Curious Statistical Case of Carolina Hurricanes

Status
Not open for further replies.

lomiller1

Registered User
Jan 13, 2015
6,409
2,966
Its been 4 years.

In a row.

Carolina’s sh% going back to the start of the 2015 season is 7.08%. The median sh% is 7.51% so there is nothing particularly odd about the Hurricanes. There are in the bottom 5 in the NHL but someone has to be at the bottom. Yes they have a lack of shooting talent, but that won’t cause them to have a sh% 3 points below a typical NHL team.


The biggest thing aa teams sh% tells you are the Jack Adams candidates for the following year because those teams almost always take a big jump in the standings the following year. Take a look at the 3 teams with a sh% below 7 last year and their projected point totals this year.

Buffalo +39 points
Montreal +22 points
Calgary +24 points

The thee worst sh% from 2016/17 and their change in points last year
Colorado +47
LA +12
NJ +27
2015/16

2015/16 to 2016/17
Toronto +36
Buffalo -3
Chicago +6

2014/15 to 2015/16
Arizona +22
Carolina +15
Chicago +1
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,476
52,667
Weegartown
It really didnt come off that way considering you said "there are way too many variables to ever think you have hockey scientifically fully explained."

Not a single advanced stat advocate has stated that or even implied that with their responses in this thread. And considering the lack of warranted stimuli for such a comment, your initial statement comes off as having an ax to grind/having an agenda



And to your last point, every stat is fairly useless without context besides goals, which is why I always find it humorous when people completely disregard some of them.

Well I certainly didn't mean to come off that way. The post I originally quoted mentioned there might be concerns with the validity of xGF, how it might not account for quality the way we suppose it does. I agreed and stated why I agreed. Having a stat named expected goals for kind of implies that it does have hockey scientifically explained, what with scoring a goal being the entire point of the game and it supposing to have the answers on how much we can expect to score.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK

Maukkis

EZ4ENCE
Mar 16, 2016
10,538
7,217
Yes, each attempt adds a given value based on likelihood of going in.
Aren't there models which account for the player's individual SH% based on their last ~400 shots and apply that to the equation too?

Not that it makes the stat perfect, but I think there is more to existing models than shot type and location. And there should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead

Kamiccolo

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Aug 30, 2011
26,828
16,944
Undisclosed research facility
This was addressed after the 11/21/18 game against Toronto when the Maple Leafs broadcast team (and subsequently their fans) accused whomever counts shots at PNC of being a bit heavy handed. I took a look at our home shot count versus away shot count. Here's that data with updates from the games since then.

First, the home games:

DateOpponentCAR ShotsOPP Shots
10/4/18NYI4620
10/7/18NYR4024
10/9/18VAN3325
10/20/18COL4322
10/26/18SJS4123
10/28/18NYI3920
10/30/18BOS4431
11/10/18DET5232
11/12/18CHI4035
11/17/18CBJ3124
11/18/18NJD2534
11/21/18TOR4532
11/23/18FLA3935
11/30/18ANA3429
12/11/18TOR3029
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
And away

DateOpponentCAR ShotsOPP Shots
10/5/18CBJ3532
10/13/18MIN5723
10/14/18WPG4326
10/16/18TBL4027
10/22/18DET3921
11/2/18ARI5125
11/3/18VGK3425
11/6/18STL3920
11/8/18CHI3438
11/24/18NYI2719
11/27/18MTL2249
12/2/18LAK3435
12/5/18SJS4023
12/7/18ANA3919
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
And now the averages:

CAR Average Shots (Home) - 38.8 shots/game
CAR Average Shots (Away) - 38.14 shots/game

CAR Home/Away Shot Differential - 0.66 shots

OPP Average Shots Allowed (@ PNC Arena) - 27.67 shots/game
OPP Average Shots Allowed (Away) - 27.28 shots/game

OPP Home/Away Shot Differential - 0.39 shots

It's been a long while since I've taken a stats course and calculated statistical significance, but I have a feeling a difference of 0.66 shots between their home and away performance isn't significant.

Let's just clarify this portion. The original comment was that it didn't FEEL like they had that many shots. Many agreed, a small subset made these types of comments and before the 2nd period even started multiple people had reviewed the tape and confirmed the numbers were accurate.

We're not some sort of one big unit of goo that is easy to hate. Many of us have different reactions and opinions. And in this case, it's a case of fans looking for the voice they want to hear (there is always a group of people saying SOMETHING) which is something that is easy to latch onto and make fun of.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayKakko
Jan 21, 2011
141,171
109,586
NYC
Aren't there models which account for the player's individual SH% based on their last ~400 shots and apply that to the equation too?

Not that it makes the stat perfect, but I think there is more to existing models than shot type and location. And there should be.
Manny Elk does shooting metrics and according to his numbers, the Hurricanes are historically bad at shooting, so that makes some sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK

Ahoy there

Always in control of my stick
Nov 10, 2018
1,261
4,274
NC via WI
They have an awful group of forwards, like maybe the worst center depth in the league, a pretty decent young defense, a new goalie semingly twice a week, a rookie coach that just thinks they need to grind grit and grapple their way out into scoring goals, an owner that just took over and decides to change everything because he could surely be better and know more about running a hockey team than the last guy, and a GM that traded two recent #5OV picks for Dougie Hamilton, Ferland, and a college prospect who I'm sure can't wait to jump into that mess and then also traded Jeff Skinner in the offseason going into his contact year for the equivalent of the change you might find in your car.

But ya with those SA differentials and poor shooting percentages, must just be bad luck:dunno:
as much as I'd like to, I find nothing with which to argue against this analysis.
 

Maukkis

EZ4ENCE
Mar 16, 2016
10,538
7,217
Manny Elk does shooting metrics and according to his numbers, the Hurricanes are historically bad at shooting, so that makes some sense.
That would make sense, seeing as the Canes have next to no shooting talent.

Since it is basically established that the best scoring talent can consistently outperform their xG, I checked which Canes have achieved that this year. It seems like only three of their regulars are doing that: Ferland, TVR, and Pesce. Only one forward as well... most other teams have at least a handful of forwards who are scoring way more than their xG value suggests.

Then again, I don't think that works both ways (as in that bad shooters would consistently underperform their xG). Anyway, I'm starting to think finishing ability is the issue here, and it might even be magnified due to a system that heavily promotes shot volume.
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
Peters team has similar shots inflation. Flames outshooting other team by large margin many times but too much perimeter non-quality shots.

It's why Calgary's also top 10 in scoring chances for, high danger scoring chances for and, oh yeah, 6th in GF/Game.
But whatever helps you sleep at night.
 

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,353
39,702
Are they less "stupid" then making up random explanations based on made up scenarios you heard some talking head mention about some other team some time in the distant past? Because that’s what the alternative you are offering.

And yet you claim sample size and yet every year the Canes shoot well below their xPected numbers say. Sure shooting talent and finishing ability play a role but there's more to it. they're chances themselves are overstated. That heatmap can't discern how much time and space a shooter had, if a seam or goal line pass was made prior to the shot (which greatly increases Sh%) etc.
 

Ahoy there

Always in control of my stick
Nov 10, 2018
1,261
4,274
NC via WI
An in-game commercial shown often during local coverage is a clip of Forsland announcing where he says "throw it at the goal; you never know!"

I find that to be a perfect summation of the Hurricanes shot selection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bounces R Way

Revelation

Registered User
Aug 15, 2016
5,298
2,963
Wow it's almost like spamming muffins from the point on NHL butterfly goalies isn't as effective as being conservative with your shots and making them move side to side before ripping one on a gaping net.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shawnofthedeadz

lomiller1

Registered User
Jan 13, 2015
6,409
2,966
And yet you claim sample size and yet every year the Canes shoot well below their xPected numbers say.
You seem to be trying to move the goalpost on "well below" because their sh% this year is nowhere near as bad as where they have been historically. Remember, I already presented actual numbers the last few years they have been shooting 7.1% when the league median was 7.5%. 0.4 percentage points below league median I can buy as poor finishing talent. This year they are shooting 3 full % points below the league median and 2 points below their own norms even though sh% are way up league wide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan

lomiller1

Registered User
Jan 13, 2015
6,409
2,966
Wow it's almost like spamming muffins from the point on NHL butterfly goalies isn't as effective as being conservative with your shots and making them move side to side before ripping one on a gaping net.
No team in the NHL tries to hang onto the puck for a perfect shot, because it doesn't work. It's bad stratigy on NHL ice. No one coaches it no one does it and generally speaking players that like to play that way get sent back to the KHL. The way teams generate offense in the NHL is to get the puck to the net and look for deflections and rebounds. Aslo, as I've pointed out multiple times Caroline doesn't "shoot muffins from the point" they are amoung the best teams in the NHL at generating shots from the high danger places on the ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan

Revelation

Registered User
Aug 15, 2016
5,298
2,963
No team in the NHL tries to hang onto the puck for a perfect shot, because it doesn't work. It's bad stratigy on NHL ice. No one coaches it no one does it and generally speaking players that like to play that way get sent back to the KHL. The way teams generate offense in the NHL is to get the puck to the net and look for deflections and rebounds. Aslo, as I've pointed out multiple times Caroline doesn't "shoot muffins from the point" they are amoung the best teams in the NHL at generating shots from the high danger places on the ice.

I didn't realize Kuznetsov put up 32 NHL playoff points from the KHL last year, makes that even more impressive.

The Caps won the cup last year by giving up tons of stoppable shots to keep Holtby in rhythm while scoring on breakaways, one timers and plays that took the goalie out of the picture. Full throated puck possession works if you're the prime Red Wings or Blackhawks with half your roster consisting of top end players, otherwise it's largely reduced to the puck constantly being intercepted by heady players and ending in the back of your net since most NHL goals now are from counterattacks on breakdowns.
 

pabst blue ribbon

🇺🇦🤝🇵🇱
Oct 26, 2015
3,240
1,965
PG
Top 10 5v5 Goal Differential teams with >50% xgfTop 10 5v5 Goal Differential teams with <50% xgfBottom 10 5v5Goal Differential teams >50% xgfBottom 10 5v5 Goal Differential teams with <50% xgf
17/187337
16/179 128
15/167328
14/158228
13/149128
12/138237
11/1273010
10/118237
09/109137
08/098228
07/087319
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For all the crap that expected goals is getting in this thread, it seems to positively corelate with actual results (goal differential)

Every season at least 7 of the Top 10 teams who finish top 10 in Goal differential also have an xg above 50%
At most 3 teams that are in the bottom of Goal differential manage to have an xg above 50%
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->