Who has a better shot: MacKinnon or McDavid?

[thadd]

MacKinnon’s shot is way better.

McDavid’s shot is not his strong point.

And I agree. He just knows how to use it better. Very opportunistic. Great at tipping the puck and in close he's got great accuracy... but Mackinnon's shot is better than McDavid in most ways that shots can be measured.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

I think Mackinnon has the better shot in terms of shot velocity. McDavids is more accurate. Mackinnon also takes significantly more low percentage shows, a few of which go in.

McDavid is the better goal scorer but I think that comes more from finding the soft spots rather than having the better shooting ability

 

[moropanov]

MacKinnon looks way cooler when he's shooting the puck but McDavid does a much better job of actually scoring on the shots he takes.

How much of that could you attribute to shooting talent, and how much his ability to clinically finish breakaways and smartly pick his spots?

McDavid has gotten extremely good in breakaways, it's almost a glitch now how he scores. But faking a goalie out of position and chipping the goal in to empty net... is that really shooting talent or just finishing talent?



Another thing that these models simply do not account for yet is how the goaltender and players are positioned on the ice. MacKinnon takes shots from everywhere, even when the goaltender expects it it and is set in position. Being a volume shooter likely hurts MacKinnons value in these models like they may do for Ovechkin.

McDavid has better hands in tight, is better in breakaways and picks his spot when to shoot better. MacKinnon is better in terms of being able to beat the goalie from far out.

 

[tony d]

Nathan.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

What are these models called? Genuinely curious, I've never heard of them.

Expected goals. Every shot is designated a probability of scoring between 0% and 100% based on factors such as distance, angle, game strength, and more, and the expected goals from a given shot is the probability of scoring expressed as a decimal. So a shot with a 10% chance of scoring is worth 0.1 expected goals.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

MacKinnon has a better shot.

McDavid is the best in the world at finishing plays around the net, but MacKinnon has the superior perimeter shot.

 

[Krewe]

What are these models called? Genuinely curious, I've never heard of them.

Expected Goals

 

[Mickey Marner]

MacKinnon has a better shot.

McDavid is better at getting in tight and shooting in close proximity to the net.

 

[Regal]

I'm not using shooting percentage alone; McDavid beats him in shooting percent above expected by every model I've looked at.

Fair enough. But, if a player takes a higher percentage of shots from areas that he's good at, would it not skew the numbers? McDavid seems to wait to shoot until he's in close the majority of the time, and he has a quick, accurate release in tight. I'd say he's better than MacKinnon close to the net (although part of that is moves on the goalie rather than just shot), but MacKinnon is much better 5-10 feet out and beyond. It's subjective then which shot we would consider better in a vacuum (though I would argue traditionally shot quality tends to be judged from a bit further out), but McDavid would look better on paper in terms of shooting percentage/expected shooting percentage, because he shoots a greater percentage of his shots in the area he's best in, which also has a higher percentage of going in.

As an example, if the average player can score on 10% of their shots in close and 5% on their shots from further away, I can score at 25% on my shots in tight, and 5% on my shots further away, and Joe can score at 20% in tight and 10% of his shots further away, if I take 100 shots in tight and 100 shots further away, I'd have 30 goals and a 15% shooting percentage, and an expected shooting percentage of 7.5%. If Joe took 50 shots in tight and 200 shots further away, he'd have 30 goals and a 12% shooting percentage and an expected shooting percentage of 6%. So I would have a better shooting percentage above expected in terms of amount of percentage above expected (7.5 to 6.0), and the same if we're looking at percentage above expected (both twice the expected percentage), but am I really the better shooter? Or even the same? Joe is 80% as good as me in close but twice as good as me from further out. I would say Joe is the better shooter.

Their shot charts seem to support this idea of where they're shooting and scoring:


Also, I'm kind of curious what numbers these are, because just a brief look at some sites doesn't suggest this for me. Looking at evolving hockey's xFSh%, we see McDavid with %10.25 and MacKinnon with 6.96%, and their actual FSh%s are 12.22 and 9.16 respectively. This would put MacKinnon with better numbers relative to expected.

Also, according to NaturalStatTrick, over the past three years, MacKinnon has an individual expected goals of 81.06 and McDavid has an individual expected goals of 85.51. Evolving hockey puts them at 87.3 for MacKinnon and 97.3 for McDavid. Considering McDavid only has one more goal than MacKinnon over that time period (116 to 115), would it not follow that MacKinnon scoring a greater amount/percentage over his expected goals suggest he was the better shooter?

 

[TruePowerSlave]

MacKinnon easily.

McDavid can score more simply because he is the better offensive talent not because he has the better shot.

Comparing the average numbers is pointless as it took years before MacKinnon reached this level, even then the numbers show very little about the quality of their shot.

 

[MessierII]

Mckinnon’s shot is better. He definitely scores more by actually shooting the puck than mcdavid does. McDavid does have a very accurate wrister but most of his goals are from moves in tight.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Expected goals. Every shot is designated a probability of scoring between 0% and 100% based on factors such as distance, angle, game strength, and more, and the expected goals from a given shot is the probability of scoring expressed as a decimal. So a shot with a 10% chance of scoring is worth 0.1 expected goals.

Wouldn't that just mean McDavid's better at creating more chances to score, rather than proving he has a "better" shot?

Take a comparison of Crosby and Tarasanko, for instance. Crosby has the higher totals and his best seasons xG are better than Tarasanko's best seasons, but I'd argue just in terms of "shot" Tarasanko's got a better shot than Crosby. Crosby just makes up for it by generating more chances to score and being ridiculously good at deflections/rebounds. But in terms of pure shooting ability, Tarasanko's shot is superior.

 

[loosemoose]

Both have muffins. Best and the second best players overall, but I'd say that there are at least 50 players in the league with a better shot than either of them has.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Wouldn't that just mean McDavid's better at creating more chances to score, rather than proving he has a "better" shot?

Take a comparison of Crosby and Tarasanko, for instance. Crosby has the higher totals and his best seasons xG are better than Tarasanko's best seasons, but I'd argue just in terms of "shot" Tarasanko's got a better shot than Crosby. Crosby just makes up for it by generating more chances to score and being ridiculously good at deflections/rebounds. But in terms of pure shooting ability, Tarasanko's shot is superior.

I am talking about their actual goals relative to their expected goal totals.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I am talking about their actual goals relative to their expected goal totals.

Right, but it still doesn't necessarily describe who has a better shot.

Like I said in my Crosby/Tarasanko example, Crosby outperforms Tarasanko in both actual goals and expected goals, but his shot isn't more dangerous than Tarasanko's. He just creates more dangerous chances and is phenomenal at deflecting pucks and pouncing on rebounds, the latter two don't require a "good shot" to score on, but more so hand-eye coordination and elite IQ to know where the puck is going to be.

 

[Regal]

Right, but it still doesn't necessarily describe who has a better shot.

Like I said in my Crosby/Tarasanko example, Crosby outperforms Tarasanko in both actual goals and expected goals, but his shot isn't more dangerous than Tarasanko's. He just creates more dangerous chances and is phenomenal at deflecting pucks and pouncing on rebounds, the latter two don't require a "good shot" to score on, but more so hand-eye coordination and elite IQ to know where the puck is going to be.

You're missing what he's saying. It's about outperforming what's expected, not how much is expected. The fact Crosby creates those chances is taken into account. If we look at 14-15 to 19-20, since Tarasenko became a top player, according to NaturalStatTrick, Crosby has an individual expected goals of 153.43 and Tarasenko has an individual expected goals of 133.64, and they have scored 188 and 185 goals in those years, so Tarasenko has scored over 50 more goals than expected while Crosby has scored 35. Both are good shooters but this would suggest Tarassnko is the better one.

I would agree though that this doesn't tell the whole story, because, while Crosby has a good shot and a great backhand, as you say his big advantage around the net is positioning, smarts, hand eye, deflections, rebounds, etc, and scoring more than expected on those things isn't the same as "shot quality" to me.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You're missing what he's saying. It's about outperforming what's expected, not how much is expected. The fact Crosby creates those chances is taken into account. If we look at 14-15 to 19-20, since Tarasenko became a top player, according to NaturalStatTrick, Crosby has an individual expected goals of 153.43 and Tarasenko has an individual expected goals of 133.64, and they have scored 188 and 185 goals in those years, so Tarasenko has scored over 50 more goals than expected while Crosby has scored 35. Both are good shooters but this would suggest Tarassnko is the better one.

I would agree though that this doesn't tell the whole story, because, while Crosby has a good shot and a great backhand, as you say his big advantage around the net is positioning, smarts, hand eye, deflections, rebounds, etc, and scoring more than expected on those things isn't the same as "shot quality" to me.

I think one of the issues is the OP doesn't really define what they mean by "better shot". For some, that means hardest shot/most dangerous shot from anywhere on the ice. For others, it means proficiency at scoring goals regardless of actual "physical" ability to fire the puck hard.

Guys like Crosby and McDavid are dangerous, not because they have overpowering shots or can blast them by goalies from 30 feet out without a screen, but because of shot placement and ability to generate numerous chances in close where velocity means a lot less than accurate shot placement. Guys like Ovechkin and Matthews are dangerous because they can rifle a 30 foot wrister past an unscreened goalie who is already set to face the shot.

I'd say Mackinnon kind of falls closer to the Ovechkin/Matthews idea of "good shot" where he's dangerous from distance because of velocity, something that I don't think Crosby or McDavid are particularly dangerous at. And I think without the OP clearly defining what he/she believes what "better shot" means, you're seeing the confusion above.

Like my Crosby/Tarasanko comparison. If you give both guys a clean shot from 20+ feet away, Tarasanko can probably still beat goalies even if the goalie is squared up. Crosby simply doesn't have the velocity on his shot to do that. But Crosby's much better at both creating and burying chances that require accuracy and hand-eye coordination in close rather than any sort of ability to blow the shot past the goalie.

So if the definition of the OP for "better shot" is simply the velocity on a shot and ability to blow pucks past goalies from all distances, then I can see the argument for Mackinnon. But if "better shot" includes the ability to place shots with pinpoint accuracy, but not necessarily overpower goalies from distance, then I can see the argument for McDavid.

 

[Sugi21]

And I agree. He just knows how to use it better. Very opportunistic. Great at tipping the puck and in close he's got great accuracy... but Mackinnon's shot is better than McDavid in most ways that shots can be measured.

Agreed too 97 is not known for his shooting abilities but he’s lethal in tight, deke the goalie out and finishing around the net way better that Mac is!

 

[The Abusement Park]

I think one of the issues is the OP doesn't really define what they mean by "better shot". For some, that means hardest shot/most dangerous shot from anywhere on the ice. For others, it means proficiency at scoring goals regardless of actual "physical" ability to fire the puck hard.

Guys like Crosby and McDavid are dangerous, not because they have overpowering shots or can blast them by goalies from 30 feet out without a screen, but because of shot placement and ability to generate numerous chances in close where velocity means a lot less than accurate shot placement. Guys like Ovechkin and Matthews are dangerous because they can rifle a 30 foot wrister past an unscreened goalie who is already set to face the shot.

I'd say Mackinnon kind of falls closer to the Ovechkin/Matthews idea of "good shot" where he's dangerous from distance because of velocity, something that I don't think Crosby or McDavid are particularly dangerous at. And I think without the OP clearly defining what he/she believes what "better shot" means, you're seeing the confusion above.

Like my Crosby/Tarasanko comparison. If you give both guys a clean shot from 20+ feet away, Tarasanko can probably still beat goalies even if the goalie is squared up. Crosby simply doesn't have the velocity on his shot to do that. But Crosby's much better at both creating and burying chances that require accuracy and hand-eye coordination in close rather than any sort of ability to blow the shot past the goalie.

So if the definition of the OP for "better shot" is simply the velocity on a shot and ability to blow pucks past goalies from all distances, then I can see the argument for Mackinnon. But if "better shot" includes the ability to place shots with pinpoint accuracy, but not necessarily overpower goalies from distance, then I can see the argument for McDavid.

This is precisely the difference between McD and Mack. McDavids offensive skill is just bonkers and he can consistently get himself into the low slow slot and around the net where a "good shot" isn't needed to score. Not that McDavid has a bad shot or anything but you won't see him sniping goalies from the top of the circles a ton. Where as Mack has the much harder shot and will utilize that from shooting from all over the ice. His shot isn't quite as accurate but overall I'd say it's better because he can score from all over the ice much more consistently.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

MacKinnon can snipe from the circles with consistency and actually uses slap shots.

McDavid scores most of his goals from the slot, because he can get to the dangerous areas better than anyone else in the league and people expect him to dish it more than MacKinnon.

 

[thadd]

Agreed too 97 is not known for his shooting abilities but he’s lethal in tight, deke the goalie out and finishing around the net way better that Mac is!

When I watch McDavid and Mac the biggest difference in their abilities I see is McDavid puck handling. The stuff McDavid can do with the puck while moving at breakneck speeds is insane and it defines him as a generational player.

Crosby has insane lower body strength.
Lemieux had off the chart puck handling skills for such a huge man.
Gretzky was thinking 30 years ahead of his time.
Bobby Hull was shooting 30 years ahead of his time.

All of these guys had something that defined them as a generational player and McDavid's puck handling at high speeds defines his.
People talk about his speed. Yeah, he's got speed and he's got insane acceleration, but there are tons of players that can skate, but very few of them can do a whole lot with the puck while moving at max speed and putting while also putting all of their effort into acceleration.

 

[MattySnipes]

I'd go MacK for pure sniping ability/marksmanship, and McDavid for goal-scoring ability.

I haven't seen McDavid snipe like MacK except for a few instances. Once was against the Ducks in the playoffs, it was a beauty top shelf snipe from above left circle.

McDavid uses his speed and edge work to get into the HD areas and uses his accurate shot to place his shots where he'd like. His ability at raising the puck in-tight is amazing.

When I think of NHL "shooters" McDavid isn't the first name that comes to mind. Nevertheless he is still great at finding the back of the net. Whether it's sexy or not.

 

[Kaner9]

Mac for shot Mc for every other thing.

 

[Avsboy]

Mackinnon has a better shot and physical game

 

[Paul4587]

In terms of raw shooting ability it’s MacKinnon. But he’s a volume shooter and his shooting percentage suffers because he shoots from everywhere. McDavid shoots from much higher percentage areas, his instincts and hands are probably better but his shot isn’t.