Because shooting percentage has almost nothing to do with skill at the NHL level.
- James_Tanner

This couldn't be more false.

Except that's nonsense.

Do yourself a favour, Tanner:

Go to the NHL.com stats engine, and take a look at the guys of the top of the list for combined shooting percentage from the 2015-16 season to present. Eliminate all the guys with less than about 500 shots (because, you know, sample size).

Mark Scheifele
Patrick Laine
T.J. Oshie
Auston Matthews
Evgeni Malkin
Brayden Point (428 shots)
Adam Henrique (489 shots)
Brock Boeser (272 shots)
Artem Anisimov (417 shots)
Mark Stone (499 shots)
Brad Marchand
William Karlssson ((463 shots)
Leon Draisatl
Steven Stamkos
Anders Lee
Jamie Benn
Nikita Kucherov
Sean Monahan
Sidney Crosby
Connor McDavid
Nicklas Backstrom
Joe Pavelski

Take a good, hard look at the top 20, and then tell me again that shooting percentage has nothing to do with talent at the NHL level.

Or at least repeat that Beagle's shot is as good as Ovechkin's shot. That was another instant Tanner classic.
- Atomic Wedgie

Players with good shots score more than players with bad shots. WHO KNEW?

I think its to early to reverse the universal opinion that Arizona won the trade.
- james_tanner1

Is it too early to write off the Coyotes as legit Stanley Cup Contenders ?

Except that's nonsense.

Do yourself a favour, Tanner:

Go to the NHL.com stats engine, and take a look at the guys of the top of the list for combined shooting percentage from the 2015-16 season to present. Eliminate all the guys with less than about 500 shots (because, you know, sample size).

Mark Scheifele
Patrick Laine
T.J. Oshie
Auston Matthews
Evgeni Malkin
Brayden Point (428 shots)
Adam Henrique (489 shots)
Brock Boeser (272 shots)
Artem Anisimov (417 shots)
Mark Stone (499 shots)
Brad Marchand
William Karlssson ((463 shots)
Leon Draisatl
Steven Stamkos
Anders Lee
Jamie Benn
Nikita Kucherov
Sean Monahan
Sidney Crosby
Connor McDavid
Nicklas Backstrom
Joe Pavelski

Take a good, hard look at the top 20, and then tell me again that shooting percentage has nothing to do with talent at the NHL level.

Or at least repeat that Beagle's shot is as good as Ovechkin's shot. That was another instant Tanner classic.
- Atomic Wedgie

So Sean Monahan is a better shooter than Connor McDavid, and TJ Oshie is the third best shooter in the NHL?

Obviously some players have higher percentages than others, but shooting percentage is a luck based stats. You guys almost never seem to understand that statistics are all about probability, not 100% accurate predictions.

And the point I was making about Beagle vs Ovechkin was that what makes Ovechkin so good is not necessarily his shot, but his ability to get shots off.

If you look at all the best goal scorers, they are volume shooters. Beagle = if you knew him in real life = would have the best shot you'd ever seen. If they were in disguise in practice, you'd have a hard time identifying who was who - because they both have good shots. What separates Ovechkin is the ability to get 300 of them off in the NHL during game situations.

Obviously some players have higher percentages than others, but shooting percentage is a luck based stats. You guys almost never seem to understand that statistics are all about probability, not 100% accurate predictions.

- James_Tanner

Which is exactly what the list I provided you demonstrates. It's franking exactly what it demonstrates. To look at the list I provided (pretty much an all-star cast) and suggest it's nothing but luck is bizarre.

And the point I was making about Beagle vs Ovechkin was that what makes Ovechkin so good is not necessarily his shot, but his ability to get shots off.

- James_Tanner

Once again, this is simply nonsense. Ovi has deadly accuracy.

If you look at all the best goal scorers, they are volume shooters. Beagle = if you knew him in real life = would have the best shot you'd ever seen. If they were in disguise in practice, you'd have a hard time identifying who was who - because they both have good shots. What separates Ovechkin is the ability to get 300 of them off in the NHL during game situations.
- James_Tanner

Beagle would have an NHL-level shot. Yes, it would be much better than mine. But it still wouldn't be as good as Ovechkin's shot.

How exactly are you coming up with this conclusion? You've never seen an NHL shot live. You are simply making up crap to support your nonsensical opinion.

Ask any NHL goalie if there is a difference between Ovi's shot and Beagle's. They'll laugh you out of the room.

Galchenyuk has a nice a terrible 45% CF.

In English now please...

Galchenyuk's 5v5 shooting percentage is under 5% while Max Domi's is 20% so I think anyone claiming that Domi was a steal is either not doing their homework or they are not being fully honest about their analysis.

With the injuries and low shooting percentage, Galchenyuk's time in Arizona has gotten off to a slow start, but he's extremely talented and I still believe that he's a better player than Max Domi in the long run.


1-Who's lying to himself here...

2- based on ...?

Which is exactly what the list I provided you demonstrates. It's franking exactly what it demonstrates. To look at the list I provided (pretty much an all-star cast) and suggest it's nothing but luck is bizarre.


Once again, this is simply nonsense. Ovi has deadly accuracy.


Beagle would have an NHL-level shot. Yes, it would be much better than mine. But it still wouldn't be as good as Ovechkin's shot.

How exactly are you coming up with this conclusion? You've never seen an NHL shot live. You are simply making up crap to support your nonsensical opinion.

Ask any NHL goalie if there is a difference between Ovi's shot and Beagle's. They'll laugh you out of the room.
- Atomic Wedgie

You're completely missing my point on the Ovechkin thing. I was only trying to point out that its not the shot that makes Ovechkin the best, it's his ability to get it off. You just took it literally in a way you know I didn't mean and are foxnewsing me.

As for the shooting percentage thing, the whole list you provided is designed to prove your point, but its basically gaslighting. Players who take a lot of shots are going to be the better players and their shooting percentages are going to be higher than other players.

No one is saying that all players are equal and will revert to the league average at all times, but that is the position you are arguing to.

What I am saying, is that shooting percentage is a function of luck. Ovechkin might have a higher shooting percentage for his career than Anothony Duclair, but whether Ovechkin shoots above or below his career average on any given season or set of games is entirely beyond his control.


If the league average is 8% and Ovechkin's career average is 14% then all you'd have to do to defeat the point you're acting like I'm trying to make is say that.
If you were actually interested in a conversation, you wouldn't take the persons words and twist them in the stupidest way possible and argue against that, even though you know there is no way that's what they really mean.

Although, to be fair, I am exaggerating quite a bit to make my point, so I dunno, maybe you're being honest.

Which is exactly what the list I provided you demonstrates. It's franking exactly what it demonstrates. To look at the list I provided (pretty much an all-star cast) and suggest it's nothing but luck is bizarre.


Once again, this is simply nonsense. Ovi has deadly accuracy.


Beagle would have an NHL-level shot. Yes, it would be much better than mine. But it still wouldn't be as good as Ovechkin's shot.

How exactly are you coming up with this conclusion? You've never seen an NHL shot live. You are simply making up crap to support your nonsensical opinion.

Ask any NHL goalie if there is a difference between Ovi's shot and Beagle's. They'll laugh you out of the room.
- Atomic Wedgie

100% this. Tanner is full of crap and he just gives into his own confirmation bias about players and stats and other stuff like luck.

You're completely missing my point on the Ovechkin thing. I was only trying to point out that its not the shot that makes Ovechkin the best, it's his ability to get it off. You just took it literally in a way you know I didn't mean and are foxnewsing me.

As for the shooting percentage thing, the whole list you provided is designed to prove your point, but its basically gaslighting. Players who take a lot of shots are going to be the better players and their shooting percentages are going to be higher than other players.

No one is saying that all players are equal and will revert to the league average at all times, but that is the position you are arguing to.

What I am saying, is that shooting percentage is a function of luck. Ovechkin might have a higher shooting percentage for his career than Anothony Duclair, but whether Ovechkin shoots above or below his career average on any given season or set of games is entirely beyond his control.


If the league average is 8% and Ovechkin's career average is 14% then all you'd have to do to defeat the point you're acting like I'm trying to make is say that.
If you were actually interested in a conversation, you wouldn't take the persons words and twist them in the stupidest way possible and argue against that, even though you know there is no way that's what they really mean.
- James_Tanner

This is exactly what you have done for six (frank)ing years.

You're completely missing my point on the Ovechkin thing. I was only trying to point out that its not the shot that makes Ovechkin the best, it's his ability to get it off. You just took it literally in a way you know I didn't mean and are foxnewsing me.

- James_Tanner

This is simply hilarious.

It's not the accuracy.

It's not the power.

It's simply that he can get it off quicker.

Any chance it's a combination of all the above?

As for the shooting percentage thing, the whole list you provided is designed to prove your point, but its basically gaslighting. Players who take a lot of shots are going to be the better players and their shooting percentages are going to be higher than other players.

- James_Tanner

Better players get more shots because they get more ice time, and they do more with the ice time they have. It's part of what makes them better players.

No one is saying that all players are equal and will revert to the league average at all times, but that is the position you are arguing to.

What I am saying, is that shooting percentage is a function of luck. Ovechkin might have a higher shooting percentage for his career than Anothony Duclair, but whether Ovechkin shoots above or below his career average on any given season or set of games is entirely beyond his control.

- James_Tanner

Consistently, year after year, the better shooters finish with shooting percentages higher than average. It's a simple fact - go to NHL.com and run through their stats package. How the frank could you possibly be arguing this?

If the league average is 8% and Ovechkin's career average is 14% then all you'd have to do to defeat the point you're acting like I'm trying to make is say that.
If you were actually interested in a conversation, you wouldn't take the persons words and twist them in the stupidest way possible and argue against that, even though you know there is no way that's what they really mean.

Although, to be fair, I am exaggerating quite a bit to make my point, so I dunno, maybe you're being honest.
- James_Tanner

Your words are already presented in the stupidest way possible - I'm merely pointing it out.

But hey, James, I get it. Your knowledge of hockey is so shallow, you need the hook of the douchebag act to try to generate clicks. But I would suggest to you that it's a bit of a short-sighted strategy; your dream is to parlay this into an actual writing job that lifts you above the poverty line. But you need to be honest with yourself, James: no editor is going to look at your portfolio, see you so openly mocked in the comments, and think, "hey, we need to hire this guy."

A little bit of free communications profession advice, Jimmy.

This is simply hilarious.

It's not the accuracy.

It's not the power.

It's simply that he can get it off quicker.

Any chance it's a combination of all the above?


Better players get more shots because they get more ice time, and they do more with the ice time they have. It's part of what makes them better players.



Consistently, year after year, the better shooters finish with shooting percentages higher than average. It's a simple fact - go to NHL.com and run through their stats package. How the frank could you possibly be arguing this?


Your words are already presented in the stupidest way possible - I'm merely pointing it out.

But hey, James, I get it. Your knowledge of hockey is so shallow, you need the hook of the douchebag act to try to generate clicks. But I would suggest to you that it's a bit of a short-sighted strategy; your dream is to parlay this into an actual writing job that lifts you above the poverty line. But you need to be honest with yourself, James: no editor is going to look at your portfolio, see you so openly mocked in the comments, and think, "hey, we need to hire this guy."

A little bit of free communications profession advice, Jimmy.
- Atomic Wedgie

Bang on.

This is simply hilarious.

It's not the accuracy.

It's not the power.

It's simply that he can get it off quicker.

Any chance it's a combination of all the above?


Better players get more shots because they get more ice time, and they do more with the ice time they have. It's part of what makes them better players.



Consistently, year after year, the better shooters finish with shooting percentages higher than average. It's a simple fact - go to NHL.com and run through their stats package. How the frank could you possibly be arguing this?


Your words are already presented in the stupidest way possible - I'm merely pointing it out.

But hey, James, I get it. Your knowledge of hockey is so shallow, you need the hook of the douchebag act to try to generate clicks. But I would suggest to you that it's a bit of a short-sighted strategy; your dream is to parlay this into an actual writing job that lifts you above the poverty line. But you need to be honest with yourself, James: no editor is going to look at your portfolio, see you so openly mocked in the comments, and think, "hey, we need to hire this guy."

A little bit of free communications profession advice, Jimmy.
- Atomic Wedgie

This.

Whats a Tanner?

I called a guy a “Tanner” at the pub last night, he was pissed.

I think its to early to reverse the universal opinion that Arizona won the trade.
- james_tanner1

LOL! Yes, the knee jerk opinions of most hockey analysts did seem to share in your so called "universal" opinion. That was back in freaking June. Things have changed a bit sir, the proof is in the pudding.

For being nothing but a stat rube, you sure like to ignore the pertinent ones. Domi clearly out performing Galchenyuk.

Sure, might still be a bit too early to call the fight so to speak, but Domi's play is speaking volumes as to who the current favorite is.

This is simply hilarious.

It's not the accuracy.

It's not the power.

It's simply that he can get it off quicker.

Any chance it's a combination of all the above?


Better players get more shots because they get more ice time, and they do more with the ice time they have. It's part of what makes them better players.



Consistently, year after year, the better shooters finish with shooting percentages higher than average. It's a simple fact - go to NHL.com and run through their stats package. How the frank could you possibly be arguing this?


Your words are already presented in the stupidest way possible - I'm merely pointing it out.

But hey, James, I get it. Your knowledge of hockey is so shallow, you need the hook of the douchebag act to try to generate clicks. But I would suggest to you that it's a bit of a short-sighted strategy; your dream is to parlay this into an actual writing job that lifts you above the poverty line. But you need to be honest with yourself, James: no editor is going to look at your portfolio, see you so openly mocked in the comments, and think, "hey, we need to hire this guy."

A little bit of free communications profession advice, Jimmy.
- Atomic Wedgie

So true.

This is simply hilarious.

It's not the accuracy.

It's not the power.

It's simply that he can get it off quicker.

Any chance it's a combination of all the above?


Better players get more shots because they get more ice time, and they do more with the ice time they have. It's part of what makes them better players.



Consistently, year after year, the better shooters finish with shooting percentages higher than average. It's a simple fact - go to NHL.com and run through their stats package. How the frank could you possibly be arguing this?


Your words are already presented in the stupidest way possible - I'm merely pointing it out.

But hey, James, I get it. Your knowledge of hockey is so shallow, you need the hook of the douchebag act to try to generate clicks. But I would suggest to you that it's a bit of a short-sighted strategy; your dream is to parlay this into an actual writing job that lifts you above the poverty line. But you need to be honest with yourself, James: no editor is going to look at your portfolio, see you so openly mocked in the comments, and think, "hey, we need to hire this guy."

A little bit of free communications profession advice, Jimmy.
- Atomic Wedgie

Ha! You're so predictable, you didn't address any of my points and you continued to just attack my character. My favorite part is the tone you take while being completely wrong. Volume shooting is more important than shot quality, and shooting percentage are random. Hilarious, as usual.

I am not even going to argue with a person who has their mind made up and thinks that anyone who disagrees with them has some kind bias, deficiency or ulterior motive.

If you can't see that comparing two players when one is shooting under 5% and the other is shooting 20% isn't going to give you accurate answers, I can't help you.

I will say though, that if you were talking to any Coyotes fan who had watched Domi for the last three years and you characterized him as a guy who 'shows up to play every game' they would laugh in your face.

Lazy, selfish, plays when he feels like etc. That is how I imagine most Coyotes fans view him after three years. To be honest, he was so bad last year, so disinterested that Galchenyuk felt like 10x the player they deserved for him.
- James_Tanner

Nowhere in there did I mention that you had a deficiency, a bias or an ulterior motive. Your argument is invalid. But are you trying to tell us something?

Anyways, the same argument can be said that not one Canadiens fan would say that Galchenyuk ever played consistent hockey. He is the perfect example of a talented player with no work ethic whatsoever. No perseverance, no grit, no will to overcome his trials and tribulations. Any talented hockey player in this league will make something out of nothing if they truly put their minds to it and put in the work. No one ever saw that from Galchenyuk.

I'll take it for what it's worth that you say Coyotes fans would not feel the same about our assessment that he shows up every game. He seemed to have some pretty bad years over there. So don't discount my opinion of Galchenyuk showing up every 5-10 games, because I had faith in him at first. But 6 years of watching him to do the same old routine of scoring 3-4 points in games where the whole team was getting on the score sheet, and then not showing up for another 5-10 games. He gets useless points at useless times of the game and he rarely was a game changer.

Watching Domi this year, he's been the difference maker. He's either creating the chance or finishing the chance that gets this team back in the game, tied, or the lead. And even his pointless games, he's first on the puck, generating chances and back checking hard. More than we ever saw Chucky do.

And Chucky's shooting percentage is 7.3%. Not far off his 8.9% from last year. This is the Chucky you traded for. When his confidence is up, you'll get that career 12% shooting percentage I guarantee it. The kid can score. Max Domi's 17% isnt outrageous. He got 11.5% in his first year and then 8 and 6%. This is the Domi that was drafted. I see him hovering around 12% career as well. Like I said earlier, I know that shooting percentage is not sustainable, but neither was his 6% shooting percentage from last year.

Domi has made the most out of his change of scenery. Galchenyuk hasn't.

Galchenyuk will probably top out as a decent second line winger. Domi thrives in the spotlight, he's motivated in a high intensity market. Good for the habs on this trade.

Players don't appear to enjoy playing in Arizona, unless you don't like pressure and are comfortable being paid millions to live in obscurity. Works for some (OEL), but doesn't make for a good hockey market...Team's been a joke since Wayne came in to play coach and now they've handed the reigns to his gambling buddy. Truly the biggest tire fire in the sport and yet we're now talking about moving the Sens

Ha! You're so predictable, you didn't address any of my points and you continued to just attack my character. My favorite part is the tone you take while being completely wrong. Volume shooting is more important than shot quality, and shooting percentage are random. Hilarious, as usual.
- James_Tanner

He addressed your points. Grow up.

The point everyone is trying to make here is that shooting percentage is not random.

Let me break down scoring in hockey for you. Usually to score a goal, you have to get the goalie moving and out of position. Or, you can beat the goalie clean while he is in position with a perfectly placed shot. The reason why that list of players at the top of the shooting percentage column usually has the same cast of characters is that those are in fact your best shooters. Your best shooters aren't your best shooters because of their ability to get shots off as you say it is. It's entirely in their ability to read the game at a higher level than their peers. And in that way, they generally have really accurate, powerful shots and are able to pick those corners, fivehole, etc. Or they are really good at fooling the goalie on a breakaway attempt. Or, their higher skill level allows them to create passing plays with their linemates that gets the goalie moving and out of position for a higher shooting percentage shot on net.

He addressed your points. Grow up.

The point everyone is trying to make here is that shooting percentage is not random.

Let me break down scoring in hockey for you. Usually to score a goal, you have to get the goalie moving and out of position. Or, you can beat the goalie clean while he is in position with a perfectly placed shot. The reason why that list of players at the top of the shooting percentage column usually has the same cast of characters is that those are in fact your best shooters. Your best shooters aren't your best shooters because of their ability to get shots off as you say it is. It's entirely in their ability to read the game at a higher level than their peers. And in that way, they generally have really accurate, powerful shots and are able to pick those corners, fivehole, etc. Or they are really good at fooling the goalie on a breakaway attempt. Or, their higher skill level allows them to create passing plays with their linemates that gets the goalie moving and out of position for a higher shooting percentage shot on net.
- ChrisGoalie39

He knows he’s wrong sometimes. He keeps arguing because it drives up hits.

This is simply hilarious.

It's not the accuracy.

It's not the power.

It's simply that he can get it off quicker.

Any chance it's a combination of all the above?


Better players get more shots because they get more ice time, and they do more with the ice time they have. It's part of what makes them better players.





Consistently, year after year, the better shooters finish with shooting percentages higher than average. It's a simple fact - go to NHL.com and run through their stats package. How the frank could you possibly be arguing this?


Your words are already presented in the stupidest way possible - I'm merely pointing it out.

But hey, James, I get it. Your knowledge of hockey is so shallow, you need the hook of the douchebag act to try to generate clicks. But I would suggest to you that it's a bit of a short-sighted strategy; your dream is to parlay this into an actual writing job that lifts you above the poverty line. But you need to be honest with yourself, James: no editor is going to look at your portfolio, see you so openly mocked in the comments, and think, "hey, we need to hire this guy."

A little bit of free communications profession advice, Jimmy.
- Atomic Wedgie

Pretty sure his dream is to parlay his douchebag act into a seat between morning joe and Mika, on msnbc (where he will fit in perfectly alongside those lunatic liberal nut jobs).

After 40 minutes of play, score is

James Tanner 0
Atomic Wedgie 292

We'll be right back after these messages

After 40 minutes of play, score is

James Tanner 0
Atomic Wedgie 292

We'll be right back after these messages
- Not_Yan

yes but in his mind, Tanner is leading...

yes but in his mind, Tanner is leading...
- Xizord

Wouldn’t surprise me with his confirmation bias after rereading what he typed.