Offensive Zone Faceoffs and Eliminating Icing on the PP
by Hawerchuk on Aug 20, 2010 11:13 AM EDT
Email
Print
Some of you may have seen my generic analysis from last year of shots for and against following a faceoff. Derek Zone asked me to run the same for power-plays. Here are the results - first, cumulative shot totals per faceoff:
Two things to note: 1) the slope of the line is higher for 5v4, which we'd naturally assume - it's just that much easier to get a shot on the PP; and 2) faceoffs at 5v5 are much more likely to result in a quick shot. That's not surprising either - if you win a PP faceoff, you can control the puck and work it around looking for a better chance (plus with one fewer opponent, you're more likely to win control cleanly.) But you wouldn't work the puck around at even-strength. Here are the instantaneous shot counts:
If you win an offensive zone faceoff at 5v5, whatever advantage you gained is mostly gone after 10 seconds, and it's completely gone after 18 or so. On the other hand, at 5v4, your opportunity rates never converge. Odds are, if the defensive team wins a faceoff, they'll dump it down the ice. You'll lose time going back to get the puck and they'll get a change, and those fresh legs will ultimately reduce your ability to get scoring opportunities.
Now what happens if, as the NHL's rulemakers have suggested, you get called for icing when you're on the PK? If the defensive team ices the puck, they've probably reduced their expected future shots against by about 0.2 shots (you can read that off the first chart - say at 25 seconds). If they get called for icing, the play is short-circuited after about 5 or 6 seconds, and they've only reduced their expected shots against by 0.1 shots. However, they're up for another defensive zone faceoff, which - given a 53.8% win% by the team with the man-advantage - leads to an average deficit of 0.1 shots for them. So by calling icing, we've just cost the team that's a man down 0.2 shots per icing.
We don't have any data on how often the defending team ices the puck on the PK, but let's say they still choose to do it twice per penalty kill. Then getting called for it costs them 0.4 shots per PP opportunity. Overall, we're looking at a 20% increase in shots (and goals) by the team with the man-advantage, or roughly six goals per team per season. (That's literally a 2% increase in offense.) Teams might ice the puck more now, but obviously if there was a cost associated with it, they'd hang on to the puck a little longer or try to put the puck on net instead of just dumping it down the boards. Whatever the outcome, it won't significantly boost league-wide offense.
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The crucial issue
Gabe:
I accept there are most shots in those first 10 second after a 5X5 faceoff win. The data is clear. But are the quality of shots in those first 10 seconds the same or lower or higher than at other times?
This is a crucial issue, it seems to me. You could have more shots, but of lower quality at this time, and that would make the whole issue of own zone faceoffs at even strength less critical.
This is my strong suspicion, that such faceoffs are not so critical. I say because in tracking goals for and against the Oilers, I see goals coming off defensive zone faceoffs losses by the Oilers not so much, about 15 times a year, tops.
It strikes me that the offensive team’s shooting percentage in the 10 seconds after a faceoff win in the attacking zone might well be lower than normal. Teams are settled and set up to defend in those situations, so it’s not so easy to get off a good shot, even if you win the faceoff.
But I only go by observation, not by data-mining, so I can’t be sure of this. I might well be wrong . . . it would be interesting to know offensive shooting percentages in the five, ten, 15 and 20 seconds after a defensive zone faceoff win.
P.S. Hey, I know you’ve got all kinds of research questions to do, and I wouldn’t mention this one if I could do it, and if I didn’t think it was crucial to the whole Corsi-ZoneShift-D-zone faceoff issue.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Aug 20, 2010 11:26 AM EDT reply actions
I thought I posted this data somewhere long in the past – it was the same regardless of the time since the faceoff. Anyways, it is exceedingly rare for ‘shot quality’ to show up – unless the goalie gives the puck away. If anything, I’d expect it to be higher after a faceoff because the puck’s moving to a guy for a one-timer and the defense is standing still.
Lightning strikes and putting out fires
I thought I posted this data somewhere long in the past – it was the same regardless of the time since the faceoff
If the shot is of a higher quality, one would expect the shooting percentage to be higher, correct?
Now, of course, if the shooting percentage is the same at all times — and that’s how you remember it from your earlier study — and there are a lot more shots in those 10 seconds, then there really is an advantage of some kind to the team winning the faceoff. That would tend to back up the concept that defensive zone faceoffs are quite crucial.
One other thing, it’s interesting that you found the advantage to be mostly gone after 10 seconds and gone after 18.
This is close to what I found observing major momentum shifts (such as lost battles, turnovers, missed assignments) that lead to goals scored.
No matter when the momentum shift happened, and no matter what zone it was happened in, the goal was scored on averager 12 seconds after the momentum shift. Very, very few goals were scored more than 20 seconds after the major momentums shift.
It seems to me that after a mistake is made or forced on the ice, and one team gains the momentum, they have a small 10-15 second window to capitalize. After that, they either score or the other team stabilizes things.
In that way, hockey is a game of lightning strikes on offence and putting out fires on defence.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Aug 20, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
With the Oilers at least, in the last two years, you can count the times someone scored for or against the team on a one-timer after an even strength faceoff on one or two hands.
This kind of one-timer happens much more often on the powerplay, and that leaves a big impression on fans.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Aug 20, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
At any rate I don’t see why shot quality would come into play here. The oil might be the wrong team to draw conclusions from because they’re so horrible.
by Hawerchuk on Aug 20, 2010 1:48 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Shot quality comes into play, as it would link to more goals scored here
Essentially, I wonder if there is a higher rate of goal scoring in the 15 seconds after an offensive-zone face-off win. Yes, there are more shots, that’s proven, but are there more goals, and if so, how many goals?
If goals are scored at a higher rate in those 15 seconds (as your study here assumes, perhaps because you know this to be true already), it means this event (the own zone faceoff) really is signifcant, maybe even more significant than the numerous other won battles during the course of the game.
As it is, it strikes me that the faceoff win is just one more battle won during the course of the game, and it may not even be that crucial of a battle won, as the defensive team is organized to defend at that moment, not in a state of transition or chaos.
To find out the significance of the faceoff win as compared to other battles, one could compare it to NHL numbers on giveways and take-aways, as imperfect as those stats are. I wonder if there is a higher shooting percentage, more shots and more goals in the 15 seconds after those as well.
Looks like I’d better get some data-mining skills and do some work here . . .
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Aug 20, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
As I said the last time you brought this up (two days ago), Gabe did a study using goal rates, and found that teams score at a much higher rate after winning an offensive zone draw. Here’s a snippet from the article:
In fact, more than 10% of all the goals in the NHL during the 2003-04 season were allowed within 20 seconds of a team losing a face-off in its own defensive zone. Overall, that means that one out of every 40 lost face-offs resulted in a goal in the next 20 seconds. In a league where teams score just 2.5 goals per game, that makes a significant difference.
And because I know you’ll mention something about the effect of losing a faceoff in any zone:
Winning or losing a face-off in the offensive zone has little effect on how likely you are to get scored on.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 20, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks Scott. I hadn’t checked back on that particular thread.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Aug 24, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
don’t forget that if the team isn’t able to change lines after that icing, the likelihood of winning the faceoff and the quality of the scoring chances probably increases. i’d be curious about this graph 5 on 5 separated by post-icing faceoffs and all other D-zone draws.
insane because it’s impossible? i just meant a graph w/ two lines. i don’t really know how you combine all this data to begin with; to me this already seems insane.
Logic dictates that if they bring in icing on the PK, that the same secondary rule (no change) should apply. Of course, this is the NHL we’re talking about. What this “logic”?
Btw, in the distant past the IIHF used to have a modified icing on the PK rule, where it was OK to ice the puck outside your own blueline but not from within your own zone. North American fans used to think was a completely stupid variation and derided it mercilessly. Eventually IIHF went the NHL route and made any icing legal on the PK. I’ve always wondered why the shorthanded team should be afforded special privileges w.r.t. free icings, given that they’re the squad that took the penalty in the first place.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Aug 21, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
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.
