Toggle sidebar

Why is Having Good Shooting Percentage Considered Bad?

EdJovanovski

EdJovanovski

#FreeRempe
Apr 26, 2016
28,368
63,210
Rempire State
This is one of the most common arguments against players on hfboards that they’re bad because their shooting percentage is high. Like Pettersson is nowhere near as good as his stats say he is because his shooting percentage is high. Is this some dumb Corsi thing where they should just take low percentage shots from everywhere?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bh53
stepdad gaary said:
its not considered bad, its considered unsustainable so you shouldnt count on it to happen forever.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s common for crappy players to go on a tear shooting at 30% 50 games into the season and scoring a lot though, I could see if it was a much shorter sample size but Pettersson clearly is sustaining that level of scoring
 
EdJovanovski said:
I don’t think it’s common for crappy players to go on a tear shooting at 30% 50 games into the season and scoring a lot though, I could see if it was a much shorter sample size but Pettersson clearly is sustaining that level of scoring
Click to expand...
It's just because no-one else has ever been close to that for a career shooting percentage . So unless he has the greatest shot / shot selection ever people think it will regress
 
  • Like
Reactions: sharks9, SaskCanesFan, nturn06 and 1 other person
Realgud said:
It's not considered bad, it's considered unsustainable because it is difficult to keep a high shooting percentage
Click to expand...
Does shooting % not vary that much? I’d presume some players have much better shots than others, and some players are volume shooters and others are not
 
EdJovanovski said:
Does shooting % not vary that much? I’d presume some players have much better shots than others, and some players are volume shooters and others are not
Click to expand...

That is true, but statistically it's been proven to be an anomaly if you keep the same high shooting percentage for an extended period of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nturn06
It's like some unknown fella winning a couple of rounds of Hold 'Em against pro players. Good for him, but we all know that he can't keep doing that forever. If he does, he's the greatest player of all time. It's the same way with hockey. All time greats like Ovechkin are nowhere near a 30S%, so you know that Petterson should be not able to keep producing at the rate he currently is. Just like the amateur Hold 'Em fella shouldn't be able to keep winning against players that rank 50000 spots ahead of him. Petterson's S% tells us that he's been lucky, and that his goal totals will drop, unless his shooting totals are going up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan
Pip said:
It's not considered bad, it's considered unsustainable because it is difficult to keep a high shooting percentage​
Click to expand...
But isn’t it also unsustainable to keep up a high save percentage? Or keep up scoring a lot of goals? Why is this the only stat that’s unsustainable? I’m asking because I see this argument all the time basically on any thread about a hot player people will downplay them saying his shooting % is _
 
Kevs Security said:
It's like some unknown fella winning a couple of rounds of Hold 'Em against pro players. Good for him, but we all know that he can't keep doing that forever. If he does, he's the greatest player of all time. It's the same way with hockey. All time greats like Ovechkin are nowhere near a 30S%, so you know that Petterson should be not able to keep producing at the rate he currently is. Just like the amateur Hold 'Em fella shouldn't be able to keep winning against players that rank 50000 spots ahead of him. Petterson's S% tells us that he's been lucky, and that his goal totals will drop, unless his shooting totals are going up.
Click to expand...
Why is it considered just sheer luck though? I think if any of us were shooting on an NHL goalie our shooting % would be a lot lower than pros. There’s definitely skill involved, it’s not just random
 
EdJovanovski said:
But isn’t it also unsustainable to keep up a high save percentage? Or keep up scoring a lot of goals? Why is this the only stat that’s unsustainable? I’m asking because I see this argument all the time basically on any thread about a hot player people will downplay them saying his shooting % is _
Click to expand...
Because no-one else has done it . Maybe he is the first . The best shooters are around 15 percent . It's like a goalie averaging a .990
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan
EdJovanovski said:
I don’t think it’s common for crappy players to go on a tear shooting at 30% 50 games into the season and scoring a lot though, I could see if it was a much shorter sample size but Pettersson clearly is sustaining that level of scoring
Click to expand...

so you're going to assume that its never happened?
 
