An Intro to Scoring Chances
by C.J. Richey on Sep 1, 2011 12:01 PM EDT
in Devils Scoring Chances
Email
Print
If you have ever watched a Devils' broadcast you may already be familiar with the term scoring chance. It is something that gets mentioned everyone once in awhile or it will show up in a graphic. Even though scoring chances are used by the Devils and probably many other teams it is not a stat that is publicly available. This is why a handful of fans decided to start recording and sharing scoring chances online.
Right now there are 8 teams being covered: the Oilers by Dennis King at MC79Hockey; the Panthers by Derek Zona at Litter Box Cats; the Rangers by George E. Ays at Blueshirt Banter; the Flyers by ToddtheFox at Broad Street Hockey; the Flames by Kent Wilson at Flames Nation; the Capitals by Neil Greenberg at Russian Machine Never Breaks; the Leafs at Under the Helmet of Slava Duris; and the Canadiens by Olivier at En attendant les Nordiques. This list could be larger if there are others, like myself, who will be starting this year.
Since this a new concept at In Lou We Trust it seems appropriate to give an overview of what exactly a scoring chance is and how it is recorded. Considering John has been using plenty of advanced stats for awhile now this really shouldn't be hard to grasp. If you understand Corsi/Fenwick then understanding how scoring chances work will not be a problem for you.
What is a scoring chance?
Now if you follow hockey you have probably heard someone use a variation of this quote "We may have given up a lot of shots but they weren't quality shots". Scoring chances are the stat that can either prove or disprove such statement. A scoring chance is defined as a shot directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area (shown below, it's the area within the black line). Missed shots count but blocked shots do not. Players on the ice when a scoring chance is taken are awarded either a chance for (+1) or a chance against (-1). If you want to find out if a team is really preventing or getting quality shots you want to look at the scoring chances.
How are scoring chances recorded?
The most common tables you'll see associated with scoring chances come courtesy of Time on Ice. The script here allows those who track scoring chances to easily create something like this:
Team
Period
Time
Note
Boston
New Jersey
NJD
1
18:35
Tallinder from Elias
17
18
40
44
46
55
1
7
12
21
26
29
5v5
NJD
1
18:13
Elias from Rolston, Goal
17
18
40
44
46
55
1
7
12
21
26
29
5v5
NJD
1
15:11
Pelley own rebound
11
12
20
22
40
54
1
10
11
18
22
34
5v5
NJD
1
14:17
Kovalchuk from Zajac
12
19
37
40
54
63
1
2
6
17
19
32
5v5
BOS
1
14:04
Seguin from Seidenberg
12
19
37
40
54
63
1
2
6
17
19
32
5v5
BOS
1
12:05
Campbell from Paille
11
20
22
40
44
55
1
2
6
10
11
18
5v5
BOS
1
11:21
Peverly from Ryder, Post
21
37
40
49
63
73
1
2
7
17
19
5v4
BOS
1
11:13
Ryder
21
37
40
49
63
73
1
2
7
12
26
5v4
BOS
1
9:56
Peverly from Seidenberg rebound,Goal
12
21
40
49
63
73
1
6
7
16
19
29
5v5
NJD
1
8:58
Josefson from Clarkson
11
20
22
40
44
55
1
2
6
14
16
23
5v5
NJD
1
2:05
Clarkson from Tedenby
11
20
40
44
55
1
17
21
23
26
34
5v4
NJD
2
13:36
Zajac from Palmieri
19
37
40
44
55
63
1
7
17
19
29
32
5v5
NJD
2
11:13
Clarkson from Henrique
12
23
40
49
54
73
1
7
14
16
23
29
5v5
NJD
2
7:16
Zharkov from Mair, Miss
11
20
21
22
34
40
1
11
18
22
23
34
5v5
NJD
2
6:46
Clarkson from Zharkov
11
20
21
22
34
40
1
11
18
22
23
34
5v5
BOS
3
18:19
Ryder deflection from Bergeron, Miss
37
40
44
49
63
73
1
2
6
12
26
5v4
NJD
3
16:00
Zharkov breakaway, Goal
11
20
22
40
44
55
1
7
10
11
18
29
5v5
NJD
3
14:03
Zajac, Miss
19
37
40
44
55
63
1
2
6
17
19
32
5v5
NJD
3
13:53
Kovalchuk from Zajac
19
37
40
44
55
63
1
2
6
17
19
32
5v5
NJD
3
10:50
Urbom Wraparound Goal
21
23
34
40
49
73
1
14
16
22
23
34
5v5
BOS
3
8:50
Marchand from Sequin
19
37
40
44
55
63
1
17
19
22
32
34
5v5
BOS
3
8:49
Bergeron from Marchand rebound, Miss
19
37
40
44
55
63
1
17
19
22
32
34
5v5
NJD
3
3:22
Zharkov from Mair, Miss
21
23
34
40
49
73
1
7
16
17
23
29
5v5
NJD
3
1:02
Mair breakaway
11
12
20
21
22
40
1
2
6
10
11
18
5v5
BOS
3
0:04
Kelly deflection from Seidenberg, Goal
23
40
44
49
55
73
1
7
12
21
26
29
5v5
This is a summary of all the scoring chances in a game. It shows the period, time remaining, players on the ice, and situation. In the notes I'll tell you who actually took the chance, who set it up, and whether it missed the net or was a goal.
The table below, also from Time on Ice, shows you the scoring chances for (green) and against (red) for each individual player while at even strength, power plays, and short handed.
#
Player
EV
PP
SH
1
J. Hedberg
54:00
15
6
2:00
1
0
4:00
0
3
2
M. Fraser
18:32
5
4
0:00
0
0
2:27
0
3
6
A. Greene
20:50
5
5
0:00
0
0
1:28
0
1
7
H. Tallinder
17:40
5
2
0:00
0
0
1:17
0
2
10
R. Pelley
10:47
6
1
0:00
0
0
0:00
0
0
11
A. Mair
11:07
5
1
0:00
0
0
0:00
0
0
12
B. Rolston
15:27
2
1
1:26
0
0
1:41
0
2
14
A. Henrique
12:36
3
0
0:45
0
0
0:00
0
0
16
J. Josefson
12:55
2
1
0:45
0
0
0:03
0
0
17
I. Kovalchuk
16:17
4
3
2:00
1
0
1:18
0
1
18
V. Zharkov
8:48
6
1
0:00
0
0
0:58
0
0
19
T. Zajac
14:56
4
4
0:45
0
0
2:13
0
0
21
M. Tedenby
15:58
2
1
1:15
1
0
0:00
0
0
22
A. Urbom
16:28
5
0
0:00
0
0
0:00
0
0
23
D. Clarkson
13:28
4
0
1:15
1
0
0:00
0
0
26
P. Elias
15:20
2
1
1:15
1
0
1:47
0
3
29
A. Salmela
18:32
5
2
0:00
0
0
1:33
0
0
32
N. Palmieri
14:16
4
3
0:00
0
0
0:00
0
0
34
M. Fayne
16:03
5
0
0:34
1
0
1:15
0
0
Finally the other table you'll see in my posts will show the players actual chances and chances assists. This is something I noticed George E. Ays use prominently in his posts and I feel it is good to know who is actually getting into the scoring area and who is finding these players.
| Player | Chances | Chance on Goal | Chance Assist |
| Clarkson | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Zharkov | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Kovalchuk | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Zajac | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Josefson | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Mair | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Elias | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Urbom | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Tallinder | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Pelley | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Henrique | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Palmieri | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tedenby | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Rolston | 0 | 0 |
1 |
Now there are plenty of other tables, graphs, and charts that can be associated with scoring chances but since I am still new to this I'll be sticking to the basics for now. As I get more comfortable, I will try to bring you more advanced stuff that you might see others doing.
Scoring Chances vs Corsi
So how does scoring chances relate to everyone's favorite advanced stat, Corsi? Corsi approximates puck possession; if you have a high Corsi that means you are attempting more shots than your opponent, which means you have the puck more often and in an attacking position. Scoring chances measure how well a player is utilizing that puck possession and if they are getting off quality shots. I find that it complements Corsi quite well and helps paint a much clearer picture to how a player performed.
Lets use the Devils' last game of the 2010-11 season for some examples. The Devils defeated the Bruins 3-2. I recommend going through John's recap of the game and checking out the Corsi numbers. John first mentions the great play of Vladimir Zharkov and his line in general. They all finished with a +6 or better Corsi. Not only were they controlling possession, they were also finding their way into the scoring area and getting chances. They all finished the game with +4 or better in scoring chances.
