My player tracking system tracks each puck-possession event over the course of a hockey game. This provides me with the necessary data to perform these calculations.
An offensive touch is described as any play made while a player is in possession of the puck. Events used in this calculation include; passes, dekes, pass-receptions, dump-ins, dump-outs, and shots on net. A player's successful offensive-touch percentage is calculated by dividing the number of successful offensive-touches by the total amount of offensive-touches.
Example:
successful o-touch % = (successful o-touches)/(successful o-touches+unsuccessful o-touches)
A defensive touch is described as any play made while not in possession of the puck whereby the main goal is to remove possession from the other team. Events used in this calculation include; stick checks, body checks, blocked passes, and blocked shots. Successful defensive-touch percentage is calculated by dividing the number of successful defensive-touches by the total amount of defensive-touches.
Example:
successful d-touch % = (successful d-touches)/(successful d-touches+unsuccessful d-touches)
The bubble-graphs included here show each player's offensive and defensive-touch percentage, as well as the total number of events they engaged in.
Expressed simply;
- The higher the bubble is the more successful the player was when in possession of the puck (offensive-touches).
- The further to the right the bubble is, the more successful that player was at removing puck-possession from the opposition (defensive-touches).
- The bigger the bubble is, the more events they engaged in per-minute of ice-time
OVERALL EVEN-STRENGTH OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE TOUCH PERCENTAGES
Events used in this graph include offensive and defensive-touches that took place in the offensive-zone, the neutral-zone, and the defensive-zone.
As we can see by the size of the bubble, Lars Eller engaged in more events per-minute played than any other Habs centreman. The height of his bubble tells us that he had the third-highest offensive-touch success-rate, while how far to the right his bubble is shows us that he had the top success-rate among Montreal centres when attempting to remove puck-possession from the opposition.
Jeff Halpern actually had the top offensive-touch percentage among Habs centres. That said, the majority of Halpern's offensive-touches occurred in the defensive-zone.
David Desharnais produced a similar defensive-touch success-rate as Tomas Plekanec, but had the second-best offensive-touch percentage among this group of centres. It is also important to note that Plekanec played the bulk of his even-strength minutes against a higher level of competition than Desharnais.
Ryan White had the second-lowest offensive-touch success-rate, and the lowest defensive-touch success-rate. That said, White was used at wing as well as at center.
OFFENSIVE-ZONE EVEN-STRENGTH OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE TOUCH PERCENTAGES
Events included in this graph are all offensive and defensive-touches that took place in the offensive-zone.
Eller's defensive-touch success-rate in the offensive-zone was higher than any other Habs center. Eller also engaged more offensive-zone events per-minute played than the other players included here. He had an impressive 78% success-rate when attempting to remove puck-possession from the opposition by way of a stick or body check. Eller had the third-highest offensive-touch success-rate, while Desharnais enjoyed the top offensive-touch success-rate in the offensive-zone. This is the second-straight season that Desharnais has produced the highest offensive-touch success-rate among Montreal forwards.
Halpern had the lowest defensive-touch success-rate in the offensive-zone. This is because Halpern was less likely to engage players defensively (forecheck) in the offensive-zone. It's also important to note the limited number of offensive-zone starts for Halpern.
Plekanec had the second-best defensive-touch success-rate among Montreal centres, but produced the second-lowest offensive-touch success-rate. Plekanec's offensive-numbers were hurt by a 55% success-rate when attempting a pass in the offensive-zone. For comparison's sake, Desharnais and Eller were successful with 67% and 64% of their o-zone pass-attempts, respectively.
DEFENSIVE-ZONE EVEN-STRENGTH OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE TOUCH PERCENTAGES
Events included in this graph are all offensive and defensive-touches that took place in the defensive-zone.
Similar to how a previous post's graph reflected on Josh Gorges, this graph does great job of expressing Halpern's strong play in the defensive-zone. Halpern had an impressive defensive-touch success-rate in the d-zone; a full 4-percentage points above any other Montreal centreman. Complimenting his d-touch percentage, Halpern also produced the highest offensive-touch success-rate in the defensive-zone. In other words, Halpern did a great job removing puck-possession from the opposition, while limiting the number of give-aways he produced himself.
Desharnais had a better defensive-touch success-rate than Eller, but the size of Desharnais' bubble shows that he engaged in the fewest defensive-zone events among Montreal centres. Plekanec had the second-best offensive-touch success-rate, but only the fourth-best defensive-touch percentage.
Most people would be surprised by Eller's low o-touch success-rate in the defensive-zone. It's important to note that there was a big improvement in these numbers as the season wore on. Over the course of the first 24 games of the season, Eller had been successful with 53% of his attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke) and 57% of his attempts to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone. Those numbers improved to 56% and 63% respectively during the second-half of the season.
The one aspect of Eller's play that has hurt his offensive-touch percentage in the d-zone was unsuccessful dekes. Number 81 gave the puck away in the defensive-zone by way of a failed deke 25 times last season. The most giveaways of this kind produced by any other center was the 7 by Desharnais.
