Does Aggressive Equal Risky?
by Eric T. on Dec 13, 2011 11:16 AM EST
Email
Print
One thing that often comes up in conversations about zone entries is that dump-and-chase is widely perceived as the safe, responsible play. Let's see whether the data supports that belief. (All data here is for 5 on 5 play and as always, it excludes dump-and-change plays where no real effort is made to recover the puck.)
Question 1: Which method of bringing the puck into the offensive zone most often results in the play getting shifted to the other end of the ice?
| Method of bringing puck into zone | How often is the next play in your defensive zone? |
| Carrying the puck in | 50.9% |
| Passing the puck in | 51.4% |
| Deflecting the puck in | 51.8% |
| Dumping the puck in | 58.7% |
It would seem that dumping the puck in is the least defensive play -- the least likely to prevent the opposition from shifting the play to your end of the ice.
This isn't really surprising, since dumping the puck in means giving up possession at least temporarily. But one might imagine that getting the puck in deep and making the other team go the full length of the ice through a forecheck would at least limit the dangerous chances against.
Question 2: Which method of bringing the puck into the offensive zone most often results in an odd man rush at the other end of the ice?
| Method of bringing puck into zone | How often is the next play an odd man rush against? |
| Carrying the puck in | 2.4% |
| Passing the puck in | 1.5% |
| Deflecting the puck in | 0.8% |
| Dumping the puck in | 2.8% |
Geoff has been recording odd man rushes as part of his zone entry data. This lets us see that dumping the puck in actually results in the most odd man rushes against.
Dumping the puck in generates half as many shots as carrying it or passing it, and it results in more chances against and more odd man rushes against. Keeping control of the puck is just better.
The bad turnover that leads to a chance against is easy to see and remember, and it is often clearly the result of the puck-carrier's actions. The causal chain is usually not as clear after a dump-in, and the play is virtually never blamed on the player who dumped the puck in. But try to overcome the memory biases here; remember that even though the unsuccessful blue line pass is frustrating and stands out strongly in your memory, the player who makes the aggressive play is helping the team in the long run.
56 comments
|
Add comment
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
One question – When a turnover happens before the player reaches the blueline (on offensive side of neutral zone) are those counted?
The Artist Formerly Known as CP2Devil.
Associate Editor at Five For Howling.
Nope, it’s only a zone entry when the team gets the puck across the line. So this might overstate the value of carrying the puck in somewhat if trying to carry it in leads to more neutral zone turnovers.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
That was why I asked. It seems to be a lot of puck carrying turnovers happen between the red and blue lines. Or maybe I just seen way to much of Alex Semin.
The Artist Formerly Known as CP2Devil.
Associate Editor at Five For Howling.
by Carl Putnam on Dec 13, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
This is real interesting stuff here. What is the sample size?
I will stand beside him with an axe! @theninjagreg
This is based on 1051 carry-ins, 331 pass-ins, 790 dump-ins, and 255 deflect-ins.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
So… 20 games? 30 games? Heheh, there are a LOT of those per game, I seem to recall.
Not followin' @JPNikota on Twitter? Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin'.
How is “play” defined? Is it something less than a scoring chance? If one team dumps the puck and, and the other team gets control, and comes up the ice, and itself dumps the puck in, is that a “play” that gets counted?
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
Yeah, when I said “play”, I meant “zone entry or attack zone faceoff”.
So as long as that dump-in got counted as a zone entry (i.e. it was an attempt to set up the offense by dumping it in and pursuing it, not just a dump-and-change) then it would get counted.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Another basic question – whats the difference between carrying the puck in, and passing it in? Seems obvious, but if I pass the puck into the zone, isnt it going to be offside?
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
Carrying it in means it’s in one player’s possession as it crosses the line. Passing it in means it is traveling from one player to another as it crosses the line.
Entries can be achieved via pass without being offsides if the pass is slow or horizontal enough for the skater to catch up to the puck after it crosses the line. It isn’t a perfect example, but this will give you the idea.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I see what you mean – but that’s awful close to carrying the puck in. Seems like you’d have a much smaller amount of passes into the zone than any other method of entry.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
that’s awful close to carrying the puck in
That’s why I said it wasn’t the best example. Others are more clearly passed across the line.
