HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Relevance of the statistic S% (I guess direct meaning % of shots scored)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-22-2012, 11:42 AM
  #1
mahonistan*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Relevance of the statistic S% (I guess direct meaning % of shots scored)

Gretzky once said something along the lines of you don't score on every shot you don't take (IE the Rangers a lot this year haha). However he also scored on 25 % of his shots in his prime and led the league in shots almost every year at the time. So if you have a guy like Ovechkin who takes 6-8 shots a game and maybe scores in 2 out of 3 games, does that not make him a superstar if he on scores 2 goals on 22 shots on average over 2-3 games? I would love a dude on the Rangers who could do that. Some dude the other day was talking to me about the importance of S% and my thought was "if that's the case than Avery and Rupp are the best players on the team this year as they have the highest S%" I don't know what do you guys think about it?

mahonistan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:45 AM
  #2
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,486
vCash: 500
Avery and Rupp have a small sample size. I find it generally useless, because not every shot is the same.

Rangers Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:45 AM
  #3
AdamBanks99
MinnesotaMiracleMan
 
AdamBanks99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 360
vCash: 500
shooting percentage is definitely important. all you have to do is look at dubinsky. if he was scoring at the same clip he was last year he would have 14 goals instead of 8 and even more if he was shooting more.

AdamBanks99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:46 AM
  #4
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 920
Keep in mind shot% isn't negatively affected by shots NOT on net.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:47 AM
  #5
mahonistan*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2d View Post
Keep in mind shot% isn't negatively affected by shots NOT on net.
That's true IE Boyle shooting wide or hitting the post.

mahonistan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:47 AM
  #6
mahonistan*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamBanks99 View Post
shooting percentage is definitely important. all you have to do is look at dubinsky. if he was scoring at the same clip he was last year he would have 14 goals instead of 8 and even more if he was shooting more.
I haven't seen Dubi get the shots he was getting last year though.

mahonistan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:51 AM
  #7
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,659
vCash: 500
Awards:
Shooting percentage tends to normalize when you see a big deviation. If a guy shoots 11% for his career and then has a season where he scores 45 goals on 19% shooting, you can reasonably expect his numbers to dip the next year, as his performance returns to a more normal level. The opposite is true, like in Dubinsky's case--he's well below his career average, and it's reasonable to expect him to bounce back next year.

Obviously things like injury and declining (or improving) skills can have a lasting impact on shot percentage, but usually these things stay relatively constant. It's why you don't give up on a guy like Dubs after one bad year.

nyr2k2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:02 PM
  #8
mahonistan*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
So do you take the guy who scores 50 goals on 20% yearly or the guy who scored 50 on 10% yearly?

mahonistan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:07 PM
  #9
AdamBanks99
MinnesotaMiracleMan
 
AdamBanks99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahonistan View Post
So do you take the guy who scores 50 goals on 20% yearly or the guy who scored 50 on 10% yearly?
20% yearly because that's an insane percentage and theoretically could increase to 60 or 70 goals with more shots.

AdamBanks99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:08 PM
  #10
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,486
vCash: 500
I don't see Dubi driving the net as much, hence he's shooting low percentage shots. The only "snipe" I can think of is his goal on Tampa. That was a beauty of a top corner snipe.

Rangers Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:08 PM
  #11
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
That Gretzky quote is one of the stupidest hockeyisms ever, especially considering Gretzky, as great of a scorer as he was, epitomized why passing and playmaking is the key to offense, not non-stop shooting.

Players who take a lot of shots tend to be inefficient, wasteful offensive players. That's why Ovechkin is one of the most overrated players of all-time, and that's why he's not a winner. Great offenses are patient and deliberate, and they anchor themselves in the other team's zone by cycling and passing in order to create high quality scoring chances while wearing down opposing defenses. High-volume shooters impede that process. They waste offensive zone opportunities, often times simply giving the puck away to the other team.

One of the sport's most vexing myths is the idea that high-volume shooting is automatically a positive. Nothing could be further from the truth. High-volume shooting is a positive if you're dominating the opposing team so much that you are able to rattle off repeated high-quality shots. If your shot count rises as a result of random, bad angle, low quality, unearned scoring chances, then you're very likely to lose.

Why are Scott Gomez, Olli Jokinen and Dion Phaneuf among the most overrated and inefficient offensive players of the last 10-20 years? Because they take a ridiculously large amount of shots (among other reasons).

A good shooting percentage is usually an indicator of a player who puts thought into his shots, and shoots when the situation calls for him to do so. Shot percentage is an incredibly important statistic, but like all stats, it must be considered in the right context. Small sample sizes need to be looked at cautiously.


Last edited by NYR Sting: 03-22-2012 at 12:14 PM.
NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:10 PM
  #12
mahonistan*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
That Gretzky quote is one of the stupidest hockeyisms ever, especially considering Gretzky, as great of a scorer as he was, epitomized why passing and playmaking is the key to offense, not non-stop shooting.

Players who take a lot of shots tend to be inefficient, wasteful offensive players. That's why Ovechkin is one of the most overrated players of all-time, and that's why he's not a winner. Great offenses are patient and deliberate, and they anchor themselves in the other team's zone by cycling and passing in order to create high quality scoring chances while wearing down opposing defenses. High-volume shooters impede that process. They waste offensive zone opportunities, often times simply giving the puck away to the other team.

One of the sport's most vexing myths is the idea that high-volume shooting is automatically a positive. Nothing could be further from the truth. High-volume shooting is a positive if you're dominating the opposing team so much that you are able to rattle off repeated high-quality shots. If you're shot count rises as a result of random, bad angle, low quality, unearned scoring chances, then you're very likely to lose.

Why are Scott Gomez, Olli Jokinen and Dion Phaneuf among the most overrated and inefficient offensive players of the last 10-20 years? Because they take a ridiculously large amount of shots.
Gretzky actually led the league in shots for several season. He was a great passer but a frequent shooter as well.

mahonistan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:13 PM
  #13
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
can't say shooting % is a worthless stat but it definitely could be misleading...

guy who scores on 1 out of every 4 shots but only gets 1 shot/game really isn't better than the guy that scores on 1 out of every 10 but gets 8 shots/game...for it to have meaning i think you need to compare guys that get similar icetime and similar # of shots. a 4th liner with a high shooting % but never plays doesn't do you much good (reminds me of when we signed scott fraser cause he lead the league in goals/minute played).

the stat can also be misleading because it only looks at actual shots on net, not attempted shots...so if you have a guy that attempts to shot 10 times in a game, 7 times he misses the net by 8 feet, 2 get blocked by dmen and on the last one he scores. that goes down as 1 goal on 1 shot for a 100% shooting %. when really he was 1 for 10

CM PUNK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 12:22 PM
  #14
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahonistan View Post
Gretzky actually led the league in shots for several season. He was a great passer but a frequent shooter as well.
Gretzky has more assists than any other player has points. He was an incredible and dynamic offensive player, not to mention the greatness of his team. But first and foremost, Gretzky was a passer and a playmaker, and that was what made him most dangerous, even more so than his scoring ability. That's why Crosby, Datsyuk, and Malkin are the best players in the league today. They can all score goals, but they make everyone around them better, and they aren't wasteful shooters.

Taking a lot of shots is fine as long as you're taking high quality shots. Most players just aren't good enough to find those opportunities that often.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 01:10 PM
  #15
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,474
vCash: 500
I wish they had a shots total and a shooting percentage that included missed shots.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.