2016 Cup Final
Pittsburgh 3, San Jose 1
The data below is the results of my tracking. I am tracking players from an individual possession standpoint. Essentially documenting what each player does each time they have the puck at even strength (5v5). The data is then used to help explain Corsi%. All Corsi% data is obtained from corsica.hockey.
Sheary had the highest Corsi% on the team at 68.4%, posting a Turnover% of 19.4%, which is below the team average of 23.3%. Turnover% is the percentage of individual possessions which result in a turnover. Sheary had 6 turnovers on 31 possessions (6/31 = 19.4%). The team average in Passing Accuracy% was 77.3%, Sheary was above average at 90%, completing 18 of the 20 passes he attempted.
The average Turnover% for players with a Corsi% of 50% and above was 20.3%. The Turnover% for players with a Corsi% below 50% was 35%.
Schultz with a 34.8% Corsi%, was is the lowest of the series for him. This Corsi% was a result of Schultz posting the highest Defensive Zone Turnover rate of 25%, posting 3 defensive zone turnovers on 12 possessions. 25% was the highest on the team by far, with the team average Defensive Zone Turnover rate of 4.4%.
The chart below show each player’s individual Offensive and Defensive Rebound rates. Sheary posted the 2nd highest Offensive Rebound% at 17.4%. Hagelin did post the highest Offensive Rebound% at 36.4%, but his 42.3% Turnover% (2nd highest on the team) was able to wash out his well above average offensive rebounding. Hagelin’s 11 turnovers on 26 possessions (11/26= 42.3%), was almost twice the team average Turnover% of 23.3%.
Hagelin had the 3rd highest dump in rate on the team at 11.5%, meaning of his 26 possessions, Hagelin dumped the puck in 3 times. (3/26=11.5%). All 3 of Hagelin’s dump ins resulted in a turnover. Pittsburgh’s team average dump in success rate was 13.6%, meaning 86.4% of the time Pittsburgh dumped the puck in, it resulted in a turnover.
The data below breaks down each player’s Passes by zone. Crosby completed 18 Passes, 12 in the Offensive Zone, 0 in the Neutral Zone, and 6 in the Defensive Zone. His Passing Accuracy% was slightly below team average at 72% (team average was 77.3%). Crosby had 6 failed attempts in the offensive zone, and 1 failed attempt in the neutral zone. Crosby completed the 2nd most passes in the offensive zone, only Sheary completed more (13).
Kessel had the lowest Passing Accuracy% at 33.3%, while completing 4 passes on 12 attempts. Kessel’s Passing Accuracy% in the Offensive Zone alone was 14.3%, completing 1 offensive zone pass on 7 attempts. As you can see below, completing passes in the offensive zone increases your offensive zone time, thus the opportunities for shot attempts and increased Corsi%.
The spider chart below shows the distribution of Crosby’s 18 completed passes in Game 6. Crosby completed 18 passes, 6 were to Sheary, 3 to Letang, 3 to Dumoulin, 2 to Hornqvist, and 1 each to Kessel, Cullen, Schultz, and Lovejoy. Sheary was the recipient of 33% of Crosby’s completed passes at even strength(5v5).
2016 Cup Final
San Jose 4, Pittsburgh 2
The data displayed below is the results of tracking for Game 5. I document what each player does per each individual possession at even strength(5v5). The data is then interpreted to help help explain Corsi%. All Corsi% data was obtained from corsica.hockey.
This was a pretty impressive performance by Pittsburgh, dominating the play despite losing 4-2. Average Corsi% for all Pittsburgh players was 69.5%. Maatta led the way in Corsi% at 84.2%. Maatta had the 4th most individual possessions on the team at 38. Maatta’s Passing Accuracy% was above the team average of 79.2%, and had a below average Turnover% of 18.4%. (team average was 23.2%). Despite getting shelled in past games Maatta only had 2 defensive rebounds available while he was on the ice, and was able to obtain 1 of them for a 50% Defensive Rebound%.
Cullen posted the lowest Corsi% at 22.2%, and was tied for the highest Turnover% (turnovers per individual possessions) at 40%. Cullen only had 5 possession at 5v5 and had 2 turnovers. Both of these turnover occurred in the defensive zone for a 40% defensive zone turnover rate. The 4th line which is composed of Fehr, Kuhnhackl, and Cullen were able to grab only 1 defensive rebound for a 7.1% Defensive Rebound% average between them. The Team average for Defensive Rebound% was 12.7%.
Hagelin and Hornqvist were the most efficient at generating SOG per each individual possession at 30% and 25% respectively. The team average in SOG per individual possession was 8.4%. Malkin completed the most offensive zone passes (15), next closest was Crosby with 11. Pittsburgh attempted 25 dump ins at 5v5, and were able to recover 2 of them for a 8% success rate. When Pittsburgh dumped the puck in, it resulted in a turnover 92% of the time.
Below shows the Offensive and Defensive Rebound% breakdown for each player. Overall the Offensive Rebound% average was 10%, and the Defensive Rebound% 12.7%. Defensive Rebound% were high throughout the team, but a small sample size due to the lack of san jose possession in Pittsburgh’s defensive zone.
The breakdown below shows each players Passing Accuracy% and passes completed to a specific zone. Malkin completed 24 passes on 43 Possessions, 15 in the Offensive zone, 4 in the Neutral zone, and 5 in the Defensive zone. Average Passing Accuracy overall was 79.2%.
In the Offensive zone only, the average Passing Accuracy% was 76.6%. Malkin’s Passing Accuracy% in just the Offensive zone was 93.8% (15/16), which is incredibly impressive. Overall Malkin’s Passing Accuracy% was 85.7%, where he completed 24 passes, but had 1 failed attempt in the offensive zone, 2 failed attempts in the neutral zone, and 1 failed attempt in the defensive zone.
2016 Cup Finals
Pittsburgh 3, San Jose 1
The data below shows the results of my tracking of Game 4. Players are evaluated on how they perform on a per individual possession basis. Essentially, I am documenting what they do each time they have the puck at even strength(5v5). The data I track is then used to help explain player Corsi%. (All Corsi% data was obtained from Corsica.Hockey)
Phil Kessel leads the way in Corsi% at 61.5%. Kessel had a Turnover% (Turnovers Per Possession) of 24.1%, which was below the team average of 28.3%. Although Kessel’s Passes Completed Per Possession% (24.1%) and Passing Accuracy% (63.6%) are below the team averages of 34.1% and 71.2% respectively, his all shot attempts (SOG, Missed, Blocked) per possession were 31%. Just to give you an idea, the team average was 10.1%. So Kessel just about averaged a shot attempt, ~1 in 3 individual possessions.
Kuhnhackl, Hornqvist, and Malkin struggled, posting the 3 lowest Corsi%’s of 41.7%, 41.4%, and 42.1% respectively. All three had a Turnover% above the team average. Kuhnhackl’s Turnover% was almost double the team average. Kuhnhackl only had 6 individual possessions at even strength, and dumped the puck in 3 times. (50% dump in rate). Each dump in by Kuhnhackl resulted in a turnover. Pittsburgh’s dump in success rate was 9.1%, meaning dump ins resulted in a turnover 90.9% of the time.
Ian Cole struggled this game, relative to the others. Cole posted the highest defensive zone turnover rate at 26.7% (team average defensive zone turnover rate was 9.4%). Cole completed 0 passes in the offensive zone, where his biggest issue was failed clearances.
Maatta improved statistically from a defensive rebound standpoint, but his Defensive Zone Turnover rate of 21.9%, was 2nd highest on the team. Maatta committed 7 Defensive zone turnovers on 32 Possessions. I broke down how Hagelin performed relative to the team from an individual possession standpoint:
The chart below shows the Offensive and Defensive Rebound rates for each player. Players with a Corsi% of 50% and above averaged an Offensive Rebound% of 7.1%, and a Defensive Rebound% of 10.6%. Players with a Corsi% below 50% averaged an Offensive Rebound% of 7.9%, and a Defensive Rebound% of 8.6%. Rust had the highest Offensive Rebound% of any player at 40%, grabbing 2 of the 5 rebound available. Bonino had the highest Defensive Rebound% at 22.2%, grabbing 2 of the 9 available.
Seeing the Kessel/Bonino/Hagelin line each having above average rebound%’s is quite impressive. Shows their ability to maintain offensive zone possessions, as well as end their opponent’s offensive zone possessions.
The chart below shows a Passing Analysis for each player. Showing each player’s overall Passing Accuracy% (Completed/(Completed+Failed Attempts). Malkin’s Passing Accuracy% is just about at the team average or 71.2% overall. Malkin’s struggles were in the offensive zone, completing just 25% of his passes (1 Completed/4 Attempted). In just the offensive zone, the team average Passing Accuracy% was 60.3%. Malkin’s 33.3% Turnover% contributed to his subpar Corsi% as well.
This was Kunitz’s worst game in terms of Passing Accuracy (57.1%) in the series thus far. In the prior games, Kunitz posted Passing Accuracy%’s of 92.3%, 75%, and 75%, in games 1,2, and 3 respectively. Hagelin and Crosby each completed the most passes in the offensive zone (6).
The chart below shows combined passes completed to each zone, per each defensive pairing. The Letang/Dumoulin pairing lead the way in combined Corsi% at 55.7%. As you can see from the chart, Letang and Dumoulin were able to advance the play into the Neutral and Offensive zones more often than the other two defensive pairings. So between Letang and Dumoulin, they averaged ~5 completed passes in the offensive zone per possession. The Maatta/Lovejoy pairing averaged 1.5 completed passes in the offensive zone per possession.
This chart shows how combined Passing Accuracy% relates to Corsi%. Maatta and Lovejoy had the lowest combined Corsi% at 46.6%, as well as the lowest combined Passing Accuracy% at 71%.
2016 Cup Finals
San Jose 3, Pittsburgh 2 (OT)
The data presented below are the results of my tracking of Game 3. I track individual possessions, essentially documenting what each player does each time they obtain the puck at even strength(5v5). The idea is to use the underlying data I track to help explain the Corsi% for each player. All Corsi% data is obtained from Corsica.Hockey.
Schultz leads the way again in Corsi% at 72.4%. Posting the 3rd highest Passing Accuracy% of 90%, and the highest Shots On Goal Per Possession% of 17.4%.(Team average SOG Per Possession% was 6.9%) Pittsburgh’s team Turnover% (turnovers per possession) was 26%. Average Turnover% for all players with a Corsi% of 50% or more was 25.3%, where the average for all players below a 50% Corsi% was 27.6%.
Cole led Pittsburgh in Passing Accuracy% at 93.8%. Team average Passing Accuracy% was 74.6%. Cole was 2nd on the team in Passing Completed Per Possession%, by completing 15 Passes on 30 Possessions (15/30=50%).
Game 3 was the highest dump in success rate was 28.9%, this was the highest I have seen it since tracking in the series vs Washington in Game 5. In Game 2 vs San Jose, Pittsburgh’s dump in recovery rate was 21.2%, and 11.5% in Game 1. In Game 3 Pittsburgh was able to recover 11/38 dump ins (28.9%). Pittsburgh’s dump in rate per individual possession was 6.4%.
Maatta and Lovejoy as a defensive pairing, did not fair very well in Game 3. Posting the two lowest Corsi%’s on the team. Both had an above average Passing Accuracy%, and Maatta posted above team averages in SOG Per Possession% (7.9%) and Passes Completed Per Possession% (52.6%). Lovejoy had an above average Turnover% of 34.3%, meaning of his 35 Possessions, 12 resulted in a turnover. Lovejoy and Maatta’s major issues were in the defensive end, having the two highest defensive zone turnover rates at 20% and 15.8% respectively. Just to give you an idea, the team average Defensive Zone Turnover% was 6.5%.
Below is a breakdown of each players’ Offensive and Defensive Rebound%. It’s pretty glaring as to how Maatta and Lovejoy got hemmed in their defensive zone. Maatta had a 0% Offensive Rebound% and a 0% Defensive Rebound%. Of the 30 shots against that were available, Maatta wasn’t able to gather a single one. Lovejoy was able to grab 3 defensive zone rebounds for a 10% Defensive Rebound%. The other two defensive parings averaged a combined 13.6% Defensive Rebound%.
Sheary had the highest Offensive Rebound% at 22.2%, and tied for the 2nd highest Defensive Rebound% at 20%.
Players with a Corsi% of 50% and above Rebound%:
Offensive Rebound%: 7.5%
Defensive Rebound%: 10.6%
Players with a Corsi% below 50% Rebound%:
Offensive Rebound%: 7.7%
Defensive Rebound%: 6.7%
Crosby had his lowest Corsi% of the series thus far at 50%. This can be attributed to his team low Passing Accuracy% of 56.5%. Team average Offensive Zone Passing Accuracy% was 64.6% in Game 3. The chart below shows each players’s Passing Accuracy%. Passing Accuracy% is calculated by: Completed Passes/(Completed Passes+Failed Attempts)
Crosby’s Passing Accuracy% in the offensive zone was 45.5%. He completed 5 of the 11 attempted passes in the offensive zone (5 completed+6 Failed attempts). In the neutral zone, Crosby completed 50% of his passes (2 completed of 4 attempted). In the defensive zone Crosby completed 75% of his passes (6 completed of 8 attempted).
Below is an analysis of each defensive pairings’ individual possessions. Looking at how often each pair completes a pass to a zone per individual possession.
The Letang/Dumoulin pairing had 119 combined individual possessions, and completed 7 offensive zone passes for a 5.8% Offensive Zone Passes Completed Per Possession%. By looking at Offensive and Neutral Zone Passes Completed Per Possession%, you can see which defensive pairs are transitioning the puck up ice more. Maatta and Lovejoy struggled in this area relative to the othe two pairings.
The below shows the combined Passing Accuracy% of the defensive pairings. Cole/Schultz lead the way with a 92.3% Passing Accuracy%, as well as posting the highest combined Corsi% of 65.3%.
2016 Stanley Cup Finals: Game 2
Pittsburgh 2, San Jose 1 (OT)
Based off my tracking from Game 2, this data displays each players individual possession efficiency at even strength(5v5), essentially documenting what each play did once they had the puck in Game 2. All Corsi data is obtained from Corsica.Hockey.
Schultz leads the way again in Corsi% at 75%, posting the 4th highest Passing Accuracy% at 93.3%. The Team average for Passes Completed Per Possession% was 36.6%. Of Schultz’s 25 Possessions at even strength, he completed 14 Passes (14/25=56%). Along with a lower team average in Passes Completed, Pittsburgh’s Turnover%(Turnover Per Possession) was high as well at 28.7%. All players with a Corsi% of 50% and above averaged a Passes Completed% of 42.7%, where all players with a sub 50% Corsi% averaged a 30.5% Passes Completed%.
Crosby again lead the team with the lowest Turnover% of 13.8% and had the highest Passes Completed Per Possession% of 58.6%. It’s incredible how superior his decision making is relative to his teammates, given the high volume of possessions he has each game.
The average dump in rate(dump ins per possession) for players with a 50% Corsi% or higher was 4.8%, where the average dump in rate for players below a 50% Corsi% was 9.7%. Players with a below 50% Corsi%, opted to dump the puck each possession twice as much as players with a 50% Corsi% or higher.
Bonino’s 29.6% Corsi% stands out quite a bit, but his defensive zone Turnover% was the highest on the team at 16.7%, followed by Maatta and Lovejoy at 15.2% and 12.5% respectively. The team average for Defensive zone turnovers per possession was 6.4%.
The breakdown below displays the Passing Analysis for Game 2 at even strength(5v5). Crosby for example, completed 17 passes, 10 were completed in the offensive zone, 3 in the neutral zone, and 4 in the defensive zone. Crosby’s Passing Accuracy% in the Offensive Zone was 90.9% (10 Offensive Zone Passes completed Per 11 Attempts).
The Kuhnhackl/Cullen/Fehr line only attempted 7 passes combined(completed 6), opting to dump the puck in more often each possession at a rate of 19.5%. Pittsburgh’s team average dump ins per possession rate was 7.3%. Pittsburgh’s dump in success rate was 21.2%, meaning dump ins resulted in a turnover 78.8% of the time when choosing to dump the puck in.
Above you can see the Sheary only completed and attempted passes in the offensive zone.(this is a good thing). Sheary needs to improve his offensive zone passing, as his Passing Accuracy% was only 53.3% (Team average was 75.1%). Sheary completed 8 Offensive Zone Passes on 15 attempts (8/15=53.3%).
#43 Sheary: Game 2 Even Strength Possessions(26) breakdown:
2 Attempts Blocked
8 Offensive Zone Passes
7 Offensive Zone Turnovers
1 Neutral Zone Turnover
6 Empty Possessions(missed pass/loss of control but PIT maintains possession)
For this Defensive analysis, I broke down each defensive pairing and assessed how well each pairing did per possession.
The combined Corsi% for each pairing as follows:
To calculate, Letang individually completed 8 Neutral Zone Passes on 47 Possessions, and Dumoulin completed 6 Neutral Zone Passes on 29 Possessions, so (8+6)/(47+29)= 14/76=18.4% Combined Neutral Zone Passes Completed Per Possession. I broke these down into per possession, that way it adjust for ice time.
Using the same concept as above, I calculated each defensive pairing Passing Accuracy% It’s pretty striking at how well their combined Corsi% lines up with their Combined Passing Accuracy%.
The breakdown below shows each players Offensive and Defensive Rebound%.
Connor Sheary lead the way in Offensive Rebound% at 26.7%. Pittsburgh’s team average Offensive Rebound% was 4.8%. Sheary’s ability to track down loose pucks in order to continue offensive zone possessions, helps sustain pressure in the offensive zone. Hornqvist at 14.3% helps further explain as to why the Sheary/Crosby/Hornqvist line all had high 5v5 Corsi% in Game 2.
2016 Stanley Cup Finals: Game 1
Pittsburgh 3, San Jose 2
By evaluating each player on an individual possession level, I can see how efficiently each player performs per each time they have the puck. All data is at even strength(5v5). Each player below is sorted top to bottom by Corsi%. Corsi data was obtained from Corsica.Hockey.
Schultz lead the way is a 69% Corsi%. Schultz was able to complete a pass 16 times out of his 28 possessions at even strength.(16/28=57.1% Passes Per Possession%). Average Passes Per Possession% for the team was 41.4%. Schultz was 2nd lowest on the team in Turnover% at 17.9%. Team average Turnover%(Turnovers Per Possession) was 26.3%, only one player had a lower Turnover%(Maatta). Schultz had the 2nd highest Passing Accuracy% at 94.1%, team average was 73.5%. Schultz had the 2nd highest steal total (10).
Bonino put up a solid Corsi% as well at 60%. Although Bonino’s Passing Accuracy% is slightly below team average, he was able to generate shot attempts with the 18 possessions he had in game 1. Bonino lead the team in SOG Per Possession% at 27.8, meaning that of the 18 possessions he had, he was able to generate a SOG 5 times(5/18=27.8%).
Bonino actually attempted a corsi event(SOG/Miss/Blocked) 38.9% (7 Attempts/18 Possessions) of the time he obtained possession of the puck. Bonino’s Turnover% of 22.2% was below the team average of 26.3%. Bonino’s Passing Accuracy% measures the number of completed passes/per pass attempt. Bonino attempted 9 passes at even strength and completed 6 of them. (6/9=66.7%). 2 of Bonino’s pass attempts that failed were in the offensive zone, and 1 in the neutral zone.
Below is a Passing Analysis which shows how efficient each player was when attempting a pass. Schultz, Kunitz, Cullen, and Maatta lead the way in Passing Accuracy% at 94.1%, 92.3%, 100%, and 87.5% respectively. All 4 except Cullen, are below the team average in Turnover% understandably. Looking at the columns below, you see “Attempted Passes to Offensive Zone”. This represents failed passes that were intended to go to teammates in that particular zone. For example, Crosby completed 22 passes, so in order to calculate Crosby’s Passing Accuracy% you would add 22+6+1+1 = 30 attempts(22/30=73.3% Passing Accuracy%). The Passing Accuracy% formula is completed passes/(completed + attempted).
The chart below shows Rebound% for all players at even strength(5v5). Players with a Corsi% 50% or above averaged an individual Defensive Rebound% of 11%, where players below a 50% Corsi% averaged 8.2%. The ability to obtain defensive rebounds can end an opponent’s offensive zone pressure. Olli Maatta had the worst Corsi% of any Pittsburgh player.
Although Maatta’s Per Possession stats with the puck are good, his Offensive and Defensive Rebound%’s were both 0%. Maatta was getting hemmed in his own zone, and beaten to loose pucks resulting from shot attempts. In Game 5 vs Tampa Bay, Maatta had an Offensive Rebound% of 9.1% and a Defensive Rebound% of 33.3%, while posting the highest Corsi% on the team.
Dump ins stand out as another issue for the Penguins. Players that have a +50% Corsi% have a Dump in% of 3.7%, meaning that for every 100 individual possessions, those players with dump the puck in 3.7 times. For all players below a 50% Corsi%, their Dump in% was 11.1%. The “Dump In” column represents dump ins, where the “Dump In(Turnover)” column represents how many of those dump ins resulted in turnovers. The Cullen/Kuhnhackl/Fehr line is a complete mess. I feel as though their skills are being wasted by their decisions to dump the puck in constantly.
Pittsburgh’s dump in success rate was 11.5%, meaning that 88.5% of the time their dump ins resulted in turnovers.(23/26). The Cullen/Kuhnhackl/Fehr line had individual dump in%’s of 13.3%, 41.7%, and 17.6%. Pittsburgh as a whole, averaged 5.8% (dump ins per individual possessions).
Below I broke down where each players turnovers occurred at even strength(5v5).
The data below is the result of the even strength(5v5) Individual Possession tracking from Game 7 between Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh. Essentially I am documenting what each player is doing each time they obtain possession of the puck. Players are sorted top to bottom by 5v5 Corsi%(obtained from Corsica.Hockey).
High shots on goal per possession% reflects the players efficiency to obtain shots on goal per each individual possession. For example, Sheary had 5 SOG on 20 possessions (5/20 = 25%). Players with low Passes Per Possession%, can make up for it in obtaining SOG. Assuming that if a player is not passing the puck, he is shooting it.
All players with a 50% Corsi% and above have an average of 39.8% Passes Per Possession%, where all players below a Corsi% of 50% average a 31.4% Passes Per Possession%. This % refers to players completed passes per each individual possession.
Offensive Rebound% can overcome players with a high Turnover%. Essentially players who struggle to enter the offensive zone (high Turnover%) can overcome this by obtaining offensive rebounds to extend possessions in the offensive zone. Offensive Rebound%’s for players with a +50% Corsi% average a 9.5% Offensive Rebound%. Players with a sub 50% Corsi% average a 7.5% Offensive Rebound%.
Per my tracking, I breakdown each players passes by zone. I document the end point of each pass (where it was received by a teammate).
To calculate, Hornqvist had 7 offensive zone passes on 22 Possessions(7/22=31.8%) Offensive Zone Passes Per Possession%. It quite obvious that players who can compile passes in the offensive zone, will extend their zone time. As a result, their Corsi% will increase due to more opportunities for shot attempts.
Pittsburgh is still struggling with Dump ins, with a success rate of 15.8% on average. This means that when Pittsburgh dumps the puck in, they will turn it over 84.2% of the time.
For Game 7, I added a new layer to my tracking; “Passing Accuracy%”. Fairly straight forward, Passes Completed/Passes Attempted. This will be able to tell us which zones of the ice players struggle to advance the puck into.
What stands out is that Malkin attempted 17 Passes and completed 100% of them. (100% Passing Accuracy%). If the pass failed, it will show up in the “Attempted Passes To Zone” column. For example, Dumoulin completed 13 passes, and failed on 6 of those passes. (13/19=68.4%) Passing Accuracy%.
Dumoulin failed on 1 attempt to the Offensive Zone, 3 Attempts to the Neutral Zone, and 2 attempts to the Defensive Zone. Passing Accuracy% for players at or above 50% Corsi% was 79.3%, where the average for players below 50% Corsi% was 73.1%.