Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
I get that, and I find the stats around quality of competition and the like quite compelling. But I equally believe that if you focus too heavily on stats you miss the fact that players have different levels of skill and hockey IQ - something that gets sloughed off as 'making their own luck'. Otherwise you'd have to believe that every player has the same average chance to score on the average shot and that all shot opportunities are equal, something that is patently false.
|
It has been pretty well established that the biggest difference between high and low scorers over a large sample is generally a disparity in shot volume rather than shooting percentage. Top players can generate more shots and more chances and thus generate more offense.
That's not to say that there aren't certainly differences in on-ice shooting %, but volume is the biggest factor. Glencross and Stamkos can have the same shooting percentage, but Stamkos generates twice as many shots per game. And a guy like Ovechkin can have a lower career shooting percentage than Matt Stajan, but because he can generate 5 shots a game he's one of the best goal scorers of this era.
That said, any analysis that uses QoC numbers 4-5 games into the season is immediately and unquestionably worthless. QoC numbers are regenerated every year (i.e. the quality of a player is based on only this year's data), so it's a horribly inaccurate indicator of the type of opponents a player is facing.