Perfect example.

I gave two examples above - one man forecheck and keeping the net-front unclogged by conceding it.

Another of course is the defensive responsibility of the centers. Before, they had full license to get up ice when they started to smell a change of possession.

Now, they support and stay below the puck until possession is assured, and then the breakout is methodical enough that all those mythological failed zone exits people are talking about with the so-called lack of puck moving defensemen don't even end up in odd man catastrophes that tax Fleury because there's guys sitting back.
- hardnosed

Actually it's a poor example. Just go to score adjusted numbers to eliminate that noise from the sample.

Kind of fits what they're doing. They're not trying to be a perfect defensive team, chasing the puck and challenging every play. They're sagging back, playing sound and good, and letting their insanely talented goalie handle his business without dealing with the onslaught he used to sometimes get overwhelmed by.
- hardnosed

By that I mean there is evidence for what works and what doesn't. You want a perfect explanation before you'll believe the numbers. Unfortunately, most things in life you won't get a fail-proof option so you go with the best option available. Limiting shot attempts/shots/scoring chances is the best known way to have a good defense.

By that I mean there is evidence for what works and what doesn't. You want a perfect explanation before you'll believe the numbers. Unfortunately, most things in life you won't get a fail-proof option so you go with the best option available. Limiting shot attempts/shots/scoring chances is the best known way to have a good defense.
- jfkst1

To go back to my international relations theory stuff, reductionist vs structural theories. To bring it to hockey, theories for hockey success that discount numbers because of their imperfection and less than 100% accurateness are reductionist. They're theories created based on observed facts to fit specific circumstances, meaning that they are case specific to individual games due to the infinite amount of on-ice occurrences. Because of the tons of stuff that happen in a game that make a team prevail, when you throw out the numbers and say "well you just have to play like this" it's difficult and near impossible to pick out specific variables that made the team successful. For example, we're talking a lot about quality scoring chances vs. not quality ones. What goes into making a scoring chance superior to another one? What does a player have to do to deny quality scoring chances? The answer is so many different things that its not quantifiable and variables can't be isolated. Thus the theory loses its function of predicting future out comes because you can't isolate variables to be tested. At the end of the day, all you've really described is how a team played in rout to the victory, without creating a theory for future victories. All you can really say is "play that exact same game step by step and you will win again". That statement is not useful.

Stats fix this problem. Stats are, in essence, a grossly simplified recap of what happened on the ice. Through this major simplification you reduce the number of variables that you are working with. Thus the domain of concern is neatly bound and organized allowing the mythical maker of the on ice theory of success to concentrate on central tendencies and single out strong propelling forces. Because of the simplified nature of these structural-type theories, they are not 100% accurate the way a reductionist/descriptive theory is, but unlike the reductionist theory which can only be applied to one particular instance, or in this case game, structural theories can be used to predict future outcomes since they are grounded on central tendencies.

Despite its name, political science is not a science, and neither is hockey. That is why, to have a functioning theory for success, you must always always have context. When using the eye test without numbers, you get a reductionist theory that can't predict future out comes. When using numbers without the eye test, you get a theory that can predict future out comes but one that may not be grounded in reality which is equally useless. When used together, you might just end up with a theory for on ice success that can predict the majority, although not all, of future outcomes.

it was a joke but ok...
- martox

There's a slight difference between both sides of this story. Neither are off the mark. Goals are random, infrequent events; shot attempts happen far more frequently than goals. Here's the catch - the 1415 season data was summarized/ aggregated data and can not be used to offer insight into the game level. Here, the unit of analysis was the team (goals/shots). Its fair to say there is positive correlation between shot attempts and goals. The Chi - St. Louis (game) example is a different unit of analysis. A game. One would need all 2460 game data to properly analyze at this level. Further, the game data could include counts by period, or time elapsed, or include home/away, 5v5, PP, PK, score, opponent, etc.... All these elements impact the state of the game, how each team is individually playing, and in explaining differentials in G and S. In theory, one can never answer this question w/ 100% certainty; it can only be estimated. As an example, pulling from econometrics, this is like estimating whether education increases individual earnings.

Right now, the Pens (on average) require 13.70 shots in order to tally a goal. Currently there are only 4 clubs behind Pgh in shot rates per goal. At the other end of the spectrum, Bos is capitalizing on every 8 shots. Mtl every 8.51. These are near meaningless averages - because no-one would be able to concretely explain the difference in rates between Bos and Pgh. How many rolls of a dice does one need in order to land a six?

This topic offers a good chance to turn the conversation from volume to efficiency. Efficiency measures (e.g. goal rates off passes; scoring chances p/ zone entry; scoring chances from OZ draws, etc..) are the next iteration of NHL stats and are already starting to outpace the puck possession mantra. This is good progress!!! Efficiency measures can incorporate style of play/ quality of chances like hardnosed suggested. Goals are determenistic in that they are the result of a sequence of linked events. Understanding/ analyzing these series of events can help teams refine their on-ice strategies. Teams already do this for zone exits/ entries and NZ transitions. The modern game is like a chess match; one team is trying to maximize efficiency, while the other is trying to minimize it. Simultaneously, of course.

There's a slight difference between both sides of this story. Neither are off the mark. Goals are random, infrequent events; shot attempts happen far more frequently than goals. Here's the catch - the 1415 season data was summarized/ aggregated data and can not be used to offer insight into the game level. Here, the unit of analysis was the team (goals/shots). Its fair to say there is positive correlation between shot attempts and goals. The Chi - St. Louis (game) example is a different unit of analysis. A game. One would need all 2460 game data to properly analyze at this level. Further, the game data could include counts by period, or time elapsed, or include home/away, 5v5, PP, PK, score, opponent, etc.... All these elements impact the state of the game, how each team is individually playing, and in explaining differentials in G and S. In theory, one can never answer this question w/ 100% certainty; it can only be estimated. As an example, pulling from econometrics, this is like estimating whether education increases individual earnings.

Right now, the Pens (on average) require 13.70 shots in order to tally a goal. Currently there are only 4 clubs behind Pgh in shot rates per goal. At the other end of the spectrum, Bos is capitalizing on every 8 shots. Mtl every 8.51. These are near meaningless averages - because no-one would be able to concretely explain the difference in rates between Bos and Pgh. How many rolls of a dice does one need in order to land a six?

This topic offers a good chance to turn the conversation from volume to efficiency. Efficiency measures (e.g. goal rates off passes; scoring chances p/ zone entry; scoring chances from OZ draws, etc..) are the next iteration of NHL stats and are already starting to outpace the puck possession mantra. This is good progress!!! Efficiency measures can incorporate style of play/ quality of chances like hardnosed suggested. Goals are determenistic in that they are the result of a sequence of linked events. Understanding/ analyzing these series of events can help teams refine their on-ice strategies. Teams already do this for zone exits/ entries and NZ transitions. The modern game is like a chess match; one team is trying to maximize efficiency, while the other is trying to minimize it. Simultaneously, of course.
- out_of_market

This was an interesting and well thought out post. I did not know that hockey metrics were making those sorts of advances. That kind of analysis would be quite useful.

What goes into making a scoring chance superior to another one? What does a player have to do to deny quality scoring chances? The answer is so many different things that its not quantifiable and variables can't be isolated.
- Victoro311

Odd man breaks. Screened goalies. Cross ice passes that force the goalie to move laterally.

To deny quality scoring chances, you don't take risks. You play a position game. You stay back on defense an extra second instead of rushing the breakout. You exit the zone in a controlled, puck-supported way, with fewer risky stretch passes.

Basically all the things the Penguins are doing right now.

Odd man breaks. Screened goalies. Cross ice passes that force the goalie to move laterally.

To deny quality scoring chances, you don't take risks. You play a position game. You stay back on defense an extra second instead of rushing the breakout. You exit the zone in a controlled, puck-supported way, with fewer risky stretch passes.

Basically all the things the Penguins are doing right now.
- hardnosed

The Pens might be more efficient on defense like out of market referenced. But if they are playing defense all the time, it doesn't really matter because those quality chances are going to materialize eventually anyway.

Odd man breaks. Screened goalies. Cross ice passes that force the goalie to move laterally.

To deny quality scoring chances, you don't take risks. You play a position game. You stay back on defense an extra second instead of rushing the breakout. You exit the zone in a controlled, puck-supported way, with fewer risky stretch passes.

Basically all the things the Penguins are doing right now.
- hardnosed

And yet we're still bottom 5 in scoring chances against? What explains that? What's the use in giving up offensive chances if it is only leading to a higher proportion of chances going against us? We're not only reducing our offensive output, we're increasing the burden on Fleury significantly. That he is doing the best he ever has doesn't justify allowing significantly more scoring opportunities playing this way, regardless of the reason.

And yet we're still bottom 5 in scoring chances against? What explains that? What's the use in giving up offensive chances if it is only leading to a higher proportion of chances going against us? We're not only reducing our offensive output, we're increasing the burden on Fleury significantly. That he is doing the best he ever has doesn't justify allowing significantly more scoring opportunities playing this way, regardless of the reason.
- cygnus41

Because stats are equating shots as a chance when that is simply not the case, especially at the NHL.
The other team can shoot all the pucks they want from the perimeter for all I care, those shots arent going in 99% of the time.

Because stats are equating shots as a chance when that is simply not the case, especially at the NHL.
The other team can shoot all the pucks they want from the perimeter for all I care, those shots arent going in 99% of the time.
- stackthepads

Scoring chances and high danger scoring chances aren't from the perimeter. I also find it amusing how some think the Penguins, and no other teams, have figured out a way to defend dangerous shot attempts especially effectively. As if opponents play differently against the Penguins because the defense is so stifling. The reality is Fleury is playing well enough to compensate.

Despite the overwhelming game flow domination by LAK, this game has been a spirited contest! After two periods, CBJ is winning 2-1 (this counts going the entire 2nd period w/out being credited for a single shot on goal). The CF% is 70/30 and SOGs are 23/9 LAK-CBJ.

Despite the overwhelming game flow domination by LAK, this game has been a spirited contest! After two periods, CBJ is winning 2-1 (this counts going the entire 2nd period w/out being credited for a single shot on goal). The CF% is 70/30 and SOGs are 23/9 LAK-CBJ.
- out_of_market

Finding individual situations that break the standard proven probability is getting really pissy from you guys.

I can picture you playing blackjack... you get a 20 and stand versus a dealer 6.. she flips an 11, then boom 21... then you swear off the statistics and rules of blackjack in such a hissy fit because the eye test of that one hand made ya lose.

So... 1 game sample trumps using an entire season of data? The hell man, you can't be that stupid.

Its a prediction tool... 15 teams with more then the average shots... 10 of them had more then the average goals. You can't argue or debate that, its a statistic, not a magic crystal ball or a genie.
- Guile

Guile you obviously didn't read my reply to your "statistic" of proven theory the other day so I'll show you again. Don't be afraid to read it my friend, I know you will be a little disappointed!

The link to your 'evidence' - http://www.hockey-referen...com/leagues/NHL_2015.html

Oh Guile,


So did you actually have a look at the information you linked? You are taking averages - averages it appears are analytical certainties!

So in your belief of more shots = more goals, or at least what appears to be your truth!

The higher the shots the more goals? Is that a fair interpretation of your information?

So the most goals should have pretty much the most shot totals? Least goals least shots? Is that what you are saying?

Top shots - 2777 = 16th goals
2nd shots - 2771 = 4th goals
3rd shots - 2614 = 13th goals
4th shots - 2582 = 3rd goals
5th shots - 2558 = 2nd goals
6th shots - 2546 = 23rd goals

Notable exceptions that have higher shots totals than the highest goal scorer:
2524 shots = 27th in goals
2516 shots = 25th in goals

Wow! Most shot total were the Hawks & they weren't even top 10 goal scorers they were 16th!!! 33 goals behind first but 349 shots more??

I could go on but........

I won't even go into a game by game evaluation or even a goal per shot summary in a game.

It must be pointed out they are totals & don't separate goals per shot totals! Some games may have 4 goals with 25 shots others 1 goal with 45 shots. It appears you don't consider each game is it's own sample size either - what happens today has no effect next week in reality although it is counted in the totals we are talking about! A games stats today has what actual effect in a SCF game?

More shots = more goals (you just proved my point ).

Maybe most shots for & least against wins you Stanley?
- Aussiepenguin

Finding individual situations that break the standard proven probability is getting really pissy from you guys.

I can picture you playing blackjack... you get a 20 and stand versus a dealer 6.. she flips an 11, then boom 21... then you swear off the statistics and rules of blackjack in such a hissy fit because the eye test of that one hand made ya lose.
- Guile

Read my reply Guile, it's not targeting 1 game - unlike your 1 example of what you consider evidence!! 5 of the losing teams today outshot the teams that beat them.

Edit: Your 1 off individual situations occur on a daily basis - what's that old Monty Python Life of Brian line..........

There's a slight difference between both sides of this story. Neither are off the mark. Goals are random, infrequent events; shot attempts happen far more frequently than goals. Here's the catch - the 1415 season data was summarized/ aggregated data and can not be used to offer insight into the game level. Here, the unit of analysis was the team (goals/shots). Its fair to say there is positive correlation between shot attempts and goals. The Chi - St. Louis (game) example is a different unit of analysis. A game. One would need all 2460 game data to properly analyze at this level. Further, the game data could include counts by period, or time elapsed, or include home/away, 5v5, PP, PK, score, opponent, etc.... All these elements impact the state of the game, how each team is individually playing, and in explaining differentials in G and S. In theory, one can never answer this question w/ 100% certainty; it can only be estimated. As an example, pulling from econometrics, this is like estimating whether education increases individual earnings.

Right now, the Pens (on average) require 13.70 shots in order to tally a goal. Currently there are only 4 clubs behind Pgh in shot rates per goal. At the other end of the spectrum, Bos is capitalizing on every 8 shots. Mtl every 8.51. These are near meaningless averages - because no-one would be able to concretely explain the difference in rates between Bos and Pgh. How many rolls of a dice does one need in order to land a six?

This topic offers a good chance to turn the conversation from volume to efficiency. Efficiency measures (e.g. goal rates off passes; scoring chances p/ zone entry; scoring chances from OZ draws, etc..) are the next iteration of NHL stats and are already starting to outpace the puck possession mantra. This is good progress!!! Efficiency measures can incorporate style of play/ quality of chances like hardnosed suggested. Goals are determenistic in that they are the result of a sequence of linked events. Understanding/ analyzing these series of events can help teams refine their on-ice strategies. Teams already do this for zone exits/ entries and NZ transitions. The modern game is like a chess match; one team is trying to maximize efficiency, while the other is trying to minimize it. Simultaneously, of course.
- out_of_market

Is Drake Berehowsky that someone that will progress the data available?

I still propose that no matter what, it's up to the goalie. The goalie is the only factor that determines definitively if there is a goal or not.

Maybe it's the case of studying each goalies reactions to shots & in game actions that will help teams score. 1 goalie may eat up shots of 1 type while 2 others struggle with the same. Start studying goalies tendencies more & you may find gold at the end of the rainbow. Goalies hold & are the key!

Why ignore a potential problem and wait until it actually becomes one and we start losing games? Would you rather rely on one player (Flower) to win games, or an entire team? There's nothing wrong with what the penguins are doing right now as long as Flower keeps up a SV% of over .936. Even though we are winning and earning points I'd rather us suppress more shots and take the burden of off MAF a little which I believe we will.
- Victoro311

Now do you see the fact we are all going to die a 'potential' problem? Do we just give up now - I see no, I repeat, NO solution to the 'potential' problem!!!

(frank) man get a grip, we are winning & if the time comes & your 'potential' problem knocks us out of the race - I'll be the first to say it!

Every team have issues of some type - ours? We are winning & giving up shots & our goalie is going pretty good! Would you rather us going back to that old gem of 'injuries'?

Oh, & stick those so & so's up your so & so!

I prefer to use available information rather than infinite possibilities. Realistically, Pens are depending way too much on their goalies. And they should expect a decline in the goaltending they are getting- not a sustainment.
- jfkst1

I wouldn't think that Zatkoff can withstand a 50 shot onslaught where a lot of good scoring chances are present without giving up a goal or 3 (don't people around here preach more shots more goals?). Would you? It's a 1 off, but it's still valid as it happened. Now he either played Price like or the chances he stopped were not good chances. If they weren't good chances in 50 shots that's says something about the D. Let's put things into prospective shall we? Your stats are average based stats over large sample sizes that are corrupt. Games completed show exact events that cannot be disputed taking those individual events as that. The larger the sample size with your advanced stats the more corrupt they become. Take each game on its own merit & review it that way. Each opposition is different & again is it's own event - how can you compare 29 other teams when you only play 1?

Eh... Crosby needs to get back into his shoot first mentality that he had years ago. I have nothing against his ability to pass and set up great chances, but a lot of the passes hes making creates a chance no better then what he had if he shot, if the play doesn't get broken up before his winger shoots.
- Guile

The reason he isn't shooting enough is that he does not have confidence in his sticks, they are breaking too much. When he gets that straightened out he will shoot more.

Anyone see the high hit Neal had on Parise? Once a Dbag always a Dbag.

Anyone see the high hit Neal had on Parise? Once a Dbag always a Dbag.
- sammy87

I didn't think it was that bad honestly. Though knowing Neal, I'm sure it was with the intent to injure.

I didn't think it was that bad honestly. Thought knowing Neal, I'm sure it was with the intent to injure.
- jfkst1

Still should have gotten more when we traded him.

I didn't think it was that bad honestly. Thought knowing Neal, I'm sure it was with the intent to injure.
- jfkst1

I only saw a bad angle on it but he did go high regardless.

Still should have gotten more when we traded him.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Honestly, PH straight up is still a win IMO. Neal never had that much effort and was 1 dimensional. Despite his 40g season, the Pens still sucked pretty hard in the playoffs during his time.

Honestly, PH straight up is still a win IMO. Neal never had that much effort and was 1 dimensional. Despite his 40g season, the Pens still sucked pretty hard in the playoffs during his time.
- sammy87

I wouldn't go that far. Neal has elite talent. There's a reason Spaling was thrown into the trade too. I don't miss Neal's cheap shots or injuries but his skill set is impressive.

I've always thought the scoring chance stat is a farce. I mean, what constitutes a scoring chance exactly? Is a shot from the blue line a scoring chance? It has a real chance of going in. What about a shot from the centre line or defensive zone on an empty net with the oppositions goalie pulled? How about a shot from the high slot that gets blocked by a defenders leg or stick? Or how about when a shot hits the post? that's not technically a shot on net...but is it a chance?