Flyers vs. Rangers: Neutral Zone Domination Undermined By Defensive Zone Failures
Ed. Note: Yeah, there's a game between now and the Rangers game on Sunday. We're allowed to look ahead. We don't play for the Flyers.
Now that Geoff has accumulated more than half a season of zone entry data, I wanted to take a look at head-to-head matchups and see whether anything interesting came out of comparing the opponents.
I pulled the data for the seven teams the Flyers had faced at least three times, and something surprising jumped out at me right away: the Flyers have absolutely killed the Rangers in the neutral zone.
When the puck is in the neutral zone, there are four possible results:
- Carried into the opposing end (generates 0.58 shots for on average, including shots on goal and missed shots)
- Dumped into the opposing end (generates 0.28 shots for on average)
- Dumped into your end (generates 0.28 shots against on average)
- Carried into your end (generates 0.58 shots against on average)
Neutral zone winning percentage is how often the puck goes forwards into the opposing end instead of backwards into your end (excluding dump-and-change plays where no real effort is made to recover the puck). Decisive win percentage is how often the team retains possession on their zone entries, while decisive loss percentage is how often their opponents do. As shown in the following table, in each of these neutral zone categories, the Flyers achieved their best results against the Rangers.
| NZ win% | Decisive win% | Decisive loss% | |
| Overall | 51.6% | 55.7% | 51.1% |
| vs Rangers | 55.7% (1/7) | 58.6% (1/7) | 39.2% (1/7) |
Ranks are for Flyers' results compared to other opponents they have played 3+ times. All data is with the score close to minimize score effects; ranks are the same with all data included.
So the Flyers win the neutral zone more against the Rangers than against anyone else, their wins are more decisive against the Rangers, and their losses are less decisive. How big a deal is that? We can work out what fraction of the shots they would get just based on their neutral zone play, assuming both teams had average results in the attack zones:
The Flyers win the neutral zone against the Rangers so handily that average play in the attack zones would result in getting 59% of the shots in close games. This is a huge number; the last team to do that well over a whole season was the '07-08 Red Wings. The Flyers are absolutely dominating the neutral zone against the Rangers, and yet they haven't exactly dominated the games...
Let's take a look at their results in the attack zone -- are they getting their share of the shots per entry and limiting the Rangers at the other end?
| Shots for per carry | Shots for per dump | Shots against per dump | Shots against per carry | |
| Overall | 0.56 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.61 |
| vs Rangers | 0.61 (2/7) | 0.21 (6/7) | 0.27 (5/7) | 0.78 (7/7) |
At the offensive end, they are doing OK -- a bit better than average on the entries where they retain possession and a bit worse than average on the dump-and-chase plays. But at the defensive end, they're getting creamed, especially when the Rangers carry the puck in.
Just like how we calculated a neutral zone performance score based on the shot ratio that would be achieved with average play in the other two zones, we can do the same to calculate offensive and defensive zone performance scores.
For the year, the Flyers' neutral zone performance has been strong, worthy of a 52.4% shot ratio, but they have been a 49.3% team in the attack zones. Against the Rangers, this trend is magnified: the Flyers have been a 59% team against the Rangers in the neutral zone, a 49% team in the offensive zone, and a brutal 45% team in the defensive zone.
If the Flyers expect to come away with 3 or 4 points from their two games against the Rangers next week -- or get by them in the playoffs -- they'll have to shore up the defensive zone problems the Rangers have created for them.
Appendix
To make it easier to look at comparisons of how each team played, here's the data in the three charts above reformulated into a table:
| Opponent | Flyers OZ performance | Flyers NZ performance | Flyers DZ performance |
| Carolina | 50.2% (2/7) | 55.7% (2/7) | 47.9% (6/7) |
| Montreal | 45.2% (5/7) | 53.9% (5/7) | 54.2% (1/7) |
| New Jersey | 40.8% (7/7) | 50.1% (6/7) | 51.1% (3/7) |
| Rangers | 49.0% (3/7) | 59.0% (1/7) | 44.9% (7/7) |
| Ottawa | 48.8% (4/7) | 49.2% (7/7) | 50.3% (4/7) |
| Tampa Bay | 45.2% (6/7) | 55.1% (3/7) | 51.5% (2/7) |
| Winnipeg | 54.8% (1/7) | 54.7% (4/7) | 49.2% (5/7) |
Here's the breakdown of the NZ win%, decisive win%, and decisive loss% numbers that went into the overall NZ performance metric:
26 comments
|
Add comment
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This hurts my head so much, but it’s so awesome.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
You think this hurts your head, you should’ve seen the first draft.
I like the new aggregation that converts all of the numbers from performance in a given zone into a Fenwick-type grade though. It’s a lot easier to say “the Flyers are a 52.4% team in the neutral zone and a 49.3% team in the attack zones” than to think about all of the entry styles and shots per entry that roll up into that.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Very true.
So how would you interpret this stylistically? Is the Rangers forecheck more effective than other team’s have been against the Flyers? I suppose I could answer that myself with scoring chances, don’t have time to do it for this weekend though.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 3, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
The Rangers are by far the least likely opponent to carry the puck across the blue line (see graph at very bottom-right), and get by far the most shots per time that they carry it in (see table).
My guess is that the two are linked, that the Rangers are much more willing than most teams to dump the puck in on the marginal cases. So they don’t carry it in very often, and when they do it generates shots.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Hmmm ok.
I obviously don’t have zone entry data, but I have my scoring chance types, and if we assume they mirror Corsi fairly closely (as scoring chances tend to), I have us about 57/43 forecheck/transition as a team.
Our first line and fourth line are closer to 50/50, second line 60/40, and 3rd line 70/30. So I would guess combining the two that our top 6 had stronger than normal games against the Flyers. I think. Still a lot to process, because it seems like a definite contrast to where we generally generate offense.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 3, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
Unfortunately, it’s too hard for Geoff to get the opponents’ names — every zone entry is recorded as “Opp” instead of as an individual player.
But I can pull info on how each of the Flyers have done in the games against the Rangers and you could try to infer which Rangers did well based on the common matchups…
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Nah, don’t worry about that. Generalizations is fine. I’m not sure my theory is even correct, just spitballing ideas on how to combine the information.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 3, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
Very neat look at a specific team. Fun stuff Eric and Geoff. Now only if Geoff put the same effort in to being nice to BSH commentors as he puts into tracking zone entries.
being obnoxious and self righteous while ignoring the point since 9/29/11
Think you forgot the @ @ on either end of the last sentence :-P
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Feb 3, 2012 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
So what I understand from this is that if we moved the nets out to the blue lines we would crush the Rangers.
Finally getting the hang of this stats thing….
/s, more often than not
by flyersfaninchicago on Feb 3, 2012 3:04 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Updated the appendix with a table that shows the performance in each zone (the data that’s in the three graphs above), for people who want to easily look up how the Flyers did against a certain team.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
How did the winter classic affect all this? Given the differences in ice surface and everything else I am wondering if the data in the indoor games is drastically different from the unusual circumstances of the winter classic
In the WC, the Flyers NZ performance was 60.9%, their OZ performance was 53.4%, and their DZ performance was 44.5%.
So right in line with the other two games, though perhaps a bit better in the NZ and OZ.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
An idea
On why the Rangers are getting so many shots on their controlled entries…
Eric wrote:
The Rangers are by far the least likely opponent to carry the puck across the blue line (see graph at very bottom-right), and get by far the most shots per time that they carry it in (see table).
If many of those entries were on turnovers, or stretch passes, then there’d likely be few defenders around to stop the shots, or guide the shooters to the outside. Is this the case? Or is our D coverage just mysteriously awful against the Rangers, without facing more odd-man rushes and committing more turnovers?
Yeah, it could be that they’re being put in tougher spots by turnovers. Geoff does track which entries are on odd-man rushes, so I can look at whether there were more of those than usual.
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
I isolated out just the Flyer games, so I have the NYR 5v5 chances broken down like this:
1 Breakaway
18 Even Man Transitions
0 Odd Man Transitions
2 Off. Zone Faceoffs
3 Defensive Turnovers
13 Zone Pressure/Forecheck
So if there are more odd man rushes, the shots allowed have been lower percentage shots
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 3, 2012 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
Geoff has the Rangers getting 6 odd-man rushes (which includes breakaways, I believe), resulting in 5 shots and 0 goals.
I think I’m still inclined to the “Rangers pass up marginal carry-in opportunities” hypothesis, since it explains both the low carry-in total and the high shots-per-carry result. The question then is whether they do that against everyone (part of their approach) or just against the Flyers (part of how they match up).
@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey
Honestly, I wouldn’t read too much into my odd-man rush totals. You really have no idea how often there’s a 3-on-2 break through the neutral zone that is no longer a 3-on-2 break as they cross the line due to
a) forward slowing down to stay onsides, allowing the backchecker to catch up; b) the puck carrier stops skating as they hit the blue line, allowing the defense to isolate each forward, negating any odd-man situation; and c) the defense making a really smart read to kill the play at the line.
It’s crazy how often I tell myself this is going to be an odd man rush, but by the time I enter the time of entry and the type of entry, the play has been killed.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2012 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
Really cool stuff
Lots of things to be curious about…
Questions:
- what is the Flyers Fenwick % in the games against the Rangers?
- in fact, it would be cool to look at Fenwick % against all of these opponents compared to the OZ performance, NZ performance and DZ performance.
- could we get the Flyers’ records against these seven teams (W-L-OT and GF-GA)? I’m just interesting in seeing whether a DZ failure (like in our games against the Rangers) is more likely to produce a loss than a neutral zone failure. Obviously a very small sample to operate from right now, but excited to see where this project can take us in the future.
Simon Gagne AND Mike Richards may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home but, at the end of the day, they will both always be Philadelphia Flyers.
One day Sean Couturier will win the Conn Smythe. You heard it here first.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Feb 3, 2012 8:26 PM EST reply actions
what is the Flyers Fenwick % in the games against the Rangers?
Full game – I have Flyers 110 – Rangers 102, so 51.8%
Tied – Flyers 50 – Rangers 49, so 50.5%
Close – Flyers 76 – Rangers 66, so 53.7%
Most of that is from the Winter Classic, where the Rangers got manhandled by Fenwick. First two games were basically even, slight edge Rangers.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Feb 3, 2012 10:20 PM EST up reply actions

by 





















