Gurianov had the highest recorded shot ever (I'm pretty sure), his shot clocked in at 110 MPH. There's no chance he isn't over Oleksiak.

Elite defensemen PK Subban

It's because he shoots the puck more and from easier angles. All things considered, Oleksiak has a pretty good shot but he doesn't use it often. He should.

Marchand has a great wrister, but over Pasta? not sure I'm buying that

Hamilton has good vision and he is great at finding a lane a rippin it, but I'm not sure if he has the best shot on the team.

Wahlstrom has the best shot on the isles

It's not my opinion. There is a logic behind that.

He shoots it from the same angle as guys like Ovi and Stammer, and they get the credit so he should too.

What stat?

Shooting talent above average

Weber misses the net more than he hits it and often by more than three feet, there is no way he is a better shot than Byron who shoots consistently around 15-20% annually. Byron might not have the hardest shot but I would argue it is the most accurate and therefore he is the best shot on the team

70% of Weber's shots hit the net. It's not bad. And when he misses it, he's usually 50 feet from the net.
It's based on this year only. Byron is the 5th best.

For NSH it might be Forsberg or Tolvanen

It shows once again that people don't understand. They shoot more hence they score more goals. It has nothing to do with the quality of the shots and the distance from the net.

I don't necessarily think you can default to a stat as it's all-encapsulating. A part of statistical analysis is knowing what goes into numbers and what conclusions to draw from them.

Your claim is you've pointed out the best shooters, when in reality you have the highest percentage shooters, adjusted for goalie performance and what, goals expected from their shooting locations? You have to understand, while a proxy for shooting skill, it is not the exact same thing.

Most people would understand the better shooter out of two players the one who scores more consistently from the same spot. Getting into shooter position is debatable - some might say its a hockey skill, some might say its a shooter skill. But taking shots from worse locations don't knock anyones actual shooting skill, only their decision making ability - offensive hockey IQ or what have you.

You're using a statistical figure like it's some sort of fact of the world, when in reality we have to at least descriptively agree on a philosophical level first. You're pushing the cart before the horse here.

I think you pretty much misinterpreted the whole thing. It's not like Pastrnak is 56th on the Bruins. He's 2nd, behind one of the greatest shooters in the game.

I'm not saying it's not a good proxy for it - I'm saying you're victim of methodological fallacy if you're claiming to have pinned the best shooter on every team down. I'm sorry for overdoing it though, my last comment might have been too much of a dissertation. I'm just saying chill with pointing to data like its a truth of the world is all - and I do that as someone fully advocating for statistical analysis of the game.

You think I use these stats blindly, I don't. I'd never send DeKeyser or Oleksiak in shootouts before Pastrnak. What I said stands, they are the best shooters on their respective team based on a mathematical model.

The fact that Paul Byron comes up as ''best shot'' candidate on the Habs is telling to just how desperate this team is to have a real shooter.
''Best shot'' should have nothing to do with shooting percentage. You can shoot from almost nowhere and just wait until you have a slot chance (like Drouin and Domi) and conserve a good shooting percentage. It means nothing about the quality of your shot.
It's obvious the Habs's best shot candidate is Caufield, who isn't even allowed to play just yet.
FFS, even Carey Price has a ''better shot'' than Byron

Is that in game time settings or in practice?

Because IIRC during either the 15-16 or 16-17 seasons both Dumba and Scandella beat that number. Both were during practice, but could hit those numbers pretty consistently.

Dumba: 118mph
Scandella: 120mph

And that's just from my knowledge about Wild Fandom. I'm pretty sure there are others who could hit those kind of numbers as well, if not pretty close to it anyway.

110mph seems.... low.

It was in a game. I'm not too sure what his numbers are in practice, but they're probably higher.

They would have to be.

Given Dumba's absolute cannon of a shot, he's probably hit close to that 118mph mark I posted above a couple of times in game.

The puck that he shot that hit Matt Roy in the face earlier this year alone was something like 113-116mph when it hit, and that one had a pretty big wobble to it. Thank God, Roy turned his face enough in time that his helmet and visor caught a good chuck of its impact. All things considered he's lucky to be alive, let alone instead of just having suffered a fractured jaw and being out for 2.5-3 weeks.

That's why I always wear a cage, wearing a visor is just plain stupid IMO.

Smart. It really should be regulation below the NHL professional level. I'm continually amazed that it doesn't happen more often than it does.

On a side note, I thought Klingberg's shot was supposed to be around the 116-117mph range too. Is that wrong?

I'm not too sure I don't look into that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. I know his shot is strong, but his best asset is walking the line to create scoring opportunities.