Does Blocking shots at a higher rate help win games?

[hatterson]

So now the question is what does this tell us. At first, I would have thought that this relationship means that teams get better at blocking shots when they face more shot attempts. If this were true, then shot blocking at a higher rate wouldn't be that valuable since it also carries with it giving up more shots attempts per 60 minutes. But given that there was no relationship between blocked shot percentage for and the Fenwick relationships, this tells me that teams give up the same amount of missed shots and shots on goal regardless of their shot blocking ability. Which means that teams don't improve at shot blocking as they give up more shot attempts.

Or perhaps that the act of blocking a shot gives the opponent more chance to shoot again, thus inflating corsi numbers

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

It's a skill that, as a single event, can be a game-changer. The best shot blockers out there do it without taking themselves out of the play, cover the low part of the net to let the goalie see the high ones, protect their vulnerable areas well, etc, etc. When observed in the aggregate of game statistics, though, it's obviously not a good sign to be called on to do it more often than your opponents.

It used to be that, for the most part, only the guys that were really good at doing it "safely" (or "had the balls") did the body "sacrifice" thing, and the rest were basically getting hit from good positioning or focusing more on boxing other players out. With the advancement in padding, it's now expected that anyone make the sacrifice if they're in that situation, and sometimes you'll even see two or three players dive/contort/move to block the same shot. I suspect that's always going to be a statistical disconnect here, as relative frequency of countable events is going to produce a lot more "meaningless noise" in more recent years.

 

[Cunneen]

Or perhaps that the act of blocking a shot gives the opponent more chance to shoot again, thus inflating corsi numbers

I definitely believe that's the case. Also, since most blocks are blocking point shots (which have like a 4% chance of going in), the act of blocking a shot (which often screens the goalie and provides another body for a puck to deflect off towards the net) may be a net negative. Whatever the case, I find it fascinating that shot blocking percentage isn't affecting Fenwick at all. And to me, that is definite evidence that answers the title of this thread. Mainly, Blocking shots at a higher rate doesn't help win games since it doesn't decrease the rate at which team allow Fenwick events or shots.

 

[hatterson]

I definitely believe that's the case. Also, since most blocks are blocking point shots (which have like a 4% chance of going in), the act of blocking a shot (which often screens the goalie and provides another body for a puck to deflect off towards the net) may be a net negative. Whatever the case, I find it fascinating that shot blocking percentage isn't affecting Fenwick at all. And to me, that is definite evidence that answers the title of this thread. Mainly, Blocking shots at a higher rate doesn't help win games since it doesn't decrease the rate at which team allow Fenwick events or shots.

However it also doesn't appear to affect the Fenwick shooting percentage so the effect of the goalie being screened/extra deflections appears to be offset by opponents perhaps being forced to shoot wide to get around shot blockers.

Either way, it appears to be far more important to play close body position to a shooter than to worry about getting in the way of his shots.

However, as you said, most blocks are on point shots, so blocking them really doesn't help much, but it might be interesting if we could pull numbers based off of blocks of shots closer in. I'm thinking of this from the coaching standpoint. Maybe it's valuable to say "Defend point shots by getting close to the guys body, don't worry about blocking the shot, but if a guy is in the slot and you can't get close to him dive in front of it all day long" Or maybe it isn't and we, as a hockey community, should begin to ignore block numbers when evaluating a players defensive play (as these aggregate numbers seem to suggest)

 

[Cunneen]

However it also doesn't appear to affect the Fenwick shooting percentage so the effect of the goalie being screened/extra deflections appears to be offset by opponents perhaps being forced to shoot wide to get around shot blockers.

Either way, it appears to be far more important to play close body position to a shooter than to worry about getting in the way of his shots.

However, as you said, most blocks are on point shots, so blocking them really doesn't help much, but it might be interesting if we could pull numbers based off of blocks of shots closer in. I'm thinking of this from the coaching standpoint. Maybe it's valuable to say "Defend point shots by getting close to the guys body, don't worry about blocking the shot, but if a guy is in the slot and you can't get close to him dive in front of it all day long" Or maybe it isn't and we, as a hockey community, should begin to ignore block numbers when evaluating a players defensive play (as these aggregate numbers seem to suggest)

I agree with your assessment. The more I look at blocked shot data the more I think it is a semi-irreleveant skill.