NHL Possession Efficiency Ratings

NHL statistics, ratings, possession analysis

PIT@NSH Game 3: Microstats

leave a comment »

Pittsburgh at Nashville Game 3:  2017 NHL Playoffs
Individual Possession Analysis
Nashville 5, Pittsburgh 1

The below charts are the results of my individual possession tracking.  Essentially documenting what each player does per each possession they have at 5v5.  Corsi%’s were retrieved from Hockeystats.ca.  The below chart shows each player’s turnovers per possession, and which zone they occurred in.

Overall Malkin had 19 individual possessions at 5v5, and committed a turnover 10 times (.53 or 53% of his possessions).  Kunitz did not fair much better, committing 7 turnovers on 14 individual possessions (.50 or 50% turnover rate).  Malkin had the highest offensive zone turnover rate at 5v5 at .37 offensive zone turnovers per possession.

The team average turnover rates at 5v5 per each zone for game 3 are as follows:
Overall  .27  (~2.7 turnovers per every 10 individual possessions)
Offensive Zone .124  (~1.24 offensive zone turnovers per every 10 individual possessions)
Neutral zone .04  (~1 neutral zone turnover per every 25 individual possessions)
Defensive zone .05  (~1 defensive zone turnover per every 20 individual possessions)
Dump ins .05  (~1 dump in turnover per every 20 individual possessions)

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 11.32.31 PM

As you can see above, the players that were able to reduce turnovers in the neutral zone, were able to achieve a higher corsi%.  Kunitz struggled in the neutral zone, committing a turnover on 43% of his individual possessions at 5v5.  Malkin and Kunitz had the two highest neutral zone turnover rates at .11 and .43 respectively.

The players with a sub 50% corsi% for the most part, were unsuccessful at dump in attempts at a higher rate than those with above average corsi%’s.  With most committing turnovers on dump ins at almost twice the team average of .05 (~1 in 20 individual possessions).   Hagelin at .10 (~1 dump in turnover per 10 individual possessions), Hornqvist at .10, Daley at .08, Cole at .10, Kessel at .07, and Kunitz at .07 dump in turnovers per individual possession.  Pittsburgh has far too much talent to settling for dump ins as a means to enter the offensive zone.

Below shows each players pass attempt success rate to each zone at 5v5 (Completed/Attempted).  The blank squares reflect that a player did not attempt any passes in that particular zone.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 9.50.33 PM

The below chart shows each player’s shot attempts per possession(SOG, Missed, Att Blocked), as well as their shot attempt assists per individual possession.

The team averages for game 3 were:
Shot Attempts Per Possession: .11 (~1 Shot Attempt per 9 individual possessions)
Shot Attempt Assist Per Possession: .07 (~1 Shot Att Ast per 14 individual possessions)

Conor Sheary led the way in shot attempts per possession at .35, which was more than 3 times the team average of .11 shot attempts per individual possession.  Crosby and Cullen had the highst shot attempt assist rates at .20 each.  So 20% of Crosby’s individual possessions at 5v5, resulted in him passing the puck to a teammate who then recored a shot attempt.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 10.09.22 PM

By looking at rebound%’s, one can see how possession spells can continue in the offensive zone, as well as relieving defensive zone pressure.  In game 3, the average offensive rebound% at 5v5 was 13.9%, and the average defensive rebound% was 7.6%.  As a defensemen, Olli Maatta grabbing 25% of the offensive rebounds available at 5v5 is very impressive.

The average offensive rebound% for players with a corsi% of 50% and above was 15.2%. The average defensive rebound% at 5v5 was 9.5%.  For players with a sub 50% corsi% at 5v5, the average offensive rebound% was 12.5%, and the average defensive rebound% was 6.5%.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 10.46.58 PM

The chart below shows each players passes completed to a zone per each invidivudal possession at 5v5.  For example, Crosby had 30 5v5 individual possessions, of those 30, he completed 10 passes in the offensive zone (.33), 1 pass completed in the neutral zone (.03), and 2 passes completed in the defensive zone (.13).

This provides a better visual as to how which players/lines were able to sustain longer attacks in Nashville’s end.  The Kessel-Malkin-Kunitz line struggled significantly to establish themselves in the offensive end.

Ron Hainsey had the highest defensive zone passes completed per possession at .29 (2.9 defensive zone passes completed per every 10 individual possessions).  Hainsey had 31 possessions for the game, so 9 of those 31 possessions ended with him completing a pass in the defensive zone.

Pittsburgh’s Defensemen; Dumoulin, Schultz, Hainsey, Daley, and Cole spent a significant portion of their individual possessions making passes in the defensive zone.  Maatta was the lone bright spot on the Penguins blue line in game 3.  Maatta had the highest Offensive Zone Passes completed per possession at .18 (so 18% of Maatta’s individual possessions were comprised of passes completed in the offensive zone at 5v5).

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 11.08.10 PM

Amongst other things, I also document steals by each player and the zone they occur in.  Players who may turn the puck over in any zone, or fail to get a rebound, may try and makeup for that by getting a steal.  Below is the raw count for each player at 5v5 during game 3.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 11.30.04 PM


Written by RReed

June 4, 2017 at 11:35 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: