Defining The Scoring Chance The 6-Minute Abs?

By now, a hockey fan, you've heard plenty about advanced stats and the rise of the scoring chance.

When I was a much more naive stats geek, I used to make a lot of assumptions about what I was hearing and extrapolate that information to make my own (ultimately flawed) interpretations. I can tell you that when I first found out the working definition of scoring chance being used by the squadron of scoring chance trackers around the league, I was more than a little bit surprised.

I want to show you all some work I've been doing with scoring chances over the last couple of seasons. So as a service to those who are starting from where I was just a little while ago, I thought I'd clear up the assumptions before we start.

How better to do that than to ask the Patriarch of Habs Scoring Chances, Olivier of En Attendant les Nordiques, the question:

"Just what is a scoring chance anyway?"

I asked him more questions than that, and he kindly answered them all. But by the end of this, we should, agree or disagree about the methodology, at least be on the same page about the stat in question.

Without further ado:

What is a scoring chance?

My definition: a scoring chance is a shot on goal or a missed shot unleashed from the "home plate" area. The home plate area goes from goalposts, up to the face-off dots, then up toward the blue line to the top of the face-off circles.

(image taken from Copper and Blue, 2010)


So every shot is not a scoring chance?

No, when the shot is taken from outside the zone and doesn't result in a goal, it isn't a scoring chance.


And some non-shots are scoring chances?

That's right. Both missed shots and shots on goal from inside the home plate area are accounted for because I see them as successful attempts to challenge the opposition's goaltender. A blocked shot is not, in my opinion, a scoring chance because a defender actually thwarted the challenge.

I should say here that I give myself some leeway; if a guy floats a feeble backhander from the top of the plate and the goaltender easily follows it, I don't give a chance. A hard shot from the limit of the zone will be counted as a chance.


You say a shot can also be a scoring chance if it results in a goal?

A goal scored from outside that zone is counted as a scoring chance *if* it's an actual attempt to challenge the goaltender. So, Gill floating a wrister from the blue line is a scoring chance. Other guys recording scoring chances have some variations to their definitions: some count screened shots from the blue line, some never allow a chance from a shot from outside the home plate even if it's a goal.


So not every goal is the result of scoring chance then?

Not in my record of chances, no. Best example is a goal scored by Jeff Halpern early in the 10-11 season: he was behind the net and attempted a pass in front, only to see the puck deflect on a defender's skate into the net.

But that doesn't mean being behind the goal rules out a chance. I've also given a chance on a Moen Goal where he was behind the goal line and clearly shot it on the goaltender's leg to bounce it into the net.

Basically, to be a chance, there has to be an attempt at challenging the net.


So we are left with:

1) A shot released from inside the home plate or a goal, that
2) "Challenges the net"

is a scoring chance.



This is probably at odds with what a lot of people think at this point. It was definitely at odds with what I thought before knowing the definition being used by trackers myself. I used to think of a scoring chance as a shot that "challenged the net" basically from anywhere. I think I was also quite surprised to find out that missed shots were scored in the same way that shots on net were.

To me there still exists a massive undescribed hierarchy of scoring chances within the scoring chances that are being tracked around the league. Call them good scoring chances, great scoring chances, quality scoring chances, whatever you like. I think many like me are left thinking on the inherent difference between miss from inside the home plate and save on a breakaway or two on one.

I brought it up with Olivier and he was unfazed.


But with this definition all scoring chances are equal. Are all scoring chances equal?

As far as scoring chances are concerned, quantity *is* quality. A scoring chance is a shot attempt from a zone that leaves almost no reaction time for the goaltender. Whatever difference in quality one can find between scoring chances is, I think, drowned by the fact that you actually *got* a scoring chances.

Let me put it this way: over a normal game, I record around 35 scoring chances. Of those, maybe 25 are at even strength. One team getting 15 ES scoring chances in a game is huge, below 10 is feeble. So, is this scoring chance better or worse than that scoring chance? I think the important point is that scoring chances are very dangerous events, 15% of which ending in goals while maybe 4% of Shots+Missed shots are converted in goals.


Why not at least track whether the shot was on net or off net? That could be an interesting aspect of quality to look at down the road.

That might actually be doable trough a script. But I don't think it would tell us about the "quality" of the scoring chance.

What is more dangerous: a 20 foot wrister that Cammalleri sends 6 inches over the cross bar, or a 20 foot wrister Moen buries into the goalies crest?

Missed or not, the guy tried to bury it by unleashing a shot from a given spot. When you talk about "quality", it seems to me you see that said quality comes from the spot the shot was unleashed from, not what the shot looked like going toward the net. That's an important point.


I think there'd be disagreement about this from observers of the game. Just as the scoring chance people have broken away from simply using shots. In "Something About Mary" the hitchiker has just thought of 6-minute abs as a revolutionary idea to replace 7-minute abs. Ben Stiller's character asks what will happen when someone invents 5-minute abs.

So what if scoring chances as they are now is the 6-minute abs? What if someone comes along and ranks shots from the zone where people score most often calling them really good scoring chances?

Are Scoring Chances the 6-minute abs? Yes they are, I am absolutely certain of that.

I record scoring chances for three main reasons, and I list them in order of importance to me: 1) I enjoy doing this 2) bunched together in a multi-game data stream, they give a better idea of who's driving the bus 3) If I take said data, make cool table out of them and write my toughest about them on a blog, people come around and we end up having very enjoyable discussions about stuff I enjoy.

Can someone come up with a better ranking of where shots are coming from? Yes, probably. I have an iPad and am fairly convinced that I could, should I beat myself into building the right tool, use it as a too for recording scoring chances in a more interesting fashion. Somebody, somewhere, will eventually hammer out such a thing and we'll end up with richer data. The question is, where will this data come from?

The NHL is putting charts up on the game centers pages of each game where you have a goaltender's save% on shots from different spots in the defensive zone. The 5 minute abs may very well be just around the corner.


Anyway, agree or disagree about the detail of the statistic, they are still useful to fans looking for more, right? On their use, is a scoring chance a team or an individual statistic?

Both. Scoring chances are useful because they are a "purer" from of shot-based metric. That is, they give you a more precise understanding of who was more challenging to the opposition. Even tough they are a team metric, they are more useful as an individual measure. They give a more reliable understanding of who is generating offense, even over a short span of time (that is from 10 games to a full season) and help weed out the luck factor.

I see two levels of individual statistics: individual achievements (Andrei Kostitsyn had a shot from between the dots, accounting for a scoring chance) and on-ice events (AKost, Cammalleri, Pleks, Gill and Subban were on the ice for a scoring chance). From my perspective, scoring chances as on-ice events is where they are more revealing about a given player.

As I wrote earlier this summer, Scott Gomez was terribly unlucky this past season: he was on the ice for the same amount of time at even strength as in 09-10 (about 1190 minutes) and the team had about the same amount of scoring chances while he was on the ice, about 370. Yet, the team scored 20 goals less in 10-11 (35 to 55) and Gomez ended up with 20 ESPoints instead of 40 (his career norm up until then). That is bad luck, pure and simple. I think scoring chances tells you who's actually driving the offense, luck be damned. Obviously, wingers will get more individual scoring chances than centers, who will get more than defensemen, but that's a structural reality.


How do you think scoring chances will be used in future stats analysis (by fans)?

It's all about the data made available. You look at advanced stats analysis done by fans and they mostly use behindthenet.ca and timeonice.com's outputs as building blocks. The managers of those two sites are, by the way, to be recognized as the enablers of the whole scoring chance projects you see left and right. Desjardins, of BehindThenet, used his site as a hub of analysis of data collected by Chances Recorders and timonice is the site that gives public access to a script that allows anybody to punch in time codes and notes and get a nice set of HTML tables of scoring chances data. Without these guys, there is no "Scoring Chances" as we see them being batted around in the hockey blogosphere nowadays. Making multiple years of scoring chances data on multiple teams available to fans is what will allow them to take these data stores and cross reference them with other sources such as Behindthenet.ca and timeonice.com and come up with some new analysis.

On what? Off the top of my head: defining shot quality, quality of competition faced by goaltenders (who, of Halak and Price, saw the highest rate of scoring chances against in 09-10? If I'm not mistaken, Halak), luck-independent offensive and defensive output. Stuff like that, y'know.


When are fans on the laggard teams gonna get on this? Any word, because with the small sample now, it might as well be the Habs alone

The problem is, we aren't pooling the data already being collected so it's hard to tell who's on board. Of the 2010-11 season, I'm fairly certain the Habs, Leafs, Caps, Flames, Rangers, Flyers were recorded. I think some work was done with Chicago.

The next step would be some form of aggregation of data; seeing the data store would probably be an incentive for fans of uncharted teams to do the legwork.


The NHL teams record scoring chances, do you ever foresee these stats being available to fans?

No. Actually, I think NHL teams data stores are way more granular than anything we ever see out in the open (touches? Zone time?) and I think the NHL's data stores are way more refined than what we see on their website. But team's data stores are an asset that they manage so to give them a competitive advantage. They will *never* publish current data. The data published by the NHL is, if I'm not mistaken, the only data eligible for salary arbitration process. So whatever data we currently have from the big guys, it will all stay the same unless the new CBA states so or, maybe, if the NHL comes up with something akin to MLB's Pitch F/X. I'm not holding my breath.

What would be insanely cool is if some historian/researcher could convince old franchises such as the Habs, Rangers or Wings, to open up whatever archives they have so to give us a glimpse of how they approached stats in, say, the 40's, 50's or 60's.


Thanks again of course to Olivier for answering all of my basic questions so fully and clearly (even under challenges).

In our unending search for the 5-minute abs, and new and more interesting ways of crunching data in 6 minutes, we'll share some scoring chance extrapolations with you in the upcoming while.

At least now we can all start on the same page.

A Pouliot Move: Tactical Manoeuvre or Costly Experiment?

Pouliot hasn't been scoring at a goal every two games – just in case you haven't noticed. Even the Gomez line (the best for the past while) has been pretty quiet for about 6, maybe 12, periods of hockey. The solution is nothing new. Player is switched to a) jump start line or b) jump start player.

It's worth talking about simply because Pouliot happens to be (averaged over time) our most productive player. Since coming to the Canadiens 30 odd games ago, he has scored 14 goals, his average over 60 minutes of play is in the elite realm of 1.5 G/60. What's more, with 10 goals created, he's been clipping at just less than Cammalleri offensively.

The question then, why take Pouliot off the very line he jump started in the first place at the first sight of slump?

The answer begins with an objective look at things. Thankfully, the tireless Olivier has been looking into this for us and provided some numbers we can get our teeth into. Olivier's analysis looks at the effect that different centremen have had on the play of three wingers (Darche, Pyatt and Pouliot).

Pyatt, who we're not as interested in for today shows a predictable pattern of scoring chance distribution – putting up a positive balance with Metropolit, mainly fueled by the fact they hardly tried to score while they were on. With Plekanec, Pyatt's been on for more chances, but been caught more as well.

Darche has been better with different partners, probably because he has had to be. A good addition to nearly every line he's been on, he shows the experience he's had at moving teams by adapting quickly to new circumstances.

Pouliot has been an absolute star with Gomez. Olivier points out that he's not been as good with other centres. However, it must be said that because he and Scott have clicked so well, the reason to play with anyone else has been put on the backburner.

Olivier's scoring chance tabulations tell us a lot. They tell us who likes playing with whom and who can adapt/who can't. But they can't reveal everything. For example, they can't tell us what is the best combination for the team on average, and certainly not against a specific opponent. For that all stats leave us to the mercy of a bit of intuition and gut feel.

There are several reasons to mix the lines, stir the soup as they say on RDS:

1) Get the Gomez line back to where it was

If this is the aim, I think it is an unnecessary measure. Gomez and Gionta have been great since the Olympics and before. A few goalless games haven't changed that. It merely seems to be a case of a 30-goal and a 15-goal man playing to the level they play at (i.e., not scoring half the time).


2) Get Pouliot scoring at his previous pace

This is as off kilter as the first reason. Pouliot is essentially a rookie forward, still getting his feet in a new city. He exploded onto the scene, so we forget, but his adjustment is only natural.


3) Get Darche into a contributory role

I like Darche as much as the next guy, but it only takes a game or two in the audience to see the gulf between him and Pouliot in talent terms. The benefit of getting Darche firing at a better rate is probably less than getting Pouliot an extra 25% production.


4) Put Pouliot on alert that he needs to work harder

This is primitive coaching method. Taking an elite player off an elite line to serve a message is silly. It may be acceptable in Game 2 of the 82-game schedule, but not in a playoff race. I would be disappointed if this was all there was to it.


5) Get more out of Sergei Kostitsyn

There are seven substantially talented offensive forwards on this club. Sergei is the latest one to emerge. While he has been excellent with Dominic Moore and others of late, there may be inkling that he could reach loftier heights with a sniper who has one-touch capability. Pouliot may well be the player to unlock Sergei's potential, but I don't think Sergei is even ready for that yet.


I personally think (thought, now) that reasons 1, 3 and 4 were unworthy and only 2 and 5 made sense at this point in seeking offense (presumably the goal). I had more to say about Martin and the impact of the decision, but on a new day, I rewrote the ending...


Back to normal

After having come through all the scenarios, it seems Martin has reverted (in practice) to the established norm with Pouliot on the Gomez unit. I certainly agree with the move back.

I won't likely ever know why Martin moved the players yesterday, I can certainly guess. It seems he might have done so to accomplish a couple of goals: wake up Pouliot and see where Darche might fit if he is to return. I said above the Pouliot slight was primitive, and I stand by that, but restricted to practice the move carries no risk -- it seems a softer and more sophisticated warning. Furthermore, seeing where Darche might fit is critical as situations to force the hand may yet arise

Martin may get a bad name, and lots of unfair (and knee jerk) criticism, but he does a lot right. Keeping the lines together in this mini scoring slump is not the easiest course of action, and is not what less experienced predecessors would have chosen to do. He earns points from me for that. If Pouliot adds a bit of his original jump back due to a day of press hounding then it will be more points for Martin. As off days go, he may have accomplished a lot.


Thirst for stories

I left this article intact to demonstrate a point. What's a story one day is not a story at all the next. Bloggers after a season of digging for something to write about have jumped on this, many faster than me jumped twice: yesterday and again today. It does leave me chuckling at the end of it all. After all, on what other team do they fret about lines in practice (Martin can still change them by game time, after shift one, or in any situation). Where else would so many respond so fast as to need to retract the story on Day 2?

We Habs fans are a bit crazy. And this time of year, it seems, brings out the true fanaticism in all of us. Scott Gomez said "The city rocks". It certainly does, but it also racks -- racks its nerves unnecessarily over events that shouldn't even be news.

Until the next cause for uproar...

Season Preview In The Gates

I'm just putting the finishing touches on the season preview for 2009-10, and the first installment should be with you tomorrow. For those used to checking for one post a day here, I'll try to make accommodations so that the layout doesn't cause you to miss my opinion on Travis Moen, which you've all been dying to see.

I'm starting with the forwards, line by line, top to bottom, followed by defencemen pairings, and then goalies. With coverage of a few players every day, the team should get a proper run through by the time training camp is well and truly over.

I have to say that playing with some of the statistics has been an interesting game this summer. For one thing, I don't think I quite appreciated how bad defensively most players on the team were last year (compared to the league). By the same token, there are pleasant surprises as well. In trying to be a bit more thorough this year than perhaps previous years, I have expanded the facets of the game I will look at. For completeness, there always has to be some mention of the basics (i.e., GP, G, A, Pts, etc.). However, in addition to those things, I have gone walkabout and come back with some of the metrics that people at other blogs around the league are looking at, and even concocted a few (albeit simpler) ones of my own. Things such as total chances generated (shots + blocked shots + missed shots), total chances allowed, the difference between (aka CORSI), and some newer stats like zone shift, balance of takeaway to giveaway, etc.

I should also say that this experience has made me a lot more positive about the prospect of all these new faces – as I hope reading the previews will do for you. With one exception, Gainey has done his homework here, and we shouldn't be on the cusp of a Samsonov scenario, unless something very strange occurs.

I wanted to thank both Tobalev and frequent commenter and statistics-fan Olivier, with whom I have been having frequent conversations about this year's team offline, and who both contributed to the content and the direction of these previews.

Tobalev (name still TBC), will of course be back helping with the game previews and reviews throughout the season. We hope to be able to build as big a repository on why Gomez, Cammalleri and Gionta are more than their end of season goal and point stats indicate, as we did for Koivu and Kovalev.

Olivier will hopefully continue his valuable input and insight through the comments, but also keeps himself busy with his musings on the new-wave statistics that have taken hold almost everywhere but Montreal through his own blog: En Attendant Les Nordiques.

Enjoy the skating. Not long till game action now...

Latendresses Playing Together?Let's See...

RDS wrote yesterday about the dream of the two Latendresse brothers playing together on the Montreal Canadiens. Certainly not a rare dream. My brother and I would love to give it a shot too. I think any two brothers from Montreal would count themselves in.

The Latendresses are getting close (well, closer), I'll give them that. It's been a while since two local brothers have played for the big team. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the last were the Lebeaus in the early 1990s (when Patrick played a couple of games in Montreal); just before them the Lemieuxs did it (Claude and Jocelyn). And of course if they did make it happen they would join a list of brothers to play for the Habs, and a group of Quebecois to accomplish the dream headed by the Richards, the Manthas and the Cleghorns.

For fun and love of pure fantasy, I thought about the chance of the brothers playing together this season. Though I believe the possibility to be as likely as a Georges Laraque all-star appearance, even the thought of it scared me. So i ask: Are the Latendresses up to it? Is it really time to start dreaming of a reunion in the NHL? Why did RDS come up with this story?

As I alluded to in my headline, I would hope not. Not for their sake and not for our sake.It would be a nice story and a nice dream to fulfill. But if you consider what would really need to happen for Olivier Latendresse to make it to the Canadiens, then the prospect becomes more frightening. If this reunion were to come out of genuine need and follow the best-man promoted protocol - it would mean the Habs would be in deep trouble.

Consider for a moment that Olivier, though climbing, is still 24th on the Canadiens depth chart for forwards if I'm generous enough to jump him in front of Mike Glumac and Brock Trotter (and excluding, say, Danny Kristo). For him to make the big club (and play) there would have to be at least of those ahead of him fallen or removed via trade. 11 forwards is a lot, especially for a team that sometimes struggles to score. I can't think of many scenarios (other than the 11 directly ahead of him in the depth) where needing to promote Olivier Latendresse this season would be palatable.

Suppose that Olivier instead gets the call based on his play in December. When I read that Olivier had a good December in Hamilton, frankly I was expecting good things. When I checked what that meant, I saw it meant 5 assists and no goals in 8 games. It is possible that with this play (and another few weeks of the same), he could be considered for the next promotion.

The thing that would thoroughly scare me about that possibility is the collapse of the 8 or so others in front of him in the depth chart. It's great for Olivier that he's playing well, and I hope he continues to do so. But a lot of Habs hope and planning up front lies with key players in Hamilton - players like Chipchura, Pacioretty, White, Russell and even Stewart. These players were selected by the Canadiens as amateurs and have been groomed by them. For a Phoenix prospect to come in being claimed off waivers and outdo them by putting up an assist every other game would be scary indeed. For anyone who questions the strength of depth that we have already (with Maxwell, Sergei and D'Agostini trying to find their feet) then losing hope with the remaining depth would be awful.

They could play together this season - in Hamilton. I think Guillaume was timely in his recovery, but another lapse like November and he could conceivably be down for a rehab of his shooting skills (a la Price 2008). Then and only then, I think, would the Latendresses pro hockey dream of playing together come true.


Why did RDS spring this editorial?

The piece was done for fun. Pure and simple. I know how these things go, you have a list of ideas for pieces and you get one out from under the pile when it seems most appropriate. I guess Guillaume's resurgence, or rather his NHL-calibre play, of late instigated the piece. Same for my response, pure fun.

Even so the interesting question of whether the Canadiens do actually have adequate depth at forward (should they be unable to sign some players this summer) is legitimate and called to the fore here. from what I've seen, I wouldn't be looking forward to counting on Maxwell as early as next season, would you guys?

How Ridiculous Is Our Town?

The Canadiens played an intersquad scrimmage!

Check out the coverage, not of the stories about the upcoming season, but of the game itself...

Francois Gagnon
Marc de Foy
Mike Boone
Canadiens website

I could go on.

I know Toronto is nuts like us, but really? Somuch coverage of a Lehoux shootout goal on Loic Lacasse? A story about the second Latendresse scoring in a scrimmage when even Guillaume is on the bubble?

I bet we have seen more coverage of the Blanc vs. Rouge affair in Montreal than folks in Miami see for their Panthers over the entire month of December. I bet more people cared about the Olivier Latendresse goal than any Kings goal last March. It's madness. It's absolutely ridiculous isn't it? Ridiculous, but not too ridiculous. I mean, I'm happy to have the coverage. I'm happy to read and write about it. I relish our ridiculous fanaticism.

Even so, it's moments like these where lesser hockey fans say things like: "I can't wait for the real stuff to start..."


Exhibition season

Tonight exhibition play begins. It can be the second in our new amazing winning streak against the Boston Bruins.

at the very least, a game against competition should give some more indication of something, for us famished hyenas, I just can't promise what.

If the defence plays badly, what will it mean? If we allow 5 goals, does it matter? If we can't score on the PP, will there be cries for Streit? Probably not.

Of course, at the end of it all, some players will make the team and others cut. But it seems a lot is "poured in cement" as they say in Quebec. And, if things are set in stone (like say the Kovalev line from last year), then why on earth is that line not being used in exhibition? I'm not too worried, just wondering...

After a very long summer, then golf, then play-time, it's very exciting that things are starting to get a little bit less meaningless. Slowly.