SOG vs Scoring Chances

Here is every Arizona player (each represented by a dot with their jersey number in it, blue dots are goalscorers) who got a shot on goal against ASU. Not only are the players arranged by number of shots on goal, but also scoring chances. Scoring chances are defined as shots on goal that have a high probability of going in because the shooter is in a "hot zone" that goes from the points to the faceoff circles, and funnels towards the goalie's crease.

The blue lines that run through the graph separate players into categories of (going clockwise) "effective", "support", "ineffective", and "shooting gallery".

First, there's the obvious outlier Anthony Cusanelli with six shots and four scoring chances. Based on his location on the graph, Cusanelli could be described as being as effective – almost as effective as possible. Had each of his shots been a scoring chance, he'd be at peak effectiveness. Regardless, he was generating more offensive chances than any other Wildcat on the ice.

And speaking of peak effectiveness, there's Chris Westlund.

While his position on the graph isn't as flashy as Cusanelli's, he would be considered to be at peak efficiency because he had three SOG and all of those were scoring chances. Despite his lower position than Cusanelli, he can arguably be a more effective player.

A curious case is Josh Larson, who got the first goal of the game but is still considered to be "support" and not "effective". While his one shot was a scoring chance and a goal, this graph measures quantity a bit higher than quality. Even though he got a goal six seconds in, he didn't put out much more offense making him more of a "support" player than an "effective" player that dictates the offense.

Faceoffs

Grandov: 3/8 , 38%

Westlund: 10/15 , 67%

Griffith: 8/14 , 57%

Plumhoff: 12/20 , 60%

Faceoffs are great insight into puck possession. The better a player is on the dot, the more their line has the puck on their stick.

First things first, 3/4 players were over 50% in the faceoff cricle - which is quite the feat. Grandov's numbers might not look great, but had he won one more of high eight faceoffs, he would have been at 50%. Because Grandov took so few faceoffs, his percentage suffered. Justin Plumhoff experienced the opposite effect. He took the most faceoffs of the night, 20, and won 60% of them.

A storyline of the night was Chris Westlund's dominance. He had three SOG, all of which were scoring chances, and he had the highest faceoff percentage of the night with a 67%.

SOG vs Scoring Chances

The second night against ASU there were only 13 players with SOG as opposed to the 15 the previous night, but no players fell under the "ineffective" category of the graph.

Tyler Griffith was the most effective player with five SOG and five scoring chances, which was better than Anthony Cusanelli's six shot/four scoring chance effort.

Josh Larson also found himself as an "effective" player instead of "support" with three more shots and two more scoring chances than the previous game.

There was also the rise of depth players like Nick Zellmer and Jake Dickison because of various ejections from the game in the final period. Despite not usually getting loads of ice time, these boys both stepped up to the plate and found themselves as "support" players.

On the second night I also tracked where shots came from, which is shown below.

The left is the result of one period of SOG and the right is the result of two periods - because of the swapping of sides every period. The dashed lines are what defines the "hot zone" where scoring chances come from.

What is most curious about this is the lack of shots that come from the slot - the area between the two circles. This is generally a place that has a very high likelihood of shots becoming goals if a player can pull it off. That being said, there's going to be less chances coming from that area generally, but there was almost an utter lack of those chances in the second period. The only shots that came from near the slot were ones just outside the crease, which doesn't really constitute as the slot.

Overall, however, the Wildcats hit the net most of the time from inside the "hot zone", which is a reason why they won that game 6-1.