Lowest shooting percentages by a regular (non-goon) forward

[Canadiens1958]

Probably Not

I don't think LUCK is the proper word to use here. Referring to the original comment... there can be quite a bit of VARIATION in a player's SPCT from season to season from a wide array of factors that the player himself does not have much control over. A change in SPCT can be caused by a very wide array of factors. Many of these factors are a direct result of the player himself, like learning proper body position, better use of space, quickness of release, accuracy, etc. Many other factors are not a result of the player himself...a player's team's offensive strategy (some teams may focus on getting low percentage shots on net that generate rebound opportunities or are designed to use screens more than others), how your opponents defend you, running into a hot/cold goaltender, quality of linemates, number of empty net goals, amount of power play time (and more importantly role on the power play), etc.

All of these things can change a lot from season to season, and I believe the person that originally made the "luck" comment was referring to these. How can we tell which factors are responsible for the SPCT variation? Is it the factors the player is responsible for or is it the "lucky" ones? We cannot, but over the course of several season, or a career they should get evened out, and we can get a little better idea of the player's ability.

Probably luck was an inaccurate choice of words. That being said it still comes down to abilities - thinking the game and the resulting adjustments. Be it players or coaches some do it better than others.This does not change that much from season to season.

The only uncontrolable factors are - injury/health.

 

[barneyg]

I don't think LUCK is the proper word to use here. Referring to the original comment... there can be quite a bit of VARIATION in a player's SPCT from season to season from a wide array of factors that the player himself does not have much control over. A change in SPCT can be caused by a very wide array of factors. Many of these factors are a direct result of the player himself, like learning proper body position, better use of space, quickness of release, accuracy, etc. Many other factors are not a result of the player himself...a player's team's offensive strategy (some teams may focus on getting low percentage shots on net that generate rebound opportunities or are designed to use screens more than others), how your opponents defend you, running into a hot/cold goaltender, quality of linemates, number of empty net goals, amount of power play time (and more importantly role on the power play), etc.

All of these things can change a lot from season to season, and I believe the person that originally made the "luck" comment was referring to these. How can we tell which factors are responsible for the SPCT variation? Is it the factors the player is responsible for or is it the "lucky" ones? We cannot, but over the course of several season, or a career they should get evened out, and we can get a little better idea of the player's ability.

^ This. "Variation" is a better word than luck. Of course the game is played on the ice and team strategies, player reactions, video scouting and so on will affect SH% numbers. Of course Thornton's high SH% season was when he had 37 goals playing with Jason Allison (who sure wasn't doing the dirty work in front of the net). You're not disproving luck plays a role either by claiming a player's change of style may have caused a change in his SH% numbers.

Very small-scale example: if the Caps play like yesterday night all the time (54 shots), they'll have a lot more than 1 goal/game to show for it. From their standpoint, they were unlucky to make those shots against a very hot goaltender who stood on his head to make saves. Over a whole season, you can claim the good luck (game 2?) and bad luck cancel out, or that they don't. Either way is extremely tough to prove.

To the claim that you need to prove luck is involved -- how would you go about doing that? You can never prove luck is involved, unless you're talking about a deterministic system (e.g. you can identify a random drawing somewhere in the process). You can only show unexplained variation (i.e. basically, unpredictability) after controlling for a number of factors. A lot of the things that were brought up (video scouting, specific ways to defend players) cannot be quantified, but even if they could, there would still be unexplained variation, and my (unsupported) claim is that it would still be significant. Looking at Vanek's SH% line throughout his career (12/18/15/19/15), of course you can say that the 18% and 19% years were years where opposing d-men didn't let him use his speed to go to the net. I don't buy it.

That doesn't mean I think everything about this game is pure luck. But I think one should be careful about using statistics like SH% to characterize good and bad seasons and especially infer that those results are entirely caused by factors that can be controlled by the player.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Saw the also but I also saw the having. No one player has to do anything on the ice. They are either too lazy or unaware of the necessary adjustment - keep the feet moving , side to side a yard or two, adjust the body. The one's who are not lazy and can think the game on the ice manage.

