Hockey Analytics: What Does It Mean For Cornell?

[css228]

Since I've been on the advanced stats thing a lot recently, I just want to bring up a graphic from SB Nation Blog Eyes on the Prize that shows why puck possession matters, exactly how good a proxy these advanced stats are for possession, and how strongly possession correlates to winning. I've mostly talked Corsi here because it is easier for me to estimate with the less detailed stats that are kept in college hockey. However, of the advanced statistics that have been developed, no statistic seems to have more predictive value toward winning than Fenwick Close %. I am presenting them up front, for those who do not want to read the long winded explanation of advanced stats below, but maybe the images will intrigue you enough for the the TL;DR part.

Playoff Teams since 2007-2008


Non-Playoff Teams since 2007-2008


For those who have not really looked into advanced stats yet, Fenwick is like Corsi in that it is a +/- type statistic that accounts for shot attempts in a given situation during a game. However, there are important differences between the two statistics. Unlike Corsi, which accounts for ALL shot attempts, Fenwick eliminates blocked shots from the equation, presumably under the logic that shot blocking is a skill, not a random event.

It is always important regarding this statistics to be aware of the game situation, and other contextual factors that can contribute to results, and as a result hockey analysts have developed a wide array of variants on Fenwick and Corsi that attempt to isolate these contextual factors. There are separate Fenwick and Corsi stats for different game situations, such as 5 v 5, the power play, the kill, 5 v 3, etc. Both statistics can also be presented as a percentage, but this eliminates some context, for example Cornell can dominate possession without taking a ton of shots attempts if it is very successful at eliminating shots by the opponent. The context is valuable because it can give you hints at how a team plays, but it is not really necessary to the predictive value of the statistic. The same goes for statistics such as CorsiFor and CorsiAgainst, which will tell you the context of offensive style or defensive style (i.e. is one team a Guy Godowsky team that just throws pucks at net inflating their CorsiFor number, or is their positive Corsi coming from a stifling defense and a low CorsiAgainst like the clutch and grab era Devils had).
 
One other major matter of context that should be noted is that score effects manipulate the strategies each team takes. A team that is trailing is more likely to take a ton of shots than the typical Cornell team that has a 2 goal lead in the third. These score effects can bias the results of advanced statistics if we don't account for the game context in which particular events occurred. This is where the close portion of the statistic that this graphic presents comes into play. Puck possession ability is usually most accurately represented by team strategies in close games while playing at even strength. In this context, close is defined as when teams are within one goal during the first or second periods, or tied in the third period or overtime. This is not only the largest sample of game events, as more minutes in hockey are played at even strength in close situations than any other context, but the results are also less biased by changes in team strategy, such as reverting into a neutral zone trap and dumping the puck for the last period of the game, because you no longer need to score.

So Fenwick Close % is essentially the percentage of all unblocked shot attempts your team gets when the game is within one goal before the third period starts, and while tied after the third period begins. The graphics above show that teams that thrive and dominate puck possession in these situations have wildly successful over the past 5 years. As I've mentioned before, and the Habs blog mentioned in their article, a short season, such as the one played in college hockey, or the lockout shortened 2012-2013 season may be short enough to see some statistical oddities and teams get lucky, but over the course of time, teams that have the puck win, and they win a lot.

This weekend was great because its the first time all season that we seemed to play really well at even strength.I'd call the win over Brown nothing short of dominant, which is what this team should be doing to bad teams, and the game against Yale was a very good game against a very good team. Did we dominate Yale? I don't really have the numbers, but I'd say the game looked fairly even to me. The biggest difference was that on our huge rebound Knisley happened to be standing in the net, while on Yale's huge rebound the play came out flat to Lowry's stick and no one was in the way. Hockey has a large element of chance to it, so its best to be the team with more balls in the lottery so to speak. Either way, hopefully we keep dominating possession against two bad teams the next two games and more importantly get results out of both games. Teams with the puck win games and this weekend was a good start.

For anyone interested in learning more on advanced stats, I highly recommend checking out the writing at Broad Street Hockey, Raw Charge, or Arctic Ice Hockey as jumping off points. Apologize for the long post, but I figure it was useless without some context.

[Trotsky]

Apologize for the long post, but I figure it was useless without some context.

Don't apologize, this is great stuff.  Thank you for taking the time to write it out clearly.

I haven't followed the other links (I will), but the first thing that I wondered was is there any reason to believe puck possession is causal of success, as opposed to being simply correlated because both puck possession and success are caused by an independent variable (namely, having better players)?  It does not seem like a team can simply decide they are going possess the puck more.  Possession seems dependent on other things that are more in the power of the team (well, the coach) to control: recruiting for and exercising to improve strength, size, speed, conditioning, as well as some skills that are second-order effects of those things: winning the battle in the corners, beating the opponent to the puck, passing crisply, staying above the opponent.

