Better goal scorer: Jake Guentzel or David Pastrnak?

[SeanMoneyHands]

Who is the better goal scorer of the two?

Click to read more...

 

[Lavar Ball]

Pastrnak quite easily IMO

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Regular season: Pastrnak
Playoffs: Guentzel

 

[RapidKnight]

Guentzel converts on more of his individual shot attempts and would score more if he wasn’t a conservative shooter. However Pastrnak is indisputably a better finisher on the powerplay. Notably Guentzel is the better scorer in tight which is why he excels in the playoffs. Overall, shot volume makes it seem like a large gap but it’s very close.

 

[LightningStorm]

Pastrnak, not close.

 

[KaosKommando]

I'd love to say Pasta, but it's not that easy.

Yeah, Jake playes with Crosby and that makes him that great goal scorer that he is. Then again Pasta playes with much lesser players and has to make those goals by himself. What to do with 0.47 and 0.43. One has Crosby and other has some players. Then those numbers change when playoffs come. One has .42 and the other .58. Then they both only have ~60 playoff games. Though one has 70 so he must be better.

How can you even say which is better. I said even, because Pasta playes with inferior players and Jake playes with Crosby.

Results be damned. This is how I feel.

 

[Regal]

Guentzel converts on more of his individual shot attempts and would score more if he wasn’t a conservative shooter. However Pastrnak is indisputably a better finisher on the powerplay. Notably Guentzel is the better scorer in tight which is why he excels in the playoffs. Overall, shot volume makes it seem like a large gap but it’s very close.

Shot volume is part of goalscoring ability. You can’t just take more shots and score more

 

[KaosKommando]

Shot volume is part of goalscoring ability. You can’t just take more shots and score more

So, is there a stat that follows shot volumes at HD+LD zones and gives us a better view of how good your shot is? And can we name it the Danger Zone!

 

[Regal]

So, is there a stat that follows shot volumes at HD+LD zones and gives us a better view of how good your shot is? And can we name it the Danger Zone!

I’m not sure other than comparing shot charts. Even then it’s tough because not every shot in every zone is created equal. Time, space, whether you’re taking a pass or carrying the puck, how good the pass is, where the goalie is, etc, etc. But even beyond the shot itself, part of shooting ability is how well you can get a shot off. If two players are given 100 passes into the circles in the same spot, and one manages to turn those into 80 shots, and scores 12 goals, for a 15% shooting percentage, and the other manages to turn those into 60 shots and scores 10 goals for a 16.7% shooting percentage, I wouldn’t consider the second shooter the better shooter or goal scorer, because he’s either flubbing or shooting wide more chances, and it’s resulting in fewer goals.

 

[KaosKommando]

I’m not sure other than comparing shot charts. Even then it’s tough because not every shot in every zone is created equal. Time, space, whether you’re taking a pass or carrying the puck, how good the pass is, where the goalie is, etc, etc. But even beyond the shot itself, part of shooting ability is how well you can get a shot off. If two players are given 100 passes into the circles in the same spot, and one manages to turn those into 80 shots, and scores 12 goals, for a 15% shooting percentage, and the other manages to turn those into 60 shots and scores 10 goals for a 16.7% shooting percentage, I wouldn’t consider the second shooter the better shooter or goal scorer, because he’s either flubbing or shooting wide more chances, and it’s resulting in fewer goals.

So you're saying that there is a stat for that. Name shots HD-+-+-LD and follow that with shot volumes. Sounds good. Multiply that by 10K and you got yourself a soup.

Edit. Put some 15% shooting percentages and 100 passes as an example and you're gonna have a bad time.

 

[RapidKnight]

Shot volume is part of goalscoring ability. You can’t just take more shots and score more

Yes you can. You can take a greater share of your lines’ shots at the expense of your linemates’ shot totals by opting shoot more instead of pass. An individual’s shot totals are representative of both a individuals shot creation ability and the lines’ as a whole. Now generally high danger opportunities and more evenly spread around which is why taking more shots generally leads to a lower shooting percentage. This is why I never claimed shooting percentage is a constant or the relationship is completely linear. I just said it was relavant factor. Although this example below doesn’t hold much relevance on it’s own Guentzel increases his shot volume in the playoffs and his shooting percentage doesn’t suffer.

 

[RapidKnight]

I’m not sure other than comparing shot charts. Even then it’s tough because not every shot in every zone is created equal. Time, space, whether you’re taking a pass or carrying the puck, how good the pass is, where the goalie is, etc, etc. But even beyond the shot itself, part of shooting ability is how well you can get a shot off. If two players are given 100 passes into the circles in the same spot, and one manages to turn those into 80 shots, and scores 12 goals, for a 15% shooting percentage, and the other manages to turn those into 60 shots and scores 10 goals for a 16.7% shooting percentage, I wouldn’t consider the second shooter the better shooter or goal scorer, because he’s either flubbing or shooting wide more chances, and it’s resulting in fewer goals.

Your reasoning is valid but you can’t just assume a player is missing more shots because he has less shots on goals it could very well be the other way around.

 

[KaosKommando]

Yes you can. You can take a greater share of your lines’ shots at the expense of your linemates’ shot totals by opting shoot more instead of pass. An individual’s shot totals are representative of both a individuals shot creation ability and the lines’ as a whole. Now generally high danger opportunities and more evenly spread around which is why taking more shots generally leads to a lower shooting percentage. This is why I never claimed shooting percentage is a constant or the relationship is completely linear. It is still a relavant factor. Although it doesn’t hold much relevance on it’s own Guentzel increases his shot volume in the playoffs and his shooting percentage doesn’t suffer.

But what if I make this imaginary dude with 15% shooting and place him in a line with Crosby? It must mean that like every other Crosby linemate, they produce like Jake.

How does Jake produce with malkin? That's an actual real question.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Shot volume is part of goalscoring ability. You can’t just take more shots and score more

That seems like a bit too black and white to me. Some players will shoot from anywhere even if it's not the best play, while others are judicious about when they shoot but can still bury them with the best of them when they take that shot.

For instance, Evan Rodrigues took 243 shots last year compared to Crosby's 208 shots. Yet it's pretty obvious who the better goal scorer is between the two. The difference is Rodrigues would just shoot as soon as he entered the O-zone whether it was a good play or not while Crosby often would look for a pass rather than just waste a 40 foot unscreened wrister on net.

Now obviously I'm not saying Rodrigues and Pastrnak are comparable as goal scorers, but it's an illustration of simply saying that shot volume is a part of goal scoring ability as a blanket statement. Guys who are also good playmakers who can score tend to pass up a lot of "volume shots" in favor of passes. Draisaitl's sort of like this. Dude scores 50 goals on like 250 shots. Doesn't mean someone who takes 300 shots is a better goal scorer than him.

 

[Regal]

Yes you can. You can take a greater share of your lines’ shots at the expense of your linemates’ shot totals by opting shoot more instead of pass. An individual’s shot totals are representative of both a individuals shot creation ability and the lines’ as a whole. Now generally high danger opportunities and more evenly spread around which is why taking more shots generally leads to a lower shooting percentage. This is why I never claimed shooting percentage is a constant or the relationship is completely linear. It is still a relavant factor. Although it doesn’t hold much relevance on it’s own Guentzel increases his shot volume in the playoffs and his shooting percentage doesn’t suffer.

Agree with the bolded, but I think your initial sentence is too simplistic. It assumes a player would be passing up opportunities to shoot for the pass and not that he is passing it when he doesn’t have a shooting option. I do think players can change their game based on their line mates, but it would involve a fundamental change in their style of play, leading to more or fewer scoring opportunities. I think there’s simply too many moving parts in assuming the ability for more shot generation that it’s really difficult to make it a part of the assessment. I think it can be used more for a line driver like a Crosby, but Guentzel and Pastrnak have both always been the primary finishers on their lines. Guentzel does take a few more shots in the playoffs, but it’s such a minor change (2.7 to 3) that I don’t think it can be assumed to be more than variance.

 

[3074326]

I think Jake is super underrated, but I’m taking Pasta 10/10 times.

