Travis Yost: Inaccuracy or Shot-Blocking Issue?

I think this is why PM never cares about Shots Against and Shots For - he calculates based on scoring chances and Ottawa was giving up 3-4 more scoring chances per game then the season average.

Boston won the cup with one of the leagues worst shot differentials - I agree with PM this should be a scoring chance thing and not a shots thing

Slightly confused -- why are all teams above 50% on this chart?

I think this is why PM never cares about Shots Against and Shots For - he calculates based on scoring chances and Ottawa was giving up 3-4 more scoring chances per game then the season average.

Boston won the cup with one of the leagues worst shot differentials - I agree with PM this should be a scoring chance thing and not a shots thing
- tuna99

Are you referring to their Cup in 2011? They were a positive differential team that year ...

Slightly confused -- why are all teams above 50% on this chart?
- xnormajeanx

This isn't a possession chart. It's showing what percentage of a team's total shot attempts are actually shots on goal. It's higher than 50%, on average.

Travis Yost: Inaccuracy or Shot-Blocking Issue?
- Travis Yost

I still think consistency is what killed this team's chances at a playoff berth. I think there was a 6 week period in November & December where the team didn't win 2 games in a row, and all season long they only had 2 3 game win streaks, and 1 4 game win streak.

You're not going to have success in this league without being able to play and win games consistently. Fix that and they can find themselves in a wild card spot next season.

Clearly points to something systematic there, and again I would lean towards saying it isn't what our offense is doing so much as what our defense is not doing.

Based on the eyeball test, the defensive awareness just wasn't there throughout most of the lineup. Turris' line and whatever unit Condra played with tended to show good coverage, but our other two forward lines and our entire 6 man D rotation were rarely able to stay in position in their own zone for much of each game.

To me, the chart serves as proof of what I saw on the ice last year - this team leaves way too many guys wide open in shooting lanes (either the slot or a few feet to either side of our net). NHL players don't miss shot attempts from there very often when there is no one harassing them, and the sens often let them have it uncontested.

MacLean has to tighten up the coverage this season to see any improvement in the team defense category.

I still think consistency is what killed this team's chances at a playoff berth. I think there was a 6 week period in November & December where the team didn't win 2 games in a row, and all season long they only had 2 3 game win streaks, and 1 4 game win streak.

You're not going to have success in this league without being able to play and win games consistently. Fix that and they can find themselves in a wild card spot next season.
- PaskySens

This comment is one of those ridiculous, vague nonsense statements I expect to hear out of the talking heads on TV.

Consistency is not some magic concept you can attempt to fix. Specific mistakes are. When you repeatedly make dumb mistakes, you don't win consistently.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying "if they played better more, they would win more". It's not wrong, it just doesn't add anything.

This isn't a possession chart. It's showing what percentage of a team's total shot attempts are actually shots on goal. It's higher than 50%, on average.
- Travis Yost

Thanks!

Yost, can you help me understand this diagram better? Teams with higher light blue are letting a higher percentage of shots through, while teams with the higher dark blue are getting a higher percentage of shots through? Is that right or am I confused?

Yost, can you help me understand this diagram better? Teams with higher light blue are letting a higher percentage of shots through, while teams with the higher dark blue are getting a higher percentage of shots through? Is that right or am I confused?
- jtommyt

Dark blue would be the percentage of shot attempts that are actually shots on goal. So, higher number obviously better -- the more shots on goal, the more goals.

Light blue is the reverse. Percentage of shot attempts against that are actually shots on goal. So lower number obviously better -- the less shots on goal (and more shots missed or blocked), the less goals.

Nothing new happening on the Robin Lehner front, eh?

Clearly points to something systematic there, and again I would lean towards saying it isn't what our offense is doing so much as what our defense is not doing.

Based on the eyeball test, the defensive awareness just wasn't there throughout most of the lineup. Turris' line and whatever unit Condra played with tended to show good coverage, but our other two forward lines and our entire 6 man D rotation were rarely able to stay in position in their own zone for much of each game.

To me, the chart serves as proof of what I saw on the ice last year - this team leaves way too many guys wide open in shooting lanes (either the slot or a few feet to either side of our net). NHL players don't miss shot attempts from there very often when there is no one harassing them, and the sens often let them have it uncontested.

MacLean has to tighten up the coverage this season to see any improvement in the team defense category.
- TommyDeVito

This goes hand in hand with the shot blocking. The gap control was brutal, and you can't block a shot if you're not in the shooting lane. Were the defenders being too aggressive and not getting back into position? Were they not communicating well, leading to missed assignments? Were some guys not thinking and reacting fast enough (JC, CP, I'm looking at you)? I'm not sure that MacLean purposely told them not to block shots, it looks like they put themselves in positions where they couldn't. Maybe a symptom more than a cause?

This goes hand in hand with the shot blocking. The gap control was brutal, and you can't block a shot if you're not in the shooting lane. Were the defenders being too aggressive and not getting back into position? Were they not communicating well, leading to missed assignments? Were some guys not thinking and reacting fast enough (JC, CP, I'm looking at you)? I'm not sure that MacLean purposely told them not to block shots, it looks like they put themselves in positions where they couldn't. Maybe a symptom more than a cause?
- Stringer74

This could very well be accurate..

But then you ask -- well, why weren't they in position? Is it sheer DZ crappiness?

Dark blue would be the percentage of shot attempts that are actually shots on goal. So, higher number obviously better -- the more shots on goal, the more goals.

Light blue is the reverse. Percentage of shot attempts against that are actually shots on goal. So lower number obviously better -- the less shots on goal (and more shots missed or blocked), the less goals.
- Travis Yost

So looking only at this chart, Nashville and Calgary both have significant positive splits here but weren't playoff teams at all... I'm surprised that something like this doesn't seem to correlate better with team success.

So looking only at this chart, Nashville and Calgary both have significant positive splits here but weren't playoff teams at all... I'm surprised that something like this doesn't seem to correlate better with team success.
- jtommyt

Possession matters. Even with positive differentials here, you can't run sub 50% and expect to make the playoffs. It happens every year with a couple/few teams, but it's the exception and not the rule. And those teams generally get their clock cleaned anyway.

The team I find interesting is Anaheim. Super average possession club with great splits here and great percentages. Will be interesting to see where they fall next year.

Do they have a 'corsi' stat for when the shooter is in a prime scoring area? Maybe there is a layer of info within the data that may be more telling. Like, did Ottawa shoot more from the outside or were they just bad at shooting in general last year.

This could very well be accurate..

But then you ask -- well, why weren't they in position? Is it sheer DZ crappiness?
- Travis Yost

Could be. Also what about coaching? Who is the defensive coach, and is he any good? Is he asking them to keep this much gap? Are they confused with what they've been told to do?

Possession matters. Even with positive differentials here, you can't run sub 50% and expect to make the playoffs. It happens every year with a couple/few teams, but it's the exception and not the rule. And those teams generally get their clock cleaned anyway.

The team I find interesting is Anaheim. Super average possession club with great splits here and great percentages. Will be interesting to see where they fall next year.
- Travis Yost

So if Calgary could find a way to clone Giordano, Brodie, and Backlund to boost our possession numbers and still manage to post splits like this we'd be a contender?

Do they have a 'corsi' stat for when the shooter is in a prime scoring area? Maybe there is a layer of info within the data that may be more telling. Like, did Ottawa shoot more from the outside or were they just bad at shooting in general last year.
- riceroni

I've seen about fifty games worth of team scoring chance data from last year (which is the home plate area of shots for/against) and it's pretty comparable to Corsi%, as we would expect.

There may be truth to the fact that the team isn't a great shooting percentage club -- I think that's a fair concession at this point. I think it's minor on the scale of things here though.

So if Calgary could find a way to clone Giordano, Brodie, and Backlund to boost our possession numbers and still manage to post splits like this we'd be a contender?
- jtommyt

Good way to accomplish that is sign Engelland and trade for Bollig........................

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

This comment is one of those ridiculous, vague nonsense statements I expect to hear out of the talking heads on TV.

Consistency is not some magic concept you can attempt to fix. Specific mistakes are. When you repeatedly make dumb mistakes, you don't win consistently.

Your statement is the equivalent of saying "if they played better more, they would win more". It's not wrong, it just doesn't add anything.
- TommyDeVito

To play devil's advocate, it does add something to the picture. The statistics used for this article are well made but are based on averages. Averages do include the ups and downs. Since the stats are not moving averages, meaning they don't give periodical averages a couple months at a time, you actually can't measure the consistency. Adding a comment about consistency adds a qualitative adjective to the averages calculated for this article. Obviously, its a generic comment, but saying that it adds nothing to the discussion is statistically false.

To play devil's advocate, it does add something to the picture. The statistics used for this article are well made but are based on averages. Averages do include the ups and downs. Since the stats are not moving averages, meaning they don't give periodical averages a couple months at a time, you actually can't measure the consistency. Adding a comment about consistency adds a qualitative adjective to the averages calculated for this article. Obviously, its a generic comment, but saying that it adds nothing to the discussion is statistically false.
- PtotheY

But the failed logic here is the suggestion that 'consistency' is a factor unto itself; that you can just try to be 'more consistent'. Impossible. It's akin to having 'more compete'. Consistency is a result of making changes to improve elements of the team. If they play tighter defense, shot blocks will rise, shots on goal will fall, goals against will fall, and more wins will occur, therefore resulting in consistently winning more games. Playing smart, fast, winning puck battles, moving it up ice, getting shots and scoring chances is a great way to have 'more compete'.

Do they have a 'corsi' stat for when the shooter is in a prime scoring area? Maybe there is a layer of info within the data that may be more telling. Like, did Ottawa shoot more from the outside or were they just bad at shooting in general last year.
- riceroni

Based on this, their shooting was about average.

Their shots allowed on goal was terrible.

But the failed logic here is the suggestion that 'consistency' is a factor unto itself; that you can just try to be 'more consistent'. Impossible. Consistency is a result of making changes to improve elements of the team. If they play tighter defense, shot blocks will rise, shots on goal will fall, goals against will fall, and more wins will occur, therefore resulting in consistently winning more games.
- Stringer74

this is what I'm getting at.

"Consistency" does not stand up on it's own as a quality of a team in the generic sense.

You can say "did they consistently limit scoring chances against?" and measure that data's variation over a season, but I'd be willing to bet that this team, based on what I watched last season, was absolutely consistent.

Consisently bad in their own zone. Let's not pretend that the team played like world beaters in their victories and like sivs in their defeats. It was the same type of play, just varying results.