Or are you saying that some team strategies and in-game tactics stress possession over other goods and this is disproportionately successful?  Is stressing possession a disputed notion?

[css228]

Apologize for the long post, but I figure it was useless without some context.

Don't apologize, this is great stuff.  Thank you for taking the time to write it out clearly.

I haven't followed the other links (I will), but the first thing that I wondered was is there any reason to believe puck possession is causal of success, as opposed to being simply correlated because both puck possession and success are caused by an independent variable (namely, having better players)?  It does not seem like a team can simply decide they are going possess the puck more.  Possession seems dependent on other things that are more in the power of the team (well, the coach) to control: recruiting for and exercising to improve strength, size, speed, conditioning, as well as some skills that are second-order effects of those things: winning the battle in the corners, beating the opponent to the puck, passing crisply, staying above the opponent.

Or are you saying that some team strategies and in-game tactics stress possession over other goods and this is disproportionately successful?  Is stressing possession a disputed notion?

The major reason to believe that puck possession is causal is that it seems as though shot quality, in the sense of taking few shots but regularly creating better quality chances isn't a repeatable phenomenon. Goals are a sufficiently rare event that they are highly effected by chance, just think of all of the weird deflections and crazy angle shots and rebounds that go in as opposed to the well executed odd man rushes, dangles and snipes from the slot. You just aren't all that likely to get the puck laying flat on your stick in a great scoring area, and at least to date, while individual players have been shown to be able to do that, its not reflected at the team level as far as shooting percentage goes. Simply put, the best way to have more chances is to have more of the puck.

As far as implementing systems that can affect possession, puck management matters. While possession is mostly driven by talent and the skills of the players, a coach can absolutely instruct the players to play in a way that will maximize possession. I'm not saying that dumping is always the wrong call, however, a team that enters the offensive zone with possession as opposed to dumping and forechecking generates more shots per offensive zone entry. This seems fairly obvious, as my mom always used to wonder before advanced hockey stats were around, "Why are you giving the puck up for a chance to get it back?" She is right that this style of play seems fairly counterproductive. That's why, whenever possible, the Soviet Union would regroup by bringing the puck back to their defensive zone and trying again when possible. They figured that even with the opposing defense already back, they could create more chances through controlled zone entries than if they played a North American style game and tried to dump and chase with numbers. There was an NHL Numbers article on that, but I'm seemingly unable to find it.

Secondly, a coach can affect these numbers in his decisions of who to play and what line combinations to use. To use an example I'm very familiar with, the Philadelphia Flyers are on a 6-0-1 run right now. with the exception of the 1st game when Michael Raffl played for an injured Steve Downie, the line combinations have been stayed the same each game. In particular, the 3rd line of Couturier, Read and Downie has been phenomenal in this stretch, shutting down strong possession lines game after game. We're talking outplaying Crosby's line, Turris's line, drawing dead even with Taveres' line in Corsi despite mostly defensive zone starts which is very impressive. By putting his best possession players in the lineup (with the exception of Jay Rosehill who plays 4th line minutes so who cares), with players that compliment their skill sets (See Giroux with Voracek, who is similar to Jaromir Jagr in that he's a big body who's strong on the puck and skilled, and with Hartnell who goes to the corners and wins puck battles, or Couturier, one of the best young defensive forwards in the NHL with a versatile two way wing and sniper like Matt Read, and a tenacious, but skilled Steve Downie) Craig Berube has a Flyers team that started the season 1-7-0 all the way to 10-10-2 and 2 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand.

Finally, a coach can manage line matchups and zone starts in game, particularly at home when he gets the last change. Against Pittsburgh, Bylsma lost the Pens a game the probably should have won, because he allowed Berube to continually get the matchups that he wanted (Specifically Couturier against Crosby's line, and Giroux's line against Malkin's). Berube has been fantastic at getting the matchups he's wanted during this run, despite four of the seven games being on the road. He has allowed Giroux and Couturier to handle the heavy lifting in the defensive zone, because these are strong possession lines that push the play forward. He has given easier zone starts to the Schenn/Lecavalier/Simmonds line, which has scored a lot because of the decreased defensive responsibility that does not exactly fit their skill set, and increased scoring chances due to starting in a more favorable position. While Schenn might be a great two way center some day, his game is not there yet, Vinny is old, and Simmer is not the best skater. Yet when placed against weaker competition and given some favorable starting points, they are more than capable of being a good scoring line.

So in sum, yes a coach can absolutely affect possession and the run of play through the system they choose to implement, particularly regarding puck management, the lineups and line combinations they choose to play, and the matchups and zone starts they decide to give their players in game. Yes there is a fundamental limiting factor in the talent that is on the ice, but the way a coach utilizes the talent they have at hand matters.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Apologize for the long post, but I figure it was useless without some context.

Don't apologize, this is great stuff.  Thank you for taking the time to write it out clearly.

I haven't followed the other links (I will), but the first thing that I wondered was is there any reason to believe puck possession is causal of success, as opposed to being simply correlated because both puck possession and success are caused by an independent variable (namely, having better players)?  It does not seem like a team can simply decide they are going possess the puck more.  Possession seems dependent on other things that are more in the power of the team (well, the coach) to control: recruiting for and exercising to improve strength, size, speed, conditioning, as well as some skills that are second-order effects of those things: winning the battle in the corners, beating the opponent to the puck, passing crisply, staying above the opponent.

Or are you saying that some team strategies and in-game tactics stress possession over other goods and this is disproportionately successful?  Is stressing possession a disputed notion?

The major reason to believe that puck possession is causal is that it seems as though shot quality, in the sense of taking few shots but regularly creating better quality chances isn't a repeatable phenomenon. Goals are a sufficiently rare event that they are highly effected by chance, just think of all of the weird deflections and crazy angle shots and rebounds that go in as opposed to the well executed odd man rushes, dangles and snipes from the slot. You just aren't all that likely to get the puck laying flat on your stick in a great scoring area, and at least to date, while individual players have been shown to be able to do that, its not reflected at the team level as far as shooting percentage goes. Simply put, the best way to have more chances is to have more of the puck.

As far as implementing systems that can affect possession, puck management matters. While possession is mostly driven by talent and the skills of the players, a coach can absolutely instruct the players to play in a way that will maximize possession. I'm not saying that dumping is always the wrong call, however, a team that enters the offensive zone with possession as opposed to dumping and forechecking generates more shots per offensive zone entry. This seems fairly obvious, as my mom always used to wonder before advanced hockey stats were around, "Why are you giving the puck up for a chance to get it back?" She is right that this style of play seems fairly counterproductive. That's why, whenever possible, the Soviet Union would regroup by bringing the puck back to their defensive zone and trying again when possible. They figured that even with the opposing defense already back, they could create more chances through controlled zone entries than if they played a North American style game and tried to dump and chase with numbers. There was an NHL Numbers article on that, but I'm seemingly unable to find it.

Secondly, a coach can affect these numbers in his decisions of who to play and what line combinations to use. To use an example I'm very familiar with, the Philadelphia Flyers are on a 6-0-1 run right now. with the exception of the 1st game when Michael Raffl played for an injured Steve Downie, the line combinations have been stayed the same each game. In particular, the 3rd line of Couturier, Read and Downie has been phenomenal in this stretch, shutting down strong possession lines game after game. We're talking outplaying Crosby's line, Turris's line, drawing dead even with Taveres' line in Corsi despite mostly defensive zone starts which is very impressive. By putting his best possession players in the lineup (with the exception of Jay Rosehill who plays 4th line minutes so who cares), with players that compliment their skill sets (See Giroux with Voracek, who is similar to Jaromir Jagr in that he's a big body who's strong on the puck and skilled, and with Hartnell who goes to the corners and wins puck battles, or Couturier, one of the best young defensive forwards in the NHL with a versatile two way wing and sniper like Matt Read, and a tenacious, but skilled Steve Downie) Craig Berube has a Flyers team that started the season 1-7-0 all the way to 10-10-2 and 2 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand.

Finally, a coach can manage line matchups and zone starts in game, particularly at home when he gets the last change. Against Pittsburgh, Bylsma lost the Pens a game the probably should have won, because he allowed Berube to continually get the matchups that he wanted (Specifically Couturier against Crosby's line, and Giroux's line against Malkin's). Berube has been fantastic at getting the matchups he's wanted during this run, despite four of the seven games being on the road. He has allowed Giroux and Couturier to handle the heavy lifting in the defensive zone, because these are strong possession lines that push the play forward. He has given easier zone starts to the Schenn/Lecavalier/Simmonds line, which has scored a lot because of the decreased defensive responsibility that does not exactly fit their skill set, and increased scoring chances due to starting in a more favorable position. While Schenn might be a great two way center some day, his game is not there yet, Vinny is old, and Simmer is not the best skater. Yet when placed against weaker competition and given some favorable starting points, they are more than capable of being a good scoring line.

So in sum, yes a coach can absolutely affect possession and the run of play through the system they choose to implement, particularly regarding puck management, the lineups and line combinations they choose to play, and the matchups and zone starts they decide to give their players in game. Yes there is a fundamental limiting factor in the talent that is on the ice, but the way a coach utilizes the talent they have at hand matters.

I was definitely aware of how the 3rd line was being used, but I'll watch for how Chief plays the 2nd line tonight, too.  That's an interesting observation.

And as a Flyers fan, I'm loving everything you're saying.  Simply because it bodes well for future games.

[Trotsky]

That is a fantastic summary, thank you.  It would be great for folks (with time, and knowledge, and the willingness to work for beer...) to take a shot at evaluating the tape of the Yale game re: where we did (or did not) put these principles into practice, and whether there was anything more we could have done given who we have to work with.

In your opinion do you think Cornell takes advantage of possession-building tactics?  I know we were getting outshot a zillion-to-one there for a while, but as you said in the OP that in itself doesn't mean much since 99% of those shots might have been from Barton Hall.

[css228]

Apologize for the long post, but I figure it was useless without some context.

Don't apologize, this is great stuff.  Thank you for taking the time to write it out clearly.

I haven't followed the other links (I will), but the first thing that I wondered was is there any reason to believe puck possession is causal of success, as opposed to being simply correlated because both puck possession and success are caused by an independent variable (namely, having better players)?  It does not seem like a team can simply decide they are going possess the puck more.  Possession seems dependent on other things that are more in the power of the team (well, the coach) to control: recruiting for and exercising to improve strength, size, speed, conditioning, as well as some skills that are second-order effects of those things: winning the battle in the corners, beating the opponent to the puck, passing crisply, staying above the opponent.

Or are you saying that some team strategies and in-game tactics stress possession over other goods and this is disproportionately successful?  Is stressing possession a disputed notion?

The major reason to believe that puck possession is causal is that it seems as though shot quality, in the sense of taking few shots but regularly creating better quality chances isn't a repeatable phenomenon. Goals are a sufficiently rare event that they are highly effected by chance, just think of all of the weird deflections and crazy angle shots and rebounds that go in as opposed to the well executed odd man rushes, dangles and snipes from the slot. You just aren't all that likely to get the puck laying flat on your stick in a great scoring area, and at least to date, while individual players have been shown to be able to do that, its not reflected at the team level as far as shooting percentage goes. Simply put, the best way to have more chances is to have more of the puck.

As far as implementing systems that can affect possession, puck management matters. While possession is mostly driven by talent and the skills of the players, a coach can absolutely instruct the players to play in a way that will maximize possession. I'm not saying that dumping is always the wrong call, however, a team that enters the offensive zone with possession as opposed to dumping and forechecking generates more shots per offensive zone entry. This seems fairly obvious, as my mom always used to wonder before advanced hockey stats were around, "Why are you giving the puck up for a chance to get it back?" She is right that this style of play seems fairly counterproductive. That's why, whenever possible, the Soviet Union would regroup by bringing the puck back to their defensive zone and trying again when possible. They figured that even with the opposing defense already back, they could create more chances through controlled zone entries than if they played a North American style game and tried to dump and chase with numbers. There was an NHL Numbers article on that, but I'm seemingly unable to find it.

Secondly, a coach can affect these numbers in his decisions of who to play and what line combinations to use. To use an example I'm very familiar with, the Philadelphia Flyers are on a 6-0-1 run right now. with the exception of the 1st game when Michael Raffl played for an injured Steve Downie, the line combinations have been stayed the same each game. In particular, the 3rd line of Couturier, Read and Downie has been phenomenal in this stretch, shutting down strong possession lines game after game. We're talking outplaying Crosby's line, Turris's line, drawing dead even with Taveres' line in Corsi despite mostly defensive zone starts which is very impressive. By putting his best possession players in the lineup (with the exception of Jay Rosehill who plays 4th line minutes so who cares), with players that compliment their skill sets (See Giroux with Voracek, who is similar to Jaromir Jagr in that he's a big body who's strong on the puck and skilled, and with Hartnell who goes to the corners and wins puck battles, or Couturier, one of the best young defensive forwards in the NHL with a versatile two way wing and sniper like Matt Read, and a tenacious, but skilled Steve Downie) Craig Berube has a Flyers team that started the season 1-7-0 all the way to 10-10-2 and 2 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand.

Finally, a coach can manage line matchups and zone starts in game, particularly at home when he gets the last change. Against Pittsburgh, Bylsma lost the Pens a game the probably should have won, because he allowed Berube to continually get the matchups that he wanted (Specifically Couturier against Crosby's line, and Giroux's line against Malkin's). Berube has been fantastic at getting the matchups he's wanted during this run, despite four of the seven games being on the road. He has allowed Giroux and Couturier to handle the heavy lifting in the defensive zone, because these are strong possession lines that push the play forward. He has given easier zone starts to the Schenn/Lecavalier/Simmonds line, which has scored a lot because of the decreased defensive responsibility that does not exactly fit their skill set, and increased scoring chances due to starting in a more favorable position. While Schenn might be a great two way center some day, his game is not there yet, Vinny is old, and Simmer is not the best skater. Yet when placed against weaker competition and given some favorable starting points, they are more than capable of being a good scoring line.

So in sum, yes a coach can absolutely affect possession and the run of play through the system they choose to implement, particularly regarding puck management, the lineups and line combinations they choose to play, and the matchups and zone starts they decide to give their players in game. Yes there is a fundamental limiting factor in the talent that is on the ice, but the way a coach utilizes the talent they have at hand matters.

I was definitely aware of how the 3rd line was being used, but I'll watch for how Chief plays the 2nd line tonight, too.  That's an interesting observation.

And as a Flyers fan, I'm loving everything you're saying.  Simply because it bodes well for future games.

There is an element of we've been playing bad teams during this run, and seven games is not nearly enough to indicate a lasting trend, but their possession numbers while losing were very bad, and in their wins with the exception of the Pittsburgh game, have been very good. Broad Street Hockey just ran an article on the improved possession today along with possible explanations. I will note I was wrong, Chief has had last change in 4 of the 7 games in this streak. He'll probably have less impact on the game tonight unless Dineen is as clueless regarding matchups as Bylsma was, given the game is in Florida.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Apologize for the long post, but I figure it was useless without some context.

Don't apologize, this is great stuff.  Thank you for taking the time to write it out clearly.

I haven't followed the other links (I will), but the first thing that I wondered was is there any reason to believe puck possession is causal of success, as opposed to being simply correlated because both puck possession and success are caused by an independent variable (namely, having better players)?  It does not seem like a team can simply decide they are going possess the puck more.  Possession seems dependent on other things that are more in the power of the team (well, the coach) to control: recruiting for and exercising to improve strength, size, speed, conditioning, as well as some skills that are second-order effects of those things: winning the battle in the corners, beating the opponent to the puck, passing crisply, staying above the opponent.

Or are you saying that some team strategies and in-game tactics stress possession over other goods and this is disproportionately successful?  Is stressing possession a disputed notion?

The major reason to believe that puck possession is causal is that it seems as though shot quality, in the sense of taking few shots but regularly creating better quality chances isn't a repeatable phenomenon. Goals are a sufficiently rare event that they are highly effected by chance, just think of all of the weird deflections and crazy angle shots and rebounds that go in as opposed to the well executed odd man rushes, dangles and snipes from the slot. You just aren't all that likely to get the puck laying flat on your stick in a great scoring area, and at least to date, while individual players have been shown to be able to do that, its not reflected at the team level as far as shooting percentage goes. Simply put, the best way to have more chances is to have more of the puck.

As far as implementing systems that can affect possession, puck management matters. While possession is mostly driven by talent and the skills of the players, a coach can absolutely instruct the players to play in a way that will maximize possession. I'm not saying that dumping is always the wrong call, however, a team that enters the offensive zone with possession as opposed to dumping and forechecking generates more shots per offensive zone entry. This seems fairly obvious, as my mom always used to wonder before advanced hockey stats were around, "Why are you giving the puck up for a chance to get it back?" She is right that this style of play seems fairly counterproductive. That's why, whenever possible, the Soviet Union would regroup by bringing the puck back to their defensive zone and trying again when possible. They figured that even with the opposing defense already back, they could create more chances through controlled zone entries than if they played a North American style game and tried to dump and chase with numbers. There was an NHL Numbers article on that, but I'm seemingly unable to find it.

Secondly, a coach can affect these numbers in his decisions of who to play and what line combinations to use. To use an example I'm very familiar with, the Philadelphia Flyers are on a 6-0-1 run right now. with the exception of the 1st game when Michael Raffl played for an injured Steve Downie, the line combinations have been stayed the same each game. In particular, the 3rd line of Couturier, Read and Downie has been phenomenal in this stretch, shutting down strong possession lines game after game. We're talking outplaying Crosby's line, Turris's line, drawing dead even with Taveres' line in Corsi despite mostly defensive zone starts which is very impressive. By putting his best possession players in the lineup (with the exception of Jay Rosehill who plays 4th line minutes so who cares), with players that compliment their skill sets (See Giroux with Voracek, who is similar to Jaromir Jagr in that he's a big body who's strong on the puck and skilled, and with Hartnell who goes to the corners and wins puck battles, or Couturier, one of the best young defensive forwards in the NHL with a versatile two way wing and sniper like Matt Read, and a tenacious, but skilled Steve Downie) Craig Berube has a Flyers team that started the season 1-7-0 all the way to 10-10-2 and 2 points out of a playoff spot with a game in hand.

Finally, a coach can manage line matchups and zone starts in game, particularly at home when he gets the last change. Against Pittsburgh, Bylsma lost the Pens a game the probably should have won, because he allowed Berube to continually get the matchups that he wanted (Specifically Couturier against Crosby's line, and Giroux's line against Malkin's). Berube has been fantastic at getting the matchups he's wanted during this run, despite four of the seven games being on the road. He has allowed Giroux and Couturier to handle the heavy lifting in the defensive zone, because these are strong possession lines that push the play forward. He has given easier zone starts to the Schenn/Lecavalier/Simmonds line, which has scored a lot because of the decreased defensive responsibility that does not exactly fit their skill set, and increased scoring chances due to starting in a more favorable position. While Schenn might be a great two way center some day, his game is not there yet, Vinny is old, and Simmer is not the best skater. Yet when placed against weaker competition and given some favorable starting points, they are more than capable of being a good scoring line.

So in sum, yes a coach can absolutely affect possession and the run of play through the system they choose to implement, particularly regarding puck management, the lineups and line combinations they choose to play, and the matchups and zone starts they decide to give their players in game. Yes there is a fundamental limiting factor in the talent that is on the ice, but the way a coach utilizes the talent they have at hand matters.

I was definitely aware of how the 3rd line was being used, but I'll watch for how Chief plays the 2nd line tonight, too.  That's an interesting observation.

And as a Flyers fan, I'm loving everything you're saying.  Simply because it bodes well for future games.

There is an element of we've been playing bad teams during this run, and seven games is not nearly enough to indicate a lasting trend, but their possession numbers while losing were very bad, and in their wins with the exception of the Pittsburgh game, have been very good. Broad Street Hockey just ran an article on the improved possession today along with possible explanations. I will note I was wrong, Chief has had last change in 4 of the 7 games in this streak. He'll probably have less impact on the game tonight unless Dineen is as clueless regarding matchups as Bylsma was, given the game is in Florida.

Up until recently those teams still had a better record than the Flyers, so I'll take what solace I can get.  And let's face it, Florida is not exactly a hockey power.  

But you're right, there will be some tougher games coming up in the upcoming road trips, and we'll see more of how it plays out.

[css228]

That is a fantastic summary, thank you.  It would be great for folks (with time, and knowledge, and the willingness to work for beer...) to take a shot at evaluating the tape of the Yale game re: where we did (or did not) put these principles into practice, and whether there was anything more we could have done given who we have to work with.

In your opinion do you think Cornell takes advantage of possession-building tactics?  I know we were getting outshot a zillion-to-one there for a while, but as you said in the OP that in itself doesn't mean much since 99% of those shots might have been from Barton Hall.

I think we dump and chase far more often than we have to, but at the same time, some of that might be accounted for by who is on the puck at any given time. I'd much rather Cole Bardreau or Brian Ferlin take a risk and try to beat a defender to carry in than Armand De Swardt. Some players are just better in the neutral zone than others. Guys who probably should be trying to make plays, because their skill set really is more offense oriented include Ferlin, Bardreau, Lowry, Gotovets, Willcox, Ryan, and maybe even Mowery. This doesn't mean there aren't situations where they should still dump or shoot in. I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if Cornell attempted to regroup a la the Soviet Union instead of dumping sometime, but as a college team, I'm not sure the talent level of our players is high enough for that strategy to work as well for us as it did for one of the greatest hockey teams of all time.

Regarding player usage, I do not see a consistent pattern of player usage when I'm at games, but I'll admit, it's hard to focus on that from Section B.And really the person who knows how to best utilize the players is the guy who sees them at practice every day. I'd argue Bardreau is very good at pushing the play forward and his line is good at winning puck battles, and therefore you might want to use them with some tougher zone starts, freeing up the Ferlin line to have more offensive zone starts. But that raises the question should Bardreau's line be matching up with the opponent's top line every game? It is very difficult to score against top competition unless you are the elitest of the elite (Think Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and whatever player is lucky enough to have those two carry him to greatness). So maybe you play Bardreau against the 2nd best line that an opponent has to offer if you think you have the players to create a dedicated shut down line on the third line. I personally believe Bardreau's line is our best line in both directions, and therefore should be taking on the toughest competition we face, but it's really not my call to make.

But that said, in recruiting, the coaches really should focus on neutral zone play. It really does seem to be the most important zone in hockey.

[cbuckser]

There was an NHL Numbers article on that, but I'm seemingly unable to find it.

I believe these are the articles you had in mind:

A Season's Worth of Zone Entries

More on the Advantages of Puck Possession

I'm still not convinced that confounding factors don't explain much of the apparent advantages of carrying the puck into the zone. I would love to see future studies on this, however. I suspect defensive positioning is the biggest factor affecting the decision to carry or dump. I wonder whether regrouping would provide real advantages, if a team without the puck has three or four guys in good positioning near its blue line and can retain that advantageous defensive positioning if the puck carrying team regroups.

[Swampy]

This is a great thread. It's so wonderful to have such knowledgeable posters.

I have two questions:
[list=1]

• What about line changes? Dumping is often used to allow line changes, so a team that changes more frequently dumps more often. How does this fit into the analysis.
• Doesn't puck control require schemes for getting through neutral ice? In turn, this requires practice, and a coach can greatly influence how a team breaks out and makes its way through the neutral zone.

BTW, when I coached youth soccer I read many books on the subject. Many (all?) of the better ones stressed getting players to shoot rather than wait for a perfect situation.
Also BTW, at least in college hockey, part of puck possession depends on speed, strength, etc., which are by no means evenly distributed between teams. So some of the correlation may be an artifact of talent rather than strategy.

[Robb]

Makes me ponder if there would be any interesting information that could be gleaned from creating a metric for each individual player of "probability that the player will NOT turn the puck over."  It's a bit like the Moneyball philosophy - the probability of NOT getting an out.  Since the idea seems to be that possessing the puck for longer stretches leads to goals (or perhaps even better - leads to a higher favorable goal differential), then what you want on your team is a bunch of players who do not turn the puck over.  It shouldn't matter whether this is because they can all stickhandle like Guy LaFluer and can curl back into our own zone to maintain possession or if they dump and chase all the time but are so fast and strong that they usually come away with the puck anyway.  Either way, they didn't turn the puck over, and therefore have a higher chance of scoring the next goal.  So the stat would be something like, "once player X has possession of the puck, what is the percentage of the time that the next player who possesses the puck is on the opposite team?"  Obviously, scoring a goal is not a possession by the other team, so you'd get credit for that, too.  

[css228]

This is a great thread. It's so wonderful to have such knowledgeable posters.

I have two questions:
[list=1]

• What about line changes? Dumping is often used to allow line changes, so a team that changes more frequently dumps more often. How does this fit into the analysis.
• Doesn't puck control require schemes for getting through neutral ice? In turn, this requires practice, and a coach can greatly influence how a team breaks out and makes its way through the neutral zone.

BTW, when I coached youth soccer I read many books on the subject. Many (all?) of the better ones stressed getting players to shoot rather than wait for a perfect situation.
Also BTW, at least in college hockey, part of puck possession depends on speed, strength, etc., which are by no means evenly distributed between teams. So some of the correlation may be an artifact of talent rather than strategy.

Regarding question A, there are absolutely times when dumping is the right call, line changes being one of them. I don't think there is any hockey mind that would argue differently. Regarding question B, controlling the neutral zone is not only an offensive matter it is a defensive matter. Playing strong defense and denying the blue line is every bit as important as entering the offensive zone with controlled entries. There isn't only one type of team that is successful. You can win with elite offense, elite defense, or even both. The clutch and grab era Devils weren't great because they were an offensive juggernaut, but because they were impossible to enter the offensive zone against with possession, partially due to the rules of the game at the time.Finally, being a good puck possession team is absolutely about talent first and foremost. Talented teams possess the puck, and talented teams win. But if a coach is telling his third line to dump and forecheck in most situations, they may be giving up shots when taking a little more risk might bring more rewards. Finally, puck possession skills are not always the most apparent, because they do not show up in the traditional stats. A player with a 58% CorsiFor may not sound as sexy as a 40 goal scorer, but that means that these players are often undervalued. Look at all the idiots in Philadelphia who want Sean Couturier traded because he isn't scoring. Who cares if he's scoring when he's a 20 year old 3rd line center who consistently drives play to the offensive end despite tough zone starts and competition? If he continues to do that, the points will come, but in the meantime, he's massively undervalued. If coaches look for players with skill sets that drive play into the offensive zone, they may be able to get players other coaches have overlooked, but will win them hockey games. Coaching is about putting players in positions to succeed, and utilizing the talent you have most efficiently. Strategy might be 10% of the game maximum, but in a game with as much random chance as hockey, I'll take every little bit of extra advantage I can get.

[css228]

Makes me ponder if there would be any interesting information that could be gleaned from creating a metric for each individual player of "probability that the player will NOT turn the puck over."  It's a bit like the Moneyball philosophy - the probability of NOT getting an out.  Since the idea seems to be that possessing the puck for longer stretches leads to goals (or perhaps even better - leads to a higher favorable goal differential), then what you want on your team is a bunch of players who do not turn the puck over.  It shouldn't matter whether this is because they can all stickhandle like Guy LaFluer and can curl back into our own zone to maintain possession or if they dump and chase all the time but are so fast and strong that they usually come away with the puck anyway.  Either way, they didn't turn the puck over, and therefore have a higher chance of scoring the next goal.  So the stat would be something like, "once player X has possession of the puck, what is the percentage of the time that the next player who possesses the puck is on the opposite team?"  Obviously, scoring a goal is not a possession by the other team, so you'd get credit for that, too.  

The way the guys at Broad Street Hockey have been focusing on it is through defensive zone exits and offensive zone entries. Specifically on the zone exits, they've looked at how successful players are in their attempts to take the puck out of the zone, and what percentage of their successful exits are with possession. Then in the neutral zone they have looked at zone entries to the offensive zone, in a similar fashion. They want to know how many entries were successful, and of those, what percentage occurred with possession, because at least with the Flyers and the Wild, they came across an interesting finding. "Skilled offensive players" did not appreciably have more success in shots per carry in/pass or shots per dump in/deflect in than "unskilled players". In fact Claude Giroux, who had 93 points in the 2011-2012 season which they did this for, averaged as many shots per carry in/pass (.52) as Maxime Talbot, and fewer than Zac Rinaldo (.56). The big difference was that Giroux entered the offensive zone with possession of the puck on 67% of his successful entries and played on a line with Jagr (74% entries with possession) and Hartnell (56% entries with possession), while Talbot was at 43% playing with Rinaldo (49%) and Couturier (at the time 18 years old and at 45%). The difference in skill was apparent not in the offensive zone, but in the neutral zone. Giroux won the neutral zone more often, in a more productive manner.

This is not to say that if Rinaldo or Talbot started to carry in the puck more they would become Giroux. But it does suggest, that instead of being encouraged and coached to be an energy line that dumps and forechecks, that they should try to take the zone with possession when possible. If not they're just giving away scoring chances. Finally regarding giveaways, I'm not sure this is the best thing to look at, because a lot of players who push the puck forward have a lot of giveaways. Matt Carle comes to mind, and I'm sure P.K. Subban fits the role too. A Cornell comparison might be Gotovets. Yes he takes greater risks to carry the puck in a lot of situations, but those infuriating turnovers can be offset because if he is successful enough carrying the puck in, he is creating shots at about twice the rate he would be by dumping and chasing. There is an element of this to Subban's game, which is why Canada may, regretfully, pass over him for the Olympics. Isles and Flyers fans probably see the same thing in Mark Streit. Some of the games best puck movers and elite offensive players see more turnovers, but those turnovers are outweighed by the positions they put other players in when the risks they take do succeed. There is more than one way to be an above average, or even elite possession player. Hartnell and Giroux's skill sets have almost nothing in common, but they're both very good at driving play in the right direction. It's not that turnovers don't matter, its just that I'm not sure they're the right way to value possession because it really only covers one aspect of how possession is maintained. If that's not what you are referring to, then let me know. I think of all sports hockey is a very difficult one to really maintain possession in a traditional sense and its very hard to quantify what makes a player a good possession player beyond, when he's on the ice, we get more of the shots.

[Robb]

I think we might be using the term "turnover" differently.  To me, any time you have the puck, it leaves your stick, and a player from the other team gains control, that's a turnover.  It doesn't matter if it's because you tried to carry the puck in, or because you were standing still and made a lousy pass, or because you are a great passer who made a risky pass, or because you carried it to the end wall and were muscled off the puck.  You had it, now the other team does = turnover.  I have to think you'd have a pretty good hockey team if you could pick and choose the players who turn it over the least (based on "my" definition above).

[css228]

I think we might be using the term "turnover" differently.  To me, any time you have the puck, it leaves your stick, and a player from the other team gains control, that's a turnover.  It doesn't matter if it's because you tried to carry the puck in, or because you were standing still and made a lousy pass, or because you are a great passer who made a risky pass, or because you carried it to the end wall and were muscled off the puck.  You had it, now the other team does = turnover.  I have to think you'd have a pretty good hockey team if you could pick and choose the players who turn it over the least (based on "my" definition above).

Yeah, I'm using turnover in the sense of giveaways as they record in the statistics. By your standard, would a shot that ended up in the other team possessing the puck count as a turnover? That seems like a productive use of the puck. Furthermore, What if you get muscled off the puck, but win it back with a good forecheck? What I'm trying to say is that it seems most important to focus on what is occurring in the neutral zone in terms of denying the blue line with possession on defense and gaining it with possession on offense. Let's face it, even if you gain the zone and win possession with a dump, you've won it most likely behind the goal or in a corner, which is a far less threatening position than possession of the puck headed in the direction of the net. Puck possession will change in the offensive and defensive zones just because of the limitations on space that is usable for the offensive team. It seems more critical to me at least to maintain possession when the entire ice surface is at your disposal, and that maintaining offensive zone time, while important, is not as critical as pushing it in the direction of the offensive zone the majority of the time when the puck is in the neutral zone. I'm still not sure this is what you're getting at, but I hope its closer.