DOES A GOOD PK FACEOFF EQUAL A GOOD PK
(January 2009)
Would getting a player or two who can win a fucking faceoff generally push towards a better pk? After all, this is the year that every penalty kill starts in the pk team’s defensive zone – surely this must have some measurable effect on how many pucks end up in the back of the net? And finally, if Edmonton sucks at A and also sucks at B, could there be a correlation there?
The answer seems to be a resounding no.
You can’t conclude that a good faceoff percentage = a good penalty kill.
Faceoffs’ are just another puck battle of the hundreds of puck battles that take place every game.
There are too many elements to a penalty kill to suggest Edmonton should be looking at adding a faceoff specialist alone – faceoff % should take a back seat to players who can actually kill the damn thing off.
After all, even a successful faceoff win and dump only shaves 10-15 seconds off the penalty anyway (maybe a few more seconds if you deny the entry after) – you still have to kill the whole damn thing off regardless of how it begins
A good year for faceoffs is 55%, that’s still just a D+.
PK DISADVANTAGE IN TAKING FACEOFFS
(Jan 2009)
Teams on the PP enjoyed a significant edge in 2007-08 when it came to faceoffs: they won 11 out of 20. That may not sound like a lot, but there wasn’t a single team in the NHL that managed to win 55% of its faceoffs over the course of a season, so it strikes me as a pretty significant edge.
The team on the PP is at an advantage because it has more guys who can come in to help out when a draw isn’t cleanly won.
There are too many elements to a penalty kill to suggest Edmonton should be looking at adding a faceoff specialist alone – faceoff % should take a back seat to players who can actually kill the damn thing off.
More difficult to win faceoffs shorthanded than it was to win them generally. This is something that Vic Ferrari has mused about in the past, suggesting that the team on the PP is at an advantage because it has more guys who can come in to help out when a draw isn’t cleanly won.
There was some moderate degree of correlation between PK faceoff success rate and PK% last year, at .449. The difficulty that I have, as I’ll set out below, is that the Oilers PK has absolutely cratered this year. I’m not opposed to the argument that their faceoff woes are part of the problem but I have a harder time believing that it’s the most significant problem facing the PK unit.
Does it really seem plausible that an extra 15 lost faceoffs (through 30 games at a rate of one extra loss per two games; some of which wouldn’t have been in the Oilers end anyway) is responsible for an extra 39 shots against? The logic doesn’t seem to be there to me; it might be a contributing factor but I just can’t see it being the most significant problem.
Obviously guys lose more draws 5 on 4. Even more 5 on 3… the fact Brownlee almost called Horcoff out on that is just plain dumb. 5 on 4, guys will be cheating more towards tying it up, while the PK’er has to win clean.
Winning 5 on 3, as the three, is damn near impossible.
THE COST OF LOSING PK FACEOFFS
(Jan 2009)
Some general information about defensive zone PK faceoffs (which are, of course, the same thing as offensive zone PP faceoffs): On average, teams had 391 faceoffs in the offensive zone while on the PP and 391 faceoffs in the defensive zone while on the PK. The team on the PP succeeded at a 55.5% clip and the team on the PK succeeded at a 44.5% clip.
I suspect when I really drill into things I’ll find that being an atrocious faceoff team on the PK will cost you, at the absolute top end, a win over the course of a season. I suspect that it’s probably more like half a win but we’ll see.
MEASURING DEFENSIVE ASSIGNMENTS ON THE PK
We know that the ratio of offensive-to-defensive zone faceoffs is a big driver of a player’s results at even-strength.
On the PK? Not so much – almost all faceoffs taken by a shorthanded team are in their own end.
But, as we’ve discussed before, there are usage differences on the penalty-kill too – in particular, some players get sent out for faceoffs (and thus start in their own zone all the time) while others go over the boards once the puck has been cleared, which puts them in a situations that are not quite as dangerous, on average.
As it turns out, centers are most likely to be used in this way, and the impact on their stats is undeniable.
Many PKs use two centers today, in case one gets kicked out. So the wingers who lead in zone starts are a truly-gifted defensive crew.
IMPORTANCE OF WINNING PK FACEOFFS
(July 2011)
Winning or losing faceoffs doesn’t make enough of a difference in the outcome of hockey games to matter.
If winning or losing faceoffs doesn’t matter a ton, it seems to me that you want to get your difference makers out on the PK, regardless of faceoff ability.
Comments