I’m going to try something new tonight. I normally use Natrual Stat Trick data for game charts, but I’m going to start using Corsica.
How will this affect you?
There will no longer be the scoring chance +/- or high danger scoring chance +/- charts. In their place will be eXpected Goal based charts. I believe one will more accurately be able to assess the overall performance of Chicago players with the new charts.. Don’t worry, I’ll explain in detail every chart in this post. Once you get used to eXpected Goals, I think you will like it.
- 👍 Nick Schmaltz
- 👍 Jonathan Toews
- 👍 Jordan Tootoo
- 👎 Marcus Kruger
- 👎 Niklas Hjalmarsson
- 👎 Richard Panik
- Shot Attempts – This includes shots on goal, missed shots on goal, and blocked shot attempts towards the opposition’s net.
- Shots On Goal – Shot attempts that are either blocked by the goalie or go in the net.
- Expected Goals – The amount of goals each team was estimated to score based on the quality of every shot taken in the game.
- Goals – The outcome of shots and scoring chances.
- Shooting% – The percent of shots on goal that went in the net.
Shot Generation – (CF60) – The average Chicago shot attempts for per 60 minutes with a player on the ice. This stat looks at how many shot attempts the team has when a certain player was on the ice.
Above, one can see that Chicago averaged 91 shot attempt per 60 minutes when Michal Kempny was on the ice. This was really good and shows that Chicago was good offensively with Kempny on the ice.
Duncan Keith has a number of 34. This means Chicago averaged only 34 shots attempts/60 when Duncan Keith was on the ice. As you can see by the reference line, that is way below league average. One could look at this and say Duncan Keith did not help impact the team offensively tonight.
Shot Suppression – (CA60) – The average team shot attempts AGAINST per 60 minutes with a player on the ice. This stat looks at how many shot attempts the opponent has when a certain player was on the ice. A lower number is desired here as it would indicate the opponent was taking less shots with that player on the ice.
Nick Schmaltz was the best with a number of 25. Winnipeg averaged 25 shots/60 when Schmaltz was on the ice. This is a defensive stat that suggests Schmaltz helped limit Winnipeg’s shot attempts.
Hinostroza had a team worst 93. So Winnipeg averaged 93 shot attempts/60 when he was on the ice. This suggests he struggled defensively and couldn’t help Chicago get the puck out of their own zone.
Puck Possession – (Cf%) – This stat is basically a players shot differential represented as a percentage. It is calculated by taking a players shots for divided by the total number of shots when the player was on the ice.
Hypothetical: If Duncan Keith is on the ice for 4 Blackhawks shot attempts and 2 Blues shot attempts, his possession percentage would be 67%.
This is calculated by taking 4 shots for / (4 shots for + 2 shots against).
So 4 shots for / 6 total shots.
4 divided by 6 = 0.67 or 67%. That’s how we determined Keith’s possession was 67%. (Remember this was a hypothetical using simple numbers and doesn’t represent the above chart)
You see, the NHL doesn’t have stats like time in the offensive zone or time in the defensive zone available to the public. There is no way to actually know what percentage of time a team has the puck compared to the opponent. For this reason, we use shots to determine which team is possessing the puck. If Duncan Keith is on the ice for 4 Blackhawks shots and 2 Blues shots, then there is a good chance the Blackhawks are in possession of the puck more than the Blues.
To simplify it down, a team has to have the puck in order to shoot it. If the Blackhawks have more shot attempts than the Blues, then we can say the Blackhawks were possessing the puck more than the Blues. No it’s not an exact science, it’s just what the hockey community uses to get by.
A possession percentage of 50% is considered even. Above 50% indicates the Blackhawks are outshooting the opponent. Under 50% indicates the opponent is outshooting the Blackhawks. Also known as Corsi For% or Cf%
Note: Some people don’t like to use the term puck possession, since its not an actual time stat. I agree with this. However, I feel that if I use the term “Puck Possession” more people will be able to comprehend the chart than if I wrote Shot For% or Corsi For%. Sometimes I do unconventional things if I think they will make sense to a broader base.
Expected Goal For Percentage – (xGF%) – is a stat where that uses shot quality to determine which team is expected to score more goals when a certain player is on the ice by looking at the difference between expected goals for (xGF) and expected goals against (xGA). If a Chicago players xGF% is ABOVE 50%, Chicago was expected to out score opponents when he was on the ice. If a Chicago players xGF% is BELOW 50%, Chicago was expected to be out scored by opponents when he was on the ice.
Shot +/- (Corsi +/-) Chicago’s team shot differential with a player on the ice.
Seabrook and Kempny have a +7 shot differential. This means that Chicago out-shot Winnipeg by 7 shots when Seabrook or Kempny were on the ice.
Niklas Hjalmarsson’s (-5) indicates that Chicago was out-shot by Winnipeg by 5 shots when he was on the ice.
A positive number is good and a negative number is bad.
Expected Goals +/- is a stat that estimates a players plus/minus based on the quality of shots for and against when that player was on the ice.
When looking at plain shots, a shot from the point and a shot right by the net are equal. They will be represented each as one shot of equal value. However, we know those shots aren’t equal. A shot next to the goalie has a higher chance to go in than a shot from the point. This is where expected goals comes in.
Both Brent Seabrook and Michal Kempny had a +7 shot differential tonight. But when we look above, both have negative expected goal differentials. Even though Chicago out-shot Winnipeg with these players on the ice, Winnipeg was taking more high quality shots while Chicago was waking more low quality shots.
Expected Goals For/60 – (xGF60) – This stat uses the quality of Chicago’s shots when each player was on the ice to determine expected goal scoring rate. If a player is on the ice when Chicago takes many high quality shots from closer to the net, Chicago would be expected to score more goals. If Chicago takes low quality or a limited number of shots when a player was on the ice, they would have a low amount of expected goals.
This is an offensive stat. Above, we see Chicago was expected to score the most goals with players like Toews and Campbell on the ice. This suggests they performed well offensively.
Chicago wasn’t expected to score much with Hjalmarsson, Forsling, or Kruger on the ice. This suggests that they performed poorly offensively.
Expected Goals Against/60 – (xGA60) – This stat uses the quality of the opponents shots when each player was on the ice to determine expected goal scoring rate. This is a defensive stat and lower is better here.
If a player limited the opponents total number of shots and quality of shots, then they would have a low expected goals against/60. If the opponent takes many shots and high quality shots, then the Chicago player would have a high expected goals against.
Above, we see defensively that players like Tootoo, Forsling, and Hossa performed well. Winnipeg was only expected to score around one goal per 60 minutes when these players were on the ice.
Marcus Kruger had a bad night defensively. Winnipeg took many shots and high quality shots when he was on the ice. Therefore, Kruger was expected to have a high number (4.4) of goals against/60, which is bad.
The number of shot attempts by each individual player.
The number of shots on goal by each individual player.
The number of individual expected goals for each player. This stat looks at each individual players shot quality to determine how many goals that player was expected to score by themselves.
Two player can each take 5 shot attempts. If one takes them all from the point, and the other players takes each of his five shots from the slot, the second player would be expected to score more goals. This is why this stat is nice. All shots are not created equal. This stat helps show which player was taking the best quality of shots.
Above, we see that even though Chicago scored zero goals in this game, Kane and Hossa were most expected to score.
I should note that obviously talent plays a tole here. Guys like Desjardins or Tootoo will most likely not score as much as they are expected to. Even if they take high quality shots, they have lower scoring talent. Whereas a player like Kane or Panarin may outperform their individual expected goal numbers, because they are good shooters.
Total icetime during 5-on-5 play.
I normally include stats like total shifts and average shift length, but that website didn’t work for this game.
In this section, I display a snapshot of every goal. The green line is a pass and the pink line is a shot on goal. Sometimes I will put a circle around the goal scorer, unless it’s obvious who scored the goal.
Josh Morrissey 5v5
Chris Thorburn 5v5
Patrik Laine 5v5
Nic Pétan 5v5