Puck possession vs Shot attempts
- Thread starter Steerpike
- Start date
badtakemachine
Registered User
- Dec 20, 2002
- 6,984
- 2
According to some guy on NHL network, the Avs had the 6th best offensive zone time in the NHL, yet of course ranked at the opposite end of the spectrum in shots. Then they had some quotes from Matt Duchene noting that their system doesn't include chucking the puck towards the net and going to go get it after a rebound or a chip in. MacKinnon ranked 2nd in the league in offensive zone entry by carrying the puck (at around 79% of all of his zone entries) and Duchene was 3rd in the league at around 77%. This type of analysis, combined with the obvious fact that the Avs' 'Corsi' and 'Fenwick' ratings did not correlate at all with their winning percentage, leads me to believe that the fact they were such an outlier was not all about luck - and the 'abnormally high' shooting percentage (which wasn't even first in the league) was part luck, part system.
TOML
Registered User
I find it to be interesting that we're treating corsi and fenwick as proxy possession trackers, when actual possession time data is being tracked.
Question is where is it being tracked?
TOML
Registered User
Apparently the NHL stopped tracking possession time years ago. Really? Seems to me it's still being tracked.
Makar Goes Fast
grocery stick
shooting percentages are higher in scoring areas, colorado tries to take those high percentage shots an does so by maintaining the puck and not just shooting from anywhere.
I don't know if the NHL is tracking it in terms of using a stop watch and literally counting like that when a team has possession and then when they lose possession - through the entire games. Some parameters would need to be set, like sometimes battles along the boards go on for 10 or 20 seconds or whatever and how is that counted, for example, the last team that had possession retains possession until the other team clearly has possession and those kinds of details and others - when a team shoots it in and chases, how is that time counted until someone gets clear possession.
What about the play by play events sheet that the NHL has of each game. Do those sheets have enough events and include enough information to glean possession, so that a computer program can calculate possession times from the play by play sheets?
What about the play by play events sheet that the NHL has of each game. Do those sheets have enough events and include enough information to glean possession, so that a computer program can calculate possession times from the play by play sheets?
I'm new to the following site, but from what I can tell, the data strongly disagrees with your statement regarding Colorado. It suggests that Colorado was roughly league average for shot rates in most locations, with a bit of a bias to the left wing. They had extremely high success rates from every low percentage area, and a relatively low shooting percentage from the dots to the inner edges of the circles, and were above average in the slot.
http://war-on-ice.com/hexteams.html
Stahp.
This thread isn't about anyone's attempt to justify Colorado. We've already visited and revisited and revisited all of these points. We get it.
Avs fans: stop trying so hard.
This thread is about the fact that somewhere they are supposedly tracking actual possession of the puck instead of using shot attempt data as a proxy for this.
This thread is for what we could actually do with this data if it became publicly available.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,094
- 9,729
What good is zone time, if you are not using it to create more offensive chances?
more shot attempts=more opportunities to score
not all shot attempts are created equal but typically when you play against tougher competition, you have to take advantage of every opportunity you get to put shots on net where chances are more limited.
also the fact that the avs were way outshot, and needed such great goaltending last year actually makes it seem like they are a worse defensive team than we thought, if they had as much zone time as claimed
more shot attempts=more opportunities to score
not all shot attempts are created equal but typically when you play against tougher competition, you have to take advantage of every opportunity you get to put shots on net where chances are more limited.
also the fact that the avs were way outshot, and needed such great goaltending last year actually makes it seem like they are a worse defensive team than we thought, if they had as much zone time as claimed
If there is a large correlation between (offensive zone time)/(shot attempt) and (shooting percentage), then obviously there is such a thing as shot quality and we shouldn't be so fast to vilify teams with high shooting percentages.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,094
- 9,729
Freudian
Clearly deranged
- Jul 3, 2003
- 50,472
- 17,345
Not necessarily. It depends on what shots you take. Avs take fewer shots from the points than other teams. Those are usually low percentage shots and furthermore much more likely to create corsi/fenwick events (miss the net or being blocked)
Shots taken by defenders out of all shots:
Avs: 26%
Kings: 29%
Blackhawks:28%
Sharks: 30%
Blues: 32%
Furthermore, some of Avs defenders don't shoot much from the point compared to other defenders. The shot charts of Nick Holden and Tyson Barrie look more like the shot charts of forwards since they jump up in the play all the time. These numbers also are in line with Duchene's comment that Avs want to be a team that hangs on to the puck instead of a team that gains the blue line and throws the puck on net.