Jake is not a product of Crosby at all, he just happens to fit with Crosby like a glove. Jake produces with or without Sid.

 

[Regal]

That seems like a bit too black and white to me. Some players will shoot from anywhere even if it's not the best play, while others are judicious about when they shoot but can still bury them with the best of them when they take that shot.

For instance, Evan Rodrigues took 243 shots last year compared to Crosby's 208 shots. Yet it's pretty obvious who the better goal scorer is between the two. The difference is Rodrigues would just shoot as soon as he entered the O-zone whether it was a good play or not while Crosby often would look for a pass rather than just waste a 40 foot unscreened wrister on net.

Now obviously I'm not saying Rodrigues and Pastrnak are comparable as goal scorers, but it's an illustration of simply saying that shot volume is a part of goal scoring ability as a blanket statement. Guys who are also good playmakers who can score tend to pass up a lot of "volume shots" in favor of passes. Draisaitl's sort of like this. Dude scores 50 goals on like 250 shots. Doesn't mean someone who takes 300 shots is a better goal scorer than him.

I wasn’t arguing that shooting more makes someone a better goal scorer, I was arguing that we can’t just assume Guentzel (or anyone) can simply take more shots and continue to score at the same shooting percentage and thus raise his total goal numbers. And Rodrigues would be an example of why you can’t just take more shots, because they need to actually be good ones in order to keep going in at a high rate. My point is, in general, goals are the best way to measure a goal scorer, not shooting percentage, whether that means creating a ton of scoring chances with a lower shooting percentage or being very accurate with their lower volume of shots

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I wasn’t arguing that shooting more makes someone a better goal scorer, I was arguing that we can’t just assume Guentzel (or anyone) can simply take more shots and continue to score at the same shooting percentage and thus raise his total goal numbers. And Rodrigues would be an example of why you can’t just take more shots, because they need to actually be good ones in order to keep going in at a high rate. My point is, in general, goals are the best way to measure a goal scorer, not shooting percentage, whether that means creating a ton of scoring chances with a lower shooting percentage or being very accurate with their lower volume of shots

Increase his goal totals by the same shot percentage? Likely not. But I'd argue he'd increase he raw totals by *some* amount if he took more shots.

For instance last year Guentzel scored 40 goals on 264 shots, Pastrnak also scored 40 goals but on 312 shots. While I don't think Guentzel taking another 50-ish shots would result in him shooting 15% on those extra shots, I think it's safe to assume he'd have scored at least 2 or 3 extra goals on those extra shots and his raw totals would have been more than Pastrnak's. So in this specific case it's likely he would have scored more goals than Pastrnak if their shot totals were equal.

 

[RapidKnight]

Agree with the bolded, but I think your initial sentence is too simplistic. It assumes a player would be passing up opportunities to shoot for the pass and not that he is passing it when he doesn’t have a shooting option. I do think players can change their game based on their line mates, but it would involve a fundamental change in their style of play, leading to more or fewer scoring opportunities. I think there’s simply too many moving parts in assuming the ability for more shot generation that it’s really difficult to make it a part of the assessment. I think it can be used more for a line driver like a Crosby, but Guentzel and Pastrnak have both always been the primary finishers on their lines. Guentzel does take a few more shots in the playoffs, but it’s such a minor change (2.7 to 3) that I don’t think it can be assumed to be more than variance.

Overall I’m not in disagreement and I never tried to suggest shooting percentages and completely linear. Obviously what I’m trying to argue hear is extremely difficult to quantify. For the record I was more focused on the even strength difference the last 3 years of 11.75% (Pasta) and 15.50% (Guentzel) that is significant enough to bring this into the conversation in my opinion. The all situations difference of 14.08% to 15.60% I’d be in agreement with you. I generally don’t use all situations data for various reasons.

 

[RapidKnight]

But what if I make this imaginary dude with 15% shooting and place him in a line with Crosby? It must mean that like every other Crosby linemate, they produce like Jake.

How does Jake produce with malkin? That's an actual real question.

I not even sure what you’re getting at but players with constant shooting percentages don’t exist. There’s a middle ground here in this argument.

 

[spiny norman]

Arrived quickly.