GDT: New Jersey Satans vs Boston Bears 7:30PM at The Rock on NBCSN part deuce

[Cowbell232]

Raw shot totals have nothing to do with quality of defense. When I have enough free time to do a comprehensive study, I'll prove it to you.

Well, I agree with the majority of your post. But raw shot totals have a LOT to do with the quality of defense. The better the defense plays, the less shots the opponent gets off. Period. Quality of shot aside, there's no arguing a "perfect" d takes away every puck and leads up the ice.

On at least two of the goals last night they were strictly defensive breakdowns close to the net. One of them, however, was because Salvador's one hand was essentially useless after Chara's shot hit him. Not a lot you can do about that in hindsight, eh?

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

I know FMASC thinks all shots are of identical quality and that hockey is played in a vacuum, but four goals against last night happened within 5 feet of the cage and the other one was a deflection - how on Earth is that the goaltender's responsibility?

If it was an unscreened shot at the point, or a "Moose free roaming on the halfboards" special, I'd agree with you.

Raw shot totals have nothing to do with quality of defense. When I have enough free time to do a comprehensive study, I'll prove it to you.

I don't think that, nor have I ever said that.

My opinion on shot quality is actually based off of cold hard evidence - shooting percentages regress to the league mean over a large enough sample. When you're talking about defense it gets a bit more complicated because it's difficult to tease out what's the goalie's fault and what's the defense's fault. But if we can explain the offensive side of it, that by default helps explain the defensive side of it.

The best shooting offense over the last 5-6 years only had a 1.1% better shooting percentage than the NHL median over that time. That's not at insignificant difference, but not huge at all, and for most teams we're only talking a five to ten goal swing per year because of shooting skill/shot quality.

My arguments are actually based off of evidence. No need for you to do the studies - they've already been done.

 

[Bleedred]

Aren't there advanced stats for goaltending also?

 

[Cowbell232]

Aren't there advanced stats for goaltending also?

Of course, but that doesn't explain whether the defense or the goalie was at fault. One of the last stands of the eye test

 

[guyincognito]

If a team controls the flow of a game through their offense, their raw shot total is going to be good. And vice-versa.

Earlier in the season, when they were playing "better", their shots against/for were that of a bad team. Now when they're awful, they're routinely controlling games. The one constant is defensive breakdowns and mediocre (or poor, in Moose's case) goaltending.

Their defense is not good, but they are controlling the puck. Which brings you to problem #2. Their offense is not good.

 

[NJDevs26]

Shot total can also be influenced by constantly falling behind and having to play catchup while the other team sits back a bit more. We've seemingly given up the first goal like 90% of the time during this death march.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

I don't think that, nor have I ever said that.

My opinion on shot quality is actually based off of cold hard evidence - shooting percentages regress to the league mean over a large enough sample. When you're talking about defense it gets a bit more complicated because it's difficult to tease out what's the goalie's fault and what's the defense's fault. But if we can explain the offensive side of it, that by default helps explain the defensive side of it.

The best shooting offense over the last 5-6 years only had a 1.1% better shooting percentage than the NHL median over that time. That's not at insignificant difference, but not huge at all, and for most teams we're only talking a five to ten goal swing per year because of shooting skill/shot quality.

My arguments are actually based off of evidence. No need for you to do the studies - they've already been done.

too bad you're cold hard facts about the devils were wrong. and when i say wrong i mean really really really wrong. we've gotten worse when we were supposedly supposed to turn it around. the stats are fine for some things, but judging a team's overall performance isnt one of them. there are way too many variables.

 

[guitarguyvic]

too bad you're cold hard facts about the devils were wrong. and when i say wrong i mean really really really wrong. we've gotten worse when we were supposedly supposed to turn it around. the stats are fine for some things, but judging a team's overall performance isnt one of them. there are way too many variables.

How are the cold hard facts wrong? The stats show a team that has dominated puck possession but failed to score. And a D/goaltending that has given up a lot of goals on the few opportunities it gives the opposition. It illustrates exactly what is wrong with the team. And also indicates that this team is not in need of a major overhaul, but a few very strategic tweaks/upgrades.

Seven of the last 8 games have been lost by 1 goal. Some of those are not even "real" one goal losses since they were lost on the shootout. Think about that. If Zajac was producing at his career average, half those losses are wins and/or OT and we are firmly in the #6 spot.

 

[apice3*]

I don't think that, nor have I ever said that.

My opinion on shot quality is actually based off of cold hard evidence - shooting percentages regress to the league mean over a large enough sample. When you're talking about defense it gets a bit more complicated because it's difficult to tease out what's the goalie's fault and what's the defense's fault. But if we can explain the offensive side of it, that by default helps explain the defensive side of it.

The best shooting offense over the last 5-6 years only had a 1.1% better shooting percentage than the NHL median over that time. That's not at insignificant difference, but not huge at all, and for most teams we're only talking a five to ten goal swing per year because of shooting skill/shot quality.

My arguments are actually based off of evidence. No need for you to do the studies - they've already been done.

You're definitely right, more shots = more goals generally speaking.

What I want to know, is there a bell curve of some sort when talking shots to shooting percentage.

I feel like once a team starts pushing the high 30s, 40s, and even 50s, shooting percentage dips way hard. I'd attribute this to lower quality shots, and just more of them. I'm willing to bet that there would be some sort of deviation around the 30-35 shot mark. Once you start crossing that amount, you don't really see goal totals going up more than normal.

 

[GameSeven]

Sadly, using the stats on the site referenced earlier, over the last 5 years we are 25th at SF60 and 29th at SH% at evens.

That is not a recipe for a ton of goals scored.

To our credit, we limit shots with the best teams, even with two woeful seasons in the mix...

But as our goalie stats slowly decline (and, arguably, our Defense, wanting of top-end talent, is exposed) there is less likelihood of winning those nailbiters.

 

[VaxjoDevil]

Is there a way to eliminate the shots that Clarkson takes the second after he enters the zone on the wing when there is absolutely no support for a rebound or deflection or else, from the stats? Those are so pointless (ha!) that they shouldn't count.

 

[DevilChuk*]

Is there a way to eliminate the shots that Clarkson takes the second after he enters the zone on the wing when there is absolutely no support for a rebound or deflection or else, from the stats? Those are so pointless (ha!) that they shouldn't count.

Every time Clarkson shoots, he should donate $1,000 to Sean Avery.

That should do it..

 

[Saugus]

I actually don't mind it that Clarkson takes low percentage shots. That's still better than the rest of the team, who pass when they have high percentage shot opportunities.

 

[Billdo]

^hello Elias, Zajac, Henrique, Lokti, and essentially everyone else. Patty especially burns me with that, he passes up shots all the time when aside from Kovy he's probably got the best one.

 

[GameSeven]

^hello Elias, Zajac, Henrique, Lokti, and essentially everyone else. Patty especially burns me with that, he passes up shots all the time when aside from Kovy he's probably got the best one.

I've just become concerned with his penchant for throwing the puck back into traffic when he has semi-open looks or better.

Still, we'd be dead without him next year...

But even he is on borrowed time and something drastic needs to be done about a skill infusion with this squad.

 

[VaxjoDevil]

Yes there have been moments when shooting was better than passing but there is shooting and there is giving the puck away. Especially Clarkson who actually is great at protecting the puck, it's imbecile to just shoot from just inside the blueline without support instead of holding on and waiting for options.

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" is one of the most annoying cliches in hockey.

We outshoot the opposition every game, and still we don't shoot enough? Maybe players are panicky and instead of having some playmaking patience they throw away the chance with an impossible angle shot.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

You're definitely right, more shots = more goals generally speaking.

What I want to know, is there a bell curve of some sort when talking shots to shooting percentage.

I feel like once a team starts pushing the high 30s, 40s, and even 50s, shooting percentage dips way hard. I'd attribute this to lower quality shots, and just more of them. I'm willing to bet that there would be some sort of deviation around the 30-35 shot mark. Once you start crossing that amount, you don't really see goal totals going up more than normal.

That makes sense, there probably is.

But the best shooting NHL team averages 33 shots per game, the worst around 26, so it's a narrower band we're talking about.

I suspect that if a team is dominant in puck possession, they would be more inclined to throw bad quality shots on net in hopes of tips or deflections, because they knew that they'll simply regain control of the puck shortly. So that would raise shot totals while lowering the ratio of good quality shots to shots.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

too bad you're cold hard facts about the devils were wrong. and when i say wrong i mean really really really wrong. we've gotten worse when we were supposedly supposed to turn it around. the stats are fine for some things, but judging a team's overall performance isnt one of them. there are way too many variables.

Sample size, sample size, sample size.

I never said the Devils were a great team. However, I think they are much better than their record indicates. And if they had more shootout luck this year, you would probably think so too.

 

[MartyOwns]

too bad you're cold hard facts about the devils were wrong. and when i say wrong i mean really really really wrong. we've gotten worse when we were supposedly supposed to turn it around. the stats are fine for some things, but judging a team's overall performance isnt one of them. there are way too many variables.

now youll be told that ‘stats aren’t everything’ and shouldn’t be used solely to determine a teams performance. and around and around we go

 

[CerebralGenesis]

2013 - The Perfect Storm of Devils getting nothing

 

[Wingman77]

And if they had more shootout luck this year, you would probably think so too.

This is something that gets significantly under looked around here

If we even win 5 of those 10 OT/SO we've lost, we're looking at 5 more points than we currently have

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

I like to use Brodeur for an example regarding shot quality.

The issue with shot quality is not whether it exists or not. Of course it exists. No one's ever gonna tell you that Clarkson throwing the puck on net from the boards as soon as he gains the zone is as "good" as a shot coming from a cross-crease back-door play. The issue with shot quality is whether or not it's a REPEATABLE skill that can consistently be utilized by a team or player. Statistically, it's been shown that it's not.

The fact is, there is not and has never been a team that has consistently been able to generate higher quality scoring chances than other teams or lower the quality of scoring chances for the opposing team.

I was a skeptic because of the whole "ignoring shot quality" thing when I first started poking around advanced stats. But I realized that, if shot quality isn't a sustainable skill, then the biggest argument against Broduer (that he was successful because of New Jersey's system) becomes null and void.

If anything, since New Jersey was so good at limiting shots against, and Brodeur has NEVER been tops of the league in SV% over a long period like Hasek and Roy were, you would have to conclude that the Devils allowed HIGHER quality chances by trapping, no? The alternative would be admitting that Brodeur wasn't very good (which we know to be false), or else he should be able to stop a very high percentage of low-quality shots.

So either shot quality exists, or Brodeur has secretly been a bad goalie for his career.

But this is usually where someone says something about how "only the higher quality shots got through to Brodeur so he consistently faced tougher shots and never the easy ones." Well now you're saying that the Devils, as a team, only worked to limit the number of LOW-quality shots against (which interferes with the original argument against Brodeur), but allowed high quality shots. Why would any team do that? Why would a team work hard to eliminate the point shots and dump-ins on net and the shots from behind the goal line while allowing the opponents to take high quality shots from scoring areas? That doesn't make sense.

For me, the logical conclusion was this: in the end, the Devils prevented shots against, and opposing teams scored less goals because of it. So if preventing shots means preventing goals, then getting shots must mean getting goals. So why was I trying to quantify shot quality and add it into a formula that already works without it?

 

[NJDevs26]

This is something that gets significantly under looked around here

If we even win 5 of those 10 OT/SO we've lost, we're looking at 5 more points than we currently have

And then the argument would be the same as it was early last year, that the Devils are a subpar team being propped up by the shootout point, as opposed to just the subpar team they are now.

If we had anywhere close to this year's record in OT last year, we'd have been the #7 or #8 seed, and probably bounced in the first round.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

And then the argument would be the same as it was early last year, that the Devils are a subpar team being propped up by the shootout point, as opposed to just the subpar team they are now.

If we had anywhere close to this year's record in OT last year, we'd have been the #7 or #8 seed, and probably bounced in the first round.

based on what? we beat the Rangers anyways and beat the Flyers handily (who beat PIT handily)

 

[Wingman77]

And then the argument would be the same as it was early last year, that the Devils are a subpar team being propped up by the shootout point, as opposed to just the subpar team they are now.

If we had anywhere close to this year's record in OT last year, we'd have been the #7 or #8 seed, and probably bounced in the first round.

It doesn't excuse the fact that we are a bad team, and have been all season - the 8-1-2 start included

It just goes to show though, regardless of how bad we've been, had we been better in OT/SO in even a few games, things would be much different

But that is the difference between good teams and bad teams and we don't belong in the playoffs