Fanbases getting fooled by inflated shooting %s is my favourite trope.

[dgibb10]

Frederic is sitting at a 16.7% shooting percentage this year.... he was at 14.2% last year. Not a huge difference.

Career 10.2% shooter before this year. Could be the case of development, could be a mirage. His xGoals numbers are good which is a good sign. He should still be good but I certainly don't see him ending up as a consistent 17% shooter

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Who in the world out here is pumping Fabbri's tires this hard lol

 

[Dr Robot]

Most people can’t seem to tell the difference between coaching and goaltending either.

 

[CascadiaPuck]

OP is right. We see it with at least one team a year where the entire time rides a high shooting % then the playoffs come around and they get smoked, or they do fine but not enough to win it all then get a reality check next year.

We also see it with goalie percentages but I'm not touching that. Goalies are weird if they're good they're good and I'll give them their flowers and not question it, even if it's a one-year thing. Not even attempting to predict sustainability with those strange crease cats, unless it's like Hellebuyck where you're like yea he's just good period even if there's a down game

I don’t disagree, but we also get luminaries every year talking about how a team is overperforming -and then claiming their analysis was right because a different team won the Cup. As if there’s any brilliance in picking “the field” over one team.

 

[dgibb10]

Most people can’t seem to tell the difference between coaching and goaltending either.

Goaltending in general. Due to how volatile it is, and how much impact individual goaltending has on games, fans fall into a fallacy pretty easily.

If goalie is currently struggling: just a cold streak, will bounce back soon
if goalie is on a hot streak: this is the new normal forever
If goalie is young: wow he's so valuable because he's young
if goalie is old: insert anecdotal evidence of some goalies who've succeeded at an old age.

You could probably name 30+ goalies who their fanbase thinks is worth a 1st round pick.

 

[TropicOfNoReturn]

Even tage is back down below 10% this year. First thing I check at this point when I hear about a breakout is where the player is on moneypucks "Goals above shooting talent" metric.

Uses career shooting rates to establish a baseline and then looks at this year.

Some guys ranking high:

Hyman (mcdavid effect)
Reinhart
Carcone
Harley
Sharangovich
Marchessault
Weegar
Connor
Mantha
Coleman
Dickinson

Helps to ignore the guys who are just elite shooters their whole career, like an Auston Matthews

Yeah, the guy that won MVP last year is masquerading as a quality NHL player. Checks out.

 

[dgibb10]

Yeah, the guy that won MVP last year is masquerading as a quality NHL player. Checks out.

It's literally a stat.

Marchessault shot 10.4% over the previous 6 years.

This year he is shooting 16.4%.

When a 33 year old with a career high of 30 goals suddenly increases his shooting% massively and paces for 45 goals, it's generally a sign of something unsustainable.

 

[Chips]

Net front guys (especially if they play with a McDavid or Crosby like Kunitz or Hyman) can see really high shooting percentages more easily. If I’m not mistake this was the case with one of Oshies more productive Caps seasons.


Then yea, you have examples like last years Seattle Kraken who went from awful to seemingly great with a bunch of crazy shot %, and now they’re back to earth.


Quite likely the case with Vancouver, not to say they couldn’t have simultaneously genuinely improved, muddying the picture a bit is probable too.

 

[statswatcher]

Fun fact: Jim Pappin once scored 3 goals in a game where he only registered 1 shot.

did they throw the hats?

 

[Bondurant]

Are they quietly breaking out?

 

[I am toxic]

It's literally a stat.

Marchessault shot 10.4% over the previous 6 years.

This year he is shooting 16.4%.

When a 33 year old with a career high of 30 goals suddenly increases his shooting% massively and paces for 45 goals, it's generally always a sign of something unsustainable.

Fify

 

[dgibb10]

Net front guys (especially if they play with a McDavid or Crosby like Kunitz or Hyman) can see really high shooting percentages more easily. If I’m not mistake this was the case with one of Oshies more productive Caps seasons.


Then yea, you have examples like last years Seattle Kraken who went from awful to seemingly great with a bunch of crazy shot %, and now they’re back to earth.


Quite likely the case with Vancouver, not to say they couldn’t have simultaneously genuinely improved, muddying the picture a bit is probable too.

Vancouver is definitely better than last year.

Zadorov, Cole, Hronek are certainly defensive upgrades.

Demko has been way better.

But those shooting%s are wild and almost certain to come down

 

[wintersej]

Happens every year. You hear all about this "this player has broken out" and 90% of the time it's just some guy with a shooting% that's double his career rate.

Some great candidates for this year:

Reinhart
Mantha
Hoglander
Sharangovich
Coyle
Frederic
Coleman
Virtually the entire canucks roster
Fabbri
Dickinson
etc

In Frederic's case he also had a really high shooting percentage last year as well and his shot has been visibly way better since he initially came up. Last season many a Bruins fan wondered if it was just snake oil, but now its two years in a row and it matches the eye test.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Kuzmenko last year was close to 30%.

 

[Sensators]

I really thought Mantha was going to be a force in the NHL the year before he left Detroit. I swear he had the tools, big whiff on my part.

 

[dgibb10]

In Frederic's case he also had a really high shooting percentage last year as well and his shot has been visibly way better since he initially came up. Last season many a Bruins fan wondered if it was just snake oil, but now its two years in a row and it matches the eye test.

Yeah, I certainly think frederic has improved his shot, and he is a quality hockey player, but I'd expect his shooting to come down to around the 13.5 ish% range, compared to near 17.

On boston, coyle is the one I'm most skeptical of, with a 30+ year old consistently around 10% now shooting 17+% this year

 

[RandV]

I agree with the premise of the thread, I never heard of "pdo" this season and it really brings out a collection of people showing a poor understanding of math/statistics and the game of hockey.

First it's doing something that's just unnecessary, there's always been the concept of a career/contract year. Look at the career of any decent player and there will likely be a season or two that stands out above the rest. Second it's wrong in that it then tries to quantify and attribute this concept that's always been known to a "luck" factor.

Now luck will certainly play a part, but what's actually going on is a combination of coaching, chemistry, confidence, preparation, motivation, luck, and maybe a few other things. There's also the point where you have all this going on for a player that they begin to create their own luck. And a player 'reverting to the norm' is not so much a matter of luck evening out as it is every spring you hit a hard stop on the season and they come back with a full reset in the fall.

Andrei Kuzmenko makes a great example here and to drive the point home if him scoring 39 goals and shooting 27% last season, a good 15% or so above the norm, was really just "luck" then yes you can actually calculate that. I can't quite remember how to do the math, but it's not to write a quick simulation. I set it to 143 shots, an expected 12% shooting average, and run it a million times:

Goals: 2 Occurences: 1 Shooting % 1.4
Goals: 3 Occurences: 9 Shooting % 2.1
Goals: 4 Occurences: 32 Shooting % 2.8
Goals: 5 Occurences: 202 Shooting % 3.5
Goals: 6 Occurences: 571 Shooting % 4.2
Goals: 7 Occurences: 1617 Shooting % 4.9
Goals: 8 Occurences: 4156 Shooting % 5.6
Goals: 9 Occurences: 8633 Shooting % 6.3
Goals: 10 Occurences: 16269 Shooting % 7.0
Goals: 11 Occurences: 27640 Shooting % 7.7
Goals: 12 Occurences: 42865 Shooting % 8.4
Goals: 13 Occurences: 59980 Shooting % 9.1
Goals: 14 Occurences: 77181 Shooting % 9.8
Goals: 15 Occurences: 91467 Shooting % 10.5
Goals: 16 Occurences: 100161 Shooting % 11.2
Goals: 17 Occurences: 102867 Shooting % 11.9
Goals: 18 Occurences: 98665 Shooting % 12.6
Goals: 19 Occurences: 88620 Shooting % 13.3
Goals: 20 Occurences: 75906 Shooting % 14.0
Goals: 21 Occurences: 60543 Shooting % 14.7
Goals: 22 Occurences: 46238 Shooting % 15.4
Goals: 23 Occurences: 33838 Shooting % 16.1
Goals: 24 Occurences: 23431 Shooting % 16.8
Goals: 25 Occurences: 15214 Shooting % 17.5
Goals: 26 Occurences: 9946 Shooting % 18.2
Goals: 27 Occurences: 5937 Shooting % 18.9
Goals: 28 Occurences: 3609 Shooting % 19.6
Goals: 29 Occurences: 2057 Shooting % 20.3
Goals: 30 Occurences: 1166 Shooting % 21.0
Goals: 31 Occurences: 589 Shooting % 21.7
Goals: 32 Occurences: 284 Shooting % 22.4
Goals: 33 Occurences: 175 Shooting % 23.1
Goals: 34 Occurences: 61 Shooting % 23.8
Goals: 35 Occurences: 45 Shooting % 24.5
Goals: 36 Occurences: 9 Shooting % 25.2
Goals: 37 Occurences: 9 Shooting % 25.9
Goals: 38 Occurences: 5 Shooting % 26.6
Goals: 39 Occurences: 1 Shooting % 27.3
Goals: 42 Occurences: 1 Shooting % 29.4

For Kuzmenko to have scored 39 goals last season on luck alone with this season being a return to the norm, you are literally getting in the range of 1 in a million odds. That is still certainly possible, yet doesn't hold because every season there's a handful of players with an especially high s% that if you attribute it to purely luck would range in the 1 in 1000-100,000 range.

 

[dgibb10]

I agree with the premise of the thread, I never heard of "pdo" this season and it really brings out a collection of people showing a poor understanding of math/statistics and the game of hockey.

First it's doing something that's just unnecessary, there's always been the concept of a career/contract year. Look at the career of any decent player and there will likely be a season or two that stands out above the rest. Second it's wrong in that it then tries to quantify and attribute this concept that's always been known to a "luck" factor.

Now luck will certainly play a part, but what's actually going on is a combination of coaching, chemistry, confidence, preparation, motivation, luck, and maybe a few other things. There's also the point where you have all this going on for a player that they begin to create their own luck. And a player 'reverting to the norm' is not so much a matter of luck evening out as it is every spring you hit a hard stop on the season and they come back with a full reset in the fall.

Andrei Kuzmenko makes a great example here and to drive the point home if him scoring 39 goals and shooting 27% last season, a good 15% or so above the norm, was really just "luck" then yes you can actually calculate that. I can't quite remember how to do the math, but it's not to write a quick simulation. I set it to 143 shots, an expected 12% shooting average, and run it a million times:

Goals: 2 Occurences: 1 Shooting % 1.4
Goals: 3 Occurences: 9 Shooting % 2.1
Goals: 4 Occurences: 32 Shooting % 2.8
Goals: 5 Occurences: 202 Shooting % 3.5
Goals: 6 Occurences: 571 Shooting % 4.2
Goals: 7 Occurences: 1617 Shooting % 4.9
Goals: 8 Occurences: 4156 Shooting % 5.6
Goals: 9 Occurences: 8633 Shooting % 6.3
Goals: 10 Occurences: 16269 Shooting % 7.0
Goals: 11 Occurences: 27640 Shooting % 7.7
Goals: 12 Occurences: 42865 Shooting % 8.4
Goals: 13 Occurences: 59980 Shooting % 9.1
Goals: 14 Occurences: 77181 Shooting % 9.8
Goals: 15 Occurences: 91467 Shooting % 10.5
Goals: 16 Occurences: 100161 Shooting % 11.2
Goals: 17 Occurences: 102867 Shooting % 11.9
Goals: 18 Occurences: 98665 Shooting % 12.6
Goals: 19 Occurences: 88620 Shooting % 13.3
Goals: 20 Occurences: 75906 Shooting % 14.0
Goals: 21 Occurences: 60543 Shooting % 14.7
Goals: 22 Occurences: 46238 Shooting % 15.4
Goals: 23 Occurences: 33838 Shooting % 16.1
Goals: 24 Occurences: 23431 Shooting % 16.8
Goals: 25 Occurences: 15214 Shooting % 17.5
Goals: 26 Occurences: 9946 Shooting % 18.2
Goals: 27 Occurences: 5937 Shooting % 18.9
Goals: 28 Occurences: 3609 Shooting % 19.6
Goals: 29 Occurences: 2057 Shooting % 20.3
Goals: 30 Occurences: 1166 Shooting % 21.0
Goals: 31 Occurences: 589 Shooting % 21.7
Goals: 32 Occurences: 284 Shooting % 22.4
Goals: 33 Occurences: 175 Shooting % 23.1
Goals: 34 Occurences: 61 Shooting % 23.8
Goals: 35 Occurences: 45 Shooting % 24.5
Goals: 36 Occurences: 9 Shooting % 25.2
Goals: 37 Occurences: 9 Shooting % 25.9
Goals: 38 Occurences: 5 Shooting % 26.6
Goals: 39 Occurences: 1 Shooting % 27.3
Goals: 42 Occurences: 1 Shooting % 29.4

For Kuzmenko to have scored 39 goals last season on luck alone with this season being a return to the norm, you are literally getting in the range of 1 in a million odds. That is still certainly possible, yet doesn't hold because every season there's a handful of players with an especially high s% that if you attribute it to purely luck would range in the 1 in 1000-100,000 range.

I'm assuming you used a normal distribution but what was the standard deviation you had, it looks like about 2-3%?

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

I really thought Mantha was going to be a force in the NHL the year before he left Detroit. Iq swear he had the tools, big whiff on my part.

He has the tools he's just a tool himself, so that's why he's not.

 

[yeaher]

Happens every year. You hear all about this "this player has broken out" and 90% of the time it's just some guy with a shooting% that's double his career rate.

Some great candidates for this year:

Reinhart
Mantha
Hoglander
Sharangovich
Coyle
Frederic
Coleman
Virtually the entire canucks roster
Fabbri
Dickinson
etc

Where are al the Vancouver players that were leading the league in scoring earlier this year?

 

[dgibb10]

Where are al the Vancouver players that were leading the league in scoring earlier this year?

"virtually the entire canucks roster"

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Man it must suck for all those Canucks fans that all those players played so great for their team at the start of the year

How will they ever recover from this unsustainable shooting % in the first half!


Wait you're telling me the points were already banked? Wait and that all those goals actually counted in the NHL history books? Could have fooled me , they don't really count since it was unsustainable , poor Canucks fans seriously , how could they even enjoy the first half of the season beats me

 

[The90]

"virtually the entire canucks roster"

I too like to pretend the Canucks didn’t have 6 players shooting at or very near 20% for 3/4 of the season

 

[Beezeral]

Man it must suck for all those Canucks fans that all those players played so great for their team at the start of the year

How will they ever recover from this unsustainable shooting % in the first half!


Wait you're telling me the points were already banked? Wait and that all those goals actually counted in the NHL history books? Could have fooled me , they don't really count since it was unsustainable , poor Canucks fans seriously , how could they even enjoy the first half of the season beats me

It's like you are completely missing the point of everyone saying don't buy into the canucks.

 

[Theodore450]

Philosophically should we worry about that on an Internet forum? Can we get a philisopher in here?

As a philosopher major. It’s fallacy