NHL Possession Efficiency Ratings

NHL statistics, ratings, possession analysis

PIT@WSH 10/28/15

leave a comment »

I evaluated this game by tracking how all possessions end at 5v5 play.  This gives insight into how efficient each team is once they have gained control of the puck.  Below is a breakdown of how each possession ended for Pittsburgh and Washington at 5v5:

Possession Ended Washington End Possesion % Pittsburgh End Possession%
SOG no Rebound 7 5.1 7 5.1
Miss no Rebound 5 3.7 4 2.9
A/B no Rebound 4 2.9 5 3.6
Turnovers 74 54.4 57 41.6
Dump ins/Clearances 34 25.0 51 37.2
Faceoff Loss 10 7.4 10 7.3
Penalty 1 0.7 1 0.7
Goals 1 0.7 2 1.5
Total Possessions: 136 137

On the surface everything seems even, but the dump ins/clearances and turnovers discrepancy reflect a variation in styles of play.  Separating the dump ins and clearances, all of which represent a possession ending for each team.

A period by period breakdown shows the Penguins dump in counts: 1st period 16, 2nd period 10, and 3rd period 15.  Pittsburgh’s willingness to give up possession was quite consistent throughout the game, and allowed Washington more opportunities for offensive zone possessions.  Below is a breakdown showing Pittsburgh and Washington’s Offensive Zone Efficiency:

Washington Pittsburgh
Offensive Zone Possessions 72 56
Offensive Zone Turnover% 68.1 64.3
Offensive Zone Efficiency 36.1 32.1

Pittsburgh’s offensive zone possessions were noticeably less than Washington’s due to their dump in frequency.  Washington obtained 16 more offensive zone possessions, and recorded a shot on goal on 36.1% of the time.  Pittsburgh was slightly less efficient at 32.1%.  The 5v5 shot on goal totals were 26-18 in favor of Washington.


Above are the rebound totals from each shot attempt.  Washington was able to retain possession following a shot on goal and a shot attempt that was blocked at a higher rate than Pittsburgh.  Aside from the 72 offensive zone possessions Washington had, this gives some insight into how Washington was able to generate is Corsi% of 55.9% versus 44.1% for Pittsburgh.

Per my tracking I am also able to analyze defensive zone efficiency for both teams.  This is a way of evaluating how efficient each team is in successfully moving the puck out of their zone upon gaining possession in the defensive zone.  These defensive zone possessions result from retrieving dump ins, obtaining defensive rebounds, an offensive zone turnover by their opponent, and winning a faceoff in the defensive zone.

Pittsburgh Defensive Zone Turnover Rate: 12 turnovers on 98 defensive zone possessions ( 12.2% )

Washington Defensive Zone Turnover Rate: 11 turnovers on 99 defensive zone possessions ( 11.1% )


Written by RReed

October 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: