You Want More? You'll Get It.

Eventually.

The media has really caught on to the idea that there are certain repeatable skills in the NHL. Measuring these skills has been labeled "analytics" and the only ones who are really making decisions based on things unrelated to analytics are NHL General Managers. Oops!

Luckily for us, not everyone gets it. A few people think they do, but it isn't the "Summer of Any Stats Ever lol", it's the "Summer of Misunderstanding Analytics."

Quick, what do Jeff Skinner's rookie campaign and his 2013-2014 season have in common?

Shit, I dunno. I'll just take a dumb guess. Uhhh...he had a shooting percentage above his NHL career average.

If you guessed that he had a shooting percentage above his NHL career average, you win the prize.

Finally, I can retire. Good night, internet!

Skinner has a career shooting percentage of 10.5%. During his rookie year he shot at a 14.4% rate. When he next potted in excess of 30 goals, he was shooting at a rate of 12%, still a good 1.5% above his mean. What about Eric Staal's two best scoring years? Yup, you guessed it. His shooting percentage was well above his career average too.

First, two of these seasons were cut short; one by injuries and one by greed. In each season, he projects for 25 goals across 82 games. Is that a below average season? Is that a bad goal-scoring season? No, it isn't. It isn't cherry picking his 2 best seasons, but we're only 6 goals off.

Second, do you know how many more goals he would've scored if he'd shot his mean this year? 6 more. Six. Or about the difference between his pace in those shortened years and his "career best."

When conducting research into shooting percentage it is easy to make some assumptions and some generalizations.

Exactly. Ok, maybe I've been too harsh. I'll do a quick CTRL+F here...

Well, that was unexpected.

They sometimes just don't hold water. However, increases in shooting % generally lead to improved offensive years. More specifically, when a player shoots above his career average, he tends to have a year of high offensive output. Conversely, when players shoot below their career average, their offensive output can be characterized as "disappointing".

Do I really have to parse this? I mean, c'mon.

Another generalization is that players that shoot over the average league shooting percentage tend to be better scorers.

Get out.

Here's something fun. In 2013-14, the average shot percentage in the NHL was 8.9%. You have to go all the way down 89th in the goals that year to find someone who shot below average. Brad Richards, Dustin Byfuglien, Erik Karlsson, and Radim Vrbata all tied with 20 goals for 89th place. Two of them were defensemen.

Players who score more will have higher shot percentages and higher point totals. This is not worth mentioning.

Getting back to young Jeff, much can be concluded about the "what", but not as much about the "why". That is more based on educated guesswork. Consider a couple of extrapolations. Last year his shooting percentage was a dismal 7.7%. For the last two years, the league average was about 9.1% (which includes the historically lower percentages of the blueliners). If Skinner merely returns to his average, he likely scores 25 goals.

I already mentioned this. Do you read my articles about your articles before you post your articles?

And, I'll check again but...

Just making sure I didn't spell anything incorrectly.

With his lifetime assists to goals ratio of .88, one can estimate that Jeff ends up with around 47 points. That is a significant improvement over last season's 31 points.

Are we allowed to do that? Just add assists willy-nilly? I expect Danny Briere to have a career year in 15-16, based on his lifetime assists-to-goals ratio.

Jeff Skinner had teammates that sucked. He skated most with Victor Rask, Elias Lindholm, Alex Semin, and Riley Nash. Is that a list of good players in 2015? No. It isn't. It's a miracle Jeff Skinner had 13 assists. What a stud.

Another important and related statistic is the number of shots taken. Simply put, scorers need to be taking a lot of shots. Skinner's NHL average in this area is 234. In 2013-14, he took 275 shots and, of course, he scored 33 goals that year. His rookie year he only took 215 shots but some of that can probably be attributed to "new kid" nerves and, frankly, he was making the most of his high quality opportunities.

Superb undermining of your own argument. Taking more shots is important, except for when it isn't and then we need to use clichés and hyperbole because we just can't explain why sometimes, gosh-darn-it, the puck just goes it for some crazy reason rofl!

