Comments on: Why Scoring Chances Are Important

By: The Capitals Improvement on the PK in 2,000 Words

The Capitals Improvement on the PK in 2,000 Words — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:27:48 +0000

[...] all over the ice last season when the Caps were short-handed – especially outside of the “scoring chance” area. This year, it’s a different [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:27:35 +0000

“Scoring Chances” was invented by EA Sports so that people who sucked at NHL ’95 could feel good about themselves. “I lost 7-0, lost 5 fights, had 3 shots on goal, but I had 7 scoring chances! Whoo hoo!”

By: PainKiller

PainKiller — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:10:33 +0000

No, Neil, thanks for replying. I hope that over the course of time we will see others track this statistic and look at how interpreting a scoring chance has any significant affect on the bottom line.

I recall the quote “The best is the enemy of good.” (http://www.famous-quotes.net/Quote.aspx?The_perfect_is_the_enemy_of_the_good) I’ll shut up now.

All the best,

By: Russian Machine Never Breaks

Russian Machine Never Breaks — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:16:59 +0000

@JWare Corsi is the shot differential while a player was on the ice. This includes not just goals and shots on goal, but also missed and blocked shots — the differential in the total number of shots directed at the net. So a -6.76 Corsi means that for every 60 minutes that player is on the ice, the team will see ~7 more shots (incl goals, saved, missed and blocked) directed at their net. In essence, less time in the attacking zone and more playing defensively.

Now, if you’re asking specifically about MJ90, the number is actually WORSE than it looks, because he starts so often in offensive zone (~59%). But he is also a rookie, so that needs to be factored in as well.

By: JWare

JWare — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:14:42 +0000

Neil, what does having a -6.76 corsi mean? I’m assuming its bad…?

By: Russian Machine Never Breaks

Russian Machine Never Breaks — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:10:12 +0000

@PainKiller you bring up some good points, but I think I can boil it down to this:

We try to be as consistent as we can. George and I had almost identical counts for the WSH – NYR game, and with only 7 teams (we know of) being tracked by bloggers we don’t get the benefit of comparing notes as often as we like.

As for the chart above, those are just shots on goal recorded by the NHL, there is no “interpretation” of the stat. The only interpretation is by me sectioning off areas of the ice.

Thanks for reading!

-N

By: PainKiller

PainKiller — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:07:50 +0000

Because a scoring chance is, to some extent, subjective I’d like to know if there there would be a statistically significant difference in results if two or more independent charts were assembled.

It seems to me that there is room, though I don’t know how much, for numbers to differ. 1) “loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots,” 2) sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of “immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net,” 3) “Blocked shots are GENERALLY not included,” (Emphasis added.)

What about tip ins, or missed tip ins? What about a screened goalie? One can argue that what looks like a screened goalie might actually not be screened or vice versa, Depending on the screen a shot might result in a high quality scoring chance. Define a blocked shot? A non-goalie can block a shot in the crease. Does that count a scoring chance?

Probably a situation of this being a stat that is just “better than what was used.” But with so many variables and perspectives, I come back to my original question. How would independent reports look?

Thanks so much for everything you do. Love how you make me think about the game. Fantastic!

By: Colin

Colin — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:16:12 +0000

Thanks for the post Neil. I have a question about shots from outside the high quality area that lead to juicy rebounds inside the high chance area. I would imagine a good number of the high quality chances and probably an even higher percentage of the high-quality goals came following a nice rebound off a shot from a lower quality area. Is this somehow tracked or quantified? I think especially for centers and D-men, this would be an important indicator of worth regarding team offense.

Thanks again for the post Neil. PS, anyone you think we could pick up at the deadline that has a good SC/60?