The Elias line finished with the highest Corsi all at +7 or better yet they weren't as successful in getting into the scoring area only managing +1 each in scoring chances. The defensive pairing of Fayne and Urbom seemed to struggle finishing -2 and -1 respectively in Corsi, but they both managed to finish +5 in scoring chances. They actually finished the game without a scoring chance against. Even though Fayne and Urbom did not fare well in keeping the Bruins out of their zone, they did manage to prevent them from getting into the scoring area.
Conclusion
Hopefully after reading this you will have a good understanding of what a scoring chance is. If not, feel free to comment below. I am new to writing here at In Lou We Trust so feel free to critique as much as you would like. My goal is to bring you this information as clearly as possible, so any help from the readers and other scoring chance trackers is welcome. I'm looking forward to adding another element to ILWT this season.
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks a lot for this!
I really feel like I learned something from this. I’ve never really understood what the difference was between a shot on goal and a scoring chance (mostly because I’ve just been too lazy to look it up), but I get it now (for the most part). Great article, C.J.!
I’m really excited that ILWT is doing this.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
ugh, wrong link, i wanted this: Can’t wait!
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
This should be the most biggest stat that correlates with the amount of goals scored in a game. There will be some outliers for sure, but this should be right with how the game went about… 80% of the time?
And Kovalchuk speeds away, great moves, busting through, DID YOU SEE THAT?
no, it should be less than that, because teams get more scoring chances when they are behind.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
So does that mean
That a team can score 3 goals from the point and not have any scoring chances counted? Or do goals automatically count as scoring chances, because obviously, they were not only a chance but successful? If scoring chances are only shot attempts within those black borders, then a lot of successful “scoring chances” aren’t counted. Personally, I think the definition is too narrow. A screened shot from outside that area has a better chance of going in than a weak wrister right in front of the goalie.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
It’s possible, but not really likely. Very few goals are scored by point shots that don’t have a deflection or screen involved prominently. NHL level goalies stop nearly everything they can see from that distance.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 1, 2011 3:38 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
goals are not automatically scoring chances. screened shots from way outside are still very unlikely to go in, so i don’t think they’re counted as scoring chances.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
goals are not automatically scoring chances.
Well, then that’s a huge gap in the stat. If it had no chance to go in, it couldn’t have done so. Since it DID go in, it had to have been a chance to be a score.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
that’s not the definition of a scoring chance. in that case, all shots on goal are scoring chances and we should do away with the project entirely.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
works for me. If there’s going to be a bogus definition for it, it’s a useless stat.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
These are quality chances not any chance, the proof that these goals go in more often than ones that aren’t in the area shown are shown in posts where goals come from, I remember one done by Matt last year.
And Kovalchuk speeds away, great moves, busting through, DID YOU SEE THAT?
Agreed - it's high quality chances
You can score from behind the net if you bank it in off the goalie, but for the most part, “dangerous” shots are ones from inside the black lines. When I was younger, my coach simplified the diagram using just a line from each post out to the boards at the blue line. This would include point shots, but I have no issues with the above diagram if that’s what the other trackers are using.
Frank, if a player sends a floater from his own zone and it takes a weird bounce and the goalie lets it in, should all the skaters be credited or dinged for a scoring chance? The puck went in, but the scoring team didn’t really generate offense and the other team didn’t play bad defense (except for the goalie).
I'm sorry
but anything that goes in is a high quality chance. How can it be of any higher quality? That’s perfect quality, a goal. And how can you say the scoring team didn’t generate offense when a goal is the ultimate definition of offense? To some extent I’m debating semantics here, because chance implies luck, which perfectly defines the “floater” situation.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
because shots that go in outside of the box are generally non-repeatable. including them confounds the entire purpose of the project.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
The purpose is to count high quality scoring opportunities for (and/or against) the Devils. I get that. I just don’t understand how the ultimate success of any scoring attempt isn’t always counted. NONE of the goals ever scored are repeatable; every one is unique in its own situation; otherwise everybody would shoot from the one or 2 spots on the ice that guarantees a goal. Those spots don’t exist.
Again, if it’s not a chance to score, it can’t have gone in.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
Again, if it’s not a chance to score, it can’t have gone in.
every shot on goal has a chance to go in. if you count shots that go in outside of the box, you should count shots that don’t go in outside of the box. and then you’re just counting shots on goal and you shouldn’t bother.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
OK, goals from everywhere don’t count, but then don’t count the shots that miss the net from inside the area. Because if it misses the net, it also has no chance to score. How can something that ultimately had 0 chance to score be called a scoring chance?
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
you’re missing the purpose of the project, but admittedly C.J. didn’t exactly explain that in the post.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
No, I’m not missing the point, I’m just not agreeing with the definition. If you’re going to count quality scoring opportunities, then count real scoring opportunities.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
A scoring chance is defined as a shot directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area (shown below, it’s the area within the black line).
I think C.J. defined the criteria he will be looking at to determine a scoring chance quite well. Not every goal or attempt is going to meet this basic criteria, and so he’s not going to look at those because that is not what this project is about.
His goal here, if I am on the right page here, is to take a look and see how these specific instances happen during Devils games: who is on the ice when they happen for us, when they happen against us…who’s a weak link, who creates strong chances, etc…I would never have the patience to try out a project like this, but I definitely commend C.J. for taking the time and effort in this.
So this is what it's like to be an Islanders fan...
by Marty 4 Prez on Sep 1, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
You're focusing too much on the results, and not on the actions.
Yes, pucks can and do go in from virtually anywhere, but we’re trying to determine how often a player/team puts themselves in a position to score goals. Thus the goal,at least the reason I took on the project, is to find the shot attempts that result in a high percentage of goals, which has been found through shot location data to be in the area defined.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 2, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
If this were changed from the “Scoring Chance” project to the “Shots attempts taken at good angles within a close proximity to the net but that weren’t blocked” project, would you feel better?
Status quo.
Um, sure. Unless there’s really something worth dragging this out for in the 16 newer comments I haven’t read yet, this will be my last word on the subject. Doesn’t matter what you call it, “Scoring Chances” are fine. I just have a problem with the omission of many successful scoring chances. If you scored, it HAD to have been a scoring chance.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
If you scored, it HAD to have been a scoring chance.
this is why everyone is saying that the real term should be ‘Shots Taken From Without a Predetermined Area Judged To Be The Place Where The Majority of True Scoring Opportunities Come From’, or something, and you’re either willfully misunderstanding or not able to get past the name despite saying that you can. we’re not counting goals. we’re counting shots that come from a certain region on the ice. some goals don’t come from that region, that doesn’t eo ipso make them from that region, because they’re not from the region, and we are only counting shots that come from within the region. ‘Scoring Chances’ is a far cleaner and more descriptive term, and is already the established term in the blogosphere.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
Yes, you are missing the point. Furthermore, you’re being a jackass about it.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
No. And no. My perspective (and NJDOhio’s) have fueled a pretty interesting debate without anybody stooping to the level of name-calling. Until now.
As an aside, John is there a place to make suggestions to SBN Blogs? I have a suggestion I’d like to make.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
You can email me any suggestions.
And I don’t think it’s so much of a debate. C.J. defined and explained what a scoring chance is and what we can learn from it, which is consistent with what other counters are doing. I’m not sure what more can be said to convince you of the value of doing this.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 4, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
It may not perfect but its hardly bogus. In just the one game I did all 5 goals were scored from the scoring area. The Devils scored on 3 of their 16 chances which is around 18% and the Bruins scored on 2 of their 9 chances which is around 22%.
by C.J. Richey on Sep 1, 2011 7:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Further, at even strength, we’ve seen in the small sample that about 1 in 7.5 or so scoring chances result in goals (13.3% or so). When compared to all shots (about 8.1% or so goals), you can see how many ‘empty’ shots are out there on a nightly basis, and it’s worth distinguishing the two.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 1, 2011 7:10 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
have you guys compared chance and non-chance results? like, how many fenwick events end up in the net despite not being scoring chances.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
I looked at it at one point, and it was a pretty low conversion rate (like less than 2%). My computer is kaput right now, so don’t have my data handy to check the final season total.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 1, 2011 11:48 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Would you prefer it to be called the “count every shot directed towards the net from within a designated area” project?
Would you call this play a scoring chance?
Mourning Gagne forever.
what do you think the purpose of counting scoring chances is?
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
I’m not arguing that counting high quality opportunities and calling them scoring chances isn’t worthwhile, but if the ultimate “goal” of any scoring attempt is the actual scoring of a goal, then any goal has to be counted as a scoring “chance”.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
This scoring chance number is supposed to be indicative of skaters, not goalies. If the goalie screws up, the skaters should not be dinged.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2011 7:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Or what about Nick Lidstrom scoring from center ice on Dan Cloutier?
Hell on Ice/In Lou We Trust/Twitter
That's it. I'm sending you to El Paso to live with your real parents.
by Kevin Sellathamby on Sep 2, 2011 7:37 AM EDT up reply actions
to be fair, shooting from center ice is probably a scoring chance when cloutier is in net.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
Fair enough
Hell on Ice/In Lou We Trust/Twitter
That's it. I'm sending you to El Paso to live with your real parents.
by Kevin Sellathamby on Sep 2, 2011 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
well done, sir
Great post cj thanks for the overview
by JTdevs on Sep 1, 2011 7:32 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The definition seems straightforward enough, but do the people that record the stat do so reliably? My understanding of scoring chances was that there has always been significant arena-to-arena variability when it came down to recording them.
the people that record the stat are volunteers. but i think it’s well recorded.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
in addition, the more people recording chances around the league on these blogs, the more games the particular teams will be playing against one another and the more we’ll be able to look at possible scorer biases.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
There’s always some discrepancy, just as there would be if you tracked shots on goal compared to the official scorer of an arena (who are not perfect by any stretch)
Data for one team I have found to be consistent. The biggest differences you’ll find from scorer to scorer lie on the boundaries of the area, or with screen/deflections from just outside.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 1, 2011 11:56 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
I love the irony of a Rangers fan pointing out that official scorers who count shots on goal aren’t perfect.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
I’m aware our guy is the worst, but after tracking this for a year and comparing to the official scorer’s tracking of events, there ain’t a guy out there that’s excellent at it.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 4, 2011 12:17 AM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Great job, C.J.
The only minor point I want to add is that how chances will be counted here will probably differ with how they’re counted on TV. I know there are people who record chances and a figure like that will come up in a broadcast, it’ll likely differ in total from what was found. That’s OK since there’s transparency in how they’ll be counted here as well as the fact there’s more data being presented by way of who’s on the ice for the chances, when they happen, and over the course of a game.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
This is very exciting!
Welcome to the club, C.J. Have your “back 3 seconds” button ready on your DVR and be prepared to realize how many “shots” actually never make it on goal.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
FYI
I’m counting for the Blue Jackets this year, and the guys at Canucks Army will be counting for the Canucks for 9. The fellas at Artic Ice Hockey are looking for a counter for the Thrashers – that would make 10.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
The Pens will be counted here: http://thehockeywriters.com/teams/pittsburgh-penguins/
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Die By the Blade might be doing Sabres. They experimented at the very end of last season.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2011 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions
The fellas at Artic Ice Hockey are looking for a counter for the Thrashers
This made me laugh.
Mourning Gagne forever.
When they leave the southeast, they’ll stop being the Thrashers.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
So another +/- stat
This is essentially what this looks like to me. But might be even less relevant. Because the qualifications are up to someones judgement and are not decisive. To many variables.
I mean for example. Power Plays. The whole two minutes is one big scoring chance essentially. More specifically once the offensive team gets set up inside the opposing teams zone.
I’m just not seeing how these numbers that are generated are going to be of much value.
I disagree
I think this could be a very telling stat as long as there is some measure of consistency in how it is tallied. It is separating the quality opportunities generated by the skaters on each team from the plays where someone is just throwing a puck on net. You seem to be somehow missing the point of the whole exercise.
Yes, power plays will cause more chances to be generated, but that is the entire purpose of their existence. Saying the whole thing is a scoring chance is a completely bogus argument, especially if you saw the Devils’ or Bruins’ power play units in action last year.
I feel like the Devils in particular were very often guilty of inflating their shot totals – especially early in the season – by just lobbing low percentage shots on net. For this reason, I am especially excited to see how the numbers look.
Status quo.
You seem to be somehow missing the point of the whole exercise.
No, I get the point. I completely get the point. What I’m saying is your going to generate a stat line that isn’t really that telling. Instead of +/- with goals, its +/- with shots toward the goal. (Not even shots on goal) So what, your going to toss out the low quality shots. Doesn’t mean jack if the players aren’t actually scoring goals.
Ok, So player XYZ had 0 goals, 0 assists, 3 shots on goal, was a -1 but was a (+3 scoring chances) The -1 is no more telling then the +3. Without other information these numbers a meaningless.