What about those guys that would be considered comparable to Jeff Skinner? Again, normalizing for partial years and extracting the strike shortened season, the same assumptions seem to hold true for them. Consider these three players: Tyler Seguin, Logan Couture, and Kyle Turris. All 1st round draft picks, all in the league about the same amount of time, and all considered goal scorers.

Are they? I would consider Couture a goal-scorer and Seguin is an all-around scoring star, but Turris? Kyle Turris is about 60-40 assists-to-goals and his career high in goals in 26. Even Seguin seems just as content setting up a play than he does scoring himself.

First, let's look at Tyler Seguin. He's got a career shooting % of 11.7% and averages 237 shots per season. His best years were 2013-14 and 2014-15 when he had 84 points, a shooting percentage (SH%) of 12.6% and 77 points with a SH% of 13.2% respectively.

And also got traded to Dallas and played with ART ROSS WINNER JAMIE BENN. Jamie Benn vs. Victor Rask, Alex Semin, and Riley Nash. If you ADD ALL THREE their point totals fall short of what Benn put up last year. Unreal.

Logan Couture's lifetime average is 11.7% with an average of 249 shots per season. His 2nd and 3rd best scoring years had him shooting at nearly a full percentage point above his career average. In 2013-14, shooting well below his average led to his lowest goal scoring output (23). Last year was one of those outliers where he shot below his career average (10.3%) but still saw him put up a career best 67 points. Those point totals did include a higher proportion of assists however.

He skates with Patrick Marleau and saw over 11% of his ice time last year on the power play with Joe Thornton and Joe Pavelski. Over 12% of the time, Couture was on the ice with 2 of Pavelski, Thornton, and Marleau while the other team had fewer players and often he was with all 3.

Jeff Skinner didn't play 11% of the time on the power play period (Is Bill Peters drunk?), let alone with 3 other good forwards. Not that he'd have the chance anyway. It's looking more and more like Jeff Skinner's 18-goal season was phenomenal.

Lastly, Kyle Turris, historically not a high volume shooter, exceeded his average shots per season in the last two years by nearly 60 shots (215 vs. 158). Accompanying this his shooting percentages of 12.1% and 11.2% easily bested his 10.2% career average. His point totals were clear beneficiaries at 58 and 64 points in those last two years. In each case these young scorers seem to confirm that an improved shooting % leads to better scoring performances.

How about just getting older and better? These are dudes hitting their prime years and they are improving in the points department. They are older so coaches trust them more in scoring situations and with more ice time.

Also, in Turris' case, if in 14-15, he would've shot below his career shot % (and we'll be fair and give him the same deviation, dropping his career mark by 1% to 9.2) he would've had four fewer goals.

4.

And still would've set a career high for points. Do I have to continue? This is torture.

Does this same pattern hold true for more veteran scorers?

God, please kill me.

The research does indeed show a similar correlation.

Prove it.

Using the Eric Staal examples mentioned above, he has a SH% of 10.9%. His best years he shot 16.1% and 12.3% scoring 100 and 82 points respectively. Last year he underperformed in this category with a 9.4% rate. If Staal performed at his career average and using the same extrapolation that was used with Skinner earlier, he scores around 64 points. To add to last year's woes for Eric, he shot nearly 30 less shots than his career average of 272.

Fewer. You meant to type fewer.

What about players comparable to Staal? Two of Rick Nash's three best offensive years had him shooting at a 15.2% and 13.8% clip, well above his career 12.5% mark.

Just going to ignore that other season from Rick Nash? Well, I'm not.

I guess the author just sorted by points. The difference between Nash's 2nd "best" season and his 5th is...three points. 3. points.

