I think Dopey has the right idea, I just think it's just too subjective and impractical to pull off. Closest thing I heard is tracking shots from the slot where I believe statistically most goals are scored. That makes it less subjective(it's either in the slot or it's not).
Even then I suspect that teams that take the highest quality shots(if it were possible to determine this objectively) probably take the largest amount of shot attempts. So for the purpose of trends you are not gaining much.
Shot attempts are used for Corsi rather than SOG because more of them occur in a game. Relatively very few quality shots occur in a game so your sample size would be small making it very difficult to draw any conclusions.
It's not really subjective or impractical. All that is being done is setting the conditions in general form.
It's a shooting percentage with parameters.
Quality of shot is dictated by the shots that have been sampled, so every shot has an assigned quality. A shot from 5 feet away with the goalie out of position is going to have a ridiculously high shot quality as opposed to a slap shot 40 feet away with no obstruction and goalie in position but in our current stats world a shot is a shot is a shot. But it really isn't. The offensive zone is broken down into multiple zones. Walls, point, upper slot, lower slot, directly in front of the net.
The old NHL shot quality was derived from shot distance, which doesn't help with angles... (they don't even track distance right anyways) which is far more important to a shots quality than anything. Then we take goalie position into account... if he's ready for shot and square to shooter, if he's transitioning (either because a quick pass or player shifting around the ozone) or out of position which means he has to scramble for a save when the shot is made. Then the type of shot (slap or wrist/snap)... then other variables like the player in front of the net, one timer...
So every game we have typically 40-60 shots to derive data from. But I've been saying end of season is when I can get preliminary data. Realistically i need about 3 seasons worth of data, about 150,000 shots or so...
Remember... im looking for league average. So if there's some bum like clarkson who is scoring a ton of garbage goals, stats should dictate he is burying a lot of these goals because of circumstance, not because of talent. His shot quality from NJD should be very high, but i suspect even with that i predict he'd have a negative variance (gf - tSONQ (total shot on net quality)) but a player like kessel would have a positive variance.
A team that is pouring tons of shots may have negative variance, or they may have positive variance depending on if the pucks go in. It should actually reinforce a lot of assumptions but bring more questions to the table.
Point is... it's to establish that a shot with similar conditions from similar position has an x chance to score based on previous outcomes from every type of player. It's to lower the value of perimeter, easy saves and increase the value of hard to stop shots... which in turn helps detail the cost of defensive screwups (inability to contain)
With the zone breakdown, we pull back the variables and look at team vs team. If sens pour more shots from one area of the ice with x average sonq or aonq but boston allows less shots with a lower sonq from those zones, it would dictate sens offense having a more difficult time scoring based on previous shots and how both teams make shots and attempts.
It's not just an analysis of shot quality, but an analysis of systems. It's an analysis of defense. It's an analysis of offense. Shot quality brings context to everything and is the biggest missing link to all hockey stats.