Oh, well, fair enough. But sometimes the defense DOES force you to take what you can get in the moment. If you're the last man back on the point of a powerplay, for example, and you get the puck, sometimes just getting the puck toward the net quickly (and around the defender) IS the best play (as opposed to "making a move" that could result in a turnover, no matter how good the defenseman is). Sometimes.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

d-men always have lower SH%. This year, Keith was 6.6% in the reg. season. Pronger was 5.7%. Lidstrom 4.6%. Kaberle 4.4%.

There's quite a bit of luck in single-season SH%. Few players are consistently lower than the league average (Samuelsson was an exception until this year, Blake is another where his 40 goals in NYI is the outlier)..

Sorry, I should of mentioned it was for his career.

 

[barneyg]

Sorry, I should of mentioned it was for his career.

Still, it's not all that bad -- puts him 38th out of 70 d-men with 100 goals or more since 1970: see here.

This actually gives me the chance to beat the same drum again -- the fact that a notoriously accurate shooter such as Bourque only had an average SH% throughout his career tells me that this statistic is not so great at capturing actual shooting ability. I'll take Bourque's insanely high number of shots (6206, i.e. almost 2000 more than any other defenseman during that period) over Ed Westfall's 12.6% shooting any day (or Marty McSorley, who's actually 23rd on that list).

 

[Matt714*]

Top 10 among active players -- Tanguay, Brunette, Parrish, Holmstrom, Vanek, Heatley, Morrow, Brière, Selanne, Malone.

Homer is definitely one of the most garbage goal players ever.

 

[Scott1980]

Got it!

After scoring nine goals in 72 games (42 shots) in 81/82, Billy Carroll scored just 1 goal in 71 games (52 shots). What a comedown! 21.4 percent to 1.9 percent! He had just 32 PIM in 81/82 and 24 in 82/83.

 

[MXD]

Maybe not. I've seen a lot of guys at the beginning of game broadcasts coming to the rink wearing glasses, but obviously don't wear them on the ice. Lord knows how many used to simply take them off to play but eventually decided to get lenses. Not many probably ever make it/allow it to become public knowledge.



You're a bastige for that one (see previous comment on Scott Gomez). But yeah. I just went randomly from 1967 to present (I think shooting percentage stats aren't available on that site if you go back much further than that), and:

[The Results]

Good ol' Gomez, second worst.

edit: by the way, it's under the "powerplay" tab at the top of that site. You can choose single season or "combined" (which pretty much equals "career" for all players whose careers fall entirely within your selected time frame).

I must say that I'm surprised to see Brian Rolston in this category.

 

[overpass]

I must say that I'm surprised to see Brian Rolston in this category.

Rolston spent his whole career in the butterfly goalie era, so an era adjustment would help him. I wonder what effect playing the point on the power play had, especially when compared to players who were playing closer to the net on the power play?

 

[VanIslander]

BOGUS stat. Insignicant on its own.

Shooting on net as a means of clearing the zone without icing (a la Bourque) and shooting on net as a means of getting the puck in deep before a line change or stay high defensive orientation (a la Rolston), not to mention shooting on net as a coach-induced philosophy. There are many reasons wy shots are taken on net by some players and not others, and NOTHING can be readinto a low career shooting percentage.

Some people read too much into stats. This stat is good for speculation but awful interms of any conclusions that could be drawn. The dynamics are simply too great.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Rolston is basically a one-trick pony - he takes a big, powerful slapshot from anywhere. His nickname in NJ the first time around - "Rip Em Wide Rollie" - was apt. He's definitely a volume shooter. Add in the time he spends at the point on the PP, and I'm not surprised.

 

[MXD]

Rolston is basically a one-trick pony - he takes a big, powerful slapshot from anywhere. His nickname in NJ the first time around - "Rip Em Wide Rollie" - was apt. He's definitely a volume shooter. Add in the time he spends at the point on the PP, and I'm not surprised.

But the thing is : amongst forwards, he's the one with the best shot on the list.