Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: This Week In GIFs

Do You Want Your Defense to Score?

One of the things that doesn't get talked about a whole lot on many of the more math-oriented blogs is strategy at the team level. We talk quite a bit about the roles of various individuals (like whether or not a player is getting tough minutes), the tendencies of the league as a whole (like playing it safe when you've got the lead), and some very basic coaching differences (like whether or a particular coach likes to go for a hard forward match on the road), but if you asked me which teams ask their defense to pinch most often and if doing so was generally helpful, I'd have a pretty hard time answering.

Part of the reason for this is that quantifying those things is pretty hard to do with the numbers that are currently available, and to be frank, I don't think this preliminary work is going to do much to solve that. Still, I thought it would be interesting to see which teams have gotten the highest percentage of their offense from defensemen since the lockout, and if having a particularly high or particularly low percentage was particularly advantageous.

Star-divide

So first up is the data. What's presented here is total points (goals + assists) for each team's forwards, defensemen, and goalies both in terms of actual points tallied and as a percentage of the team's total. The average team got 75.4% of their total points from forwards, 24.2% from defensemen, and 0.3% from goalies (hooray for rounding error!). I've also included the number of points each team got in the standings:

Per_1_medium

Per_2_medium

Per_3_medium

Per_4_medium

Per_5_medium

Per_6_medium

As you can see, there's a pretty significant range. The 2007-08 Thrashers only got 16.8% of their total points from defensemen, while the 2006-07 Canadiens got 32.8% of their total points from defensemen, almost twice as much. In hindsight, I really wish that I had looked at just even strength data since a lot of the teams with an above average amount of offense from their forwards were likely using four forwards on the power play (the 2006-07 Oilers, for example, used Toby Petersen).

So what's the upshot here? Well, not much really other than to tells us that different teams seem to play the game differently (and that Sheldon Souray is a puck-hog). There's a very weak positive correlation between a high percentage of points from defensemen and standings points (0.12), and a corresponding negative correlation between a high percentage of points from forwards and standings points (-0.12), which is interesting, but nothing to get excited about.

Still... it might be something. If we're just looking for what good teams do, 33 of the 52 teams with at least 100 standings points and 12 of the 17 teams with at least 110 standings points had a higher percentage from defensemen than average. On the other hand, just four of the twelve teams with at least 80% of their scoring from forwards managed 100 points or better, and none of them got to 110. Nothing overwhelming, but there's enough there to to start a conversation about which avenues to explore next.

Comment 19 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

yeah, the teams on the bottom are definitely teams that tended to use 4 or even 5 forwards on their power play. regardless, i will be interested in this going forward as we get more precise data.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 8, 2011 6:12 PM MDT reply actions  

That reminds me — is anyone aware of any work done on comparing 4 and 5 forward power plays with the traditional 2 defenseman power play?

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Sep 8, 2011 9:33 PM MDT up reply actions  

i’m not. i suspect there’d be a lot of survivorship bias, because teams that put forwards there often do so because they think their D aren’t up to snuff. but yeah i’d be curious about shooting percentage rates from the point on the power play.

NJ used to go with 6 forwards when they pulled the goalie late in games last year. good times.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by Triumph44 on Sep 9, 2011 4:42 PM MDT up reply actions  

Do I want the defense to score? I’m an Oilers fan, I’d like the forwards to start scoring first, then I’ll worry about the defense.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Sep 8, 2011 9:33 PM MDT reply actions  

I think power play versus even strength offense is going to have a huge distorting effect here.

A far larger proportion of and offensive d-man’s points are from the power play rather than ES compared to that of an offensive forward and if a team doesn’t use defenseman on its powerplay that’s going to be a major hit.

by Stephan Cooper on Sep 8, 2011 10:00 PM MDT reply actions  

Interesting topic, Since an ES analysis already sounds interesting I thought I throw in my 2 cents.

A minor point and you do include it in your charts, but I suspect that as an analysis you would be better off looking at total points for D instead of . Driving X of your offense from D could be good but not so much if X was a function of forwards scoring less and defense just scoring average. Both tell a story but I suspect total points would be more of one.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on Sep 9, 2011 12:32 AM MDT up reply actions  

In addition to the noted ES vs PP thing, I think it would be interesting to separate out goals and assists. Given the shot-quality stuff out there, I could easily see it being the case that teams with a low defensemen goal% do better. I would guess that defensemen getting a high percentage of assists would be good because it will correlate with dominating puck possession.

Driving Play - The Blog with Three First Lines

by JaredL on Sep 8, 2011 10:08 PM MDT reply actions  

I’ve said it before and I will say it again,

The caption on this picture is fantastic.

Meh.

by Jordan G on Sep 8, 2011 10:51 PM MDT reply actions   1 recs

were likely using four forwards on the power play (the 2006-07 Oilers, for example, used Toby Petersen).

Curse you for perpetuating this myth.

Petersen was 10th amongst forwards in PPTOI/game, 16th overall on the 06-07 Oilers.

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 9, 2011 8:05 AM MDT reply actions   1 recs

It was a (partially inside) joke. Much like the Souray comment.

The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.

by Scott Reynolds on Sep 9, 2011 8:37 AM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

It was written seriously enough to bring it back!

In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!

by dawgbone98 on Sep 9, 2011 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

The 06-07 and 07-08 Habs were a bit skewed as well since Mark Streit played a lot of those seasons as a forward (He was the #7 or even #8 D but always in the lineup… Carbonneau was a freaking terrible coach who thought he was a better forward than D, even though he spent his entire career until age 26 playing D, but I digress). I’m sure there will be other examples of that as well in there.

Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.

For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.

by Bruce Peter on Sep 9, 2011 8:31 AM MDT reply actions  

It’s an interesting question Scott. I’m going to cheat and say yes and no, with the no being the more emphasized.

Yes, in the sense that once a D is on your team you’d ideally want the player to contribute as many GF as possible without allowing any more goals against.

But, generally, no, because my feeling is that you pay more for incremental, real offence from D than you do for forwards. If that isn’t the case, my answer would likely change.

by hockeysymposium on Sep 9, 2011 9:37 AM MDT reply actions  

The Stars dominate goalie points

"You guys are talking about living forever like it’s a real thing, but I bust out a man shoving his head into a vagina, and it’s srs time?"
--iorange555 8/23/2011

by Josh Lile on Sep 9, 2011 10:38 AM MDT reply actions  

If you compare to the same team’s forwards, then a team with average scoring Ds but low-scoring Fs will have a high D scoring percentage and tend to be a weaker club, whereas a team with equally average-scoring Ds but with high-scoring Fs will have a low D scoring percentage but tend to be stronger. Not to mention that intuitively, high-scoring Ds might help their team’s forwards score more in the first place, which’ll reduce the proportion of scoring by D-men via the good old rising tide that lifts all ships.

I think the next avenue I’d suggest (after “limiting to just ES data”) is comparing defensemen scoring relative to average defensemen scoring for the rest of the league, and seeing how that correlates to team record. It seems intuitive that such teams would tend towards better record, but we may find that by sacrificing defense for higher scoring the tradeoff is neutral or negative.

by MathMan on Sep 9, 2011 1:13 PM MDT reply actions  

comparing defensemen scoring relative to average defensemen scoring for the rest of the league, and seeing how that correlates to team record.

or how it correlates to team goal differential.

by Joe Girth on Sep 9, 2011 1:50 PM MDT up reply actions  

Of your 10 highest %, only 3 won the Cup in the year they posted those high numbers. To me that says a high contribution from D isn’t the most valuable thing.
 
2010-2011 the three highest teams (if I am reading correctly) were Atlanta, Nashville and Montreal. 2009-2010 Chicago (champs) Florida and Toronto. 2008-2009 Oilers, San Jose, Nashville. Maybe the % is a better indicator of a poor team.

If I am seeing this correctly, I would say good defending from the back end is more critical than scoring. Lately I have been thinking a well rounded defense, with 6 “good” full game D might be better than having elite and more limited defensemen because of the cap. Really, getting the puck and making a good pass is what D need to excel at most.

by FastOil on Sep 9, 2011 3:42 PM MDT reply actions  

Well, it would be a pretty big leap to say it’s suggestive of a bad team since the correlation points in the opposite direction, but the correlation is small enough that it might not be suggestive of anything either way.

The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.

by Scott Reynolds on Sep 9, 2011 9:41 PM MDT up reply actions  

When I look at the 9 teams I listed, I see 2 good teams and 7 that have problems. Three of the top ten being Cup winners, maybe this shows a high % means you’re really good or really bad.

Good teams I would think can involve their D in the offense, and teams with weak scoring see a higher % from the back.

by FastOil on Sep 10, 2011 3:18 PM MDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Ryan_2008_small
The Oilers Begin the Road to Rebuilding
Small
Oilers Next Head Coach
Small
Josh Anderson Scouting Report
Small
The 2012 NHL Draft and Combine - the Fanpost Almanac
Chambers-john_small
Risk Reward Radulov
Small
Joonas Korpisalo Scouting Report
2012-01-21-012338_small
Oilers Prospect Frans Tuohimaa Signs an Extension with Jokerit
Small
Ryan Murray - The Numbers
Chambers-john_small
Cody Hodgson, the game within the game, and inattention to detail
Small
Hong Kong Animators Draw NHL Violence

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

32 - 40 - 10

Lost 3

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (27-11, .711)
  2. St. Louis Blues (24-10, .706)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (22-10, .688)
  4. Los Angeles Kings (18-11, .621)
  5. San Jose Sharks (18-13, .581)
  6. Phoenix Coyotes (20-15, .571)
  7. Nashville Predators (18-14, .563)
  8. Chicago Blackhawks (21-19, .525)
  9. Colorado Avalanche (16-19, .457)
  10. Dallas Stars (18-22, .450)
  11. Anaheim Ducks (14-19, .424)
  12. Edmonton Oilers (18-25, .419)
  13. Calgary Flames (13-21, .382)
  14. Columbus Blue Jackets (14-31, .311)
  15. Minnesota Wild (8-22,.267)

Eastern Conference

  1. Pittsburgh Penguins (31-13, .711)
  2. Boston Bruins (27-11, .711)
  3. New York Rangers (25-16, .610)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (21-17, .553)
  5. New Jersey Devils (18-16, .529)
  6. Ottawa Senators (19-17, .528)
  7. Washington Capitals (20-19, .513)
  8. Montreal Canadiens (16-19, .457)
  9. Winnipeg Jets (15-19, .441)
  10. Buffalo Sabres (14-18, .438)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (13-17, .433)
  12. Florida Panthers (14-19, .424)
  13. Toronto Maple Leafs (17-24, .415)
  14. New York Islanders (8-23, .258)
  15. Tampa Bay Lightning (10-30, .250)

Division Standings

  1. Central (79-58, .577)
  2. Atlantic (68-50, .576)
  3. Pacific (62-54, .534)
  4. Northeast (69-65, .515)
  5. Northwest (49-69, .415)
  6. Southeast (51-81, .386)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Small Alan Hull

Contributors

Newtwitter2_small Jonathan Willis

Mccurdycloseup_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Me_smyth_bobblehead3__1_of_1__small Lisa McRitchie

Small Triumph44

Gyi0062208469-bobrovsky_small Chase W

Small JaredL