The Star: Maple Leafs shot breakdown reveals good news

[anderson3133]

That is a good point I forgot about that but I looked it up and by coincidence the leafs have played the exact average number of games for a team this season.

Weighted averages are key though. Sure, the Leafs have played the average number of games but teams who allow less shots in that 20 foot range might have played more games, effectively bringing down the average. The opposite can also hold true.

 

[mikebel111*]

That is a good point I forgot about that but I looked it up and by coincidence the leafs have played the exact average number of games for a team this season.

it doesn't matter. Leafs allow more shots from the outside than inside which = low % shots. that is the crucial point.

 

[anderson3133]

My point there was just that giving up 8.5% more shots from in close is bad even if it only adds up to 11 shots so far.

But the error could be a systematic miscalculation on your part as a result of under- or over-representation of the "league average" by not taking into account the proper weights.

 

[zeke]

There's no doubt that the Leafs so far this year have definitely been able to change the usual correlation between shot totals and shot quality (i.e. neither has our defense been THAT bad, nor our goalies been THAT good).....but the question is whether that is sustainable or not over the longhaul.

I do think the team has the ability to control its OWN shot quality to a certain extent - i.e. they can simply choose not to take shots from a distance, and they can choose to make extra passes, consistently over the longterm - but I don't feel as comfortable saying that a team can control the opposition's shot quality in the same way. Against all the different team talents and systems, and with every team in the league doing their best to limit quality shots against, your team is just not going to be able to significantly affect the average correlation between shots against totals and quality.


Basically, I think we're likely going to see our shots against totals drop significantly, but without a corresponding drop in goals against, as our save percentage will also drop. And I'm going to guess the save percentage drops more than the shots against, so in the end our GAA will drop down to the middle of the pack like last year.

On the other hand, I think our offense will be able to keep up their goal production. I think the shots for totals will go up a little bit (but not a lot), but I don't think the shooting percentage will drop all that much either.



And the other thing we have to remember is that what the Leafs have done so far is already in the bank. Regression can't touch what's already happened. So even if their stats all instantly regressed to the mean starting this weekend, even then, by the end of the year, the Leafs would still end up with their shots and percentage stats outside the normal expected mean performances.

 

[TheLeastOfTheBunch]

I think a lot of Leaf fans have been saying this for a while now, rest of the league just looks at the shot count on NHL.com and just assume Leaf shooters are lucky.

 

[ak90210]

Weighted averages are key though. Sure, the Leafs have played the average number of games but teams who allow less shots in that 20 foot range might have played more games, effectively bringing down the average. The opposite can also hold true.

Yes weighted averages are key but I don't have the weighted average and was just doing this at a glance. Also the positive stats wasn't done doing weighted averages either so that would call those numbers into question as well. We also have no reason at this to time to assume more teams who allow fewer shots inside 20 have played fewer games. Either way the article is trying to act as if giving up more shots from inside and more shots from outside is somehow better because you give up so many shots from outside you have fewer inside shots per 100 shots than average.

Obviously what I did was just a quick analysis and isn't perfect but it at least should have been mentioned in the article. Factoring in that the Leafs have given up more than their fair share of hots from inside 20 feet in spite of giving up fewer shots from inside per shot than average definitely paints a clearer picture.

 

[anderson3133]

Yes weighted averages are key but I don't have the weighted average and was just doing this at a glance. Also the positive stats wasn't done doing weighted averages either so that would call those numbers into question as well. We also have no reason at this to time to assume more teams who allow fewer shots inside 20 have played fewer games. Either way the article is trying to act as if giving up more shots from inside and more shots from outside is somehow better because you give up so many shots from outside you have fewer inside shots per 100 shots than average.

Obviously what I did was just a quick analysis and isn't perfect but it at least should have been mentioned in the article. Factoring in that the Leafs have given up more than their fair share of hots from inside 20 feet in spite of giving up fewer shots from inside per shot than average definitely paints a clearer picture.

