Montreal, the best face-off team in the league.

[Brainiac]

So, 3% in the wrong way makes a difference... but having three guys over 53% doesn't? Makes sense!

Actually, yes, my original statement made sense. And no, it wasn't 3%, I said you don't want to be below 45%.

For a lot of things, you don't have to be the best to have success, you just have to be good enough. Michael Jordan wasn't the tallest guy in the NBA, but he was tall enough to make it. He wouldn't have been much better if you just made him 1 inch taller, for example.

And look at the data, there's absolutely no correlation between overall team FO% and wins.

As I said, it's nice to have a 60-65% guy for specific missions, but otherwise, the puck is turned over or dumped so often during a shift that winning the FO is pretty much useless, especially in the neutral zone.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Actually, yes, my original statement made sense. And no, it wasn't 3%, I said you don't want to be below 45%.

Okay then, the error bar from 50/50 is 5%. We still have (had) 3 centres at/above 55%, which absolutely contributes a meaningful amount toward possession (whether current metrics can successfully isolate it or not), and is certainly indicative of one more "game within the game" that this squad can feel confident/proud about.

 

[Brainiac]

Okay then, the error bar from 50/50 is 5%. We still have (had) 3 centres at/above 55%, which absolutely contributes a meaningful amount toward possession (whether current metrics can successfully isolate it or not), and is certainly indicative of one more "game within the game" that this squad can feel confident/proud about.

It's been demonstrated that there is actually no correlation between winning faceoffs and puck possession.

For example, we win FO, but we're generally outshot. We allow 2 S/G more than we take.

Look at Nashville. They're there at a lowly 47.6 FO%, but are outshooting their opponent by a decent margin (+2.3 S/G).

As I said, the puck is turned over so often that winning the FO is not such a great advantage.

 

[Brainiac]

Actually, it's interesting to go on NHL.com in the 'teams' section of the stat tab.

Rank them by FO%.

As of today, 2 of the top 5 teams (Habs and Coyotes) have a minus shot differential, and one is almost even (Carolina +0.8 S/G).

What's funny is that three of the bottom 5 teams have a good shot differential. Winnipeg, Nashville and the Islanders are all below 48% in the FO dot, yet they all have a very comfortable shot differential.

And as you can see, there's good and bad teams at both extremes.

As I said, yes, you want that FO guy like Malhotra, he's a guy you can use in very specific situations. But in the big picture, a few % in the FO dot won't change a thing.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

... sorry about my inability to edit...

For a lot of things, you don't have to be the best to have success, you just have to be good enough. Michael Jordan wasn't the tallest guy in the NBA, but he was tall enough to make it. He wouldn't have been much better if you just made him 1 inch taller, for example.

But see, if we're talking in the 3-5% range of differences here, 1 inch on Jordan is a lot less than that. Taking 5% of Jordan's height from him makes him closer to 6'3", and all of a sudden we're starting to rule out having the height and wingspan to dunk from the free throw line, for example... But Jordan may have made way more than 5% more of those "impossible", sometimes game-winning shots than you'd expect the next best guy to (which could be the difference between 4 wins/8 points over an 80 game schedule), so you've got a real apples and oranges attempted comparison here.

Point taken, but I think it loses its bite by attempting to lump the "best" in with "average".

And look at the data, there's absolutely no correlation between overall team FO% and wins.

If there's supposedly a really strong correlation to possession and winning (hence all the CORSI champions), then all that remains to be done is to link FO% to possession, right? I don't foresee a huge leap in logic being necessary, but I do foresee the ability to track possession between faceoffs in the near future, so... TBD.

As I said, it's nice to have a 60-65% guy for specific missions, but otherwise, the puck is turned over or dumped so often during a shift that winning the FO is pretty much useless, especially in the neutral zone.

Then, from a coaching aspect, you "simply" address the turnover aspect. Much better starting point than devising forechecking schemes tailored to every opponent in order to constantly regain possession. The ability to choose where the puck goes obviously can't be overstated, as even dumping the puck in after a neutral zone draw keeps at least a couple of their players on the ice while allowing you the option to substitute any number of yours on the fly.

That's why all these advances stats are pretty and interesting in their novelty, but still fail to encapsulate/measure the "effectiveness" of any choices that are made during a pretty fluid game like hockey. Sometimes one relinquishing of possession allows the chance to make one change that affects how chances might be generated for the next 2 or 3 shifts. It doesn't take a certain percentage of success:countable events. It takes, on average, the ability to generate 3 or 4 such chances on any given night (more technically, at least one more than your opponent), and it doesn't matter which choices ultimately lead you there. The stats certainly won't remember that aspect either (choices/strategy set between goals), which is where those with the trained eye are relied for the "test".

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Actually, it's interesting to go on NHL.com in the 'teams' section of the stat tab.

Rank them by FO%.

As of today, 2 of the top 5 teams (Habs and Coyotes) have a minus shot differential, and one is almost even (Carolina +0.8 S/G).

What's funny is that three of the bottom 5 teams have a good shot differential. Winnipeg, Nashville and the Islanders are all below 48% in the FO dot, yet they all have a very comfortable shot differential.

And as you can see, there's good and bad teams at both extremes.

As I said, yes, you want that FO guy like Malhotra, he's a guy you can use in very specific situations. But in the big picture, a few % in the FO dot won't change a thing.

Situationally (if that's a word), at least, I bet it absolutely does. But again, if possession is important or correlated to winning in any way, then anything that gains you clear possession (faceoff win, takeaway, etc) is clearly important as well.

 

[NobleSix]

Thanks Manny!

We haven't been good in the face off circle for what seems like ages.

 

[ArtPeur]

Other than Faceoffs and standings, that's pretty much the only things where the Canadiens sit at #1.. and maybe that's why we are #1 in standings too.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Thanks Manny!

We haven't been good in the face off circle for what seems like ages.

It has been a long time. Over a decade, in fact, since Montreal (as a team) was top 10 in FO%. One of the highest in the interim was 13th or 14th in Koivu's last year here, when he floated the boat with a 54% but we also had 3 regular faceoff takers over 50%.

 

[Nynja*]

What's funny is that three of the bottom 5 teams have a good shot differential. Winnipeg, Nashville and the Islanders are all below 48% in the FO dot, yet they all have a very comfortable shot differential.

And as you can see, there's good and bad teams at both extremes.

As I said, yes, you want that FO guy like Malhotra, he's a guy you can use in very specific situations. But in the big picture, a few % in the FO dot won't change a thing.

Thats cause Therrien's system is dump and chase or stretch pass, we have the puck and give it away.

 

[jpchabby]

It doesn't seem to be such a popular opinion, but I truly believe that face-off % is a pretty important thing... It basically means that when there's a face-off, you're the one who gets control of the puck, and that's pretty important to me...

I'm not saying it's the most important thing in the game, but it's definitely a factor.

 

[Analyzer*]

Impressive.

 

[Andy]

It doesn't seem to be such a popular opinion, but I truly believe that face-off % is a pretty important thing... It basically means that when there's a face-off, you're the one who gets control of the puck, and that's pretty important to me...

I'm not saying it's the most important thing in the game, but it's definitely a factor.

I forgot which blogger it was, but someone started investigated the effects of FO wins on possession. IIRC, he started tracking possession numbers 10 seconds after the FO was won, or something to that effect, as opposed to just assuming it gives you possession. It was shown in the short sample that FO wins don't actually have that big an effect on possession.

Maybe someone can help me. I know it was a blogger who was hired by an nhl club this summer, I forget who.

 

[Lemons]

Yeah our PP used to be the best now its poop

 

[Teufelsdreck]

Indeed, a solid player who was always underrated in the league. That year Saku had cancer, Yannick was simply amazing. Had some great years in Toronto as well

What undeserved glorification! There was nothing more pathetic than a Yannick Perreault who had just lost a defenseive draw.

 

[Devourers]

When you win a faceoff especially in the league now a days with how fast it is, you're winning 1/3 the battle. If you have always a few guys who have a good transition pass in your lineup, that's another 1/3.

The 1/3 you ask? That's when your guys convert it into a goal. I like what I'm seeing because for the first time since forever we've been consistently getting the first 2/3's right. There's no denying we've had bad games and even been outclassed a few times, but for the most part we're heading the the right direction.

Now we need to improve a bit in our own end when it's coming back the other way, and we need to increase our fire power and chemistry. I think coach needs to just stick with some lines/pairings now for as long as he can barring injuries. Start giving people their roles for the season, like will Galchenyuk be a winger? If so give him a proper role on the team for the remainder of the year as a top 6 winger.

Not only do we have the tools but we're using them. I very much like what we're seeing here. Like I said there's area to improve but we've got a lot to look forward to. Winning faceoffs is a key ingredient we've lacked for quite some time.

As I said, yes, you want that FO guy like Malhotra, he's a guy you can use in very specific situations. But in the big picture, a few % in the FO dot won't change a thing.

In the earlier part of your post I sort of saw where you were going with that but sorry, just no. To deny winning faceoffs changes anything is to deny scoring goals does. Plenty of times we see a faceoff win in a late 3rd/OT type situation where a goal directly resulted from that faceoff. To deny having a better overall % i.e. better faceoff centerman, does not directly effect the outcome of the game or in your words change a thing, is shortsighted. We've seen time and time again with our own eyes how winning a faceoff can lead directly to a goal and winning a game. How winning a faceoff can also directly lead to stopping another team from getting a goal, example 5 on 3 powerplay with limited time left.

You see it all the time in hockey. Now I'm not disagreeing a person with 40% can beat a guy who is 65% randomly and win a game as a result, but that is the exception imo not the rule.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I forgot which blogger it was, but someone started investigated the effects of FO wins on possession. IIRC, he started tracking possession numbers 10 seconds after the FO was won, or something to that effect, as opposed to just assuming it gives you possession. It was shown in the short sample that FO wins don't actually have that big an effect on possession.

Maybe someone can help me. I know it was a blogger who was hired by an nhl club this summer, I forget who.

And maybe, just maybe, the team he was watching was simply "doing it wrong", and that their decisions with the puck after winning faceoffs don't actually negate winning faceoffs as a viable means of gaining/maintaining possession of the puck. I mean, they got desperate enough to hire this guy, didn't they?

 

[Brainiac]

And maybe, just maybe, the team he was watching was simply "doing it wrong", and that their decisions with the puck after winning faceoffs don't actually negate winning faceoffs as a viable means of gaining/maintaining possession of the puck. I mean, they got desperate enough to hire this guy, didn't they?

Well, the answer is in your own post.

What you attempt to do after the faceoff, and your ability to do it, are both much more important than winning said faceoff.

I remember that article Andy mentionned and yes, 10-15 sec. after the FO, who won it is mostly irrelvant and possession has changed, maybe even a couple of times.

Puck possession and shot attempts do correlate with winning games, that I think everbody agrees. The thing is, and I've shown in my post above: FO% does not correlate AT ALL with puck possession and shooting. Some of the good teams in the NHL are weak in the FO dot and some of the weak teams are strong in the FO dot.

The coefficient of determination (R squared) between FO% and points% is ridiculously low, most of the time below 0.1. I've looked into it a little bit once and I even stumbled upon a year (few seasons ago) where there was a negative correlation between FO% and points.

 

[MasterDecoy]

so this is what bizarro world feels like