If Avs wanted to inflate their shot attempt stats, they'd throw the puck on net from the points like other teams do.
Last edited:
All I hear is "your science doesn't match my belief system therefore it's false."
How about your science doesn't match reality. This routinely happens in science by the way and is one of the major ways any science gets pushed forward.
ps I wouldn't calling Corsi, Fenwick or Statistics for that matter a science.
I would love to compare possession time with shooting rate and location to see what kind of trends exist.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
But that's ok, the world is still flat, evolution is a fairy tale, and wikipedia is unreliable.
badtakemachine
Registered User
- Dec 20, 2002
- 6,984
- 2
Science? Counting shots and missed shots is science? The whole point of 'Corsi' and 'Fenwick' is to predict puck possession, which is then supposed to predict winning percentage if you are of the belief that "puck possession is everything". Nobody is disputing the notion that puck possession is important and is likely highly correlated with winning, but what I have a big problem with is blindly believing that 'Corsi' and 'Fenwick' can predict winning with the same accuracy as actually tracking puck possession, the very stat that 'Corsi' and 'Fenwick' are trying to predict in the first place. I don't know, but it kind of seems like it is not me who is the one with the "belief system".
To be able to establish a correlation between two sets of data, Fenwick and winning% in this case, is exactly what the scientific process is for.
badtakemachine
Registered User
- Dec 20, 2002
- 6,984
- 2
Yes, statistics is a science. 'Corsi' and 'Fenwick' are counting shots, missed shots, and if you're feeling like including a really fancy stat, blocked shots.
Winning is what we want to measure. Puck possession is what is thought to drive winning percentage. 'Corsi' and 'Fenwick' is how you think you can measure puck possession. Wouldn't it be more accurate and easier to predict winning by actually measuring the puck possession?
Air speed is what we want to measure. Car speed is what is thought to drive air speed. The tachometer you think you can estimate the car speed with. Wouldn't it be more accurate and easier to just to read the speedometer?
Last edited:
TOML
Registered User
The correlation between Fenwick and winning % is not quite established though, as seen in Colorado's case.
Also there's the NJ Devils. Very good FF% in 12-13 and 13-14, but did not make the playoffs either season.
Vancouver: Good FF%, 6th-worst in standings.
Ottawa, Florida, Winnipeg, Phoenix: All good FF%. Out of playoffs.
Montreal, Minnesota, Pittsburgh (if you can believe that): Not great FF%. In playoffs.
Yes, good teams generally have good fenwick, but clearly there are more factors to consider. Since fenwick and corsi are just proxies to determining puck possession anyway, they seem to be fairly far away from predicting winning %.
In fact, if puck possession time is being tracked, then you might as well throw corsi and fenwick out the window. I think this is what this thread is all about.
Also there's the NJ Devils. Very good FF% in 12-13 and 13-14, but did not make the playoffs either season.
Vancouver: Good FF%, 6th-worst in standings.
Ottawa, Florida, Winnipeg, Phoenix: All good FF%. Out of playoffs.
Montreal, Minnesota, Pittsburgh (if you can believe that): Not great FF%. In playoffs.
Yes, good teams generally have good fenwick, but clearly there are more factors to consider. Since fenwick and corsi are just proxies to determining puck possession anyway, they seem to be fairly far away from predicting winning %.
In fact, if puck possession time is being tracked, then you might as well throw corsi and fenwick out the window. I think this is what this thread is all about.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,094
- 9,729
Yeah but point shots are not bad shots, if they get through to the net because even if it is stopped there are often time rebounds, and bodies around the net, i would say point shots from the center of the ice would seem like better shots though
Shots are not an infinite quantity. By shooting that point shot instead of holding on the puck and cycling it down low for a cross crease pass with a higher % shot etc, you are changing the likely hood of you scoring a goal, and decreasing the likely hood of your scoring chance going in. That is the point Duchene is trying to make, and that is the point people are trying to get Corsi preachers to understand. Not every shot is the same, and taking that shot from the point could actually mean you have LESS POSSESSION, because the team taking that shot from the point has no control over the exact next event - what happens to the puck after that shot? Is the point shot blocked? Is it blocker-ed to the corner by the goalie? etc
Where as if the team doesn't take the point shot, and instead cycles the puck down low and tries to setup a point blank shot 2 feet from the goalie, they are trying to increase their scoring change, and actually INCREASING their possession time. In the case of your point shot, the Corsi event of shooting your point shot is decreasing your likely hood of scoring (your scoring chance from the point is much less than the one where Duchene is trying to get his linemate a shot 2 fee from the net), and also decreasing the chances that you RETAIN POSSESSION.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,094
- 9,729
alot of teams cycle aimlessly and don't generate any attempts out of it, they have possession but what did they create? and often time the cycle game leads to....point shots.
Menzinger
Kessel4LadyByng
Simply holding onto the puck can't lead to scoring chances.
Cycling is just a means to an end, the hope that you have a slightly higher percentage shot. If the cycling doesn't even lead to a scoring opportunity, than it's useless (other than perhaps as a defensive metric).
Cycling is just a means to an end, the hope that you have a slightly higher percentage shot. If the cycling doesn't even lead to a scoring opportunity, than it's useless (other than perhaps as a defensive metric).
I'd argue that FF% is actually a extremely strong indicator of a good team and a fairly good indication of possession.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=5v5close&sort=FFPCT&sortdir=DESC
If we took the top 16 teams and compared them to the teams that made the playoffs, you can see that only 4 teams did not make the playoffs. It's a fairly good indicator of success. A 75% correct rate is fairly good. Successful teams almost always have larger possession of the puck due to being the flat out better team.
3 of the 4 teams that played in the conference finals were ranked 6th or higher with Montreal being the anomaly.
I feel possession is useless if you don't get a shot. You can't really win the game if all you do is pass and cycle in the corners. You do need shots to win games. I understand that people say that bad shots just lead to a loss in possession time will not spell the end of corsi and fenwick. People forget that just because you are holding on to the puck also means it can be stolen at any time. You must do something with the puck which would be generate a shot.
I highly doubt NHL teams are deploying a strategies such as shooting pucks from center ice and hope for a lucky bounce and boost our fenwick percentages. I'd estimate at leas 10-25% of those shots taken are at least decent scoring chances. Fenwick measures shots hitting the net so shots that the Goalie must stop.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=5v5close&sort=FFPCT&sortdir=DESC
If we took the top 16 teams and compared them to the teams that made the playoffs, you can see that only 4 teams did not make the playoffs. It's a fairly good indicator of success. A 75% correct rate is fairly good. Successful teams almost always have larger possession of the puck due to being the flat out better team.
3 of the 4 teams that played in the conference finals were ranked 6th or higher with Montreal being the anomaly.
I feel possession is useless if you don't get a shot. You can't really win the game if all you do is pass and cycle in the corners. You do need shots to win games. I understand that people say that bad shots just lead to a loss in possession time will not spell the end of corsi and fenwick. People forget that just because you are holding on to the puck also means it can be stolen at any time. You must do something with the puck which would be generate a shot.
I highly doubt NHL teams are deploying a strategies such as shooting pucks from center ice and hope for a lucky bounce and boost our fenwick percentages. I'd estimate at leas 10-25% of those shots taken are at least decent scoring chances. Fenwick measures shots hitting the net so shots that the Goalie must stop.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 2 Milwaukee Admirals @ Texas Stars - Texas Stars leads series 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 7 Toronto Maple Leafs @ Boston Bruins - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 21Staked: $203,630.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-