If you had two sets of data, one being a team’s shooting percentage, and the other being a team’s ability to generate shot-attempts, which set would be better in terms of predicting future 5-on-5 goal-scoring ability? At first blush, one may guess the former. After all, it gives us the percentage of shots on net that result in a goal. The latter set of data only tells us how frequently shots are generated, and tells us little – if anything – about a team’s goal-scoring ability. But, that’s not the case. Plenty of work has been done on this topic, particularly at even-strength. The answer is clear: shot-attempt metrics and puck possession proxies like Corsi are much more predictive than shooting percentage, primarily because shooting percentage is swamped by random variance. It’s important to note that this also holds true for special teams. While many hockey analysts appear to obsess over raw conversion rates, the same above principle – that shot generation is far more predictive of future success (or failure) than shooting percentage – is vital in forecasting future success. Why? Because shooting percentage, even in a power-play situation where scoring chances are aplenty, is not a very repeatable skill. It’s easy to illustrate this by simply grabbing a team’s shooting percentage over the first half of the season, and finding how well it correlates to the team’s shooting percentage over the second half of the season. Taken from the years 2007 through 2011: I included the coefficient of determination (0.01) – or percent of variance explained – to illustrate the randomness in shooting percentage. As you can see, a team’s 5-on-4 shooting percentage through the first 41 games of the season does nothing in terms of telling us how well it will convert on shots over the next 41 games. Shot-attempt generation, we know, is a repeatable 5-on-5 skill. Does the same hold true for 5-on-4? Let’s grab the CorsiFor/60 for the same teams in the above sample, and see if their first-half numbers and second-half numbers show similarity. The graph and coefficient of determination here are much more convincing. A team’s ability to generate (or not generate) shots through the first 41 games will likely carry over to the next 41 games, which means this particular measurement has predictive value – far more than, say, shooting percentage. More than anything else, I think this topic is timely. If you poll members and fans of the National Hockey League as to who the league’s deadliest power-play is right now, I think you’ll get a stunningly similar response in the Pittsburgh Penguins. Now, that’s a decent choice – they have a ton of talented forwards, they have exhibited ability to generate shot-attempts with frequency in every game-state, and they have puck-movers on the back-end who can whip the puck through the neutral zone with tempo. All of that is fantastic However, the primary reason I think most would select the Pittsburgh Penguins right now is conveniently tied into the fact that they’ve converted on 31.6% of their power-plays through a 17.54% shooting percentage, second-highest in the league. But, if we are trying to forecast future outcomes, we know to move away from shooting percentages and gravitate towards shot generation. How do the Pittsburgh Penguins look in that aspect of the game? Power Play CorsiFor/60 Rank Team CorsiFor/60 1. Washington Capitals 127.7 2. San Jose Sharks 114.3 3. Arizona Coyotes 113.9 4. Philadelphia Flyers 106.2 5. Chicago Blackhawks 104.2 6. Toronto Maple Leafs 102.5 7. Winnipeg Jets 102.3 8. Detroit Red Wings 101.5 9. Boston Bruins 100.9 10. Ottawa Senators 96.8 11. New York Rangers 95.2 12. Pittsburgh Penguins 95.1 In reality, what we have in Pittsburgh is a good power-play with elite scoring talent. I’m highly skeptical, however, that it’s going to be the best unit by the end of the season, because it still pales in comparison to the units established in Washington (currently 28.8% conversion rate; 2nd) and San Jose (currently a 23.8% conversion rate; 4th), both historically and through the first leg of 2014-2015. Washington’s power-play has been performance art for years, and if nothing else, these early season numbers show the kind of incredible ability they have at blitzing opposing penalty kill units. Their scheme starts with a series of well-designed neutral zone rushes, and almost always features the likes of Nicklas Backstrom and Marcus Johansson on the right-side of the ice, with Alex Ovechkin waiting in his one-time wheelhouse for cross-ice passes. Backstrom and Johansson generally engage in sequences of back-and-forth passing to draw the defense deeper towards their own crease, which sets up two other options away from the Ovechkin primary at the blueline. If the defense pays too much respect to Ovechkin, Mike Green, John Carlson, and Matt Niskanen hammer away from the point. And if the defense pays equitable respect to the point shot and Ovechkin, Backstrom and Johansson needle their way deeper into the box of the penalty kill. If teams are looking at ways to improve their power play through modelling the attacking styles around the league, they could do worse than Mike Johnston’s Pittsburgh Penguins. But, right now, the kings of 5-on-4 still reside in the D.C. area. And, the king of predictive utility for power-play performance is still embedded in shot attempts. Cheap Rockies Jerseys . Azarenka needed exactly one hour in a 6-1, 6-0 rout of Austrian Yvonne Meusburger to start the night session at Laver Arena. Sharapova had a much easier time earlier in the day with cooler conditions and took full advantage in 6-1, 7-6 (8-6) win over Frenchwoman Alize Cornet, while Radwanska had to rally for a 5-7, 6-2, 6-2 victory over Russian Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. Fake Rockies Jerseys . The Blue Jays lost to the New York Yankees 3-1 Tuesday night, their seventh defeat in 10 games. Rasmus was put on the 15-day DL on May 15 because of a sore right hamstring. Hes hitting .222 with nine home runs and 19 RBIs. https://www.cheaprockiesjerseys.us/. In an interview with La Presse this week, the five-time Stanley Cup champion and three-time NHL scoring leader specifically took aim at wingers Thomas Vanek and Max Pacioretty, saying they cant show up in a 7-4 win over the New York Rangers in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference Final and come up empty in Game 6. Colorado Rockies Gear . -- Louisville backup quarterback Reggie Bonnafon ran for two touchdowns and passed for another and the No. Rockies Jerseys 2019 .com) - The collective hearts of Chicago Bulls fans sank on Friday night when Derrick Rose went down with a leg injury against the Cleveland Cavaliers. PRETORIA, South Africa -- Oscar Pistorius refused to look at a photo of his dead girlfriends bloody head wounds while testifying at his murder trial Wednesday as the prosecutor urged the star athlete to "take responsibility" for killing her. "Its time that you look at it," chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel said, setting the stage for a rigorous first day of cross-examination of Pistorius, the double-amputee Olympian charged with premeditated murder for shooting Reeva Steenkamp three times through a toilet door at his home. "I remember," Pistorius said of Steenkamps bloodied head, becoming distraught and then crying as he turned away from the gruesome image of the injuries he inflicted that were displayed next to him in a packed courtroom in South Africas capital. Nel said Steenkamps head "exploded" when it was struck by one of four hollow-point bullets that Pistorius fired through the door on Feb. 14, 2013 with his 9 mm pistol. The showing of the photograph on TV screens in the courtroom caused gasps among spectators, who included Steenkamps mother, June. The police photo showed a side view of the dead model and reality TV stars head, with a mass of blood and human tissue on the back and upper parts. Her eyes were closed. "I will not look at a picture where Im tormented by what I saw and felt that night," Pistorius said. "As I picked Reeva up, my fingers touched her head. I remember. I dont have to look at a picture, I was there." Pistorius, 27, says he shot Steenkamp in the pre-dawn hours on Valentines Day -- in the head, arm and hip -- by mistake thinking she was a dangerous intruder behind the door in his bathroom about to come out and attack him. Prosecutors charge he killed the 29-year-old intentionally, and Nel aggressively questioned Pistorius for the first time. "You killed her," Nel said. "You shot and killed her," and he asked Pistorius to say it. Pistorius would not, saying merely: "I did." Pistorius faces a possible prison term of 25 years to life if convicted of premeditated murder. Nel also showed a video, first broadcast by Sky News days before the trial started, of the celebrated athlete firing a gun at a watermelon at a shooting range. On the video, Pistorius can be heard saying the melon was "softer than brains" after it explodes when the bullet hits it, and calling the powerful .50-calibre handgun he was using a "zombie stopper." Referring to tthe watermelon, Nel said to Pistorius: "You know the same happened to Reevas head.dddddddddddd It exploded." Defence lawyer Barry Roux objected to the gun video being shown, saying it was inadmissible character evidence and amounted to a legal "ambush" of the defence. After the dramatic start, prosecutor Nel also started to poke holes in details of Pistorius version of the events of the fatal night. The champion runner said that his claim in a court document a year ago that he went out onto a balcony at his home before the shooting was incorrect. Pistorius said he went to the edge of the balcony but not outside. The discrepancy could be significant because Pistorius says he heard a noise in the bathroom that alerted him to a possible intruder, which would have been harder if he was out on the balcony. Nel tried to pin down Pistorius on whether he meant to fire into the toilet cubicle door at a perceived intruder, or whether his gun discharged accidentally. Pistorius said he didnt intend to shoot "anyone" and that he fired "before thinking" because he thought his life was in danger, prompting Nel to accuse him of weighing the legal implications of the question before answering. The dogged prosecutor implied that Pistorius, who grew more agitated, was becoming emotional because he was faced with a difficult question. The judge noted that Pistorius had been emotional throughout the trial. Pistorius told his questioner that he was trying to be careful with his answers because the stakes were high. "My life is on the line," he said. Nel retorted: "Reeva doesnt have a life anymore because of what youve done." And Nel tried to dismantle a sympathetic image of Pistorius that the defence had sought to build up in three days of testimony, asking the athlete to explicitly acknowledge that he killed Steenkamp. "I made a mistake," Pistorius said. "What was your mistake?" Nel shot back. Pistorius then said he "took Reevas life." Nel also questioned the defences portrayal of Pistorius as a good role model. The prosecution depicts him as an angry hothead with a gun obsession. The prosecutor asked Pistorius if people looked up to him as a sporting hero, if he would hide anything and if he lived by Christian principles. "Im here to tell the truth, Im here to tell the truth as much as I can remember," Pistorius said. He also said: "Im human. I have sins." ' ' '