Measuring Puck Possession - vs Washington & Tampa Bay - 19/11/11 & 22-11-2011
I've now finished tracking and adding up the puck possession numbers for Toronto's games against the Washington Capitals and the Tampa Bay Lightning this week. Both were games in which the Maple Leafs won by a large margin, and both were games in which the opposing team won the puck possession battle, likely at least in part due to score effects. However, the details in both games are quite different. So I'll break down each game separately here. As with previous games in my series on puck possession, I'm looking both for insights into how the teams played and to see whether or not other statistics like Corsi, Fenwick, and scoring chances line up with the data I've collected.
To recap for anyone who hasn't read one of these articles yet, here's what I'm doing - as I'm watching each game, I keep track of each time either team has possession of the puck in the offensive zone. I define the beginning of a possession as the moment when the offensive team first clearly gains possession of the puck in the offensive zone, and I define the end of a possession as either when the puck leaves the zone, or when the defence clearly has control of the puck without being under significant forechecking pressure. I call the result Time On Attack (TOA). I measure this data only for even strength situations.First up is the game against Washington on Saturday. Here is the TOA data:
| Leafs | Capitals | |
| 1st Period | 05:07 | 03:57 |
| 2nd Period | 02:54 | 03:06 |
| 3rd Period | 01:04 | 04:56 |
| Total | 09:05 | 11:59 |
Toronto had a pretty big advantage early on in the game, when the score was tied or they had a small lead. Their TOA decreases pretty dramatically in each of the latter two periods, culminating in a 3rd period in which the Leafs had just a minute in the attacking zone, including just 17 seconds in the attacking zone in the final 12 minutes of the game. To give you some idea of how bad that is, Washington had one shift in the offensive zone that lasted 64 seconds. This wasn't your typical "defensive shell", though the Leafs may have been playing back a bit. Rather, it was Washington dominating possession and the Leafs getting, surprisingly, some very good goaltending from Jonas Gustavsson. You'll see why I say this wasn't a defensive shell when I get to discussing last night's game.
Here's the various possession data compared as ratios:
| TOA | 0.431 |
| Corsi | 0.418 |
| Fenwick | 0.417 |
| Scoring Chances | 0.423 |
The ratios continue to line up pretty nicely. Everything here is within 1.4%. I think we can call this data essentially the same. No significant discrepancies exist between any of our data types. Let's move on to Tampa Bay, beginning with the TOA data:
| Leafs | Lightning | |
| 1st Period | 01:49 | 03:28 |
| 2nd Period | 03:03 | 04:31 |
| 3rd Period | 01:59 | 03:24 |
| Total | 06:51 | 11:23 |
In terms of puck possession, the Leafs got even more thoroughly outplayed than they did against the Capitals. However, I think the defensive shell is a more likely explanation for the effect in this game than the one against Washington, and here's why - in the last 11:30 of the game, the Lightning didn't have a single possession in the offensive zone that lasted more than 7 seconds. As I mentioned way back in the first post on this topic, I've noticed that 10 seconds is roughly the amount of time that it takes to solidly establish possession in the zone. The Leafs spent the last half of the 3rd period last night in an almost perfect defensive shell, barely allowing Tampa to gain the zone, and quickly and efficiently getting the puck back into the neutral zone. It was a pretty impressive performance, and not something we've seen from this team often in the past few seasons.
Here's a comparison with the other data, not including scoring chances because those haven't been published yet for this game:
| TOA | 0.375 |
| Corsi | 0.458 |
| Fenwick | 0.451 |
This is the first time that the TOA data has differed significantly from the Corsi and Fenwick data, and I think score effects are a big factor here. The Lightning had a lot of very brief shifts in the offensive zone in the 3rd period, and they didn't get much offense at all out of those shifts. I won't know for sure what effect score effects have until I've gathered data for more games so that I have a bigger sample to work with. I'd say the result here is interesting, nonetheless.
One interesting thing that I've noticed so far is that the team that wins the possession battle has lost all four games that I've tracked. Score effects may be an explanation for that, so once I finish collecting my 10 game sample I'll go back and see if the data looks any different once score effects are taken into account.
[Note: There's no data here for the game on Sunday that we lost to Carolina because I was having difficulties with my Internet connection that made it impossible to track this information.]
PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.
13 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
suggestion
can you note the score during each possession? then break it up by situation? i.e. tied, up1, up2, down1, down2, etc.
That might help assess the score effects.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Yeah, I have all the individual possessions marked down, so once I get a larger sample I’m going to go back and break it down into more detail for things like score effects.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 24, 2011 9:38 AM EST up reply actions
cool
Two suggestions.
