Shots on goal

mathrunner · Post by **mathrunner** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:53 pm

I made a post in the forum about AHA talking about the state championship game last year against Moorhead. The score was 6-4 AHA and the shots on goal were 42-18 Moorhead. Someone was attempting to say that AHA was totally dominated. My point is that the team that "totally dominated" them only made a mere 9.5% of their shots, while AHA made 27% of theirs. I do understand that in most games you see one team totally on top of the shots on goal and points, but I have never understood why shots on goal is so glorified. The numbers of them would be so much higher if people were only trying to get the puck in the area of the net, but that's not the point. I have seem many games where team A has much better defense than team B where, team B barely has any shooting opportunities, and then team A has 2 or 3 times as many shots on goal as team B, but team B wins because the shots they take go in. My analogy would be to suddenly start glorifying someone for all the three pointers they miss in basketball but hit the rim. 'Whoa, this team may have lost by 5 points but they shot 20 more times than the other team.' Any basketball critic would then say those shots shouldn't've been taken. I could totally be out in left field on this. Not trying to bash anymore, more trying to understand, and throw something out there for discussion. I know that was long, thanks for any imput.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:02 pm

Associating shots in basketball with shots in hockey is illogical. In basketball there are bad shots. The best play in hockey is to shoot the puck, very few 'bad shots'. Hockey = little puck, big net, lots of things couldhappen. Basketball, big ball, little net, mostly air between shooter and net. SOG generally equate to amount of time in the offensive zone. More time around the opponents net generally equals more opprotunity for the puck to go in. SOG does not always mean more domination, but without seeing a game and you see a 4 to 1 SOG advantage you have to think there was more itme spent in one zone then the other.

Renegade Ram · Post by **Renegade Ram** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:19 pm

SOG's usually indicate if the goalie's dad is running the shot clock...right Lear.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

mathrunner · Post by **mathrunner** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:24 pm

Fine, loose analogy, I'll give you that. But there are many times I see people take shots that everyone in the arena could tell you would be blocked. Sure, the goalie is only human and maybe could miss. But with lots of those shots, where they get one more shot added to the SOGs, they could have waited for more guys and maybe had a better shot at making a goal.

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:26 pm

The ultimate statistic would be if we could somehow measure the quality of a shot. Example: Shot 1 (Point shot) = 1.2 Shot 2 (Breakaway) = 9.3 10.5 Shot 1 (One time in slot) = 7.9 Shot 2 (Point shot) = 1.2 9.1 Both have two shots but the first team made better opportunities. This could also measure how good of shots the opposing goalie faced in a game. (Note that all figures are completely made up to make a point)

mathrunner · Post by **mathrunner** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:42 pm

Yeah, it seems like such a flawed system. Sure most of the time it works, but I was just trying to point out that it doesn't always, that's all.

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:48 pm

Ncrunch, Most coaches do chart shots, SOG, by location and player. For some of us, a numbering system would be nice - if you don't see the game, but quality chances will do something similar with less work. You just have to rely on who is reporting the game to you. Math - you are right - if you do not see the game and rely entirely on SOG to indicate dominace it will not tell you everything. but a 4 to 1 ratio should give you an indication that someone was playing well and got beat by a good goalie etc.... Funny... number cruncher and mathrunner communicationg with a CPA... the only ones on the thread .... I guess we are boring.

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:58 pm

Or we just take the time to analyze things for what they are ........ but most likely we're boring

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:00 pm

I see renegadewarrior was on this thread, so, yes, that confirms it we are boring.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> See we CAN be exciting!

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:05 pm

I don't like the more shots = control of the game analogy for a couple of reasons.... Some teams (systems) just do not shoot the puck much, they rely on puck movement to open up a good scoring chance and think of some shots as a turnover. They may really control possesion of the puck and the score, but are often outshot. Rochester Mayo and Elk River are good examples of this. Others continually fire at the net and crash it hoping for good things to happen, it just depends on which type of team you are. Teams that get up by a couple of goals, like AHA did last year, tend to sit back and play defense, rarely sending more than 1 attacker in deep. They don't need to press and therefore don't shoot as much. They get the puck out of their end and play dump and chaser, because the other team can't score from their own end. Shots tend to get skewed toward the losing team if the teams are relatively equal.

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:07 pm

Yup yup And I wonder how often coaches/players take stupid shots on net so they can say they outshot someone or came close in shots

mathrunner · Post by **mathrunner** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:11 pm

Thanks goldy. Exactly what I was trying to get at, but with my limited, but growing, knowledge of the sport, it was harder for me.

NeedsMoreCowbell · Post by **NeedsMoreCowbell** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:56 pm

hey numbercrunchers, even with an absurd system of counting shots like that, how can you measure a shot from the point so low? most goals come from muck, rebounds, etc, which point shots really effectively do well since there is so much traffic between the outside and the goal. you can't rate ANY shot in this way because in every situation there are circumstances that can't be meassured.

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:38 pm

Yeah i was just using those as examples ... I dont honestly feel that a point shot is worth 1.2 "points" I was just saying that both teams could have two shots that are very different from each other. Also, shots before rebound goals could be rated because the shot in itself indirectly leads to a goal meaning its all worth some amount of value. Sadly, we don't know those values becuase hockey has way too many effing variables and there is no definite right and wrong decision when doing something such as passing vs shooting in a particualr situation

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:55 pm

"Sadly" hockey has variables? I think the variables is what makes it that much better. And as confirmed with all the varying opinions in this forum that much more difficult to judge 'dominance' by any one team. What is sad is that in Sport Illustrated a couple of years back they ranked the value or difficulty of an assist in various sports giving hockey (I believe) the lowest ranking. Just like a SOG, an assist in hockey can be measured differently. A simple pass across the neutral zone in a 5 on 3 - not too difficult, so that is less meaningful than a pass up the middle to break someone free? Both seem more difficult than kicking the ball above the field and off someone's head.

EREmpireStrikesBack · Post by **EREmpireStrikesBack** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Both seem more difficult than kicking the ball above the field and off someone's head.<hr></blockquote> Don't underestimate that skill <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Elk River AA State Champions- 2001 Boys & 2004 Girls

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:06 pm

I've done the kicking, but could not master the head thing. So from personal experience I thought kicking a ball in the air was overrated. Directing it with your head into the net, impossible.

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:10 pm

Oh man, I think my words are being misinterpreted .... "Sadly, we don't know those values" I meant that hockey does not have any true statistc that measure's a player's performance. I think it would be cool to know such things though. Overall, I'm tying this into baseball. They are able to put values on every action on the field down to a first pitch strike. Being the math geek I am, i think it would be cool to see the value of the things hockey players do by combinging math and stats and bringing it to hockey. Hockey is a great game due to its differences amongst other sports (played on ice, without a ball...). Minnesota High School Hockey itself is breathtaking, hence me being in this forum. Sorry for the confusion elliot, but please, don't question someone's love for the game

elliott70 · Post by **elliott70** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:59 am

I wasn't questioning you, just turning your statement around to make another point. Another nice thing about the forum is you can state your own opinion (providing you add some reason with it). Another bad thing about it - you can easily pick up the wrong idea someone is trying to ocnvey without the face to face (body language, voice fluctuation etc)... But, no, I was not questioning you, just trying to broaden the topic.

NumberCruncher · Post by **NumberCruncher** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:04 am

Alright well then thank you

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Shots on goal

Shots on goal

Re: Shots on goal

Re: Shots on goal

Loose analogy

Re: Shots on goal

SOG

Re: SOG

Re: SOG

Re: SOG

Re: SOG

Re: SOG

thanks

numbercrunchers...

Re: numbercrunchers...

Re: numbercrunchers...

Harder Than It Looks

Re: Harder Than It Looks

Re: numbercrunchers...

Re: numbercrunchers...

Re: numbercrunchers...