EdJovanovski said:
Does shooting % not vary that much? I’d presume some players have much better shots than others, and some players are volume shooters and others are not
Click to expand...

Ovechkin is a volume shooter but hs a wicked shot. His career high in a single season shooting percentage is 14.6%, Stammer hit 19 in a full season once when he scored 60 but hasnt been close to 60 or that shooting percentage since. Matthews never broke 20. Brett Hull on worse goalies in a different era hit 22% once, scored 86 goals and has the highest single season goal total behind Gretzky that year. Getzky in the 80s hit 26 once and was around 20 a few other seasons.

All of these guys basically had their best offensive years when their shooting percentages were high but they call came down. If you think Pettersson is going to keep scoring like he is I think youre going to be disappointed. If anything this will likely be his peak season, unless he somehow is a better sniper and goal scorer than all of OV, Gretzky, Brett Hull, Mario etc. You gotta remember, those all time greats were putting up those numbers on 80s goalies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan and EdJovanovski
EdJovanovski said:
But isn’t it also unsustainable to keep up a high save percentage? Or keep up scoring a lot of goals? Why is this the only stat that’s unsustainable? I’m asking because I see this argument all the time basically on any thread about a hot player people will downplay them saying his shooting % is _
Click to expand...
It's not the only stat that's unsustainable. Who has even made that argument.

Yes, Elias Pettersson is a great player. Yes, his numbers are unsustainable. Yes, he will still put up great numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustonPowers, mphmiles, SaskCanesFan and 6 others
EdJovanovski said:
This is one of the most common arguments against players on hfboards that they’re bad because their shooting percentage is high. Like Pettersson is nowhere near as good as his stats say he is because his shooting percentage is high. Is this some dumb Corsi thing where they should just take low percentage shots from everywhere?
Click to expand...
You aren't perceiving the argument correctly.

It's simply that very high shooting %s are unsustainable in the long-run, hence regression is likely.

Of course that does NOT mean all players will be around the same shooting % for a variety of reasons. But if you think Pettersson will shoot at 27%+ for his career, I've got some bad news for ya.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan and Lazlo Hollyfeld
Like when I’m talking to more casual fans about players, they’ll say look how high his shooting % is, he has a good shot. It seems HFboards is the only place I see everyone considering it a flaw. I don’t get why a players production is considered sustainable if he’s shooting from everywhere and has a low shooting %, and another players considered unsustainable because they’re more particular with their shots and have a high shooting %
 
There is always a few who say “well my player is better he can sustain a 30% shooting percentage” and then the season rolls along or the next season starts and if they’re good, they shoot 13-20% like the rest of the good shooters in the league.
 
EdJovanovski said:
This is one of the most common arguments against players on hfboards that they’re bad because their shooting percentage is high. Like Pettersson is nowhere near as good as his stats say he is because his shooting percentage is high. Is this some dumb Corsi thing where they should just take low percentage shots from everywhere?
Click to expand...

It's not bad in a vacuum. It's only bad when your Sh% is several ticks higher than your career average previously, which obviously means the streak you are on won't be sustainable.

Take William Karlsson, he shot 23% last year and now this year his % is 14.7%, which is much closer to his career 14.6% and thus his regression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan and GKG18
You’re being obtuse

It's not considered bad, it's considered unsustainable because it is a statistical anomaly

I believe the average is around 10% or something like that with better or worst shooter around that number. If it’s crazy high, prepare to be disappointed. If it’s crazy low, put the pitchfork back in the toolshed
 
  • Like
Reactions: sharks9, Scrantonicity 2, easton117 and 5 others
EdJovanovski said:
I don’t think it’s common for crappy players to go on a tear shooting at 30% 50 games into the season and scoring a lot though, I could see if it was a much shorter sample size but Pettersson clearly is sustaining that level of scoring
Click to expand...
Lol.

So youre counting on it continuing?

Good luck with that.

Lets just revisit this thread in the offseason.

And next year.

Good players WILL have better shooting percentages. But not double.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom