Scoring in Overtime

by Hawerchuk on Nov 26, 2009 9:00 AM EST in Statistics

Since the lockout, 55% of games that have gone to overtime have then ended up in the shootout. Eye-balling it, it looks like scoring is pretty uniform:

Or maybe not:

Just guessing here, but it looks like the first line goes on the ice, and scoring peaks as it is finishing its first shift. Then the second line goes on, and there's less scoring. The process repeats twice more, with the third line getting a shift around the middle of the period.

Looking back before OT, we see that scoring in these games tends to remain flat around five goals per game (2.5 per team) until there are two minutes left to go in regulation play. At that point, trailing teams start to pull the goalie and their goal-scoring increases substantially as the downside to giving up an additional goal disappears. What's surprising is that teams do actually play for the win somewhat in overtime - we can see that the scoring rate doubles by the end of the extra period:

I wasn't expecting this - 4-on-4 features has about 10-15% more offense than 5-on-5 - but the baseline shot rate increases from approximately 80/game during the 3rd period to 100/game in overtime, and increases even further as overtime is about to end:

The increase in shooting is about double what we'd expect if OT was played entirely at 4-on-4. But 4-on-3 power-plays make a big difference in shot rate and shooting percentage. So the increased offense in overtime isn't entirely due to teams pressing for the win - some of it is the natural consequence of NHL rule changes that generate more offense.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like overtime. It’s exciting, and I enjoy seeing each team’s top skill guys compete with a little more open ice. (And not to beat a dead horse about the point system, but even if the NHL switched to 3-2-1-0 system, overtime would be exactly the same – i.e. two points for the winner and one point for the loser.)

Devils color guy Chico Resch mentioned an interesting idea the other day during a broadcast. He said instead of going to a shootout after the 4-on-4, teams should play 3-on-3. Apparently many players he talked to thought it was a great idea.

by sunnymehta.com on Nov 26, 2009 10:58 AM EST reply actions

And they’d have pretty sweet 3-on-2 power-plays! Anyways, I think this is it for OT analysis for now :)

btw, when will Chico be old enough for us to call him Glenn?

by Hawerchuk on Nov 26, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions

Heh, I think they’d follow the rules and just have the team on the PP add a player to make it a 4 on 3 PP. 3 on 3 is the lowest amount of players that can be on the ice.

At some point, though, ice conditions factor into the decision. The ice is generally terrible at the end of OT, since it hasn’t been cleaned for a 20 minute period and a 5 minute OT.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Nov 26, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions

Who’s to say it wouldn’t be 3-on-2? It used to be against the rules to have a best-of-six penalty shot challenge!

by Hawerchuk on Nov 26, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Touche! Was it you that made the argument a couple years ago that if 4 on 4 OT went to 10 minutes there would only be a handful of shootouts/ties by the end due to 4 on 4 scoring rates?

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Nov 27, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

yeah, I noted roughly what I saw here – that the scoring rate increases the further along you are in OT. I imagine that if there was a 10-minute OT, teams might take fewer risks, but it still seems like 80%+ of games would end in OT.

by Hawerchuk on Nov 27, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions