The PWHL recently integrated a live shot location tracker into their website and retroactively added it for all games. This tracker displays every shot from a team that lands on the opposing goal (even ones taken from the other zone, as you will see). Once I saw it, I knew I wanted to do some analysis work with it, and here is the first of many installments. In this one, I’ll take a lot at the quality of shots taken by PWHL Boston in each of their first five games.
A few things to keep in mind as you look at these graphics. First, the following graphics are made up of screenshots taken from the PWHL website, lightly edited by myself to include a representation of high-danger and danger shot zones. However, 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.
In Game 1 versus Minnesota (a 3-2 L), Boston took four high-danger shots (13%), 19 danger shots (59%), and nine low-danger shots (28%). One of the goals they scored was on a shot that originated from the danger zone, while the other was on a shot originating from a low-danger area. This shot distribution is solid for Boston, and it looks like they had several rebound opportunities, which is always good to see. They didn’t start this game on time, and once they turned it on, they simply got goalie’d by Nicole Hensley.
In Game 2 at Montréal (a 3-2 OTW), Boston took five high-danger shots (24%), seven danger shots (33%), and nine low-danger shots (43%). Two of the goals they scored were on high-danger shots, while the other was on a dangerous shot. Putting up just 21 shots in a game is rarely a winning strategy, having low-shot games is unfortunately inevitable throughout a full season. However, Boston sure made the most of the few shots they had in this game, and that’s exactly what you want to see in a low-shot game.
In Game 3 at Toronto (a 3-2 W), we have Boston’s worst shot distribution of their first five games. They managed just one high-danger shot (5%) to go along with five dangerous ones (23%) and 16 low-danger shots (73%). All three of their goals came on dangerous shots. Anytime you see that high of a low-danger shot percentage, it’s a cause for concern. The fact that they won this game while taking just 22 shots, only six of which were inside the house, is frankly a miracle and speaks to the luck and play of Toronto at the time.
In Game 4 versus New York (a 4-1 L), Boston had an okay shot distribution. They took just three high-danger shots (9%) but added 14 dangerous ones (42%) and 16 low-danger shots (49%). A near 50-50 split is not great, but it could have been a lot worse. Their lone goal in this game was scored on a high-danger shot. The major reason Boston lost this game was the meltdown they had stretching from the last few minutes of the first period to the first few minutes of the second, in which New York scored three goals (they later added an empty net). However, the shot graph suggests they may have had a chance to crawl back into the game, but they got goalie’d by Corinne Schroeder (a common occurrence across the league this season).
Lastly, in Game 5 of the season against Ottawa (a 3-2 W), we have another contender for the worst shot distribution of the first five games. However, it edged out Game 3 because Boston took nine more shots in this game, so at least they got more rubber to the net. It wasn’t good rubber, but it was still rubber, and sometimes that can work. Anyway, in Game 5, Boston took just one high-danger shot (3%), eight dangerous shots (24%), and then 22 low-danger shots (71%). Of the three goals scored, two were on dangerous shots, while the other came from a low-danger shot. This is truly a terrible shot distribution, with no real rhyme or reason to it. Way too many shots came from the perimeter in this game. However, it is a positive sign that at least when Boston decided to take too many low-danger shots again, they took more of them. Plus, they were again opportunistic and still found a way to win. But, this is not a strategy they should rely on going forward.
Conclusion
Through their first five games of the season, Boston took 14 high-danger shots (10%), 53 dangerous shots (38%), and 72 low-danger ones (52%). As is, that’s a fine, but not outstanding, shot distribution. It’s good that nearly 50% of Boston’s shots came from a dangerous area, but there’s still some room for improvement. Plus, just 10% of their shots were from a high-danger area, so they didn’t do a great job of getting to the dirty areas, which is vital when facing as good as every goalie in the PWHL. So, Boston needs to do a better job of that going forward. Another problem is the fact that they average just 27.8 shots per game. While it is fine to have the occasional game where you’re opportunistic but lacking in shot volume, it’s not great to have too many of those. Generally speaking, successful teams typically average 30+ shots per game. But, given this is just the first five games of the season, it is not a major cause for concern from Boston. If an analysis of the next five games reveals the same trend, particularly with no improvement in shot quality, then it will start to be more concerning.
All told, it is fair to say that Boston did an acceptable job of getting quality chances through five games. In games they didn’t get a lot of good looks, they were opportunistic, and in two of the games they did a good job of getting quality looks, they initially shot themselves in the foot before getting goalie’d. But, there is still room to grow, particularly given the offensive talent they have.
Keep an eye out for another analysis of PWHL Boston’s shot quality soon!