1) I don’t know if you’re doing this, but are you keeping track of what the goal difference is for each offensive zone possession? Perhaps instead of breaking it down by period it would be better to break down by tie game, 1 goal lead, 2 goal lead, big lead (3+).
2) Apparently total time of O zone possession isn’t the whole story, it also seems to matter how sustained any of those pressures are. There’s got to be a way to capture this as a second number. I can think of possibilities, but not sure which is best, or if any of these are great:
-Mean time of possession (so you can tell the difference between lots of little ones (high total, low mean) and spells of sustained pressure (A mean that’s closer to the total).
-If there’s something magic about 10 seconds (and there may well be), then you could calculate one that filters out all possessions less than 10 seconds.
-You could square each time of possession so you get a much higher score the longer the possession lasts. I’m not sure about this though. Is a 2 minute possession better than 2 possessions of 1:05 (allowing an extra 10 seconds for setting up in the zone the 2nd time). On the one hand you’d think not – once you’re set up your should have a relatively even probability of scoring in each ensuing second, no matter if it’s been 2 seconds since you set up or 50. On the other hand, if you pen the other guys into their end for TOO long their defenders can wear down and you maybe increase your odds of scoring.
It’s an empirical question. As your data set gets bigger it might be worth logging goals as a function of time since the start of an offensive zone possession. Does the chance of scoring climb steeply till 10 seconds and then level off? Does it then increase some more 30 or 45 seconds in when the shifts start getting long?
I actually did take a bit of a look at the 10 second thing for the first game I did this for, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference. The ratios were virtually identical, both on a full game level and on an individual period level. Also, some of the shorter shifts are things like odd-man rushes that result in a great scoring chance but only last maybe 4 seconds. So if you take out those, you’re eliminating some good chances along with the good defense. I think that’s at least a partial explanation for why the Leafs had more time on attack than the Predators did last week – the Predators play back and take advantage of mistakes to generate chances.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 24, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
Differences
I have been trying to do the exact same thing for the Caps games. I’m concerned though because despite trying to follow your definition of TOA exactly, I got very different results. I had a conflict for the 3rd and didn’t really want to finish anyway. But for the 1st I got Caps 2:53, Leafs 3:47. For the 2nd Caps 3:08, Leafs 2:06.
I think I’m starting the attack later than you are. Since you said “clearly in possession” in OZone, I was waiting until the board battle was over, if that’s how the possession started. I also was not starting the clock on an attack if they carried it in but then immediately dumped. I think you are counting those two situations as attack. Is that right? If so, I’ll adjust.
We’ll never get it exact but mine is so different from yours that I’m afraid it won’t be useful if I don’t adjust. Any help would be appreciated.
If a team has possession of the puck crossing the blue line but then dumps it into the corner, yes, I am counting that as a continuing possession, so long as they had clear control at some point in the offensive zone. As for puck battles, I start counting it as a possession whenever the offense looks to be in control of the puck. If the teams are battling and it doesn’t look like anyone has possession, I don’t count it. But if the offense looks like it’s gained possession but just gets pinned along the boards or something like that, then I do count it.
I’m at work right now so I don’t have the raw data with me, but I track each individual attacking shift including start and end times, so if you want to compare individual shifts I can e-mail you my spreadsheet, or maybe upload it as a Google spreadsheet this evening.
Given how well my numbers have been lining up with the other data so far, I think my definition is proving to be pretty useful, though having done this for only 4 games it could just be dumb luck at this point.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 24, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
I think that probably explains my differences. I’m trying to mirror your method since you’re getting good results so far. I noticed numerous attacks where I hadn’t started the clock but i wondered if it could be argued they were in possession and I was missing it.
I also track start and end times for every attack so yeah, if you send me your sheet, I’ll compare. I should have figured you’re in Canada so it’s just Thursday. I’m in DC so off today. You can email the sheet to avarbimba@gmail.com, no hurry.
Too bad the Leafs and Caps don’t play more so I could compare more notes. Maybe I’ll watch a Leafs game sometime to compare results.
Thanks for the response, this helps.
be careful
that you don’t assume that “good results” are those that align with expectations. Just because yours don’t line up in the same way doesn’t mean they’re invalid. If you only get results you expect there’d be little point in doing this.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Nov 24, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Right, but if we’re trying to measure the same thing and his results are hugely different than mine, than we’re not actually measuring the same thing, which means we need to find an agreed upon definition if we want our data to be useful for comparisons.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 24, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
E-mail has been sent.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 24, 2011 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

by 



























