Back on March 1, I analyzed PWHL Boston’s shot quality in games 1-5 using the PWHL’s online shot-tracking tool. In this next installment, I’ll be taking a look at games 6-10 of Boston’s season. This will be the last one that is fully retroactive, as I’ll catch up by the next one.
As a reminder, here are a few things to keep in mind as you look at these graphics. First, there is currently not enough PWHL data to sensibly determine the exact high-danger and danger shot zones. So, the areas you see outlined are what are generally regarded as those zones at any level of hockey. The outlined box (shaded in red), aka the “slot,” is considered the most dangerous area for a shot. Meanwhile, the larger outlined area, aka the “house,” is considered a danger zone for shots. It is not quite as dangerous as the slot, but it’s still a great spot to shoot from, particularly if there is a chance for a rebound. Any shot from the rest of the ice is termed a low-danger shot.
Lastly, one major limitation of this data is the PWHL only tracks the shot’s original location, so if it deflects or tipped in any way, that is not reflected here. Blocked shots are also not tracked. Given the considerations necessary for the data displayed, it is best to consider these graphics less hard analytics, and more a trend of how the team is shooting.
Now, without further ado, let’s dig in.
Game 6: BOS vs MIN, 1/27/24
I’m not sure what happened with the tracking on this one. Instead of being combined at one end, the shots are all over the place. They’re not even organized correctly by period. But, the number of shots tracked is accurate based on what I had in my recap, so we’ll roll with it. Boston’s shots are in blue on this graphic. Between the two ends, they had just one high-danger shot on goal, which they scored on. They also added seven dangerous shots, which produced two goals, and seven low-danger shots, which produced another goal. Managing just fifteen shots on goal is terrible, yet they managed to bury four. Ah, the beautiful game!
The key piece of information here is that three of those goals were scored from inside the house. This graphic is a prime example of what I mean when I say quality can matter more than quantity. Sometimes, you can score a bunch of goals on very few shots if they’re good enough shots. It’s best to have a combination of both volume and quality whenever possible, but if you’re not going to be able to land many shots, at least make them count. Boston did just that here.
Game 7: BOS vs MTL, 2/04/24
Boston’s shots are in blue, while the orange pins are errant Montréal shots. It’s not too hard to see from this graphic how Boston lost this game 2-1. They managed 0 high-danger shots on goal, 18 dangerous shots, and nine low-danger shots. However, all but 5 of Boston’s dangerous shots came from above the faceoff circles. It’s still a part of the danger zone for a reason, but you’re certainly getting cooler as you move that far out. They did manage to get a goal from that area on a point-blank Sophie Shirley chance, but it’s not ideal to have 13 shots from that one area and only 14 from everyone else. Not only is it just an medium-danger area, but it makes you too predictable. Elaine Chuli was in goal for Montréal, and she has been an absolute brick wall. Giving her any sense of a shooting pattern is not going to yield good results if you’re an opponent. Overall, Boston simply did not get to the dirty areas enough to win this one. The only silver lining is that they still managed to get a point out of it.
Game 8: BOS vs TOR, 2/14/24
The total shots in this one (35) were great. The quality? Not so much. Out of those 35 shots, just two were high-danger, and another 12 were in the danger zone. Meanwhile, 21 came from a low-danger area. Boston scored on two of their 12 danger shots, and one of their low-danger ones. After a rough start to the game, they picked up it up some, but as you can see, the results still weren’t good. While it is nice to finally see Boston decisively cross the 30-shot threshold, having only 40% of the shots come from inside the house is not good enough in this league. The goaltending is too good. It’s also interesting to see such a heavy concentration of dangerous shots on one side. Did Boston see something while watching video on Kristen Campbell? Or were only players on that side of the ice willing to shoot from a dirtier area? If it’s the latter, that’s something Boston needs to work on to start breaking through offensively more often.
Game 9: BOS vs NYC, 2/17/24
Behold: the Corinne Schroeder effect. Boston finally did a good job of getting lots of shots from inside the house, yet they scored just one goal and lost. Only two of Boston’s shots came from a high-danger area, which is still not great, but 19 others were from inside the house, and they were nicely distributed. Meanwhile, 14 of their shots were low-danger, which isn’t too bad considering the volume of shots. Their one goal actually came from a low-danger shot, which is amusing. But, it was a Megan Keller bomb with lots of traffic in front, so the location is a bit deceiving. Overall, having 60% of shots from inside the house is excellent in a high shot volume game. But, Boston had the misfortune of doing it against perhaps the best goalie in the league who simply decided her team wasn’t going to lose.
Game 10: BOS vs OTT, 2/19/24
Another game without a high-danger shot, another loss. Over 50% of their shots came from within the house again, with 17 dangerous ones and 15 low-danger. They got a goal off both a dangerous and low-danger shot, but Boston has got to start getting more shots from inside the slot. The shots in this game reflect Boston’s overall lack of urgency during it, and it was one where they got what they deserved.
Conclusion
Overall, in games 6-10 this season, Boston took a total of 144 shots, which averages out to 28.8 shots per game. Out of those shots, just five were high-danger (3.5%), 73 were dangerous (50.7%), and 66 were low-danger (45.8%). Meanwhile, in the first five games, they took a total of 139 shots for an average of 27.8 per game. Of those 139 shots, they took 14 high-danger (10%), 53 dangerous (38%), and 72 low-danger (52%). So, from games 1-5 to games 6-10, Boston saw a mixed bag of results changing. There was a sizeable drop in low-danger chances, but also in high-danger ones. But, they also had a big jump in dangerous chances, so at least that’s something.
In total, through their first 10 games, Boston took 283 shots. Of those 283, 19 were high-danger (6.7%), 126 were dangerous (44.5%), and 138 were low-danger (48.8%). That means that Boston doing a fair job of getting inside the house overall, which is a positive. However, they are not taking anywhere near enough shots from the slot, which tells me that they are bad at getting rebounds.. They might be getting some that pop out far, but those aren’t common, and they are not getting the ones left in tight. In games 6-10, they had zero shots from by the crease. That is not going to cut it.
Boston has all the pieces to be a high-octane offensive team, but until they stop trying to be too cute with their goals, they won’t realize that potential. The goaltending is way too good in this league to avoid going to the dirty areas and grinding some goals out. The frequent refusal to do so illustrates a general lack of urgency and killer instinct that is vital to long-term success. Boston desperately need to fix that, and fast, if they hope to stay in the playoff picture.