I have to think at this point in the article, you stopped to think just for a moment, "Championing shot percentage might not be such a hot idea. Maybe I'm learning something new here and shot percentage really doesn't mean all that much because it's so full of noise and context. Eh fuck it, no one reads this shit."*

*my actual thoughts when making fun of strangers on the internet

Corey Perry, a career 13.4% shooter, posts 98 and 82 point seasons when he shoots at a rate of 17.2% and 15.4%, well over his 13.4% average. Similarly, Joe Pavelski's two best offensive seasons came when he shot an incredible 18.2% and 14.2% (79 and 70 points). Again, this was well above his lifetime NHL average of 11.5%. To reiterate, players, especially goal scorers, who exceed their historical shooting percentage averages tend to have excellent overall offensive years.

I'm not repeating myself. See: everything I've written.

There are, of course, the Jiri Hudler's of the world whom are emblematic of the SH%/scoring relationship. This past year he had one of his best, shooting at an incredible 19.6% clip, scoring 76 points. Sporting a 15.1% career average, Hudler is clearly either a sharp-shooter or a "right place/right time" kind of player. Another mold breaker is Alex Ovechkin. He led the league with nearly 400 shots, scored 53 goals, while sporting an impressive career SH% of 12.4%. The other "superstars" like Crosby (14.4%), Malkin (12.8%), and Getzlaf (12.4%) all exceed league averages by a large percentage.

How does this make Ovechkin a "mold-breaker"? What mold? He shoots a lot. He scores a lot. He shot percentages a lot. This is proving your argument.

Without a doubt, there are those scorers, often higher volume shooters, where this relationship is more tenuous. Take Henrik Zetterberg for example. In a number of years he has shot well below not just his personal career shooting percentage but also below league average and still posted 70, 80, 69, and 66 point seasons. Just this past year Claude Giroux had a pretty successful 73 point season shooting at 9%. Even Pavel Datsyuk is a bit of a riddle with his career SH% of 14.4%, but his two best years he shot below his career average at 11.7% and 12.9% (hitting 97 points in both of those years). He was, however, well above league averages.

These are set-up men. These are players who enjoy and will occasionally employ an action that can take place during a hockey game called a "pass". Often, passes can lead to goals. There's no riddle to it. I know you understand this. I'm losing my mind. I'm going to break out in hives.

The shooting percentage statistic seems to be a pretty fair indicator of individual success but less a measure of team success. Take the Hurricanes two most recent post-season years. During the Cup run they had the second highest shooting percentage in the league at 11.2% while the league was averaging 10.3%. However during the 2008-09 season the Canes shot a mere 8.8% vs. a league average of 9.6% (good enough for 25th in the league). Yet, in the last 10 years the Hurricane's team shooting percentage has only been in the NHL's top 10 twice, the previously mentioned Cup year and 2009-10 when the Canes were 10th. Could there be a correlation to team success there?

I'm going to paraphrase so that maybe I can cook up some logic:

-Shot % does not tell you how well a team did.
-When the Hurricanes were good, they had a great shot %.
-In the smallest season sample size of 1 season, they had a low shot %, but made the playoffs.
-In a WHOLE FUCKING DECADE, they've shot like blind grandmas playing croquet and have been a crap team for nearly the entire duration.
-Of course there is.

BONUS FUN!
2014-15 Calgary Flames 2nd in the league in shot percentage
2013-14 Colorado Avalanche 2nd
2012-13 Toronto Maple Leafs 1st

These teams all sucked, but made the playoffs because they shot at a percentage which is unsustainable compared to their possession numbers beyond 80-90 games.

I've concluded that shot percentage shows you who got lucky and who will probably not be so lucky next year. I mean, look at this.

And yet...

So what does all of this mean for the Carolina Hurricanes in 2015-16? Shooting percentage can indicate a lot of things: the quality of the chance, the accuracy of the shot, the movement of the puck, the quality of the playmakers, and the overall creativity of the team.

The 2015-16 Carolina Hurricanes: The NHL's First 5-on-0 Showdown.

There is a difference between playing the Oilers and the Rangers that might help or hurt your shot %. Maybe not. What do I know?

Here is one final set of thoughts to ponder. If Jeff Skinner and Eric Staal merely performed up to their historic career shooting percentages, they would have posted an additional 26 points between them. If Riley Nash hits his career average, he's a 30-35 point player.

