I hate this stat.  What exactly is a scoring chance?  Aren't all shots an attempt to score a goal?  Or are some taken just to warm up the goalie in case he's bored?  Are goals scored counted toward this stat?  Lousy stat and I hate it.

Hang, 1 example is that if you hit the post it's a scoring chance but not a shot on net. It's also just another stat to illustrate that not all shots are of equal value. I really like the stat actually but it's far from perfect. It's very open to interpretation.

wow I didn't realize they were keeping scoring chances. Agree with Dez, it's actually a fantastic stat. It's subjective, but it usually means like an odd-man rush that produces a shot on goal (or a shot that misses the net). You know it when you see it, it's a quality opportunity.

 

Scoring chance +/- is fabulous

 

where are you seeing this?

Yeah.....I'm a fan of that stat too.  But agree that it's a bit subjective. 

Subjective stats are bad.

"Dang.  He coulda scored there.  Mark one for Boston."

More malarky for people trying to make baseball stats fit into hockey.

Up next:  A stats that shows scoring chance conversions.  "He's great at setting up the play, but they rarely convert on his scoring chances.  He's a bum.  Trade him."

Shots on goal are actually a fairly useless stat as well.  Other than calculating a goaltender's save %, what good is it?

But I do like that Jack counts the number of broken sticks per player.  That one provides a wealth of information.

So I am wondering I know you can have a scoring chance without counting as a shot on net ie hitting a post etc.

But can you have a goal without it counting as a scoring chance. Sucj as a defensive player deflecting in a pass across the front or a offensive player taking a shot from out past the red line that the goalie just misplays

 

Just wondering

In response to BuckNakie's comment:

I would say yes you can. Carlson scored off of a dump in last week when the puck caromed off of a stanchion. There's no way it should've been considered a scoring chance.

Glad the B's are outscoringchancing the Sabres 10-4 tonight.  Must be 4 or 5 to 1, right?  Dumb, useless stat.

In response to hangnail's comment:

Hang, you don't need to apply it to anything if you don't want to but you must agree that the scoring chance stat is truly indicative of how the game has been through 2 periods. If someone hadn't watched they might think from looking at the score that it's been a tight contest. It hasn't been. Just like last week, the Bruins are all over them. Just like it shows in the chances stat.

I know dez but now it's 2-2 and the scoring chance stat really means squat at this point.

In response to hangnail's comment:

I agree. 

LOL! Compuslive contrarianism mixed with the fear of numbers. predictable. The irony of the criticism of this stat is it's completely subjective, a quality that these number-phobic people exhalt over everything else, and a quality that they regularly prefer over purely objective stats (like shot differential). All you need to be able to do is have your opinions on what is a scoring chance, and be able to count them up when you see them.

Sure you could theoretically quantify it with some super-computer that plotted player positing, shot speed, angle, etc, but there are obvious limitations to that, so instead the stat just aks for a person who notices the difference between a good opportunity and a bad one. These kinds of people exist in far greater quantities than you suggest, and they announce themselves whenever the crowd oooos and aahhhhs on a 2 on 1 that produces a shot that misses the net. If you're one of the "lucky ones" that has any hockey sense whatsoever, you can adequately perform this task. To not know the difference between a scoring chance an a harmless "i'll save this 99.999% of the time shot" is to pretend you known nothing about the game of hockey.

Exercise:  Pre-requisite: honesty.

Sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and mark down plays that resulted in a dangerous shot (like when the pass goes through the slot to a player for a 1 timer, and the goal-tender is out of position jumping from one side to the other, im not gonna seriously sit here and tell you all the dangerous plays.)

Then get a buddy to do the same thing. Don't speak. Compare notes at the end of the game. We could even do it on these boards no problem.

 

TLDR

In response to hangnail's comment:

Buffalo 4, Boston 2

What do the scoring chances tell us now?

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

 

I don't know but next game I am going to try to count which team has the most players who blow snot-rockets.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

It tells which team was able to capitalize on their opportunities. It's not rocket science. You should've been able to figure that one out.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

I mean, just reading a single sentence of what I wrote is worth more than all the hot air you produce. Your comments have always been worthless. The only thing you've provided these forums is 11,058 thread bumps.

Anyone who takes NAS seriously on any topic related to hockey, sports, or life in general is an intellectual bottom feeder.

Dez, love the new avatar. New pj's?   lol....just kidding. I am actually a huge Superman fan...yes I am a nerd (just don't tell the wife please).

In response to Olsonic's comment:

Wow, OC.  You sure do get bent when people question the all powerful Corsi.  Quite a reaction towards me when I was discussing hockey!

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

11,059

In response to jmwalters' comment:

It's a picture of Shupe.

In response to dezaruchi's comment:

I KNEW IT!!!!

I like the stat from a defensive perspective.  Usually those chances are a result of turnovers, dzone coverage breakdowns, and giving up odd man rushes.  Obviously, minimizing those chances as a team increase the chance for winning.  It also tells you if your goalie stole you a game a la Miller tonight.  I think it is a way more telling stat than shots.  

offensively, I like the stat as a measure for evaluating the pp.  you can have a great pp and go 0 for 5 and have a crappy pp and go 1 for 3.  A bad coach goes strictly by the numbers and goals versus who is producing chances and being a threat.   For example, Seguin would be benched by now if you went strictly by goal scoring when the reality is that he is on an awful streak of either bad luck or goalies robbing him.  

In response to dezaruchi's comment:

That's the way I've always looked at it.