Zone Time - Historic Overview

[Canadiens1958]

Rather interesting read about Zone Time for the Philadelphia Flyers from the 2011-12 season:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/9/how-important-is-neutral-zone-play

Adding goalies would have helped - providing a glimpse at the importance of a puckhandling goalie as opposed to one that just freezes the puck at every opportunity.

Historically, the appreciation of zone time has progressed from the "eye ball" test - seeing which zone had fresher ice at the end of a period. To moving the various elements of the trap to the neutral zone by the mid 1990s to micro managing faceoffs - Alain Vigneault using the Sedins primarily in offensive zone face-off situations being an example.

Click to read more...

 

[jkrx]

Rather interesting read about Zone Time for the Philadelphia Flyers from the 2011-12 season:

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/9/how-important-is-neutral-zone-play

Adding goalies would have helped - providing a glimpse at the importance of a puckhandling goalie as opposed to one that just freezes the puck at every opportunity.

Historically, the appreciation of zone time has progressed from the "eye ball" test - seeing which zone had fresher ice at the end of a period. To moving the various elements of the trap to the neutral zone by the mid 1990s to micro managing faceoffs - Alain Vigneault using the Sedins primarily in offensive zone face-off situations being an example.

This will have the "offside rule change"-crowd in a bind. The dump-ins are ruining hockey and now we even have some proof on paper. 0.014 of dump-ins leads to goals while creative hockey actully creates goals. Who would have imagined that?

Edit: Canadiens1958 has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This will have the "offside rule change"-crowd in a bind. The dump-ins are ruining hockey and now we even have some proof on paper. 0.014 of dump-ins leads to goals while creative hockey actully creates goals. Who would have imagined that?

Edit: Canadiens1958 has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

Should be pointed out that many dump-ins are for the purpose of a line change, hence skewing the percentages.

 

[jkrx]

Should be pointed out that many dump-ins are for the purpose of a line change, hence skewing the percentages.

It's still a point in creative hockey's favour.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's still a point in creative hockey's favour.

Agreed.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Deflect-in

Give the study credit for recognizing the deflect-in which is simply taking advantage of the elimination of the Red Line for offsides to nullify icings as well. Interesting that this tactic produces more scoring when compared to the dump-in

 

[overpass]

Should be pointed out that many dump-ins are for the purpose of a line change, hence skewing the percentages.

The study excluded dump-ins that were followed by a line change.

A bigger problem, IMO, is that it appears that they examined only successful zone entries. Among the benefits of dumping the puck in is that it limits the downside. Carrying the puck over the line can result in a turnover followed by a rush in the other direction. If the study only looked at successful zone entries rather than zone entries attempted, I think it missed something.

Also, sometimes dump-ins are the second-best option that teams choose when their primary option of carrying the puck over the line is frustrated. And in these cases they haven't necessarily optimized their off-puck movement to retrieve the dump-in. It would be interesting to compare the situation where the dump-in was clearly the primary option to the situations where carrying the puck into the zone was clearly the primary option.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The study excluded dump-ins that were followed by a line change.A bigger problem, IMO, is that it appears that they examined only successful zone entries. Among the benefits of dumping the puck in is that it limits the downside. Carrying the puck over the line can result in a turnover followed by a rush in the other direction. If the study only looked at successful zone entries rather than zone entries attempted, I think it missed something.

Also, sometimes dump-ins are the second-best option that teams choose when their primary option of carrying the puck over the line is frustrated. And in these cases they haven't necessarily optimized their off-puck movement to retrieve the dump-in. It would be interesting to compare the situation where the dump-in was clearly the primary option to the situations where carrying the puck into the zone was clearly the primary option.

Yes, the downside of commenting on something without reading it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensive Zone Time

The defensive zone time is the key to reducing scoring opportunities for the opposing team. The deflect-in helps in this regard.