As for frequency, we have 2427 total entries: 1051 carries, 331 passes, 790 dumps, 255 deflections.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
camcharron makes an excellent point on Twitter: the Flyers who dump the puck in the most are also the fourth liners who one might imagine giving up the most chances against.
I’m not sure this is an actual problem here, because the Flyers’ current data shows very little correlation between on-ice controlled entry percentage and on-ice zone entry percentage (i.e. if you are on the ice for a lot of controlled entries, that doesn’t mean you’ll be on the ice for a lot of zone entries for), but it’s worth looking into.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I’ve really enjoyed these articles and think more on this would be great. Maybe with these sample sizes you would need to combine groups, so look at top 2 lines and bottom 2.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
by JaredL on Dec 13, 2011 1:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
OK, I pulled the numbers into three groups:
19-28-68: When they carry it in, the opponents get the next entry 51% of the time. When they dump it in, the opponents get the next entry 47.9% of the time. (Sample size: 151 carries, 48 dumps)
17-21-24-27-48-93: When they carry it in, the opponents get the next entry 51.8% of the time. When they dump it in, the opponents get the next entry 59.5% of the time. (276 carries, 126 dumps)
14-15-29-36-45: When they carry it in, the opponents get the next entry 60% of the time. When they dump it in, the opponents get the next entry 52.7% of the time. (75 carries, 55 dumps)
The sample sizes are small enough that the 47-52% numbers are probably all functionally equivalent, but I can believe that having the fourth line carry the puck in often results in a turnover and the puck heading back towards the Flyers’ end. I don’t think we can prove anything yet at this point, but I don’t have any problem with the narrative: “top-9 forwards should press any marginal advantage as they enter the zone, but the fourth line should dump it in when they don’t have a clear play developing.”
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Tracking zone entries and the next shot would be good.
I’d wager that dump and chase has the weakest chance of producing a shot or chance. Dumping is often (of course not always) coached as a last resort while you’re rushing. No skating room? No passing lanes? Dump it.
Not followin' @JPNikota on Twitter? Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin'.
Dump and chase definitely produces fewer shots on that entry — less than half as many.
But from the moment the puck crosses the blue line, here is the likelihood that the next shot is achieved by the offense:
Carry in: 69.8%
Pass in: 68.6%
Deflect in: 62.4%
Dump in: 56.3%
Also, for what it’s worth, after an OZ faceoff, it’s 64.1% that the offensive zone team will get the next shot.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Very interesting, good work!
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
The Pronger Giroux argument
Weren’t they arguing about Giroux basically making too many “moves” trying to carry the puck in, while Pronger wanted him to dump it?
Do we have a breakdown of unsuccessful vs. successful carry in zone entries to compare to the equivalent in dump ins? In yesterday’s post we saw that the Flyers are controlling 55% of their carry in zone entries, but I don’t see a similar number for dump ins, or a ratio between the actual numbers for each type. I’m wondering how this is playing out strategically from a coaching standpoint. I feel like this year I’ve seen more attempts to carry the puck in rather than dump and chase, but am looking for something to back that up. Are they resorting to the dump in only in situations where a carry in isn’t possible, or is their a mixed strategy involved?
In yesterday’s post we saw that the Flyers are controlling 55% of their carry in zone entries, but I don’t see a similar number for dump ins, or a ratio between the actual numbers for each type.
I think I wasn’t clear enough about the terminology I’ve been using. A controlled entry is one where they gain the line by carrying it in or passing it in, keeping control as they cross the blue line. An uncontrolled entry is one where they dump or deflect it in, giving up control and trying to recover the puck.
55% of all of their zone entries are with control, via carry or pass.
I don’t have stats on how often they tried to enter the zone with control but turned it over in the neutral zone or on how many of their dump-ins were successfully recovered (though I do know that only about 1/4 of the dump-ins result in shots).
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I can imagine the type of stats I was asking for involve too many variables to track properly.
Very interesting work regardless. I’m sure I’ll be watching more closely to see how these situations play out.
by hebrew hammer on Dec 13, 2011 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
So, not only is dump and chase boring and frustrating to watch, it’s also the riskier style of hockey. Good to know the reason I hate it has some actual facts behind it now to back the argument against it.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
I know, right? We were just talking about dump-and-chase vs. controlled and umbrella vs. crash-the-net at work last week. This is great ammo for hating dump-and-chase.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
This is interesting stuff. Even if the differences aren’t statistically significant (which I honestly don’t know how to figure that out), the sample size is large enough to give some credence to what you’ve found.
