I hate to keep beating the “Shooting Percentage Matters” drum but it really dumbfounds me why so many people choose to ignore it, or believe it is only a small part of the game and not worth considering and instead focus their attention on corsi/fenwick, and corsi/fenwick derived stats as their primary evaluation too.
It dumbfounds me that people don’t think players have an ability to control shooting percentage yet we all seem to agree that shooting percentage is affected by game score. Rob Vollman wrote the following in a comment thread at arctic ice hockey.
<blockqote>The score can affect the stats because teams behave differently when chasing or protecting a lead…</blockquote)
He isn’t specifically referring to shooting percentage, but shooting percentage varies based on game score and I think most people accept that. So, while people freely accept that teams can play differently depending on score, they seemingly choose not to believe that players can play different depending on their role, or skillset. Or rather, it isn’t that they don’t believe players can play differently (for example they realize there are defensive specialists) they just choose not to accept that a players style of play (in addition to their talents, which often dictates their style of play) will affect their stats, including shooting percentage. An example, which I brought up at The Puck Stops Here is Marian Gaborik vs Chris Drury. Both Gaborik and Drury played the past 2 seasons on the NY Rangers but Gaborik played an offensive role and Drury generally played a more defensive/3rd line role. As a result, here are their offensive stats at 5v5 over the past 2 seasons.
|Team Fenwick For per 20min WOI||13.8||12.8||+8%|
|Team Sh% For WOI||10.26%||6.18%||+66%|
|Team Goals For per 20 min WOI||1.031||.575||+79%|
Shooting percentage took what was a slight edge for Gaborik in terms of offensive fenwick for and turned it into a huge advantage in goals for. Part of that is Gaborik and his line mates better skill level and part of it is their aggressive offensive style of play, but regardless of why, we need to take shooting percentage into account or else we will undervalue Gaborik at the offensive end of the rink and over value Drury.
It isn’t just Gaborik and Drury whose offense is significantly impacted by shooting percentage. It happens all the time. I took a look at all players that had 2000 5v5 even strength on-ice offensive fenwick events over the past 4 seasons. From there I calculated their expected on-ice goals scored based on their ice time using league-wide average on-ice fenwick for per 20 minutes (FF20) and league-wide average fenwick shooting percentage (FSH%).
I next calculated an expected goals based on the league-wide FF20 and the players FSH% as well as an expected goals based on the players FF20 and the league-wide average FSH%. When we compare these expected goals to the expected goals based solely on the league-wide average we can get an idea of whether a players on-ice goal production is driven mostly by FF20 or FSH% or some combination of the two.
The following players had their on-ice 5v5 goal production influenced the most positively or most negatively due to their on-ice 5v5 FSH%.
|Player Name||%Increase from FSH%|
And the following players had their on-ice 5v5 goal production influenced the most positively or most negatively due to their on-ice 5v5 FF20.
|Player Name||%Increase from FF20|
Some interesting notes:
- The range in the influence of FSH% is significantly larger than the range of influence of FF20 indicating that shooting percentage is more important than shot generation in terms of scoring goals.
- The FSH% list is not random. The list is stratified. Offensive players at the top, non-offensive players at the bottom (plus Scott Gomez who gets offensive minutes, but sucks). What you see above is not luck. There is order to the list, not randomness.
- Speaking of Gomez, he sucks at on-ice FSH%, but has a very good FF20, though that is partly due to offensive zone start bias.
- Ilya Kovalchuk is the anti-Gomez. He has a great FSH%, but is horrible at helping his team generate shots.
- The standard deviation of the FSH% influence is 14.5% while it is 8.3% for FF20 influence so it seems FSH% has a much greater influence on scoring goals than FF20. This is not inconsistent with some of my observations in the past or observations of others.
So, what does all this mean? Shooting percentage matters, and matters a lot and thus drawing conclusions based solely on a corsi analysis is flawed. It isn’t that generating shots and opportunities isn’t important, but that being great at it doesn’t mean you are a great player (Gomez) and being bad at it doesn’t make you a bad player (Kovalchuk). For this reason I really cringe when I see people making conclusions about players based on a corsi analysis. A corsi analysis will only tell you how good he is at one aspect of the game, but is not very good at telling you the players overall value to his team. My goal is, and always will be, to try and evaluate a players overall value and this is why I really dislike corsi analysis. It completely ignores a significant, maybe the most significant, aspect of the game. Furthermore, I believe that offensive ability and defensive ability should be evaluated separately, which many who do corsi analysis don’t do or only partially or subjectively do.
I really don’t know how many different ways I can show that shooting percentage matters a lot but there are still a lot of people who believe players can’t drive or suppress shooting percentage or believe that shooting percentage is a small part of the game that is dwarfed by the randomness/luck associated with it (which is only true if sample size is not sufficiently large). The fact is corsi analysis alone will never give you a reliable (enough to make multi-million contract offers) evaluation of a players overall ability and effectiveness. Shooting percentage matters, and matters a lot. Ignore at your peril.