Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
Not sure but I think that the base statistics for their analysis is based wholly on position of the shot (available from the NHL game logs)
The main thing that the OP is presenting is that the quality of the scoring chance is based on prior puck movement.
Ovechkin and Laine have tons of high scoring chances from outside of the quality scoring area ( shooting from the left of the left face off dot) because the puck movement.
The corsica data would say the goalie is letting in goals from a bad shooting area when in fact they are making great saves when these shots do not go in.
|
That’s a very good point. And that is also why SC% and HDCF% are flawed. You could be standing 2 mm in front of the goalie’s pad and whack the puck into the pad (easiest save possible), but if you’re in the high danger area, then it’s a HDSC%.
We need a metric based on these SQ studies the OP is talking about. I personally would like a SQF metric and a SQA metric, although I guess the expected save percentage could substitute for the SQA metric, even though one measures what I’m interested in more directly. I want to know what kind of shots the team is giving up.
The other thing is that I think you need both shot volume and shot quality metrics. This should not be an either or thing but a both and thing. This is because, ideally, a team would have many quality shots for and few bad shots against.
I know ppl hate CF, etc. because of posters like me who overemphasize them, but they are part of the picture.