Impact of Turnovers on Shot Quality

by Hawerchuk on Apr 28, 2010 9:00 AM EDT

There's no question that turning the puck over leads to much better chances for the other team, but by how much? Well, it depends on how long it takes for the other team to get a shot on goal following that turnover:

Shots taken in the five seconds following a giveaway are 74% more dangerous than comparable shots taken from the same locations without the aid of a turnover. Takeaways lead to less dangerous chances: just a 47% increase in shot quality. Remember that I'm talking about actual shot quality here - the amount by which shooting percentage exceeds the shooting percentage we'd expect for shots taken from the same location.

So why the big spike in shot quality for shots taken at the exact same second as the turnover? I thought the location of the turnover might provide a clue:

Not really - turnovers that immediately turn into shots on goal occur closer to the net than other turnovers, which is not surprising, but there's very little to distinguish a zero-second turnover from a one-second turnover. Clearly this phenomenon will require further study.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Shots occurring immediately after a turnover are likely to offensive zone turnovers.They are also more likely to have been “unimpeded” after the turnover. The goalie isn’t as ready and the rest of the team hasn’t completely transitioned from offense to defense.

Also I suspect a recording bias, turnovers resulting directly in a goal are more likely to be recorded. Especially if the goal is unassisted. The score keeper has more time to decide what went on in the play and make “corrections” while if play continues (no goal) they are busy elsewhere.

by Mogen_david on Apr 28, 2010 11:23 AM EDT reply actions

I just can’t figure out why the shot quality is so high at zero seconds (or figure out what it means to shoot at the same instant as a turnover) and why it drops at one second before rising again at 2 seconds.

by Hawerchuk on Apr 28, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions