Best and Worst Faceoff Takers since 1997

by Hawerchuk on Mar 22, 2010 9:00 AM EDT

The NHL has been recording a huge number of statistics for every game since 1997, but they have yet to master turning data into interesting insights. Case in point: hits and faceoffs. We always hear about which players lead the league in hits - Cal Clutterbuck, Dustin Brown - but do we know who the best faceoff takers are? Hits, in and of themselves, have no relationship with winning, but faceoffs are incredibly important because winning them results in puck control and more shots on goal.

Here are the even-strength face-off winning percentage leaders since 1997-98, minimum 1000 faceoffs through Friday's games:

Rank	Player	GP	FO	W	L	WPCT
1	Yanic Perreault	701	7803	4752	3051	60.9
2	Mike Zigomanis	189	1360	809	551	59.5
3	David Steckel	224	1917	1137	780	59.3
4	Scott Nichol	485	3620	2146	1474	59.3
5	Rod Brind'Amour	860	12314	7289	5025	59.2
6	Joe Nieuwendyk	562	7791	4596	3195	59.0
7	Mark Janssens	198	1769	1043	726	59.0
8	Jason Krog	202	1437	839	598	58.4
9	Tim Taylor	607	5635	3270	2365	58.0
10	Kris Draper	875	7873	4560	3313	57.9
11	Mike Sillinger	753	8333	4770	3563	57.2
12	Guy Carbonneau	220	2776	1589	1187	57.2
13	Sebastien Bordeleau	219	2493	1424	1069	57.1
14	Steve Yzerman	491	6261	3565	2696	56.9
15	Steve Dubinsky	284	2069	1178	891	56.9
16	Dave Andreychuk	556	3308	1882	1426	56.9
17	Adam Oates	511	7916	4503	3413	56.9
18	Antoine Vermette	447	3349	1903	1446	56.8
19	Eric Lindros	463	5938	3364	2574	56.7
20	Trent Whitfield	191	1586	892	694	56.2
21	Bobby Holik	836	11387	6389	4998	56.1
22	Jarret Stoll	420	4564	2556	2008	56.0
23	Jerred Smithson	381	2096	1167	929	55.7
24	Stacy Roest	244	1527	850	677	55.7
25	Steve Martins	242	1713	953	760	55.6

I knew that some of these players were very good on faceoffs: Perreault, Brind'Amour, Carbonneau, Andreychuk, Draper, Sillinger. And I watch a fair number of Sharks games, so I knew that Scott Nichol is a very good faceoff taker. But there was never any suggestion on any of those telecasts that Nichol is tied for #1 in faceoff percentage among active players. This seems like the kind of thing that we'd want to know, doesn't it? Would Nichol have more than a one-year $750,000 contract if his skills were better-publicized?

The bottom 25:

Rank	Player	GP	FO	W	L	WPCT
276	Tyler Wright	527	3691	1632	2059	44.2
277	Mike Ribeiro	571	4514	1991	2523	44.1
278	Mikhail Grabovski	153	1518	669	849	44.1
279	Alexei Yashin	592	6722	2962	3760	44.1
280	Milan Kraft	207	2095	915	1180	43.7
281	Sam Gagner	221	1347	588	759	43.7
282	Eric Staal	468	5632	2455	3177	43.6
283	Tyler Arnason	487	3561	1552	2009	43.6
284	Harry York	170	1141	497	644	43.6
285	Marco Sturm	843	1469	637	832	43.4
286	Erik Rasmussen	545	2029	874	1155	43.1
287	Igor Korolev	489	3742	1608	2134	43.0
288	Nik Antropov	593	2810	1207	1603	43.0
289	Viktor Kozlov	741	5070	2174	2896	42.9
290	Nathan Horton	409	1024	437	587	42.7
291	Patrik Elias	850	1468	626	842	42.6
292	Martin Straka	659	2528	1078	1450	42.6
293	Robert Kron	355	1853	781	1072	42.1
294	Jochen Hecht	687	1806	760	1046	42.1
295	Tim Connolly	555	5175	2158	3017	41.7
296	James Sheppard	214	1637	681	956	41.6
297	Shane Doan	899	1191	486	705	40.8
298	Evgeni Malkin	305	2283	917	1366	40.2
299	Oleg Kvasha	493	2517	1003	1514	39.8
300	Andrew Cogliano	235	1359	525	834	38.6

