A defensive zone faceoff while on the PK with ROR in the box?

- HonkFortheGoose

Pretty much. I excluded ROR because he took double the FO's of anyone, and was the clear #1 center last year.

I'm sure he won a bunch of key draws, and was 56%. But even substituting him with Eichel's 41%, if they took an even amount of draws, is only a few FO difference, and some of those are neutral zone FO's.

Also, not all "wins" are clear wins, and some don't dictate possession of the puck.

I look at it this way

Jack Eichel was weak on the dot. Winning 41% of 980 draws
Johan Larsson was good. Winning 51% of 759 draws

Per game-

Eichel 12 FO's at 41% = 4.96 wins per game

Larsson - 10.2 FO per game = 5.202 wins per game.

Depsite being almost 10% better FO%, it really correlates to less than 1 extra FO win per game.

Is there any situation, that we are putting Larsson out instead of Eichel because of that 1 more win per game?
- sbroads24

--find me a Stanley cup winning coach who thinks faceoffs are unimportant

Pretty much. I excluded ROR because he took double the FO's of anyone, and was the clear #1 center last year.

I'm sure he won a bunch of key draws, and was 56%. But even substituting him with Eichel's 41%, if they took an even amount of draws, is only a few FO difference, and some of those are neutral zone FO's.

Also, not all "wins" are clear wins, and some don't dictate possession of the puck.
- sbroads24

if faceoffs were so unimportant

a.) why did o'reilly, the sabres best faceoff man, take nearly twice as many draws as the next closest (Eichel)

and

b.) why exclude him?

I'd love to see a Larkin - Matthews - Eichel line. Give Jack a bit of freedom to roam (he's one of the few right shooters on the team, which is why I'd put him to wing for balance) and lots of speed overall. Matthews and Jack can split faceoffs depending on the side that they're on
- lumlums

faceoffs don't matter

--find me a Stanley cup winning coach who thinks faceoffs are unimportant
- Michael Pachla

The same advanced stats people who will tell you face-offs are unimportant will also tell you that coaches have a minimal effect on team performance and that the difference in value between a great coach and a good coach is almost entirely dependant on the team in front of him.

"Jack Flash" is all that in a well-sculpted 6'2" 201 lb. NHL frame


Holy Garf.

The same advanced stats people who will tell you face-offs are unimportant will also tell you that coaches have a minimal effect on team performance and that the difference in value between a great coach and a good coach is almost entirely dependant on the team in front of him.
- Sabresfan-365

I think we have a Kane/Towes type situation with McDavid and Eichel.

McDavid will always be flashier/ better coast to coast and put up highlight reel moments nightly.

Eichel will develop into a leader for not only the Sabres but team USA. He will develop a strong defensive game, put big games on his shoulders and score when it counts most.

There are huge strengthens to both players games.

I think we have a Kane/Towes type situation with McDavid and Eichel.

McDavid will always be flashier/ better coast to coast and put up highlight reel moments nightly.

Eichel will develop into a leader for not only the Sabres but team USA. He will develop a strong defensive game, put big games on his shoulders and score when it counts most.

There are huge strengthens to both players games.
- lulags

Toews, typo

if faceoffs were so unimportant

a.) why did o'reilly, the sabres best faceoff man, take nearly twice as many draws as the next closest (Eichel)

and

b.) why exclude him?
- Michael Pachla

Because he was going to regardless. He's the better defensive player + a good veteran player compared to Eichel being 18 years old.

You also didn't answer my question. What scenario are you using Larsson over Eichel? Is a 10% FO difference enough to put him on the ice with a minute to go, down by a goal? Are you leaving Okposo on the bench?

- SomeoneGerman

To be fair i said great coach vs good coach not great coach vs moron

Because he was going to regardless. He's the better defensive player + a good veteran player compared to Eichel being 18 years old.

You also didn't answer my question. What scenario are you using Larsson over Eichel? Is a 10% FO difference enough to put him on the ice with a minute to go, down by a goal? Are you leaving Okposo on the bench?
- sbroads24

you're cutting out 59:00 of the game and over 90% of the faceoffs taken, not to mention the number of goals scored which may or may not have been a direct result of a faceoff

I'd take a strong defensive forward over a guy that wins 5% more faceoffs but isn't as strong defensively any day of the week.

over who?
- Michael Pachla

Kane or Okposo. He's just better than them.

you're cutting out 59:00 of the game and over 90% of the faceoffs taken, not to mention the number of goals scored which may or may not have been a direct result of a faceoff
- Michael Pachla

http://statsportsconsulti.../FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

"This means that a player must win about 76 more faceoffs than they lose in order to obtain a goal differential for his team."

So Larsson being at 51%, winning 383 draws, and losing 376, accounted for no goal differential.

O'Reilly accounted for less than a 3 goal differential.

They do not mean much over a long period of time AKA full season.

So wait, does a won faceoff cause higher possession numbers? I would think winning a draw over losing one would usually give possession to the winning team. Maybe I should have paid more attention in stats class and less in philosophy because the ipso facto part of my brain wants to say:

If you win more faceoffs, then you will gain more possession. If you gain more possession then you will see more positive outcomes in almost every circumstance.

You'd have to prove either possession is detrimental or that winning a faceoff doesn't correlate to higher possession numbers.

So wait, does a won faceoff cause higher possession numbers? I would think winning a draw over losing one would usually give possession to the winning team. Maybe I should have paid more attention in stats class and less in philosophy because the ipso facto part of my brain wants to say:

If you win more faceoffs, then you will gain more possession. If you gain more possession then you will see more positive outcomes in almost every circumstance.

You'd have to prove either possession is detrimental or that winning a faceoff doesn't correlate to higher possession numbers.
- RhinoFan

Google it. There are a ton of articles written on it.

The main point is that the variance from team to team year to year is very small. The best FO team facing the worst FO team is only separated by a few FO wins per game

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

"This means that a player must win about 76 more faceoffs than they lose in order to obtain a goal differential for his team."

So Larsson being at 51%, winning 383 draws, and losing 376, accounted for no goal differential.

O'Reilly accounted for less than a 3 goal differential.

They do not mean much over a long period of time AKA full season.
- sbroads24

it's such a broad generalization...totally ineffective umbrella stat that takes nothing into consideration...

i'll make a deal...find me a Stanley cup winning coach, or any coach worth his salt, who will say faceoffs are unimportant, and i'll delve into fancy faceoff stats deeper

Maybe I'm crazy, but here is why I'm throwing away this baby with the fancy stats bathwater:

Corsi, as I understand it, is based upon team possession, and presumes shots are generated while in possession of the puck, and in turn presumes that more goals result from more shots.

+/- measures actual team goals scored. It presumes nothing about shots generated, and presumes nothing about goals resulting from shots. It just measures goals. Not overinclusive, not underinclusing.

Neither really measures individual performance, except as that is loosely a function of team performance.

And yet everybody poops all over +/- as a stat.

I'm really too dumb to understand any of this, so just let me be happy being dumb.

it's such a broad generalization...totally ineffective umbrella stat that takes nothing into consideration...

i'll make a deal...find me a Stanley cup winning coach, or any coach worth his salt, who will say faceoffs are unimportant, and i'll delve into fancy faceoff stats deeper
- Michael Pachla

What is fancy about percentages?

Maybe I'm crazy, but here is why I'm throwing away this baby with the fancy stats bathwater:

Corsi, as I understand it, is based upon team possession, and presumes shots are generated while in possession of the puck, and in turn presumes that more goals result from more shots.

+/- measures actual goals scored. It presumes nothing about shots generated, and presumes nothing about goals resulting from shots. It just measures goals. Not overinclusive, not underinclusing.

And yet everybody poops all over +/- as a stat.

I'm really too dumb to understand any of this, so just let me be happy being dumb.
- SomeoneGerman

https://twitter.com/SeanT...status/774680972436668416

Maybe I'm crazy, but here is why I'm throwing away this baby with the fancy stats bathwater:

Corsi, as I understand it, is based upon team possession, and presumes shots are generated while in possession of the puck, and in turn presumes that more goals result from more shots.

+/- measures actual team goals scored. It presumes nothing about shots generated, and presumes nothing about goals resulting from shots. It just measures goals. Not overinclusive, not underinclusing.

Neither really measures individual performance, except as that is loosely a function of team performance.

And yet everybody poops all over +/- as a stat.

I'm really too dumb to understand any of this, so just let me be happy being dumb.
- SomeoneGerman

There is a big difference between being happy not knowing or caring not to know, than arguing the validity of them.

I'm no math major. But when something like that is written, it's interesting

Google it. There are a ton of articles written on it.

The main point is that the variance from team to team year to year is very small. The best FO team facing the worst FO team is only separated by a few FO wins per game
- sbroads24

In the link I provided earlier, I was actually quite shocked at how small the % variance actually is between the best and the worst teams.

Nobody is saying that faceoffs are completely irrelevant or completely unimportant. However, the stats seem to show that the importance might be at least a little overstated. You also have to consider that, often times, whether or not you win or lose a faceoff is contingent on the winger more than the center (i.e. who gets it first). There's also the fact that teams at virtually every "elite" level of hockey have plays drawn up that are contingent on intentionally losing a faceoff. It's not like they are employed at every other draw, but they happen more often than you think.

In the link I provided earlier, I was actually quite shocked at how small the % variance actually is between the best and the worst teams.

Nobody is saying that faceoffs are completely irrelevant or completely unimportant. However, the stats seem to show that the importance might be at least a little overstated. You also have to consider that, often times, whether or not you win or lose a faceoff is contingent on the winger more than the center (i.e. who gets it first). There's also the fact that teams at virtually every "elite" level of hockey have plays drawn up that are contingent on intentionally losing a faceoff. It's not like they are employed at every other draw, but they happen more often than you think.
- buffalofan19

Yup, and I was going to mention that earlier. Plus half of FO's taken do not lead to clear possession

http://www.wkbw.com/news/...-drive-thru-in-kaisertown

Guess who's at it again...?

Car hits Tim Horton's drive thru in Kaisertown