Off-season thread

eartotheground

capslock broken
Sponsor
Jul 7, 2006
3,025
1,490
Helsinki South
It's been awhile since a shameless plug. Because who doesn't want to read about the lame, insightless research into faceoffs? Yaaaay!

nice write up.

i do wonder, the initial chart and subsequent analysis is about offensive draws. 100 wins=2.45 goals. i imagine you can take the inverse of that and if you win 100 defensive draws you prevent the same? that seems like a handful of wins over the course of a season, and that easily can be the difference in making or missing the playoffs, or home ice advantage or no.

it's obvious that in a vacuum a face off win doesn't equate to a goal, but it also seems obvious from both the data and the eye test that winning face offs will also aid in winning.

or maybe the bigger issue you were trying to address is how announcers over focus on it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johno

David Castillo

Registered User
Oct 29, 2014
833
641
San Antonio, TX
That's part of it. Why should anyone care that Luke Glendening is good at faceoffs if he sucks everywhere else?

But I think the broader point is that it's more worthwhile to talk about a faceoff sequence, and what kind of sequences leverage faceoff wins into units of either offense or defense.
 

eartotheground

capslock broken
Sponsor
Jul 7, 2006
3,025
1,490
Helsinki South
That's part of it. Why should anyone care that Luke Glendening is good at faceoffs if he sucks everywhere else?

But I think the broader point is that it's more worthwhile to talk about a faceoff sequence, and what kind of sequences leverage faceoff wins into units of either offense or defense.
i'll give you that, but the best sequence in the world never happens if you lose the draw. it's a binary, and the first box on the flow chart. lose it, and all of the pretty plans are moot.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad