Face-off Drawbacks

[VanJack]

After the Jets disaster, when they were at 30 percent in the face-off circle, the 'Nucks are close to dead last in the NHL in face-off percentage....affects the pp, the pk, and just about every facet of the offense....kind of depressing that Henrik, despite all his brilliance, hasn't committed himself to being far better in the circle over the years, but it is what it is.....how can any team that starts off with the puck only 30 percent of the time, possibly do anything in the playoffs...who do you do?...more minutes for Horvat?...have Richardson play on one foot?

Click to read more...

 

[Addison Rae]

Richardson needs to come back asap. Bonino has been pretty good lately and Horvat is Horvat, having at least 3 capable faceoff centres would be nice.

 

[Nucker101]

On average, the Canucks only lose roughly 3-4 more faceoffs than the other team per game. Just to put this into perspective.

28-32

 

[DCantheDDad]

I think the team is planning to learn how to win faceoffs using a montage the day before the playoffs. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[VanillaCoke]

On average, the Canucks only lose roughly 3-4 more faceoffs than the other team per game. Just to put this into perspective.

28-32

That's not bad as an average. The jets game was a one goal game and they'd of been 18/32 (using your example) those extra 14 face off wins could be the difference.

 

[thepuckmonster]

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2013/10/9/4817802/lies-damn-lies-and-faceoff-percentages

The effect face offs have on possession is incredibly overrated on these boards.

 

[DL44]

After the Jets disaster, when they were at 30 percent in the face-off circle, the 'Nucks are close to dead last in the NHL in face-off percentage....affects the pp, the pk, and just about every facet of the offense....kind of depressing that Henrik, despite all his brilliance, hasn't committed himself to being far better in the circle over the years, but it is what it is.....how can any team that starts off with the puck only 30 percent of the time, possibly do anything in the playoffs...who do you do?...more minutes for Horvat?...have Richardson play on one foot?

Why pick on a 1 off game like that and try to hyperbolize we are some sort of 30% FO team?
Canucks were 33-30 and 31-32 in the other 2 games vs them...

How the canucks do on a game to game basis varies.. but in general with an average of 60 faceoffs/ game.. we are talking about a difference of losing 2 extra draws.

Faceoffs are waaaay overblown.... just like zone starts where a single extra zone start in a game could effect your percentage by 5-10%..

 

[tc 23]

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2013/10/9/4817802/lies-damn-lies-and-faceoff-percentages

The effect face offs have on possession is incredibly overrated on these boards.

While I agree faceoffs are overrated in general, that analysis was flawed. It looks at shot differentials up to 60 seconds after a faceoff, when the impact of an individual event in the NHL after 20 seconds is noise. That underestimates the value of a faceoff.

This analysis is a much more accurate analysis on the value of a faceoff IMO:
http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

Conclusions from analysis on the value of a faceoff:

• 76.5 Faceoff Wins on average per goal differential
• 101.6 Even Strength Faceoff Wins on average per goal differential
• 40.9 PP/PK Faceoff Wins on average per goal differential

Canucks this season are 301 faceoff wins from 50% so faceoffs have cost us roughly 4 goals this season.

Both analyses seem about right with what I'd expect though. Faceoffs lead to more shots and more goals but not as much as most seem to believe. Teams and players should try to maintain higher faceoff rates but it's not the end of the world if they don't. Also seems to suggest that having at least one reliable player to take crucial faceoffs is important though, as not all faceoffs are equal in value.

 

[VanJack]

While I agree faceoffs are overrated in general, that analysis was flawed. It looks at shot differentials up to 60 seconds after a faceoff, when the impact of an individual event in the NHL after 20 seconds is noise. That underestimates the value of a faceoff.

This analysis is a much more accurate analysis on the value of a faceoff IMO:
http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

Conclusions from analysis on the value of a faceoff:

• 76.5 Faceoff Wins on average per goal differential
• 101.6 Even Strength Faceoff Wins on average per goal differential
• 40.9 PP/PK Faceoff Wins on average per goal differential

Canucks this season are 301 faceoff wins from 50% so faceoffs have cost us roughly 4 goals this season.

Both analyses seem about right with what I'd expect though. Faceoffs lead to more shots and more goals but not as much as most seem to believe. Teams and players should try to maintain higher faceoff rates but it's not the end of the world if they don't. Also seems to suggest that having at least one reliable player to take crucial faceoffs is important though, as not all faceoffs are equal in value.

A very thorough analysis, but seems to me that some faceoffs are more important than others....it's one thing to lose a five-on-five draw in the offensive or defensive zone....but if you lose that draw when you're on the pp or the pk, it has potentially more serious repercussions....for example when Henrik loses a draw on the pp, which happens often, there's 30 seconds of time wasted just to regain the zone with control....likewise on the pk, your penalty-killers are stuck in their own zone for 30 seconds after a lost draw....would be interesting to chart the impact of lost draws on special teams.

 

[Nucker101]

A very thorough analysis, but seems to me that some faceoffs are more important than others....it's one thing to lose a five-on-five draw in the offensive or defensive zone....but if you lose that draw when you're on the pp or the pk, it has potentially more serious repercussions....for example when Henrik loses a draw on the pp, which happens often, there's 30 seconds of time wasted just to regain the zone with control....likewise on the pk, your penalty-killers are stuck in their own zone for 30 seconds after a lost draw....would be interesting to chart the impact of lost draws on special teams.

Check the third point. Most special teams draws are in the defensive/offensive zone anyway so narrowing it down exclusively to special teams draws in those zones likely won't make much of a difference to the stat that author came up with for special teams draws.

 

[hockey dude]

If all our faceoffs were draw backs, would we be complaining?

 

[tc 23]

A very thorough analysis, but seems to me that some faceoffs are more important than others....it's one thing to lose a five-on-five draw in the offensive or defensive zone....but if you lose that draw when you're on the pp or the pk, it has potentially more serious repercussions....for example when Henrik loses a draw on the pp, which happens often, there's 30 seconds of time wasted just to regain the zone with control....likewise on the pk, your penalty-killers are stuck in their own zone for 30 seconds after a lost draw....would be interesting to chart the impact of lost draws on special teams.

The article I posted touches on that, breaking it down a bit more if you want to look at it.

Also, from the Hawerchuk article, there's a graphical representation of shot attempts after a won/lost draw at ES and on the PP: