How Bad Teams Outshoot their Opponents at Even-Strength
by Hawerchuk on Nov 15, 2009 11:27 AM EST
in Analysis
Email
PrintThe indispensable Vic Ferrari wrote something a couple of weeks back that looked a little more deeply into my post on bad teams that outshot their opponents. In particular, I had written of the recent vintage of the Toronto Maple Leafs - who have both consistently outshot their opponents and been horrible - that "[t]oo many penalties, weak penalty-killing and poor goaltending are all to blame." While a large penalty imbalance and weak goaltending will result in more high-percentage shots for your opponents, it will also result in a team playing behind a lot of the time. As we've seen before, playing while you're down results in a better shot differential, but a lower shooting percentage. It might seem unintuitive, but having a bad goaltender and taking too many penalties will actually tend to make it easier to outshoot your opponents at even-strength.
Let's look at the Even-Strength SF/SA ratio of various teams last season, overall, in tie games, and when trailing and leading by one goal:
| Overall | Tied Game | Down One | Up One | |
| det | 27.9 | 33.8 | 56.2 | 17.0 |
| sj | 18.9 | 31.7 | 38.7 | 0.2 |
| car | 9.1 | 20.0 | 33.3 | -11.2 |
| chi | 22.3 | 19.3 | 34.6 | 9.3 |
| was | 20.8 | 18.7 | 41.7 | 5.8 |
| nyr | 8.9 | 14.7 | 26.2 | -5.5 |
| cgy | 16.0 | 12.3 | 45.0 | -1.3 |
| nj | 10.0 | 8.1 | 24.9 | 9.2 |
| bos | 1.1 | 7.2 | 18.1 | -15.4 |
| dal | 2.2 | 5.4 | 10.7 | -15.3 |
| cls | 7.9 | 3.7 | 31.4 | 4.5 |
| la | 3.2 | 2.2 | 15.9 | -15.5 |
| phi | -5.9 | 2.0 | -0.9 | -21.6 |
| ott | -0.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | -18.8 |
| buf | -2.6 | 0.2 | 4.0 | -16.5 |
| stl | -3.6 | -1.4 | 12.6 | -17.1 |
| van | -4.2 | -2.4 | 16.5 | -12.5 |
| ana | 3.5 | -2.6 | 39.6 | -16.9 |
| pit | -4.5 | -4.2 | 23.2 | -15.3 |
| nsh | -4.3 | -4.3 | 0.5 | -14.3 |
| mon | -9.0 | -7.6 | 4.0 | -27.7 |
| tor | 0.2 | -8.4 | 12.4 | -6.6 |
| min | -10.8 | -10.1 | 9.9 | -27.8 |
| edm | -11.3 | -13.5 | 16.3 | -30.7 |
| col | -6.7 | -13.8 | 5.8 | -27.4 |
| nyi | -15.3 | -15.1 | -7.8 | -31.2 |
| tb | -9.8 | -17.2 | 3.1 | -16.2 |
| fla | -15.1 | -17.2 | -8.5 | -14.9 |
| atl | -11.6 | -17.4 | 2.2 | -33.3 |
| pho | -16.4 | -20.2 | -8.3 | -15.3 |
As it turns out, SF/SA ratio at even-strength in tie games is a better predictor (R^2 = 54%) of a team's record in regulation than its SF/SA ratio overall at even-strength (R^2 = 40%). And when the score was tied, the Leafs were not very good - 22nd overall - at outshooting their opponents at even-strength last season.
So how did they outshoot their opponents? As we've seen before, teams tend to play tougher defense when they have the lead, leading to fewer shots for and more shots against. On average, team GF/GA ratio drops 12% when a team goes up a goal. But the Leafs, as Vic points out, went the other direction. They actually increased their SF/SA ratio when they were up a goal, presumably by taking unwise chances. The net result was that the Leafs had by far the lowest save percentage in the league when they were up a goal - more three standard deviations worse than the league average.
The worst part is that the Leafs save percentage was around league average both when the score was tied and when they were down a goal. They actually took the lead at even-strength in tie games seven more times than they went down a goal - only New Jersey, Boston Pittsburgh and Columbus were in double-digits.
Why the Leafs played the way they did is a mystery to me. Screwing around when you have the lead certainly isn't a hallmark of Ron Wilson's teams. But it certainly supports two notions, one popular and the other unpopular: first, the Leafs really did play stupid hockey; second, Vesa Toskala really isn't anywhere near as bad as everyone thinks he is.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
gabe, how are the values in the chart derived? is it total shots (i.e. including missed shots)? i’m confused because it says SF/SA ratio, but it looks more like a +/-
all shots, including misses.
The values in the chart are (SF-SA)/SA*100. So -2 = 98%, +2 = 102%. I found the chart less confusing when I did it this way, but I didn’t describe what I was doing very well…
ah, cool. that’s a fantastic chart. any way you could easily output it on BTN for every season? (adding Sh% and Sv% for each game state would be really great too, if possible)
btw, the devils’ “up one” numbers are super surprising to me.
by sunnymehta.com on Nov 16, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
So
Where’s a good place to look up SF/SA when tied.
The Avs have had a Horrible SF/SA this season, and they had a good record. IT seems like they took early leads and then played defense a lot which would lend itself to a poor shot differential.
Last night they largely outshot the Canucks, one of the few teams all season, and got walloped. I’d be interested to know COL’s SF/SA when tied at even strength this season.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 15, 2009 6:48 PM EST reply actions
A good place to go for the first 250 games of this year’s NHL schedule is this post by JLikens. But be warned. If you’re looking for encouraging data about the Avs, you’re not going to find it.
by Scott Reynolds on Nov 15, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
So when does Vesa Toskala struggle his way to a way below league average sv%?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Here's my answer
The net result was that the Leafs had by far the lowest save percentage in the league when they were up a goal – more three standard deviations worse than the league average.
So when the Leafs’ were winning Toskala et al couldn’t make a save to save their lives? Great.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
exactly
They got full of themselves… over confident… outright dumb plays made all over the ice.
We can all remember horrid giveaways that happened when the Leafs had the lead last year. Complete collapses in coverage etc.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Nov 16, 2009 7:18 PM EST up reply actions
One question
R^2 of 54% isn’t all that great is it? I mean that seems to mean that the correlation between outshooting and winning, at any time, is moderate.
But i haven’t had a true stats class in a while, and can’t remember the strength of the R^2 correlation is
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 16, 2009 4:11 PM EST reply actions
R^2 of 54% is pretty good for such a small slice: even-strength, game tied. That’s 20-25% of the overall play and yet it “explains” 54% of a team’s winning percentage. It is more meaningful than total shots.
Agree that it’s more meaningful than total shots. It just seems like being outshot isn’t anywhere close to a guaranteed loss, and that even teams that are consistently outshot aren’t necessarily going to lose the majority of their games.
Of course, out shooting the opponent certainly makes it easier, but it’s not a death sentence if you don’t.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2009 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
We have very little data on this, but I’d imagine that no team has ever won the Stanley unless it outshot its opponents when the game was tied.
Well, looking at the entire regular season, last year’s Penguins got outshot when the score was tied at EV.
Of course, as I’ve pointed out before, it’s misleading to look at the regular season as a whole, given that the team was quite a bit better after the coaching switch. The Penguins under Bylsma convincingly outshot the opposition when the score was tied at EV.
But for the coaching change, it’s reasonable to assume that the Penguins would have continued to get outshot at EV, and probably wouldn’t have made the playoffs, let alone win the cup.
To me this screams of an inability of the team to focus
when playing with the Lead.
Lazy plays, stupid plays, bad positioning. Basically once they’re out front they stop trying as hard.
I see it all the time in my students (as a teacher). When their marks are below 50% they bust their asses to get a passing grade… once they’re passing they suddenly think they can stop working… most of the students that exhibit this behaviour fail eventually.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
