Measuring Puck Possession - vs Anaheim - 27/11/11
Continuing my series measuring puck possession in the offensive zone, I've now compiled the numbers for Toronto's game against the Anaheim [Mighty] Ducks from last night. If you're not familiar with how this works, what I'm doing is measuring how long each team has control of the puck in the offensive zone over the course of the game. I mark the beginning of a possession as the time at which the attacking team first gains clear control of the puck in the offensive zone, and I mark the end of a possession as either the time when the puck leaves the zone, or when a defender gains clear control of the puck and is not under significant forechecking pressure. I call the resulting statistic Time On Attack (TOA). After looking for insights in the numbers themselves, I compare them to other statistics like Corsi to see how well they line up.
First off, here are the Time on Attack numbers broken down by period:
| Toronto | Anaheim | |
| 1st Period | 02:30 | 03:39 |
| 2nd Period | 05:58 | 04:18 |
| 3rd Period | 01:56 | 03:29 |
| Total | 10:24 | 11:26 |
Despite the score, Anaheim was the better team in the first by this metric. Toronto's performance in the 2nd period was actually even better than the numbers make it appear - half of Anaheim's TOA that period came on three shifts from their big line. The numbers in the 3rd favour Anaheim by a wide margin, but Toronto was playing in a defensive shell at the time, something they've been doing more and more lately. I don't remember the Leafs doing this the previous two season's under Ron Wilson, but whether that was a coaching issue or an execution issue I couldn't say.
Now for a look at how the TOA ratio compares to Corsi and Fenwick:
| TOA | 0.476 |
| Corsi | 0.519 |
| Fenwick | 0.565 |
For the second game in a row, the TOA number differs a good deal from the other stats. Like with the game against Tampa, Toronto's TOA numbers look much worse than their Corsi and Fenwick numbers. As I said last time, it's possible we may be seeing some score effects here, which is something I want to look at in more detail once I've collected a larger sample of games.
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.
11 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
TOA 0.476
Corsi 0.519
Fenwick 0.565
To clarify, these numbers mean the Leafs are losing the TOA battle, but winning the Corsi and Fenwick one? As in, Toronto directed more shots towards the Anaheim net, then Ana did towards the Leafs net.
But Ana spent more time in the Toronto zone?
"I will actually score as many times as Kulemin assists me."
-Mikhail Grabovski
You are correct.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 29, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
Interesting. Seems to be a bit of a trend so far for the Leafs (And this data). Also seems to jive with their style of attack – off the rush, underwhelming cycle game, does not sustain pressure in O-Zone well.
"I will actually score as many times as Kulemin assists me."
-Mikhail Grabovski
by MapleLeafMole on Nov 29, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
Actually, the Leafs had great TOA numbers when they were winning, but now have worse numbers when losing. I’m wondering if score effects are playing a role here.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 29, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
I asked what these numbers mean before but I can’t remember the response, is this Fenwick percentage and TOA percentage? That is, the leafs TOA divided by total TOA?
by theninjagreg on Nov 29, 2011 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah. It might be more clear if I expressed them as a percent (ie. the Leafs had 47.6% of attacking zone time), I just use the ratios because TimeOnIce.com, where I get the Corsi/Fenwick data from, uses that format.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 29, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
This is an interesting stat to note, but wouldn’t you agree that it is not necessarily a good indicator of which team is “better”? Look at it this way, a team can spend an eternity in the offensive zone with clear control of the puck, but the only thing they may be doing the whole time is cycling the puck around the perimeter and never actually getting a scoring chance on net. However, if a team is able to gain control of the puck and immediately go to the net and score, that team was much more effective with the puck, though they spent considerable less time in the offensive zone. What do you think?
by gettingcozywithsarkozy on Nov 29, 2011 9:56 AM EST reply actions
I think that you may be correct. That’s part of what I’m trying to look at by tracking this information.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Nov 29, 2011 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
Presumably this is where you start seeing style issues coming into play. There will be some teams who play a possession game predicated on endless cycling that build up to some good chances, and that keep you the heck out of their own end. Other teams playa more counter-attacking style where they soak up pressure in the neutral ice or their own zone, or just chasing back and forth with nobody able to set up much, but then strike quickly as part of that fluid back and forth play. Both strategies might be successful if executed well, and both presumably need different types of players to run well.

by 



























