PICK UP PACE WIN THE RACE
Pace can be defined as the combined rate of shot attempts for and shot attempts against.
If you were a hockey coach and you thought that your team could out-possess a given opponent (or every given opponent, for that matter) and thought that your advantage would persist regardless of the pace at which the game was played, would you want to play a faster game or a slower one when tied?
The answer is pretty obvious – you’d want to play at a higher pace. To hammer home the “why,” imagine a team that takes 55% of the five-on-five shot attempts in its games (i.e. a team with a Corsi-For percentage (CF%) of 55.0). Over twenty events, that team would have an 11-9 edge in shot attempts, over forty events that edge is up to 22-18 and so on – the more shots attempted, the greater the raw edge, so if the span over which these shots are attempted is equal, the higher-paced version of the team is going to have a bigger shot advantage.
Whether a team should ever attempt to push the play or slow it down in order to give it the best chance of winning against a particular opponent.
What if, hypothetically, a team did decide it wanted to play “faster,” conceding more shots-against to get more out of their presumed advantage in attempts overall? How would that team go about it? A few (high-level) thoughts:
· More controlled entries and exits
o The increase in Corsi-For should outpace the increase in Corsi-Against, especially if skill forwards (on entries) and defensemen (on exits) are being strongly encouraged to carry the puck more, even if there are the occasional turnovers – gotta crack some eggs to make a cake.
· More aggressive forechecking
o Obviously the closer a team is to the aggressive end of the spectrum, the more shot attempts they’ll generate… and allow.
· Personnel decisions
o Some players are more capable than others of playing the game at a high pace and maintaining strong possession numbers.
So should they actively be trying to increase the pace? They’ve got a trio of good puck-moving defensemen and a handful of skilled forwards who shouldn’t be turning the hard-earned puck over to the other team while exiting or entering zones. They’ve got good forecheckers (Eric Fehr and Tom Wilson come to mind) and a strong defense to allow for some more risk-taking in puck-retrieval. They’ve got non-regular personnel who can play a faster game. And they’ve also got the League’s most dangerous goal-scorer and a Vezina-caliber goalie in net.
So go ahead Leafs, loosen it up a bit.
So what’s the point? First and foremost, “pace” isn’t in and of itself a desirable end, of course – shot-attempt percentage matters more.
Also note that the difference in pace between the “fastest” and “slowest” teams on this chart really isn’t that much
But the Leafs shouldn’t be afraid to open the game up a bit, especially with its top-six forwards. They’ve got the tools for it and by doing so they might be able to get more out of the possession advantages they’ve been able to establish under Sheldon Keefe.
DOES PACE OF PLAY AFFECT SH%
Whether a team should ever attempt to push the play or slow it down in order to give it the best chance of winning against a particular opponent.
Event rates are important because a 55% CF% is very different for a team that averages 110 Cori events per game compared to one that averages 90.
A team with a higher event rate with a positive shot attempt differential will end up on average with a better goal differential and likely a better record than one with a lower rate but the same differential.
Whether pace of play can have an effect on shooting percentage. After all, we know that the score can affect shooting percentage based on the change in a team’s tactics and mindset. Is there a shooting-related reason why high event hockey might not be preferable?
Overall, it just seems as though pace of play doesn’t largely impact shooting percentages, so good high event teams may legitimately be better off than good low event teams.
Comments