Value of Zone Entries article

[4horsemen]

I really enjoyed this ballanced piece by Bourne and thought many of you would as well.

For those not familiar with Eric T's work I highly recommend you follow some of the links in this article to see what he's been bringing to the advanced stats discussion.

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/1...a-hockey-stat/

As an aside, I've been dipping my toe into the 'advanced stats' discussions for the past number of years and can't shake the feeling after every new article/discussion on the topic that it's actually a veiled movment to push the league towards a more european idea of how hockey should be played and not the old-time grinding hockey of the NHL. Maybe it's just some of the people I talk to on a consistent basis or maybe it's just me but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Pengwin7]

I enjoy Bourne's pieces when he's simply trying to interpret/understand a concept.
I find that too many writers these days write their piece with a forced sense of choosing (what they believe) is the correct side of a two-sided coin.

There's really no surprise here that any experienced hockey player doesn't know.

1. If you can safely carry the puck into the offensive zone without being dispossessed, than you do it.
2. If you can not safely carry the puck into the offensive zone without being dispossessed, than you dump it.

There is really no value in the advanced metrics here.
Value is extracted from interpreting a situation and then "choosing" the better option under an assumption that both/all options can be achieved.

Carrying the offensive zone with puck possession is preferred, yes, but it is not always the best option. If a 4th line checking winger tries to carry the zone and gets dispossessed, then the opposing team is likely breaking the other way 4-on-2. [since his two forward linemates are unlikely to be able to switch directions and defend the counter-attack quickly enough]

Overall, it is good to study advanced metrics... but some... like zone entry, simply boils down to a forward making the best play that his skill level allows.

[Big Ev]

As an aside, I've been dipping my toe into the 'advanced stats' discussions for the past number of years and can't shake the feeling after every new article/discussion on the topic that it's actually a veiled movment to push the league towards a more european idea of how hockey should be played and not the old-time grinding hockey of the NHL. Maybe it's just some of the people I talk to on a consistent basis or maybe it's just me but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

God I hope not...if you want to watch boring hockey, watch a European game.

[als_revenge]

I only read a tiny bit of stuff based on advanced stats, so my views are likely ignorant. But that's never stopped me from chiming in before

On advanced stats in general: the analysis to me, sort of feels like the equivalent of looking at a Renoir and then trying to assess the quality of the art by analyzing pixel by pixel. Yeah, it can be done, but I don't always see the point of it.

On this article:

1. Yeah, it doesn't surprise that a lot more goals are generated from rushes where teams carry the puck in versus dumping it in. But I'd like to understand the data better. For example, the table is based on 5 on 5 entries. So presumably the "carry in" data includes break aways, two on ones, and odd man rushes? If so , a lot of goals are generated that way, and it would skew the data. A better measure would be 5 on 5 entries, excluding odd man rushes.

2. Would it be worth considering what happens when the puck is turned over when carrying it in, versus dumping it in? It wouldn't surprise me if you found that turn overs created from carry ins lead to more goals against than dump ins, but I'm just speculating.

3. In the playoffs, especially, how often do we see dumps in, with the idea on trying to punish defensemen in the corners? Especially soft or skilled D men. That might not lead to a goal, but can still be a worthy objective all in itself.

[ultrawhiteness]

i'm supportive of any effort that leads to dump'n'chase being burned at the stake.

these studies are not trying to come to a conclusion like "you should always carry the puck over the line", and you should not listen to anyone that represents it that way.

what they are trying to do is find out why some teams/coaches/systems seem to be more consistently successful than others.

the answer of course is what Pengwin ended his comment with: 1) smarter players, and 2) non old-timey coaches.

[Dakkster]

I really enjoyed this ballanced piece by Bourne and thought many of you would as well.

For those not familiar with Eric T's work I highly recommend you follow some of the links in this article to see what he's been bringing to the advanced stats discussion.

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/1...a-hockey-stat/

As an aside, I've been dipping my toe into the 'advanced stats' discussions for the past number of years and can't shake the feeling after every new article/discussion on the topic that it's actually a veiled movment to push the league towards a better idea of how hockey should be played and not the old-time grinding hockey of the NHL. Maybe it's just some of the people I talk to on a consistent basis or maybe it's just me but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Fixed that for ya!

[LawMan]

I enjoyed the article even if the conclusions were something that seems almost common sense, sometimes we have to confirm what we think we know. I thought this quote in the conclusion summed it up nicely:

If I’m taking anything from the information Eric and crew have dug up, it’s that I might tell my top line forwards to try to dump less, and I might encourage my defenseman to pressure harder at the blue lines. That’s at least a start, as the data shows possession in those areas truly does make a difference. You risk getting burned if your gap control at the blue is poor, but given that twice as many goals are scored on possession entries than dump entries, it might just be worth the odd roasting.

Advanced stats seem to focus a lot on what causes goals to be scored and improving that on the offensive side of the game. However it's equally useful if you can get your defense to reduce those actions that cause goals (carry ins). It's not a mind blowing piece but was certainly solid reading.

[4horsemen]

i'm supportive of any effort that leads to dump'n'chase being burned at the stake.

Well that would require an entire reworking of the defensive strategies that teams are allowed to employ. The dump and chase at it's core is not an offensive strategy but a response to a defensive strategy.

[Big Ev]

I'm scared at the future of this game. It's going to become pussified trash. No forechecking, no hitting, slow, tons of time and space. Good lord.

[4horsemen]

I'm scared at the future of this game. It's going to become pussified trash. No forechecking, no hitting, slow, tons of time and space. Good lord.

That's kind of what scares me too Ev.

[als_revenge]

That's kind of what scares me too Ev.

I'm not worried. They are just going to do stuff to make the game safer.

The should have brought in touch icing years ago.

And if they want to insist players keep their helmets on when fighting, well....who cares if some meathead busts his knuckles on a helmet?

[4horsemen]

I'm not worried. They are just going to do stuff to make the game safer.

The should have brought in touch icing years ago.

And if they want to insist players keep their helmets on when fighting, well....who cares if some meathead busts his knuckles on a helmet?

I have no problem at all with taking rational measures to make the game safer. No touch icing seems a no brainer but I feel this is veering off topic. There's a big difference between 'making the game safer' and doing everything possible to eliminate the sandpaper from the game to open up scoring. My fear is that there's a growing number of people who don't appreciate a good hard hitting, tight checking game and want to do everything possible to 'open it up' so we can all marvel at the figure/fancy skating and pretty stickwork of the most "talented" players.

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much/any evidence that any of the measures the league has taken over the years to make things 'safer' for the players has had any effect.

[als_revenge]

Unless I am mistaken (and I am a lot), the NHL has had two people in the Director of Operations spot in the last 20 years. Brian Burke and Colin Campbell. You really think people like this are going to let hockey go soft? What exactly is the evidence that the game has softened up, or that there is some sort of conspiracy for this to occur?

[4horsemen]

You really think people like this are going to let hockey go soft? What exactly is the evidence that the game has softened up, or that there is some sort of conspiracy for this to occur?

I sure hope not but it's been in the back of my mind more now than ever after reading articles by the advanced stats croud that seem bent on finding evidence that physical play doesn't win hockey games.

To your 2nd point, I'm not claiming the game has softened up substantially but I do think there are some silly rules now such as the instigator rule and the new one about wearing helmets during a fight.

The rational part of me knows that there's a great hunger for physical hockey in North America and that probably won't change any time soon but sometimes these forums make me wonder.