LOL Well, I've already dealt with this (and note that you could have ended this discussion LOOOOONG ago):
Ranger:
"So, whoever played better in MORE areas of the game outplayed the other team, as a whole? Is that what you're really saying??
So, all those things count the same: shots, goals, hits, faceoffs, takeaways, giveaways, GOALTENDING (which, apparently, is only *one* category in your list), dekes, point shots, can-openers, breakouts, offensive zone faceoffs, defensive zone faceoffs, breakaways, penalty killing, power plays ... all those things are measured equally. Who chooses what those categories are?? Who decides that spitting, or intimidating the officials isn't a part of the game? How do you determine who did that better?
Don't you think that's a bit silly??
Don't you think that's a flawed interpretation of the game? I certainly don't think it reflects reality.
'Cause in my reality, in the series we're now talking about, goaltending was clearly the most important factor. In your *analysis* of the game, goaltending counts the same as, say, one-time shots. In that case, that someone "outplayed" someone else is a pretty useless statement."
Goober:
"I don't understand your reasoning, therefore, that if a team has better statistics in all facets of the game except one, that one trumps them all and makes the latter team outplay the other."
Ranger:
"Hey, if your definition of "outplay" is what I've outlined above, we can stop this discussion.
I think it's utterly useless to any meaningful analysis of the game, but whatever.
IF, on the other hand, you propose that "outplay" includes all facets of the game *outside of goaltending*, and *in proper proportions*, we might be able to wrap this up. That would be fine. The statement would have some meaning, and I'd agree with it, insofar as as agrees with your definition of "outplay".
Just admit that when you say "outplay" you mean everything but goaltending. Fine. I've said this before. This is what you really mean. Because, when you factor in goaltending in its proper proportion, you're then taking EVERYTHING into account, and obviously, taking EVERYTHING into account, the Leafs outplayed the Senators - the Senators lost. (Or, are you back to the argument that everything counts the same - all hundred (thousand?) things that guys can do to win games all count for the same in the end?)"
There's no "correct" definition. We're into the realm of pure "opinion".
And it's my opinion that your definition of "outplay" is meaningless.
But, as Hammy Hamster said, "that's another story".