There are some fairly well-known names in here - guys who've taken a lot of face-offs. Is there a point where a player should shift to the wing for the draw and let someone else take it? Indeed, this table of faceoff winning percentage versus the number of faceoffs taken per game suggests that Carolina would be better off letting a winger take the draw than letting Eric Staal continue to flail away:

FO/GP	% of Total	WPCT
>10	49.4	51.3
5-10	34.9	49.9
2-5	9.9	48.0
1-2	2.8	45.2
<1	3.0	40.3

I'm convinced that teams have long paid too little attention to faceoff-taking, and probably continue to do so. Maybe individual faceoffs don't seem that valuable - but having a high winning percentage can be worth several wins in the standings.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Stecks!

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 22, 2010 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs

The first thing I looked for when I saw this post. Stecks FTW.

"My face is my mask."

by Jake Shapiro on Mar 22, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions

but having a high winning percentage can be worth several wins in the standings.

I dunno, Gabe.

I know Matt did a piece on this, can’t remember what he concluded other than the effect is smaller than made out to be. I did some back of the envelope calcs on this, it went something like this.

Only looking at even strength, usually you have 30 faceoffs total in both defensive zones. If you assume the average is 50% and you are a 60% team in both zones (which is the upper bound if there ever was one) then you will win 3 more faceoffs in both zones per game and about 250 more per season.

Receently you did a piece on the effect of a lost defensive zone EV faceoff, you concluded that it is the same as if you were on the PK for 15 seconds. So 250 more won faceoffs (in either zone) results in 3750 seconds of PP-like goal differential. That’s 62.5 minutes. Taking 0.2 goal differential per 2 minutes as a line in the sand, that’s 6.25 goals per season, or one win. And that’s for a faceoff team that I imagine would qualify as better than any team in history.

There are effects on the PP and PK too but I can’t imagine an upper bound on more than two wins and that would only be for the best faceoff team in history. For regular really-good faceoff teams I imagine the upper bound is around one win.

That’s still valuable but I would prefer my centres to win more puck battles along the boards, even if they are losing more of these puck battles in open ice.

by R O on Mar 22, 2010 10:14 AM EDT reply actions

There’s a leverage element to faceoffs too – late-game face-offs, etc. Replacement level is a bit lower than you think, so we might be looking at +3 wins. When guys like Nichol and Malhotra are available for such low salaries, I can’t see how there’s a downside.

by Hawerchuk on Mar 22, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

No, definitely no downside, as long the players that the elite faceoff ability are attached to are also guys who don’t hurt you (e.g. Malhotra). No-brainers in those cases.

I suppose I am just against the idea of “faceoff specialists”, I mean the guy who’s good at faceoffs has to be good at other stuff too. Although I’m not sure if there are actually that many faceoff specialists, guys who are elite at faceoffs but replacement level at everything else. Are there? I don’t know, that doesn’t square with my sense of reality.

I suppose if we look at replacement level then you’re looking at 3+ wins. You have a better sense of it how many guys subsist at faceoff-winning replacement level than I do but I suspect that there are enough centres who can do “average” (not replacement level) and still not hurt you in the other aspects of a centre’s job that it’s a bit of a blurry question as to whether or not specialized faceoff men actually help you all that much.

by R O on Mar 22, 2010 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

I was actually looking at this in response to a comment on my Selke post. Right now Drury is the best face-off guy in his own defensive zone at 58.7%. Given the amount of defensive draws he’s taken, that gives him about 30 more wins than a guy at 50%.

How much does 30 D-zone wins compare to? I estimated it works out to 10-12 shots over a season, which is about 1 goal. In likely-hood it’s not as crucial as I presented it in my post, but I’d be happy to here counter arguments.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Mar 22, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

10-12 shots sounds reasonable but that has to be compared to normal shot rates. Assuming you mean that it costs 10-12 shots in the post-D-zone-faceoff shifts and assuming those shifts lasts about 45 seconds on average, we’ll get a shot rate of about 20-24 per 60.

That seems even lower than what normal EV shot rates are according to BTN. Unless that’s 20 to 24 more shots per 60. Which would make sense and would only be a goal difference (more or less).

Of course you’d have to reflect that into the offensive zone too, but I notice that Drury barely wins more than 50% in the OFF zone. I’m at a loss as to why, maybe his linemates in the OFF and DEF zones change, I dunno. But for other players (Crosby for instance) the faceoff prowess carries over into the offensive zone and probably puts another goal to his name.

[as if he needed it :-)]

by R O on Mar 22, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, I was unclear. I meant that it would be an additional 10-12 shots over normal rates.

As I was browsing the data for my post, I noticed most players seem to do better in their own zone than in the attacking zone. Of course I was only looking at the players who were doing well in their own zone, so my observation is likely clouded since I was looking at only a sub-set of information.

I would imagine that defensive zone face-off rates are a little higher overall though. I’d imagine that coaches would put their best face-off men in the Defensive zone more often than they would in their offensive zone, because of the importance of winning a defensive zone draw. Therefore the quality of face-off man a guy like Drury is facing in his own end is lower than the quality he’s facing when he takes an offensive face-off. Of course that is purely speculative, and would require some additional analysis. A fun summer project if you will.

The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Mar 22, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, your result nicely syncs up with mine. Most coaches will run 3 primary EV units and give them 10-15 minutes of icetime and that means three centres to do that faceoffs. Assuming each centre is so good that he can win 60% of draws both in the offensive and defensive zones, that’s a goal per centre, per zone, for a grand total of six goals vs. a 50% team.

Of course 50% is average performance, not replacement level, and I’m very interested in knowing what replacement level for faceoffs is. Gabe?

by R O on Mar 22, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Defeniive zone faceoffs losses are (likely) not such a big issue

Gabe, I’m with R O on this in that I’m uncertain that defensive zone faceoff losses are a significant issue.

In fact, I would argue that defensive zone faceoff losses are just like any other lost battle, except that the defensive players are actually set up and organized when the battle is lost, so it’s not as difficult to recover from a faceoff loss.

Indeed, of all lose battles in the defensive zone, it’s the easiest to recover from, I’d argue. If you tracked all battles lost in the defensive zone, I bet you’d find the opposing teams cashes in a lot quicker than 15 seconds after, for instance, a puck is lost along the boards.

I do believe, though, that guys who win faceoffs also tend to be solid defensive players, who win a lot of those battles, and that’s the real value of these guys. They’re just good, smart defensive specialists. They know how to play hockey the right way.

With the Oilers, it’s missed checking assignments, not faceoff losses, that is killing the Oilers in their own end.

I’ve kept track of this all year, but have only tabulated the first 27 games, where the Oilers had 57 goals scored against them at even strength, three short-handed goals against and three empty net goals against.

The most common cause of goals against in those 27 games were missed assignments (both in and outside of the slot), with 63 goal-causing missed assignments (some of these mistakes coming on the same goal against).

In total, 46 of those 63 decisive missed assignments happened in the Oilers’ own zone, 20 of them in the slot area.

The next most likely cause of a goal against was lost battles, with 58 lost battles leading to goals against, 45 of those lost battles happening inside the Oilers zone.

Seven times in those 27 games the Oilers lost faceoffs that directly contributed to goals against.

Two of those lost faceoffs happened in the offensive end, two in the neutral zone and three in the defensive end.

So three of the 63 even strength goals against the Oilers in the team’s first 27 games this year were connected to defensive zone faceoffs losses.

These findings are observational and preliminary. But, so far, it would seem to me, at even strength, defensive zone faceoffs loses aren’t catastrophic and won’t have much impact on a players scoring stats or his plus/minus.

It’s a different story on the penalty kill, though, where I do believe defensive zone faceoff losses are more catastrophic.

by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Mar 22, 2010 12:29 PM EDT reply actions

Yannic Perreault, the exception that proves the rule?

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Mar 22, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions

I miss Yanic. His FC skills were amazing. Watching Yanic in the dot was like watching Rodman in his prime. No one would ever accuse him of being a great two way player, but he was fun to watch.

"You ever use smelling salts, every time you type a bad blog?" Brooks Laich

by Carl Putnam on Mar 23, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

I did a piece on individual seasons. Cogliano is full value.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Mar 22, 2010 1:05 PM EDT reply actions

One thing with faceoff percentages that I’ve noticed is that the worst percentages seem littered with younger players (25 and younger) while the top percentages are filled with players that are 30+. It seems to be an acquired skill rather than a natural talent. In other words, I’d give Eric Staal a bit of leeway.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Mar 22, 2010 1:38 PM EDT reply actions

Or it takes coaches ten years to notice that a guy is good at faceoffs…Or move the Staal brothers to the wing…

by Hawerchuk on Mar 22, 2010 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Or the linesmen give the “old, respected vets” more leeway with cheating at faceoffs than younger players.

IIRC, it became an issue during Carolina’s Cup run where there was a bit of a scandal when Horcoff charged the linesmen with allowing Brind’Amour to basically flout the faceoff rules. I’m not sure if anything came of it however. Maybe it’s just another commonplace cliche about officiating.

by MathMan on Mar 22, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Or it could be that when you are used to being way better than the competition, you don’t view faceoffs as a must have skill. Then you hit the NHL, and suddenly you realize you need to work on it a bit. And play defence, too. :)

I think, given time, Staal will be much closer to the 50% range in his next five years than he was in his first five. I think Mike Ribeiro, for example, was at 39 or 40% in his early 20’s. I think Grabovski might have been worse in his brief stint in Montreal.

But yeah, there are a bunch of players on there that got shifted to the wing for large parts of their career: Doan, Elias, Straka, Kvasha, Kozlov, Antropov.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on Mar 22, 2010 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Sharks

Its interesting to check out these faceoff stats as they relate to wins. Aside from Nichol being a monster in the dot, the Sharks also picked up Manny Malhotra and his 61.8% winning percentage this season. Throw in Joe Pavelski and thats THREE players over 60% this season… two of which were acquired in the offseason.

I’m eager to see if the puck possession helps the Sharks in the playoffs when the battles are so much tougher. Its easier to play when you actually have the puck.

Great run down and analysis. And thanks for the Jason Krog mention…. :)

View From My Seats
Sarcasm: God's gift to smart people...

by Matt Reitz on Mar 22, 2010 3:05 PM EDT reply actions

I think one of the reasons that Pavelski and Malhotra are so dominant is that they often play on the same line, and so McLellan splits up their faceoff duties so that they only take draws on their backhand, which gives them an advantage.

But, anyways, with Pavelski, Malhotra, and Nichol all over 60% on faceoffs, and Thornton and Marleau both above 50%, it’s no wonder why the Sharks lead the league in FO% by over 3%, which is a significant amount seeing how the rest of the league is separated by only a 6% difference. That there are multiple centers on each line doesn’t hurt either.

"I think I realized after the second or third punch, I should have taken his helmet off sooner." - Ryane Clowe
Proud member of the "Re-Sign Marleau" Club
Fools and Sages

by mymclife on Mar 25, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions