A similar post focusing on even-strength events in ALL 3 ZONES can be found here.
A similar post focusing on even-strength events in the offensive-zone can be found here.
Coaches talk about scoring-chances as the determining factor when judging how their teams are performing. This post will compare the Montreal Canadiens team numbers in the defensive-zone that occur during games where they out-chanced the opposition at even-strength, with the numbers they produced when they were out-chanced. The results not only help us determine which defensive-zone events are impacting the game, they also help us determine which events are most important, as well as which events are worth tracking. No correlation between the games' results and the specific d-zone event tracked could indicate that the event is not being tracked correctly, or that the event is not impacting the game.
The team results indicated within this post are simply the accumulated results of all the players involved in the game. All 2013-14 regular-season games were used in this post. An average of 1200 events were tracked per-game.
A list of all the events tracked within my system can be found here.
Why use scoring-chances?
Scoring-chances are tracked independent of anything else that occurs on the ice. Whether they occur as the result of a turnover, a stretch pass, or a successful pass to the slot is not taken into account. As such, we can use scoring-chances as the determining factor when comparing games where a team enjoys even-strength success or failure.
Why not use wins and losses?
Comparing wins and losses would produce too much noise. Save-percentage and powerplay opportunities have a huge impact on a team's ability to win. Whereas a team's ability to out-chance the opposition at even-strength is controlled solely by the skaters on the ice. (goalies' pass and dump-out attempts are also included in the team totals)
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RATINGS AND RATIOS AT EVEN-STRENGTH
A team's defensive-zone ratio is a reflection of how many successful puck-possession plays a team contributed in the d-zone for every 1 unsuccessful play. Logically, the higher the ratio the better a team performed. In games were the Habs were able to out-chance the opposition at ES they produced an defensive-zone ratio of 2.87 successful plays for every 1 FAILED play; compared to a ratio of 2.79 when they were out-chanced.
In games where the Canadiens were able to out-chance the opposition at even-strength they engaged in 0.97 fewer defensive-zone events per-minute than they did when they were out-chanced. This makes sense, as logic tells us that the fewer d-zone events a team engages in, the less likely they are to allow scoring-chances against. As I'll explain below, higher d-zone ratios rather than higher d-zone ratings are more reflective of strong play in the d-zone.
ES SC+ES SC-
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RATIO2.872.79DEFENSIVE-ZONE RATIO
ES SC+ES SC-
SUCCESSFUL D-ZONE EVENTS / MP6.577.24SUCCESSFUL D-ZONE EVENTS / MP
UNSUCCESSFUL D-ZONE EVENTS / MP2.292.59UNSUCCESSFUL D-ZONE EVENTS / MP
ES SC+ES SC-
D-ZONE EVENTS / MP8.869.83D-ZONE EVENTS / MP
D-ZONE RATING4.284.65D-ZONE RATING
D-ZONE TAKEAWAY TO TURNOVER RATIO3.1493.129D-ZONE TAKEAWAY TO TURNOVER RATIO
A team's defensive-zone rating is a reflection of how many more successful defensive-zone events than unsuccessful plays a team contributed per-minute played . A team's rating is impacted not just by how many more successful events were contributed, it is also impacted by how active a team is per-minute played; the more defensive-zone events, the higher the d-zone rating. It's for this very reason that a higher defensive-rating does not necessarily represent a good performance, as the more defensive-zone events a team engages in, the more "time they spent in the defensive-zone. Montreal's rating (4.28) was substantially lower in games where they out-chanced the opposition at ES than it was when they were out-chanced (4.65).
Expressed more simply, in games where the Habs out-chanced the opposition they averaged 142.8 more successful plays than failed plays per-60. When they were out-chanced they averaged 105.6 more successful plays per-60; a difference of 37.2 successful offensive-zone events over 60 minutes.
Takeaway to turnover ratio reflects how many takeaways a team produced for every 1 turnover. A takeaway is earned whenever a player successfully removes puck-possession from the opposition by way of a stick-check, body-check, blocked pass, or blocked shot. A turnover is earned whenever a player failed to successfully complete a play with possession; these events include passes, dekes, shots, and dump-outs.
The Habs had a slightly higher defensive-zone takeaway to turnover ratio in games where they out-chanced the opposition (3.149) than they did when they were out-chanced (3.129). This indicates that a team's defensive-zone T-to-T ratio may not be a strong indicator of good or bad play in the defensive-zone. The ratio is dependant on a team not having possession of the puck. As such, a team that is able to move the puck easily out of the defensive-zone may not be forced to defend very often; thereby not producing many defensive-zone takeaways.
EVEN-STRENGTH PUCK-POSSESSION PLAYS IN THE DEFENSIVE-ZONE
An defensive-zone puck-possession event (o-touch) is defined as any attempted play while in possession of the puck in the offensive-zone. These events include passes, dekes, and dump-outs.
In games where the Habs out-chanced the opposition at even-strength their defensive-zone puck-possession success-rate was only 0.2 percentage-points better than it was during games where they were out-chanced. The data indicates that Montreal actually averaged 17.8 more successful puck-possession plays in the defensive-zone per-60 in games where they were out-chanced by the opposition at even-strength. They also averaged 25.3 more d-zone attempts with possession. This is a logical indication that the Habs had possession in the defensive-zone more often during games where they were out-chanced by the opposition.
Expressed simply, the data indicates that minimizing the number of defensive-zone events (even with possession) is more important than a low defensive-zone turnover-rate.
ES SC+ES SC-
SUCCESSFUL D-ZONE O-TOUCHES PER-60176.7194.5SUCCESSFUL D-ZONE O-TOUCHES PER-60
ATTEMPTED D-ZONE O-TOUCHES PER-60245.8271.1ATTEMPTED D-ZONE O-TOUCHES PER-60
D-ZONE OTOUCH SUCCESS-RATE71.9%71.7%D-ZONE OTOUCH SUCCESS-RATE
ES SC+ES SC-
EVEN-STRENGTH DEFENSIVE-PLAYS IN THE DEFENSIVE-ZONE
A defensive-play is defined as any attempt to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the defensive-zone. These events included blocked passes, blocked shots, stick-checks, and body-checks.
In games where the Habs out-chanced the opposition at even-strength their defensive-zone defensive success-rate (or forechecking success-rate) was actually 0.5 percentage-points lower than it was during games where they were out-chanced. Understandably, the defensive-event totals decreased in games where the Habs enjoyed more scoring-chances.
The data indicates that Montreal averaged 11.1 fewer successful defensive plays per-60 in games they out-chanced the opposition at even-strength. They also averaged 16.7 fewer attempted defensive-events. This is a logical indication that the Habs were forced to defend in the defensive-zone more often during games where they were out-chanced; forcing them to defend (chase puck-possession) more-often.
Expressed simply, minimizing the number of defensive events in the defensive-zone is more important than a good defensive success-rate in the d-zone.
ES SC+ES SC-
SUCCESSFUL D-ZONE D-TOUCHES PER-6074.785.8SUCCESSFUL D-ZONE D-TOUCHES PER-60
ATTEMPTED D-ZONE D-TOUCHES PER-60122.7139.4ATTEMPTED D-ZONE D-TOUCHES PER-60
D-ZONE DTOUCH SUCCESS-RATE60.9%61.6%D-ZONE DTOUCH SUCCESS-RATE
ES SC+ES SC-
SCORING-CHANCES
I communicated this data on scoring-chances in a previous post, but I though I would include it here for reference purposes.
A scoring-chance occurs anytime a player attempts a shot, or deflects a puck toward the net while positioned in the slot. During games where the Habs were able to produce more even-strength scoring-chances than their opposition they actually produced 18.84 scoring-chances per-60, while giving up 12.15 scoring-chances per-60. In games where they were out-chanced, they had 13.15 chances per-60, while allowing 19.24.
ES SC+ES SC-
SCORING CHANCES FORPER-6018.83513.158SCORING CHANCES FORPER-60
SCORING CHANCES AGAINSTPER-6012.14219.239SCORING CHANCES AGAINSTPER-60
ES SC+ES SC-
In upcoming posts I will break down the rating, ratios o-touches and d-touches in the neutral-zone. Comparing those numbers in games where the Habs out-chanced the opposition with those produced when they were out-chanced. Following those posts, I will break down the numbers in each event tracked; allowing us to compare the number of d-to-d passes, offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries, dump-ins, etc. that the Habs produced when they were out-chanced with those produced when they out-chanced the opposition.
A list of all the events tracked within my system can be found here.