No, I get the point. I completely get the point. What I’m saying is your going to generate a stat line that isn’t really that telling. Instead of +/- with goals, its +/- with shots toward the goal. (Not even shots on goal) So what, your going to toss out the low quality shots. Doesn’t mean jack if the players aren’t actually scoring goals.
With all due respect, you are missing the point if you honestly believe this. The whole point of counting scoring chances is to identify who’s making the most happen on offense, as in who’s able to get the puck in dangerous places, and who’s suffering the most on defense. It’s delving deeper into shots on net, instead of assuming all shots on net to be equal. 8 shots on net with 0 in the slot or around the net isn’t as impressive as 3 shots on net with 2 in that same area.
Ok, So player XYZ had 0 goals, 0 assists, 3 shots on goal, was a -1 but was a (+3 scoring chances) The -1 is no more telling then the +3. Without other information these numbers a meaningless.
Not at all. The +3 in scoring chances suggests he was helping his team generate good offense over the course of the whole game. The difference could have been his 3 shots alone, or he set up those other chances, or at the least, he wasn’t so bad that the attack suffered when he was on the ice. They didn’t become goals and he ended up being on the ice for a goal against at even strength; but that’s beside the point.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
The whole point of counting scoring chances is to identify who’s making the most happen on offense
I don’t need advanced stats to tell me this. Just look at any team’s top 4-6 scorers and you have that answer. You make the most happen on offense when you actually score. taking 17 weak backhands from 15 feet directly in front of the goalie might count as 17 “scoring chances” – but for all intents and purposes, there were really 0 chances to score.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
I’d be surprised if the same exact borderline scoring chance happened 17 times in a game. Your argument just makes no sense to me. That’s like saying counting shots in general is useless because you could technically take 40 shots from the neutral zone in a game.
Status quo.
I’d be surprised if the same exact borderline scoring chance happened 17 times in a game. Your argument just makes no sense to me. That’s like saying counting shots in general is useless because you could technically take 40 shots from the neutral zone in a game.
which is an argument that i have heard a lot.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
taking 17 weak backhands from 15 feet directly in front of the goalie might count as 17 "scoring chances" – but for all intents and purposes, there were really 0 chances to score.
Except…those aren’t?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2011 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t need advanced stats to tell me this. Just look at any team’s top 4-6 scorers and you have that answer..
this very obviously isn’t true and is precisely what this project is intended to suss out.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
soooooo
you’re saying players like Corey Perry, Alex Ovechkin, and the rest of the top scorers aren’t also the ones who get the most “scoring chances”? I’d be extremely surprised if there wasn’t an very strong correlation between top point/goal-scorers and top scoring chance getters.
I repeat my point. The most you can get done on offense is to score a goal. So the ones that do or contribute to this point most are easily identified as those “making the most happen on offense.” There’s just no way it can be stated otherwise. OK, I’m done.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
no, i’m not saying that.
I repeat my point. The most you can get done on offense is to score a goal. So the ones that do or contribute to this point most are easily identified as those "making the most happen on offense."
this isn’t true, and it’s definitely not true over a single season. there are plenty of passengers on top lines.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
The whole point of counting scoring chances is to identify who’s making the most happen on offense
I think there are stats that already do that and do it better.
I’m going to follow up this statement by saying I’m not trying to discourage this project. I’m actually sorta impressed people are going to take the time to try this and
see if it is worth doing.
I believe the theory behind it is great and I enjoy looking at the advanced stats.
I’m actually very interested in seeing some results. But, right now. I’m just not seeing how this could possibly be very accurate.
I think you can gain plenty from this. If we find out that Steckle assisted on 20 scoring chances in a stretch during the season, but Pelley or Boulton or Janssen or whoever else is on the ice with him could not bury the shot, then we learn that Steckle is better than we thought.
There is nothing quite as satisfying as out running security after you've punched out a Flyers fan!
"I was in the moment, and the moment said smack you." - Bruce Willis
Centers will always have an advantage about getting assists on scoring chances. Win the draw, get it back to a wing on the outside or the point, that player finds the other wing open in the slot; bam, scoring chance assist. That being said, if Steckel wins all those draws but the players on the ice with him can’t bury the chances, Pelley, Boulton, or Janssen are as bad as we thought, just proves Stecks is a great faceoff guy.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Need to lose weight?
Results are out there. I’d link to them if not confined to posting from my phone, but I have summaries posted for both the season and the playoff series for the Caps, and Coppernblue has them for the Oilers.
Searching scoring chance on either site would give you a bunch.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 4, 2011 12:24 AM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
I’ve already checked out some of the Ranger games off your link in your sig.
The charts show only individual games. Is there something that shows results tallied for the whole season?
All of the summaries I posted on Blueshirt Banter. My site is just a data dump place.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 4, 2011 11:55 AM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Ok, So player XYZ had 0 goals, 0 assists, 3 shots on goal, was a -1 but was a (+3 scoring chances) The -1 is no more telling then the +3.
No, scoring chances don’t tell the whole story. The problem is that you want the whole story – stats are never giving to give you the whole story. Scoring chance counts help us figure out who the good players are and who may not be up to snuff in a much better way than +/- because +/- has a much larger luck factor. So let’s say we have player XYZ’s scoring chances next year, and we look at how his teammates fared WITH him and WITHOUT him on the ice. If his teammates had a better chance % with XYZ OFF the ice, he might not be that good. if they did better WITH him on the ice, he might be responsible for them being better. It’s a way to help us figure out who the good players are, which is really hard given that there are 5 players with different roles on the ice and coaches have control over when players are used on the ice.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
Ok, fair enough angle.
But, Amusing the Scoring Chance stat is done consistently (Since it is a matter of opinion) I would bet you could take the % of goals scored or (+/-) and the results would be the same. The same as far as who ranks 1st, 2nd, 3rd. etc.
But, Amusing the Scoring Chance stat is done consistently (Since it is a matter of opinion) I would bet you could take the % of goals scored or (+/-) and the results would be the same. The same as far as who ranks 1st, 2nd, 3rd. etc.
i am not sure what you mean by this, but this is self-evident. what will differ is scoring chances % and goals %, and sometimes vary wildly.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
RPG in Anaheim were outshot at 5v5, but I bet they out chanced their opponents.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Sep 3, 2011 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus minus is plus minus, Fenwick is plus minus, Corsi is plus minus, scoring chances are plus minus. It’s the best we got. It’s still important to consider competition and whatnot, but there’s no need to rely on this for that link between scoring chances and Corsi.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
There is one huge difference. Those are weighted against decisive things. A goal happens or it doesn’t. A shot on goal happens or it doesn’t. You where on the ice or you weren’t.
Was it a scoring chance or not? This is a matter of opinion.
CJ very clearly defined how he will be counting the chances, he’s not just going to be sitting there saying “Ooh that looked real dangerous. Check.” Read the post.
Status quo.
I’m sure he is going to a excellent job.
But based on the guild lines set. There are still grey areas which a decision will have to be made and I’m sure he will be more then fair. Never the less its not black and white.
and IMOP stats that are not black and white are not very accurate.
There are grey areas with plenty of counting stats. Take missed shots for instance. A defenseman fires a puck wide of the net to get it down low – is that a missed shot or not? What about a shot that deflects off a stick or a skate or some other part of another player’s body – is that miss or a block or not even recorded? A goalie gets a slight piece of a puck on a shot that’s hard to see – is that recorded as a miss or a save? The answer to all of these, for something that seems as obvious as a missed shot in theory, is that it depends on the scorer.
The concern over whether grey areas are noted, but the only way to account for it is to be consistent about it.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 3, 2011 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
CJ, the third table only has offensive players, do you plan to include the defensive players as well? I think this could be a good addition to the attempt to measure the abilities of defensive defensemen. After factoring in TOI and qual comp, the number of scoring chances allowed is probably the best quantitative assesement when can currently do.
The third table is just the players who actually took a scoring chance or made a pass to set up a scoring chance. Most of the defenders aren’t on it because they ddn’t do either.
by C.J. Richey on Sep 2, 2011 6:51 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I will be recording chances for the Hurricanes this year on my blog. So there’s 12 now.
www.shutdownline.com
Sweet. Now I have more excuses to read your work.
Hell on Ice/In Lou We Trust/Twitter
That's it. I'm sending you to El Paso to live with your real parents.
by Kevin Sellathamby on Sep 6, 2011 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
Related FanShots on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Shawinigan wins, advances to Memorial Cup semifinal
- Cataractes romp to 6-1 win, eliminate Oil Kings from Memorial Cup
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
- Coyotes finish off best season ever
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
