Mark Scheifele and a case of high shooting percentages.

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Ever since 2015-2016, Scheifele has never failed to convert less than 15% of his shots. According to most stat nerds, even converting 15% is already a bit high and unsustainable, yet Scheifele has almost an entire decade of performing well above 15%. He's even flirted above 20% twice, and looking like he'll finish this season shooting above 20% as well. What exactly makes him so efficient in converting his chances or being the PDO king to say the least?

Click to read more...

 

[FlappyGiraffe]

He's a very patient player, and does not mind holding onto the puck looking for high percentage shots.

 

[Kegs]

Super under rated player.

 

[Ozakar]

He has 50 % of his shots taken in the crease and proximate crease area, which is a high danger area (the most dangerous one).

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Maybe if Scheifele took more shots, he could compete for the Art Ross

 

[Coffee]

Most underrated forward in the central division hands down.

To be fair there some big horses in the central, but he is one of them

 

[TheSuperElite]

needs to be in Italy

 

[Channelcat]

He's got a wicked shot. And he's a right hand shot, not sure if that makes a difference, but from what I observe, it almost seems to.

 

[Maelmoor]

He has 50 % of his shots taken in the crease and proximate crease area, which is a high danger area (the most dangerous one).

Yeah this is why you cannot say for an example that 15% is unsustainable, good players who get more scoring chances near the crease are more likely to have a higher %. We have Brayden Point as a good example, he is super active around the crease and scores a lot of goals near the goal.

 

[ijuka]

View attachment 982414

Ever since 2015-2016, Scheifele has never failed to convert less than 15% of his shots. According to most stat nerds, even converting 15% is already a bit high and unsustainable, yet Scheifele has almost an entire decade of performing well above 15%. He's even flirted above 20% twice, and looking like he'll finish this season shooting above 20% as well. What exactly makes him so efficient in converting his chances or being the PDO king to say the least?

15-16: 29g, 22.85 ixG, 1.27g/xg
16-17: 32g, 22.53 ixG, 1.42g/xg
17-18: 23g, 16.82 ixG, 1.37g/xg
18-19: 38g, 27.33 ixG, 1.39g/xg
19-20: 29g, 24.56 ixG, 1.18g/xg
20-21: 21g, 15.94 ixG, 1.32g/xg
21-22: 29g, 19.24 ixG, 1.51g/xg
22-23: 42g, 31.57 ixG, 1.33g/xg
23-24: 25g, 22.94 ixG, 1.09g/xg
24-25: 32g, 19.22 ixG, 1.66g/xg


You could argue that this year is somewhat unsustainable. However, it's not that far out of the line.

Because you have good shooters, and bad shooters. Not everyone converts xG at the same rate. You have two components: xG generation, and xG conversion.

PDO is a team statistic, because of the assumption that it's highly unlikely that an entire team could have especially higher or lower shooting percentage. For individual players, this is different.


xG conversion of 1.00 assumes the population average. However, no individual player is the population average.

It's expected that the actual xG conversion rates follow a normal distribution centered around the population average. Scheifele's conversion parameter might be +2 for 2 standard deviations above average(top 10% or so). That's still well within the expected parameter range.


Keep in mind that xG as a stat is most meaningful for population-level analysis. It doesn't hold for any individual player. Ideally, every player would have their own xG models, but there's not enough sample size for that. So you need to adjust the parameters in relation to the population mean.

Another interesting trend is that xG has become worse and worse as a predictive tool as the seasons have passed. This suggests that the current models are largely out of date, and could use a refresh. Perhaps players are playing more for high-danger chances than they used to, which causes the xG parameter to always underestimate the number of goals scored.

 

[Deno]

Maybe if Scheifele took more shots, he could compete for the Art Ross

Or the fact that he doesn't take more shot is why his shooting percentage is so high. He doesn't shoot unless the thinks he has a chance of scoring.

 

[NyQuil]

There are a few guys out there who are consistently more accurate, like Stamkos and Norris over their careers.

 

[Toby91ca]

15% is a decent shooting percentage but it definitely not considered unsustainable by any stretch of the imagination. 20% is something that’s tough to do consistently though and only a handful of guys have maintained that level over their careers. Schedule is at a rate that isn’t sustainable this year, but agree that he maintains a pretty high rate every year though. Nowhere near th best….that’s probably Craig Simpson. Point has a better career average…haven’t looked at any other current players to see where he stacks up though.

In terms of 15% though…Ovechkin isn’t too far below that on his career average and he’s nowhere near known as a high percentage guy, he’s a high volume shooter

 

[GRob83]

In the last 10 Seasons there are only 3 players who have scored 200 Goals while maintaining a Shooting Percentage above 17%. Draisaitl, Scheifele and Point. So yes, he is indeed Top Tier in efficiency.

Multiple seasons scoring 30+ Goals with a Shooting Percentage above 20% the last 10 Seasons.
- Point 4X
- Draisaitl 3X
- Scheifele 3X
- Reinhart 2X

 

[PhilJets]

All right Mark Scheifele... future Jets best all-time player

 

[GRob83]

There are a few guys out there who are consistently more accurate, like Stamkos and Norris over their careers.

Norris is a 1X 30 goal scorer and does not belong anywhere near this conversation.

 

[NyQuil]

Norris is a 1X 30 goal scorer and does not belong anywhere near this conversation.

No need to get bent out of shape. He's an example of another guy who typically has a high shooting percentage.