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

 

[ak90210]

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

Good to have a civil discussion with someone from a different fan base.

 

[p.l.f.]

The bigger issue is puck possession, or lack there of.
And the decisive shot differential is a result of that

 

[jmart21]

The bigger issue is puck possession, or lack there of.
And the decisive shot differential is a result of that

This is a good point.


Mirtle&Sigel dicussed this on the podcast this week and had a very good point. Mirtle brought up a quote from Kadri...something like "we tend to hold onto the puck and make finesse plays, scoring on a large number of them".....basically "we shoot less but we're skilled enough to capitalize".

The issue with this that Mirtle/Siegel brought up was; yes this works great for guys in our top6; it doesn't work for guys like Orr/MacLaren/Ashton etc. Our bottom 6 has the same attrocious possesion stats (actually it's worse than the top 6) but doesn't have the skill to counteract it.

Cliffs: It's fine for top6 skilled guys to have low possesion numbers because they can capitalize on scoring chances. Guys in the bottom 6 can't capitalize on open nets; they need to control the play more.

 

[Duke Silver]

No it is significant because giving up 8.5% more shots from an area means you're likely to give up 8.5% more goals from there. Giving up 8.5% more goals from the prime scoring area will make a significant difference over the course of a season.

That's also 8.5 from average not 8.5 from good.

Drawing a line that "giving up 8.5% more shots from [within 20 feet] means you're likely to give up 8.5% more goals" (I made sure to copy your words exactly) is assuming a 100% shooting percentage from those taking the shots from that area.

The Leafs' save percentage from shots taken within that area is 123/141 = 0.872. So really, in terms of goals added over the long run by employing this strategy, you're looking at 12.8% of that 8.5% which turn into goals. It comes out to allowing 1.1% more goals from within 20 feet than the average team.

Why is there a Habs fan on our boards talking about our shooting?

 

[ak90210]

Drawing a line that "giving up 8.5% more shots from [within 20 feet] means you're likely to give up 8.5% more goals" (I made sure to copy your words exactly) is assuming a 100% shooting percentage from those taking the shots from that area.

The Leafs' save percentage from shots taken within that area is 123/141 = 0.872. So really, in terms of goals added over the long run by employing this strategy, you're looking at 12.8% of that 8.5% which turn into goals. It comes out to allowing 1.1% more goals from within 20 feet than the average team.

Why is there a Habs fan on our boards talking about our shooting?

shooting percentage is Goals/Shots so if the shooting percentage remains the same goals grow at the same rate as shots. There's nothing about a change in shooting percentage. Even if there were what you did would;t have figured out the percentage change in goals.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

it doesn't matter. Leafs allow more shots from the outside than inside which = low % shots. that is the crucial point.

This is silly. It doesn't matter if the Leafs are allowing a smaller fraction of shots from inside if they're also allowing more shots overall, which is exactly the case.

Look at the numbers again:

League-wide percentage: 17 per cent

Leaf shooters from inside 20 feet:

SHOTS: 124, GOALS: 30, PERCENTAGE: 24 per cent

Opposing shooters inside 20 feet:

SHOTS: 141, GOALS: 18, PERCENTAGE: 13 per cent

The fact is that the Leafs are allowing more shots from in close than they are taking. This is the opposite of good news. It's bad news.

Now, the fact that the Leafs are scoring on a much higher percentage of their in-close shots than the opposition and the rest of the league is good news. But it's some percentage of shooter skill on the team (which is sustainable), good luck (which is not), and quality of opposition, especially goaltending (we'll see as the season rolls on).

Similarly, for outside shots:

League-wide percentage: Six per cent

SHOTS: 270, GOALS: 19, PERCENTAGE: Seven per cent

Opposing shooters from beyond 20 feet:

SHOTS: 412, GOALS: 18, PERCENTAGE: Four per cent

Again, the fact that the Leafs are giving up way more outside shots than they take is not good news! Their shooting is slightly better than league-average at range. The opponent shooting percentage is significantly lower. Again, this could be a combination of luck (a little less because the sample size is larger) and skill.

Ultimately, the stats here are completely consistent with advanced stats like Corsi/Fenwick, which is still just an exercise in counting shots. They don't disprove the notion that the Leafs are doing a poor job at driving possession. In order to maintain these stats, the Leafs need to stay in the top 3 sh% league-wide. Can they do it? It's possible giving the skill on the wing, but I'm skeptical because of the poor center depth. Also, the goaltending needs to be remain just as sharp over a full season. Does anyone think that both Reimer and Bernier can keep up .930+ sv%? I would be thrilled if they did, but I really doubt it. One of them might, but I can't see Reimer finishing with the .942 he has now and Bernier with a .933 over 82 games. If you do... well, optimism is worth something, I guess.

 

[7even]

56% of goals league wide come from within 20 feet, and we've allowed 50% of our goals against from within 20 feet? Meh.

 

[Clark4Ever]

This thread reminds me of an old high school poem...

There once was a man from Cyball,
Who had a hexahydronical ball,
The cube of it's weight,
Plus his pecker times eight,
Was two thirds of three fifths of f--k all

 

[kilgro]

keep calm and corsi's wrong

 

[leafstilldeath*]

Corsi lovers at the moment with no reply and ...

 

[leafstilldeath*]

BTW would still prefer us taking a few more shots. Although I agree with the quality of shots story it will be nice not to spend majority of the game in our zone losing any momentum or giving momentum to the opposition

 

[mikebel111*]

Ducks werent a great possession team under randy either. As long as we keep winning, i could care less

 

[Stephen]

This is a good point.


Mirtle&Sigel dicussed this on the podcast this week and had a very good point. Mirtle brought up a quote from Kadri...something like "we tend to hold onto the puck and make finesse plays, scoring on a large number of them".....basically "we shoot less but we're skilled enough to capitalize".

The issue with this that Mirtle/Siegel brought up was; yes this works great for guys in our top6; it doesn't work for guys like Orr/MacLaren/Ashton etc. Our bottom 6 has the same attrocious possesion stats (actually it's worse than the top 6) but doesn't have the skill to counteract it.

Cliffs: It's fine for top6 skilled guys to have low possesion numbers because they can capitalize on scoring chances. Guys in the bottom 6 can't capitalize on open nets; they need to control the play more.

Pat Quinn had a great quote in the article where he talks about setting up quality scoring chances as opposed to playing the mindless shots game.

Former Leafs coach Pat Quinn isn’t overly concerned about the current club’s negative shot differential. His teams were often outshot, just not by such a wide margin. “I learned a long time ago that you look at where the shots are coming from. The number of shots at the net is less important. There are some coaches that say: ‘Throw it at the net.’ That’s their way of giving the puck up.†Added Quinn: “The team that won four straight Stanley Cups in Long Island, they didn’t care if they got outshot. They were looking for their quality of shot. They’d hold the puck until they put it in the right spot.â€

And you can't really disagree with this, the Leafs know how to score. They don't throw away good puck possession chances by mindlessly whipping something on net.

 

[SNLeafaholic]

[QUOTE=TheLeastOfTheBunch;73921815]I think a lot of Leaf fans have been saying this for a while now, rest of the league just looks at the shot count on NHL.com and just assume Leaf shooters are lucky.[/QUOTE]


the rest of the league or whomever for that matter can think what they want. The fact is that the Leafs have some highly skilled forwards that can do wondrous things with the puck when given the chance.Kessel,JVR,Kadri and Lupul can perform magic from in close where others have no luck.!!

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

keep calm and corsi's wrong

Groundbreaking analysis right here. What's next, a stupid image macro?

Corsi lovers at the moment with no reply and ...