Thread by @JFreshHockey

It is in fact not misleading.

First of all, on the shooting percentage bit. The shooting percentage is clearly unsustainable. Nurse did not get better scoring chances this season on average but doubled his highest full-season scoring rate and sh%.

https://twitter.com/JasonGregor/status/1423732835005784066

If you watch the goals themselves, it's pretty clear from the number of five hole tricklers (and even an own goal) why this is the case

His point is that even if that shooting is unsustainable, it doesn't matter because his A/60 numbers dropped.

But his assist numbers didn't drop because of unsustainably bad luck. Quite the opposite: his linemates scored and finished at a much higher rate this season

Now we can try to figure out why those assist numbers went down - is it because Nurse's first shots going in prevented rebound goals that he would have received an assist on? Maybe. More likely is that things ran through Barrie more from the point IMO

But fixating on the P/60 number going upward is not stepping back and getting the wider picture, it's just ignoring what makes certain results sustainable or unsustainable.

And ultimately, it's a red herring anyway. D points are not a proper measure of their offensive ability, especially when a guy plays 73% of his minutes with a Hart Trophy winner.

The point is that Nurse's unsustainable shooting played a big role in getting him the elite rep...

...that got him this contract after not being considered an elite defenceman by anybody before the season began. The point of pointing out that shooting luck is a broader argument that the Oilers bought very very high on a player who was bound to fall back to earth.

xG models also see Nurse's offence as having improved in the past 3 seasons, puck luck or not. But contracts get signed based on goals, points, minutes, and reputation. If Nurse scored 8 goals this season would he have been 7th in Norris voting? Probably not.