them say 20 scoring chances to the Wings 5, that tells me that the Ducks were more in the game than the shot total says.

Shot totals are very deceiving. No doubt when the shot difference is as drastic as the Wings have put up thus far this season, it does count for something. However, when the Wings outshoot the opponent 40-15, but scoring chances are even, it means the game was up for grabs.

Look at it like this. Take a high powered offensive team like the 83' Oilers, put them against the '95 Devils, who is gunna get more shots on goal? But does that mean the Oilers would win? As we all know, that '96 Devils team was pretty good.

[goredwings 4]

did you read any of his articles from last years playoffs??

I did not. I do know that hradek has been around this game long enough to know what he is talking about and is not afraid to say what he thinks good or bad.

[Dabura 12,232]

The shot differential stat isn't perfect, obviously. But the scoring chances stat is every bit as liable to be misleading or altogether unenlightening. If we're going to use hypotheticals -- say a team is on the short end of six 5-on-3 situations, and those situations yield 20 scoring chances for the opposition, giving them an enormously lopsided scoring chances "edge" by game's end. Does it necessarily follow that the team on the good end of those situations just flat-out overwhelmed the other team with superior play? Nope.

Really, though, this discussion's pretty silly.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Dabura

[Dabura 12,232]

Double.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Dabura