Mark Scheifele and a case of high shooting percentages.

[Hobble]

Can’t wait for him to be left off the Olympic team because the coaching staff can’t trust a player who doesn’t swear, or some similar BS.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Can’t wait for him to be left off the Olympic team because the coaching staff can’t trust a player who doesn’t swear, or some similar BS.

I, too, am outraged over issues I’ve created in my own mind.

 

[jetsforever]

He has a lethal shot

 

[Pancakes]

I'm no Scheifle expert but I'm guessing it's a combination of a good, accurate, shot as well as him generally only taking shots from good scoring areas. Some players are just a lot more selective about where they take their shots from.

Alex Tanguay used to be a career 18% shooter because he was more of a playmaker and wouldn't really shoot unless it was a prime scoring chance lol

 

[Bear of Bad News]

According to most stat nerds,

Is this crap necessary? Keep the pejoratives to yourself.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Is this crap necessary? Keep the pejoratives to yourself.

I'm a stat nerd lol.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

Nobody says guys who shoot high %s their entire career are unsustainable. We are talking about career outlier shooting streaks or years. And no, schiefele is not likely to maintain 26% shooting

I think part of the point of this thread is that many years ago a lot of people (on HF main boards) spent a lot of time proclaiming the numbers he had as unsustainable.
Mark has maintained a very high year over year shooting % (much higher than those in the "know" said he could achieve).
No one is claiming that he would stay at the very top of this range.
But arguments he would level off to below 10% were also incorrect

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm a stat nerd lol.

Same. And anyone who is really a hockey "stat nerd" instead of just a wannabe wil tell you that shot selection is situational.

For instance, if Schiefele insisted upon only shooting when he's on a clear breakaway, that would be a (ridiculous) example of a situation where yes, a high shooting percentage could be sustainable.

It stands to reason that there are reasonable examples where shot selection could play a similar role.

When the shootout was introduced, we used to joke that Alex Tanguay would still find a way to pass the puck. And lo and behold, he happens to have a relatively low volume of shots/game and a relatively high career shooting percentage.

 

[dgibb10]

I think part of the point of this thread is that many years ago a lot of people (on HF main boards) spent a lot of time proclaiming the numbers he had as unsustainable.
Mark has maintained a very high year over year shooting % (much higher than those in the "know" said he could achieve).
No one is claiming that he would stay at the very top of this range.
But arguments he would level off to below 10% were also incorrect

Anyone suggesting a high level shooter (note, this does not appy to dmen who consistently shoot below) to be below 10% is silly.

Some guys are elite shooters, most guys who get that are flash in the pan lucky seasons.

You'll be much more accurate in predicting the future to assume everyone is a fluke until they show it over a large sample size than trying to pick and choose (translation: most of the time it means assuming everyone on your favourite teams hot streak is sustainable).