How Important is the "Shots on Goal" Stat?
During the end of season evaluation for coach Paul Maurice, I mentioned that the Hurricanes needed to improve upon their "shots on goal against" stat. Since this is a team related stat and it was rated the worst in the NHL last season, I placed this as a negative aspect regarding the coach's performance.
In the comments, one of our most knowledgeable and respected community members made the valid point that "scoring chances" was a more important stat and that "shots against" was overrated. While I agreed that the "scoring chances" stat was more valid, I disagreed that "shots against" was overrated or unimportant.
We agreed that someday it would make for a good topic of discussion, so let's talk about it today.
Coincidentally, Carolyn and I noticed an article from a couple of weeks ago exploring that very topic. It seems the Edmonton Oilers had a similar problem last season and one of the writers from the Edmonton Journal wrote a corresponding article entitled, "The Elephant in the Room."
Edmonton Journal - The Elephant in the Room
In the article, the writer does some extended research to see if the "shots against" stat correlates to winning or losing. I thought that I would do some similar research to see how the results turned out for the Canes.
First up, let's look at average "shots for" per game along with average "shots against", and compare those numbers with total "goals scored" and "goals against" over the past six years.
| Average | Average | Diff | Total | Total | Diff | |
| Shots | Shots | Goals | Goals | |||
| For | Against | For | Against | |||
| 2011 | 30.7 | 33.2 | -2.5 | 236 | 239 | -3 |
| 2010 | 29.3 | 31.4 | -2.1 | 230 | 256 | -26 |
| 2009 | 32.6 | 29.5 | 3.1 | 239 | 226 | 13 |
| 2008 | 32.5 | 28.9 | 3.6 | 252 | 249 | 3 |
| 2007 | 31.2 | 28.5 | 2.7 | 241 | 253 | -12 |
| 2006 | 31.1 | 30.5 | 0.6 | 294 | 260 | 34 |
Of course, great or poor goaltending can skew these results, as we saw last season when Cam Ward made more saves than any other goalie in the league and had the best save percentage of his career. But even then, the Canes still allowed more goals than they scored. Things could have been much worse if Ward was not at the top of his game.
In five of the six years tracked, the difference in the team's scoring results matched the difference in their shot totals. Meaning, if they allowed more shots than they took, they usually allowed more goals than they scored. The odd year out was in 2007 when John Grahame and Ward both posted .897 save percentages.
Next up, let's look at how many games per year the team had more shots than their opponents versus how many times they were outshot, and compare that with their overall winning (point) percentages for each season.
| Games | Games | Team | ||
| More | Less | Winning | ||
| Shots | Shots | % | ||
| 2011 | 28 | 51 | 0.555 | |
| 2010 | 36 | 44 | 0.488 | |
| 2009 | 52 | 28 | 0.591 | playoffs |
| 2008 | 52 | 27 | 0.561 | |
| 2007 | 49 | 29 | 0.537 | |
| 2006 | 43 | 38 | 0.683 | playoffs |
Again, there seems to be a correlation here because in most cases, the more times that the Canes outshoot their opponents, the better record they have.
While "shots on goal" is certainly not the most important stat all by itself, it is a stat which can be a telling symptom for other problems, like time of possession and faceoff percentages, both of which the Canes had trouble with last season. It would also seem logical that the more shots a team allows, the more quality scoring chances would follow. We can not tell for sure about that assumption though because the NHL does not officially track scoring chances. (We will do that this season on Canes Country.)
Another thing that kind of stands out, that I'm sure some of you have already recognized, is that there is a noticeable change in shot differential after the coaching change. When Laviolette coached here, the team had more shots for, than against, in every season tracked. That stat would certainly match his apparent "attack first" coaching style.
When Maurice took over mid stream in 2009, his team finished with more shots, but in the two years since he has had full control, the opposite is true. While Maurice obviously does not want to purposely allow the opposition more shots on goal than his own team, perhaps his overall coaching philosophy leads to different results?
It will be very interesting to see what happens this coming season regarding those stats.
Getting back to the Edmonton Journal article, the Oilers have not been in the playoffs since their deep run in 2006. They have been outshot in every year since then as well.
There are exceptions to every rule, and rules for every exception. Game by game, teams certainly have the ability to win, even though they might have fewer shots than their opponents. But over a long period of time, it seems like the chances are better to have a successful season if you can consistently get more shots than your competition.
Last season alone, nine of the 12 teams who allowed the most shots in the league, failed to make the playoffs.
((Off topic: The Hurricanes prospect team will be playing the "Junior Rangers" today at 3 at Traverse City and the game will be televised on the NHL Network. Carolyn will be hosting an "Open Thread" here starting shortly before the game. If you can make it, come join in the discussion!)
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank You Bob
like a political debate …i feel that this topic can be just as “rousing” …with that said…while i am in no way an expert..but I feel that the effort of shooting at the goal physically should carry the same weight…but remember i’m a fan…yada,yada,yada..Good stuff and again another “prespective” to consider!!!
9/11/01 - Never Forget !!
Long Live #63 The Condor
Go Canes & Checkers !!!
Nice write-up; I’ve always felt SOG is one of those stats that drives a bunch of other stats and is important stat – scoring chances, the score, time of possession, etc. Good things usually happen when you shoot the puck.
if you’re shooting the puck, it means the other team isn’t, which is a good thing
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Sep 13, 2011 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Couldn’t agree more. Nice analysis and write-up and I agree that SOG drives other stats.
If you are giving up a lot of shots and are being consistently outshot it is a huge red flag and in my opinion that is the starting point for the coaching staff to dig deeper for root causes. How many of the shots are “quality scoring ops”; where precisely are they mostly coming from: left side/right side, high slot/low slot, etc. Where is the breakdown: bad D play or lack of support from forwards and/or both. And it goes to situational systems…. e.g. too much dump and chase giving up possession thereby allowing other team to control play; poor neutral zone play that allows odd man full steam rushes, etc.
I think Cam’s save percentage didn’t tell the whole story last year. Not only did he face a lot of shots but he faced a lot of quality shots. He had an even better year than the stats say. Also a reason why Peters struggled….. young goalie seeing long layoffs and then going in to face a high number of quality shots from the opposition.
An argument for another day but while I like what we have up front, unless the coaches adjust their use of those forwards so that our puck possession time increases and unless we improve our D play, our overall points production may not change much from last year. And if our goalies don’t again stand on their heads, we may go in the opposite direction .
having any semblance of a cycle game would be absolutely wonderful. hopefully a couple bigger forwards here and there who are harder to move off the puck will help
Of Maurice, Karmanos said: "I’m happy Paul is back but he’s going to be judged the same way as any other coach. We need to win more consistently."
by Sergeant Stinky on Sep 13, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Good post
Your numbers are supported by many topics at Behind the Net that reach the same conclusion
"Though we do run the risk of one of the pucks generating human-like emotions, and yearning for a better life outside of its cold, violent existence…" -Ben
by ThrashersRecaps on Sep 13, 2011 10:27 AM EDT reply actions
Thanks for getting this data for us Bob, its really interesting to think about it.
One point, if you plot both average shots against and average shots for against the winning % you see a much stronger correlation with shots for (albeit with only 6 data points for both)! Not sure how that works, maybe Cam is canceling that out the shots against!
Good stuff
The shots vs. scoring chances is always a dicey issue. Do more shots mean more scoring chances? It’s hard to prove correlation let alone causation. In light of any further evidence, it would seem there is a pretty direct correlation for the Canes on shots allowed and winning based on the article here.
Any thoughts on posting the data and the source info on to a google doc? It might be fun to see if I can extend this to the league as a whole. Maybe even add in missed shots as well to see if that does anything.
Also, good luck on trying to keep up with scoring chances this year. I tried that last season and quickly lost interest. I probably over complicated it by trying to be exactly equal all the time. It ended up detracting quite a bit from my enjoyment of the game.
When my opinions and reality don't coincide I re-evaluate my opinions, not reality.
I agree. As a fan you can pretty much “feel” when we are giving up a lot of quality scoring chances and that is probably about as deep as we should analyze. But definitely charting scoring chances is an important coaching tool. Hopefully they won’t need to make that their top negative post game analysis this year.
Do more shots mean more scoring chances?
From watching and playing a lot of hockey, it usually does. If you’re badly outshooting your opponent, you have the have the puck a lot more than they do, which means your in their zone more which usually means your on the PP more which usually means better quality scoring chances. There’s a cascading effect, which is why I like coaches that preach shoot for the sake of shooting, good things come from it; if you dump and chase early you’ll create space later.
C-Leaguer
I can put it on a Google doc later tonight. Would be very interesting to see how this worked on a league wide basis. I know it doesn’t hold true for Boston. They allowed almost as many shots per game as Carolina last season, but allowed fewer goals by far. Of course, having a Vezina winner in your net kind of helps.
Also agree, it will be tough to track scoring chances on a regular basis and the stat will need to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe we can have folk take turns if it becomes too cumbersome for our volunteer.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
sure, what really constitutes a scoring chance – you have a chance to score everytime the puck goes to the net, so there’s always subjectivity to keeping this stat. Another interesting stat (league wide): shots per goal, I believe it’s currently about 11, which to me means you need to put up at least 30/game to give yourself a chance.
Like the idea, not sure it goes far enough
First off, great topic for us armchair statisticians. Second, I followed up on your numbers. Your position is that games in which you shoot more statistically should yield more wins, which sounds like a good idea. However, if you go back and take a composite look at the games in which the Canes’ shot totals were higher than their opponents which also yielded a win, by your logic, it should be statistically significant. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really hold water. Here’s a quick snippet:
Year …GW…SF+…..GW & SF+
2011…40…..28…….11
2010…35…..36…….14
2009…45…..52…….27
2008…43…..52…….31
2007…40…..49…….24
2006…52…..43…….29
That’s Games Won, games where our Shot Differential was greater, and then Games Won in which our Shot Differential was greater. I do second the notion that the coaching styles do seem to correlate to the change in overall differentials.
I’ve posted a slightly larger spreadsheet at the following google doc https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai99g_yPk-6LdFdfbjFWOXU2NHp1bVIwYjA0ZEMxcUE&hl=en_US. It shows a few other statistics that are interesting to note for the past 6 seasons. One thing it highlights is that in the Stanley Cup year, the Canes’ shot percentage was significantly higher than in any other year. Their Shots For vs. Shots Against differential was only marginally higher, but was actually less than the three subsequent years.
It all definitely gets you thinking about what it is the team can collectively do better to make it to the post season. Thanks for all of the great articles & insights.
Quick reply
I’ll post on the larger topic, but I want to address on problem with stats you’ve posted: Typically, what happens when you develop a good lead? You back off a bit, or the other team forces the issue (or both) and thows everything they can at the net to catch up. Their Shots go up, your SA goes up , and we could therefore be in a deficit in the shots category but win. That’s the problem you’re seeing with the correlation.
Again, often times all those shots thrown on net at the end of a game aren’t necessarily high quality, but they all count. These and other factors skew a lot of the meaning of the SOG stats. They can’t be taken in a vacuum, but as indicators.
Good job. Its interesting to compare 2011 and 2007: Two 40 win seasons with very different SOG numbers. This is probably due to a stylistic difference between Laviolette and Maurice. But I think it shows that higher or lower SOG can be a product of playing style and strategy and, therefore, is not a good way to compare different teams at a given time, but could maybe be used to compare a team from season to season under the same coach or system.
by Sluv on Sep 13, 2011 5:35 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
great effort
and a hearty Welcome to this part of the Caniac Nation!! and we the fans..Thank You!!
9/11/01 - Never Forget !!
Long Live #63 The Condor
Go Canes & Checkers !!!
Thanks for the comments all. The numbers are interesting to look at and think about, but of course they should be taken for what they are, just numbers on a sheet. A team with great chemistry, like in 2006, can win regardless of what you might think is the “norm” and can make a stat page look meaningless.
Editing Manager of Canes Country.com
Maurice on Shots
Bob, I remember during the reign of Paul Maurice the 1st (especially in 2002), the Canes would routinely get outshot, and Mo would get beaten up on that. Your buddy Brian and I would watch the Canes pepper Brodeur/Theodore/CuJo with what appeared to be 4 or 5 shots, and yet the ESA counter would inch up maybe one of two.
Your point about scoring chances is true. Case in point was game 2 (I believe) against les Habitants in the 02 playoffs, after the Canes had won in OT. Carolina outshot the Canadiens like 44-15, yet were defeated. If all you do is fire shots that go like magnets into the goalie’s glove, it won’t help.
The real question on SOG is are they consistent. Is there a true definition of what a shot is? What happens at Verizon or Prudential or the ACC might be different than what the shot guy does here.
And remember, it only takes 1 shot to win a 1-0 game.
Great post
Thanks for tracking down the information and providing the analysis, Bob.
An interesting question that probably can’t be answered is whether teams that have players with wicked shots get more mileage per shot—more chances and more goals. There are some players who seem like threats every time they shoot because the shot is so quick, hard and accurate. Most players are putting the puck in the vicinity of the net and hoping for a rebound. If you had a couple of guys with wicked shots, you might be able to do well with fewer shots. I’m not sure the Canes have anybody that falls into that category. With their faults, Corvo and Babchuk had the most impressive shots on the Canes last year. Among the forwards, I think of Skinner and Staal as having good shots, but mostly as scoring more based on effort and smarts than the shot itself. Same with Ruutu and Jokinen and it was also true of Cole.
by curiouscanesfan on Sep 14, 2011 2:46 PM EDT reply actions





![Have you seen the "Google search make your own 30-second video" [FIXED the link, sorry] at Youtube? I made my take on the Canes season this morning. Check it out and if you make one you like, post it over here. Lot of fun.](http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/111208/2_small.jpg)
