My question is whether or not coaching style is a determinant. Meaning: would teams with different coaches show up with different results? Unfortunately, since the NHL doesn’t report these stats (why the hell not, we’ll never know) this is impossible without having 30 Geoffs out there counting this stuff meticulously. Lame.
Do you think each team keeps track of this on their own and makes adjustments accordingly, or are you and Geoff that ahead of the game? Awesome stuff here, man.
The odd man rush total hasn’t reached statistical significance yet, but it’s reached the point of being unlikely that dumping it in produces fewer odd man rushes against.
The next-play-in-zone total is easily significant; 7% is a big variation over 1000 trials.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Given that this filters out line changes, I’m surprised there is only a 8% difference in the two methods, though the neutral zone turnover factor which someone mentioned might increase that.
It also fits nicely with the idea that puck possession is the key offensive skill.
I wonder if dump and chase is riskier because it is more likely to get forwards caught in deep if the other team makes a good breakout and is more likely to string out the gap between your forwards and defensemen and also break up any kind of forward defensive play along the width of the ice.
Also, when you say “results in play getting shifted to the other end of the ice” what do you mean? Is breakout of the defensive zone sufficient or does it have to reach the other offensive zone?
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Dec 13, 2011 12:30 PM EST reply actions
Also, when you say "results in play getting shifted to the other end of the ice" what do you mean? Is breakout of the defensive zone sufficient or does it have to reach the other offensive zone?
The latter. It means that the next zone entry or attack zone faceoff is in the other attack zone.
So after a team carries the puck in at 5v5, 49.1% of the time that results in either an OZ faceoff or the puck getting cleared and brought back into the same zone. 50.9% of the time, it results in either a DZ faceoff (usually via penalty) or the puck getting cleared and brought into the other zone. The split is 41.3/58.7 for dumping the puck in.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
The problem I see with a lot of dump and chase these days is that it’s planned poorly and used as kind of a least resistance way to enter the zone. This leads to the puck being sent in with attackers standing stationary at the blueline where the defenders are already in the defensive zone and in better position to recover the puck. If a true dump and chase method were being used, it would be planned (and from what I’ve seen this year, Read and HarryZ have done a pretty good job of this) and the puck would be dumped in as attackers are skating forward and hitting the offensive zone with speed to disrupt the defenders ability to cleanly play the puck.
I go Bananas for Wayne Simmonds.
OT
You making the open ice still or are you going to nurse your brother back to health? Hope he is doing well.
being obnoxious and self righteous while ignoring the point since 9/29/11
As I said, as long as you need me as a goalie, I will be there. If you have two goalies besides me who want to play goal, I will not because I would only be able to play goal. I do not anticipate coming out to the bar/restaurant before though.
I go Bananas for Wayne Simmonds.
Yes we need you. I’m asking because you are one of only two people who I didn’t get a confirmation from and you are very important given that you are a goalie. I just wanted to double check because if for some reason you had to cancel I would have needed to know ASAP to replace you (lots of holiday parties this time of year and last minute fill ins are hit and miss).
Glad you are making it, see you Saturday (I’ll be updating or reposting with rink info, etc. either tomorrow or Thursday).
being obnoxious and self righteous while ignoring the point since 9/29/11
Yeah, this is why I want to get some other teams’ fans in on the project. Right now all I can say is that the Flyers’ opponents have had about the same success as the Flyers have, but you could get that result a lot of different ways — maybe the Flyers’ defense is great at defending dump-ins but their offense is terrible at executing them, or maybe their defense is terrible at it but their offense is great.
Comparison to some games where the Flyers aren’t involved would help answer that question.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I’ve noticed that the flyers (at least early on this season) have had a TERRIBLE time playing pucks off the boards, so I would think that dump ins would be effective against them as long as it is not stopped and set up behind the net by the goalie. It seems to have been a little better lately, as has their passing, but if there’s one thing the Flyers lack, it’s fortunate bounces.
I go Bananas for Wayne Simmonds.
Holmgren stopped lying earlier this time
Giroux out indefinitely with a concussion. “Whiplash” was WhipBS…
LeClair > Any Non-Flyer > Lindros > Any Non-Flyer
- The Department of Redundancy Department
by Henry al-Sirat on Dec 13, 2011 1:11 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I’m not convinced. It still could be that horrible knee-eating virus.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
"I think there is virtue in pissing off idiots." - Fehr and Balanced
by hintzy64 on Dec 13, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, if it is, he caught it from Simmonds’ knee…
LeClair > Any Non-Flyer > Lindros > Any Non-Flyer
- The Department of Redundancy Department
by Henry al-Sirat on Dec 13, 2011 1:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
nhl.com comment
We take all the flyers coaching staff and fire them, we steal Mike Richards and have Simmonds infiltrate and then take out Giroux… yes the King’s plan to destroy the Flyers is working perfectly…
The only issue I have is that when teams dump it in the conditions tend to be less favorable so you aren’t necessarily capturing that carrying more is a better method in general. As an example, in an odd-man rush you will nearly always have a carry in and in those spots the next play will overwhelmingly be in the offensive zone. That doesn’t mean you should try to carry it in when Tampa has their 1-3-1 set up.
It’s still interesting either way but this stat might tell us as much about who is winning the neutral-zone battle as which is better or safer or whatever.
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
by JaredL on Dec 13, 2011 2:02 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Agreed — this doesn’t prove that in any given situation, trying to carry it in is better than dumping it in.
But it’s clear that carry-ins are on the whole much more successful than dump-ins, and the gap is large enough that I suspect teams are too willing to dump it in, that they aren’t pressing the marginal chances as much as they should. So even knowing that some (many) of those marginal plays won’t work, I am now a full supporter of the players who are aggressive with the puck.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Do you have the numbers excluding odd-man rushes?
Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines
We track the odd man rushes so that we can do this, but so far all I’ve done is say “there are very few odd man rushes, not enough to have a significant impact on the results.”
But pulling some data quickly: excluding odd man rushes, it looks like carry-ins give 0.55 shots per entry, pass-ins 0.51, deflect-ins 0.25, and dump-ins 0.22.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Even if dumping the puck in results in a greater chance that the opposition will move the puck forward, you do have to consider that after dumping the puck in, your team will probably be setup in a better defensive position than if the puck was turned over after attempting to carry it in.
A dump-in means that the opponent:
- Is more likely to advance the puck into your zone
- Is more likely to get the next shot
- Is more likely to get an odd man rush
Where exactly is the better defensive position showing up? Perhaps sending forwards down below the goal line to try to recover the puck actually doesn’t put you in the best defensive position.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Is more likely to get an odd man rush
Well that’s interesting. I would’ve thought that attempting to carry the puck in and failing would result in more odd man rushes.
Overall, I would think that carrying the puck in may result in better offensive opportunities, but it also presents more of a chance for catastrophic failure. If you’re carrying the puck in and get stripped, you’re now out of the play, and now whoever else is on the rush is probably out of the play as well.
I mentioned this higher up in the comments; the sample sizes probably aren’t large enough to really conclude that there are more odd man rushes after a dump-in, but there definitely aren’t significantly fewer.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I was about to ask the same question earlier. It’s accounted for in the first sentence of the post and the answer is yes. Line changes are filtered.
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Dec 13, 2011 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Dump-and-change plays where no real effort is made to recover the puck are excluded from this analysis; we only include dump-ins that are part of an offensive attempt.
Some of those will have defensemen changing behind that play (as do some carry-in attempts), and that doesn’t get recorded.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
tried to save you some typing….
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Dec 13, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Conan O’Brien joins long list of LA media that don’t really know what’s going on with the Kings
- For Los Angeles Kings, when does rest become rust for Stanley Cup Final?
- Dominik Hasek wants NHL return; Tortorella on Game 6; Nash to Boston? (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Hard-skating Cataractes upset set defending champ Saint John 7-4 at Memorial Cup
- Toronto Marlies advance to Calder Cup Finals
- Toronto Marlies dump Oklahoma City to advance to the Calder Cup final
- Scotty Bowman receives Order of Canada
- Simon Gagne enjoying LA Kings' success, returns to practice after concussion absence