His career average is apparently 5-10 points higher than his career best. Figure that out.

More importantly if Jordan Staal comes close to his career shooting % rate, he's at or around the 50 point mark. Those performances alone won't likely get the Canes into the playoffs, but it will make a big difference. Add in moderate improvements from Rask, Lindholm plus a full year of Nestrasil and this team can be offensively competitive. In the best Jim Mora voice that can be mustered, no promises were made about "Playoffs".

If Jordan Staal plays at all, it'll help. Not much, but he's better than Jay McClement.

There are two things that will help Carolina. Better players is one....hmmm...no matter how hard I try I just can't seem to search for the other.

You Fät Pig!

What the shmear?! It's time for the Brooklyn Water Bagel Company PLAYER NOSH!

The real question should be: With a diet including Brooklyn Water Bagel Company bagels, how in God's Greentree Earth is Jack Skille not the greatest physical specimen on the Panthers roster?  I'm thoroughly Stumpel'd.

Why do people insist on posting these stats?

Flyers/Flames game today...Flyers were up 2-1 after 2. The following graphic appears:

THRIVE ON PLAYING FROM IN FRONT

When scoring first:
10-2-1

Leading after 1st period:
9-1-0

Leading after 2nd period:
13-0-0


They're undefeated when leading after the 2nd period so far this year. That's impressive. Impressive to the tune of being tied with 11 other teams that are also undefeated after 2 periods. Included in this list of teams are Carolina, Ottawa, Minnesota, and Dallas, four teams that aren't in the top 8 of their respective conferences right now.

The fact that Philadelphia lost today is pure coincidence: I was going to comment on this anyway. But now that they're 13-1, they're in a group of 11 more teams with one loss when leading after the 2nd period. They have more wins than the rest, and therefore more games that fit the criteria, but still the point remains: even bad teams win most of the time when they're leading after 2/3 of a game that sees an average of 5.68 goals. Last season, there were 24 teams that won at least 80% of games when leading after two periods. Not included in this list of 24 teams was Boston, the second best team in the league in goals against for the season(some would argue that this stat is proof that the team is solid defensively, allowing them to more easily protect a lead).

At the bottom of the graphic today was this bit:

Outscored opponents 58-36 in first 2 periods.

You know what this tells me? This tells me they're good. If you outscore your opponents by 22 goals in a month and a half's worth of games, you're a good team. What do good teams do? They win a lot of games. Ottawa's goal differential is at -17, and they're undefeated when leading after two periods.

Pointless.

It's a shame that Brian Costello hasn't won a nobel prize for literature and pure genius.

Costello is a blog-writer for THN.com who seems to draw from an old knit hat when he wants to write about something. This week, he formulated a trade scenario (which will become a rumor-turned-speculation-turned-nonsense soon enough) for the Flames and Senators to sink their teeth into as we've entered this season's "ROSTER FREEZE!~!~!~!" (Editor's Note: I started writing this article before Christmas. While the roster freeze is over, I would likely dance in my own vomit if this deal were to actually happen...~!~!~!)

Jason Spezza for Dion Phaneuf. That' s a deal I'd make if I were either the Ottawa Senators or Calgary Flames.

I'm sure that Bryan Murraythhhh and Darryl Sutter have been calling each other so frequently about the sensationl quality of this proposed scenario that they've spent the remainder of their salary cap space on contracts with Rogers and Bell mobile. Sadly, both are too arrogant to make such a deal happen right now, so we'll obviously have to plan these parades after the new year.

First a disclaimer. I don't like to make a habit of spreading or fabricating trade rumors. This is not a trade rumor picked up from a source. It's simply something that came from the recesses of my inner duo processor when examining the weaknesses on the two Canadian NHL teams.

C'mon now, man! It's time to update to an i7 processor and work with some real numbers. What are these weaknesses? The Sens really would appreciate an Elite D-man, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're crumbling without one. This season, the Sens D-men have scored 21 goals, whereas the Flames are two behind with 19 (on a roster including Phaneuf, Bouwmeester, AND Adam Pardy!?! Ridiculous...). Their weakness isn't offensive ability from the point, it's their ability to defend from beyond the point! The Flames carry a +14 goal differential thus far, whereas the Sens are -9. From a lengthy injury to A-train Volchenkov earlier this season, to the increased playing time of prospective offensive D-men Brian Lee, Erik Karlsson and Alex Picard, to Campoli spending time as a forward and a healthy scratch, and FINALLY to Grandpa Phillips switching back to his heavier, less-mobile wooden wheelchair, the Sens could use a strong DEFENSIVE DEFENSEMAN on their backend. I guess that's why the Sens passed up my boner-prospect Magnus Pääjärvi-Svensson (do you see all those accented 'a's?!) for shut-down obelisk Jared Cowen, so hopefully his addition within the next couple of years can force Filip Kuba out of the Sens' defensive picture.

Spezza, out at least another six weeks with a knee injury, has had a horrible year in Ottawa (five goals, 19 points in 30 games) without his primary triggerman Dany Heatley. Phaneuf had a terrible 2008-09 on the Calgary blueline and is hardly burning it up this season – although his defensive game has improved somewhat now that the team has cut back his ice time.

Horrible would be 1.9 goals and five points in 30 games. He has simply underperformed along with most of the roster. It's kind of sad when Chris Kelly is one of your leading scorers, but I digress. With Fisher seeing nearly equal time alongside the likes of Michalek, Alfredsson and/or Kovalev this season, Spezza's opportunities to produce are indeed lower than last season. Replacing Heatley with Michalek on the first line is a downgrade (for now) for offensive production. Add an injury into that equation and the sum of points is much closer to his 2003-2004 season totals (22G, 33A) and even that seems to be a longshot.

In Calgary, Phaneuf may not be "burning it up" (LOL) this season, but he doesn't really need to since Bouwtie has suited up for the Red C. They will both likely finish within the 40-50 point range this season (Phaneuf likely higher) and continue to give Calgary a well-balanced attack on the Powerplay and overall. If they're worried about Cap space ($12 mil+ allocated to those two), consider moving Jokinen for a playmaking center. Maybe Mike Cammalleri? [Insert JKs and ROFLz here]

The Flames need Spezza in order to get the most out of Jarome Iginla, who at 32 is in the final few productive years of his career. Iginla and Olli Jokinen haven't worked because both are goal-scorers first and playmakers second. Iginla has been spectacular for most of his 12 seasons in Calgary, even though he has never really had a premiere No. 1 playmaking center to play with. Craig Conroy and Daymond Langkow have spent the most number of games as Iginla's center, but Spezza would take Iginla's game to another level.

Well, trading Spezza would actually take Ottawa's game to another level as well. Unfortunately, that level would likely be lower than that of the Scotiabank Place mausoleum where they keep the bodies of former Senators such as Radek Bonk, Andreas Dackell and Dennis Vial. What would their top line be--Alfredsson, Michalek and FISHER?! WHY HAVEN'T THEY MADE THIS DEAL YET?! Beyond me, really. In order for this deal to make any sense, Calgary would have to move Jokinen for a replacement defenseman or some prospects. Perhaps they could trade Cory Sarich in order to find a suitable wig for Jokinen's chrome-dome, but I guess that isn't a good idea since Mr. Costello hasn't put his duo-processor-brain to work for that one. Oh well.

The Calgary defense would be just fine without Phaneuf. Jay Bouwmeester is the main man on the blueline now and the Flames have ramped up the usage of underrated Mark Giordano, especially on the first power play pairing. Robyn Regehr and Cory Sarich provide the defensive and physical element and in addition to Adam Pardy, Aaron Johnson is an under-utilized stalwart who doesn't get enough minutes as the No. 7 man. Also, the Flames have a deep list of blueline prospects on the farm with defensive Matt Pelech and offense-minded John Negrin ready for a step up.

Trading a young stud such as Phaneuf, 24, is something the Flames never would have thought about a year ago. But his stunning regression in the defensive end – not to mention his flagging offensive numbers – opens the door for that possibility now, especially with Bouwmeester on board.

17 points in 44 games makes Bouwmeester the MAIN MAN? Does that mean that Beauchemin is going to carry the Leafs through a late-season surge? 19 points in 45 games for him tells me so. If the Flames see this deal as suitable, they might carry a bar tab twice as high as the Oilers on any given dinner outing. The guy is 24. EVERY defenseman is bound to make mistakes and Phaneuf isn't pegged to be their most reliable on their back-end, anyway. That's what Robyn Regher suits up for. I can't help but think this man has some scrambled brain-eggs for conjuring up this shitty breakfast.

The Ottawa defense has been lacking an offensive quarterback since Zdeno Chara walked as a free agent in 2006 and Wade Redden's game went south shortly thereafter. Chris Phillips and Anton Volchenkov are defensive leaders, but the Senators truly yearn for a top-shelf mobile puckmover. Top 2008 draft pick Erik Karlsson might eventually fill that role, but he's still just 19.

I'll give him that one. I don't think Muckler could have made a worse move than letting Chara go, unless he decided to let Redden walk as well. The free-agent market for offensive-defenders in 2006 was rather slim with the best options being Rob Blake, Jovocop and... Filip Kuba.

The fly in the ointment is the Senators cannot afford to lose another top line forward. With Heatley and Spezza gone and Daniel Alfredsson in the final couple innings of his career, the team would move to rebuild mode. The only thing that would solve that is solid drafting and a top free agent signing. To soothe that hurdle, perhaps the Flames could throw in burgeoning No. 2 center Dustin Boyd into the trade mix, with underperforming defenseman Chris Campoli going the other way.

The salary offsets aren't bad either. Both teams are close to the salary cap, so Spezza ($7 million) and Campoli ($633,333) won't break Calgary's bank because Phaneuf makes $6.5 million and Boyd $650,000.

I change my mind; give me some of that breakfast, Mr. Costello!

...Wait... nevermind. Boyd would just be another average-size center on a team that has plenty of those already. In my opinion, he's very similar to Senator Peter Regin: both were drafted by their current clubs in the third round of the 2004 draft with Regin being selected 87th overall and Boyd 98th. Boyd has played parts of four seasons with the Flames (71 games in 2009) whereas Regin took a while longer to develop, getting his first dose of NHL play last season with eleven games. Regin has fit in quite nicely with the club this season though, as he has put up 13 points and a +11 in 38 games, comparible to Boyd's 14 points and +5 in 43 games. While he would be a great addition to the team, the Senators would terribly need a number one center, and although Fisher definitely puts in the amount of effort expected from a number one center, the hands simply are not there for him to contribute regularly on the scoreboard as he has never scored more than 23 in a season. Plus, think about it; the Senators' centers would consist of Fisher, 2nd-liner Boyd, Regin, Kelly and rotating center-wingers Shannon and Winchester. This is anything but scary, at least not scary in the good way. I'm actually quite mortified.

Another thing that confuses me about this updated proposal is that with the addition of Campravioli, Calgary would continue to keep their "DEEP" line of defensive prospects from getting their chance at cracking the roster. Not necessary if you ask me, but what do I know; I don't write a blog for THN, just lowly Tyutin in Staals. =(

The beauty of this deal is it would give both Spezza and Phaneuf a much-needed fresh start. It would give the Flames more offensive balance going into the playoffs and provide the Senators with a building block for the future. The Flames are running out of time as Cup contenders and the Senators need the time to rebuild. I think it would be a trade that helps both teams.

I think that THN should trade Brian Costello to The Food Network in exchange for Giada De Laurentiis. At least her duo-processor could come up with a better breakfast for me to digest rather than this scrambled brain-eggs bullshit (Thanks to Sven for that great phrase; it's quite useful). I'm sure some people would enjoy his recipies, but sadly I don't think Flames and Sens fans would watch his show. This deal has no beauty. Get over it, champ.