Medium- and High-Danger Shots on Neuvirth & Mason

Created 1 years 114 days ago
by Michael DeNicola

Tags: Michal Neuvirth Steve Mason
Categories:
Views: 653

.

by Michael DeNicola


Friday, August 19th, 2016 --



As I was reading Adam Kimelman’s 30 in 30 articles on the Flyers yesterday, I got caught up in the statistic that the Flyers allowed an average of 30.7 shots on goal per game last season. Adam made a mention of how our defense will need to tighten up and decrease that average in 2016-17, which is a legitimate suggestion. But then I began wondering how many of these shots were taken from dangerous areas on the ice. It’s one thing to allow a shot from the perimeter or from a bad angle, but it’s entirely another if the bid comes within close proximity to our goalie. As they say—“All shots aren’t created equal.” I wondered how many high percentage shots our netminders were exposed to. Because if our defense was doing well enough to force the action to the perimeter, that’s certainly something to build on.


I humored myself and began researching Mason’s and Neuvirth’s Low-danger, Medium-danger and High-danger statistics. But I wanted to focus primarily on the latter two.


Of all 40 goalies with at least 1,300 even-strength minutes last season, Mason faced the 3rd most amount of medium-danger shots per 60 minutes (11.18); only Ryan Miller and Jacob Markstrom experienced higher volume per 60 minutes. However, Mason allowed 25 medium-danger goals, or 0.62 per 60 minutes, which ranks him 16th best of 40 in that category.


How does Neuvirth stack up to that?


When Michal was in goal, he faced 9.02 medium-danger shots per 60 minutes, which ranks 21st most of 40 on that list. Neuvirth allowed 0.57 medium-danger goals per 60 minutes, ranking him 11th best in that category.


There was quite a difference between our two goalies. Mason got tested at a higher frequency. Both performed very well.




Now, the “Medium-Danger Zone” is defined as “somewhat of an extended crease around the net, ranging from the centre blue line point, to the top of the slot, and over to each hashmarks in the face-off circles. This would be a slap shot from the point, or a wrist shot from the circles. You know, a pretty decent scoring chance. From here, there’s a significantly higher chance that the shot is going to make it to the net, and because of its close proximity, the goalie will likely not have much time to react.” [thegatewayonline.ca]


What about the “High-Danger Zone”? What is that? This is “the small area immediately in front of the net. If you’re shooting from here, it’s probably a rebound, a breakaway, or a one-timer chance that has a very, very good chance of reaching the net and leaves the goalie with virtually zero time to react. These are the point blank chances that goalies really earn their money on.” [thegatewayonline.ca]


Of the same amount of goalies, same amount of even-strength minutes, Steve Mason faced 6.79 high-danger shots per 60 minutes which ranks 15th most of all 40 goalies. He allowed 1.25 high-danger goals per 60 minutes which is the 20th best of all 40 goalies.


Neuvirth faced 5.93 HDSA/60, which ranks 31st most of 40. He allowed 1.22 HD goals per 60 minutes, which is the 18th best of all 40 goalies.


Once again, there’s a significant difference between our two goalies. This time, Mason was tested much more often than Neuvirth in high-danger attempts. And remember, these stats are measured Per 60 Minutes, eliminating an amount of games-played or TOI as a bias.


Seems as though our skaters forced a lesser quality of shot on Neuvirth than they did with Stone Cold guarding the twine. So yeah, the defense ought to button up next season. And while they’re at it, it wouldn’t hurt to play just as well with Mason in goal as they did with Neuvirth. But that’s just my opinion.


.


.


The Orange & Black Pack can be followed on Twitter, and Facebook!

Have something to say? Join this article's discussion thread from our Facebook page!




121615_mason-neuvirth_1200.jpg