So glad to see so little discussion of faceoffs here.

The broadcasters are obsessed with it.

Thankfully, not here.

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some people would say that winning face offs is directly related to winning games. What does the data say?

can't score if you don't possess the puck. DEMON PUCKS FOR THE WIN.

CaptSMRT wrote:Some people would say that winning face offs is directly related to winning games. What does the data say?

Some people say a lot of things.

Frequently, "some people" are wrong.

Faceoffs, not trivial, but not a big deal.

The Zombie That Will Not Die!

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WebSant wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:Some people would say that winning face offs is directly related to winning games. What does the data say?

Some people say a lot of things.

Frequently, "some people" are wrong.

Faceoffs, not trivial, but not a big deal.

The Zombie That Will Not Die!

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like all other components of the game, faceoffs are a factor. They lead to possession, which is a lot better than chasing, and playing defence (which use more energy, and, in the long run, tire players out more than your team having the puck). The mental strain is greater when the other team has the puck. in addition, winning faceoffs in a team's own zone is critical, as is winning them while on the PK (in any zone , but especially the defensive zone), and on the PP in any zone. The effects don't all show up in just looking at goal for and goals against during the penalty period, or the particular play sequence, they affect the mental condition of both teams, as well as the momentum in the game, and overall energy and tiredness, later in the game.

Anyone who has played hundreds of games and watched similar numbers knows that winning 52% vs. 48% as opposed to the reverse, in any given zone is a LOT better. One should NOT just look at statistics, they CAN'T be placed in a completely accurate context. I think that an inherent instinctive "feel for the game" that comes with playing many, many games, and watching many, many games is a valuable tool for understanding the game, which cannot be outdone (at the present time) by computerised statistics, mainly because even pure logic hasn't been able to isolate all the variables and place correct values on them (based on my description above).

I think that the "instinctive knowledge of the game", watching of the play, and combining them with statistics is a good mix for making decisions. And, I say that winning faceoffs is a valuable trait, which is very important for a "possession" team, and slightly less crucial for a "physical team, which is top heavy with scoring skill and a solid defence (but still important, albeit to a lesser degree, even then).

Indeed.

Not trivial.

Not a big deal.

Especially when compared to other factors.

Sant, out of curiosity, where do faceoffs fall in line with other factors that correlate to winning games? Or, maybe a better question, what are the top five drivers of winning games, statistically, and do faceoffs actually make such a list?

WebSant wrote:Indeed.

Not trivial.

Not a big deal.

Especially when compared to other factors.

A lot of those other factors (whatever they might be) you mentioned are influenced by face offs are they not?

Instead of what I would call 'raw' numbers have you actually dug into face off numbers. What about offensive zone wins, defensive zone losses, how many goals were scored because of a FO win or loss, etc....

Looking at a whole number without any breakdown and having a blanket thought based on that is missing the boat.

GeoffU wrote:Sant, out of curiosity, where do faceoffs fall in line with other factors that correlate to winning games? Or, maybe a better question, what are the top five drivers of winning games, statistically, and do faceoffs actually make such a list?

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/20 ... n-nhl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/20 ... stats.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank'ee.

Last night against the Wild:

Blues faceoff win percent = 58%

This is very strong faceoff performance.

Our Team was especially dominant in the first period on this metric at 15 wins out of 20 faceoffs for 75%.

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/2 ... 021026.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WebSant wrote:Last night against the Wild:

Blues faceoff win percent = 58%

This is very strong faceoff performance.

Our Team was especially dominant in the first period on this metric at 15 wins out of 20 faceoffs for 75%.

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/2 ... 021026.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that let to dominating possession and getting lots of shots on goal. But, it didn't lead to a win, as the shooters didn't make good shots, on the whole. So, one might say that it is more important to get players with hockey sense, who are proficient at shooting, rather than someone good at winning faceoffs, but is a poor shooter. But, we all knew that.

It also depends on the type of play for the given team AND how those players take the face-off's. The reason a player like Sobotka is so amazing in the dot is not just how many face-off's he wins, but also how he loses, in that the opposition hardly ever gets a clean win, and Vlad would give his teammates time to react to the loss.

In the end, all good play gets rewarded, and IMO face-off's are as critical as any other stat.

Tough game for the Blues in the faceoff circle yesterday.

43% overall.

Worst period was the third.

9 for 25.

36%

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/2 ... 021032.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;