As an example, Shawn Horcoff has been taking faceoffs for the Oilers for a long time, and his percentages are going the wrong way. Is that because his skill in this area eroded? Or is it because the group of players beside him are not experienced enough to urge the puck in the right direction?
- 2002-03: (24) 42.9% in 301 sorties
- 2003-04: (25) 50.6% in 1378 sorties
- 2005-06: (27) 52.7% in 1421 sorties
- 2006-07: (28) 50.6 in 1422 sorties
- 2007-08: (29) 50.6% in 963 sorties
- 2008-09: (30) 53.9% in 1756 sorties (#1 on team)
- 2009-10: (31) 46.4% in 1337 sorties
- 2010-11: (32) 48.3% in 813 sorties
In 08-09, the year he led the team in FO percentage (and took a lot of them), Horcoff played mostly with Penner-Hemsky (21%) and then will guys like Ales Kotalik and Erik Cole. Veterans.
In 09-10 (the first slide), Horcoff played at even strength with Moreau-Pisani (15%) and then the rest of the time with people like Patrick O'Sullivan and JF Jacques. He spent less than 6% of that season with Penner-Hemsky.
In 10-11, Horcoff spent 26% of his even strength time with Hall-Eberle, 15% with Penner-Hemsky. His FO percentage improved, perhaps indicating that the two rookies this season were better than the group from the previous year.
At a guess, I'd say Horcoff's fall off has something to do with injury, but there's a healthy dose of rookies and aging veterans on the wing who have helped the erosion along.
What say you?
Interesting point.
ReplyDeleteIt brings to mind a question I've been mulling over for some time -- how many face-offs are actually "won" by either of the centres involved? In watching any given game it seems most draws are to some extent or other, scrambled, with possesion obtained by one of the other eight players. indeed, quite frequently, neither centre even touches the puck.
Comments all?
Bad shoulder, wingers that don't win battles, having to take EVERY critical faceoff, I don't know who would look good under those conditions.
ReplyDeleteGive him some support, and he will quit being *subnar*.
KSC,
ReplyDeleteExactly. You might win 1/3 cleanly, the opposition might win 1/3 cleanly, and that leaves 1/3 of the pucks laying there as you tie each other up.
That's where the wingers can make the difference.
(my 1/3s analogy is an example only, and should not be construed as a statistical fact)
Now, if the mosquitoes will give me a break, I might BBQ some *beafes* tonight.
Bad teams are going to lose more face-offs. Bad teams are going to lose the puck more often even if the center did win the face off.
ReplyDeleteJust to put it into perspective, a 2% drop in face-off percentage over 1,000 total is 20. Spread over 82 games it's one extra loss every 4 games.
The question I have is, are declining stats like face-offs a symptom or a cause?
Could be bad teams just lose more draws and get more goals scored against them and fewer for, just because they are, well, bad.
Yeah a definite mix of all factors: shoulder injury, inexperienced kids, aging/useless linemates, humungous workload. Maybe his own age comes into it too, but he's younger than Belanger so I wouldn't have thought that would have much effect.
ReplyDeleteEasyOil
Perhaps there's a more advanced (albeit more subjective) way of tracking face-offs?
ReplyDeleteWhat if we tracked face-offs not just as win/loss, but as win/loss/winger-win/winger-loss?
e.g.
1) Belanger takes a face-off and wins it cleanly back to Whitney = win.
2) Belanger loses a face-off to the opposing team cleanly = loss.
3) The face-off is a wash, the centres tie each other up, Smyth swoops in and wins the puck back to Whitney = Winger win
4) Same example as "3", but opposing team's winger takes puck = Winger loss
5) Belanger wins the puck back, but the opposing winger jumps in and takes the puck before it gets back to Whitney or Smyth = Winger loss
Subjective? Yes. More informative? Possibly. Winger wins could mean the centre is better able to "not-lose" a draw (particularly important in the defensive zone) or it could mean more experienced wingers or both.
PS: I'm not sure why I used Belanger as an example when the thread was clearly about Horcoff... it's early.
ReplyDeleteIf this was true, why was Chris Vandevelde winning over 50% of his FO's on a team that was scraping the bottom of the barrel just to fill a line up. LT I think your blowing smoke out of your a$$ on this one. Horcoff's play has sucked ever since he signed that big contract
ReplyDeleteFor sure wingers make a difference on FO%. I've thought the same too, but it's tough to prove. But really if your wings can't battle for loose picks, you will lose more draws than you should. I'd be interested to see an on ice fo% stat, and/or a fo% with and without players too.
ReplyDeleteLast year's team FO% from best to worst.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that 4 of the top 11 were not playoff teams.
VAN 54.9
SJS 53.7
DET 51.9
FLA 51.9
BOS 51.9
WSH 51.6
PHX 51.5
CBJ 51.2
NJD 51.2
LAK 51.1
OTT 50.8
CHI 50.8
MIN 50.8
COL 50.6
TOR 50.5
TBL 50.4
PHI 50.3
NSH 50.2
NYI 50.1
DAL 50
PIT 49.2
MTL 49
ATL 48.7
CGY 48.2
NYR 47.7
ANA 47.7
BUF 47.7
STL 47.3
CAR 44.6
EDM 44.2
Martin St. Louis won at least two faceoffs a game in the Boston series for whichever center he was skating with.
ReplyDeletegreat post LT. Could our lack of size combined with experience mean even more to faceoff percentage? Now Gagner may disprove that, as he played a good chunk of the year with vets (I think), but small wingers without NHL experience has to impact the percentages negatively. We'll really see this in the fall when Belanger is down to below 50% and everyone is calling him old and washed up, and not looking at the sophomore wingers he has.
ReplyDeleteI think a huge step will be the additions of Smyth, and even eager who will battle. And if you replace Cogs with Lander at 4C I think overall centre becomes an area of strength with 3 two way centres. I know it is prospects camp, but apparently Lander has looked like the best centre, and he has increased his speed (which they said was his area of need last season).
Not many playoff teams in the below 50 category.
ReplyDeleteBelow 45 is ridiculous.
I want to add that matchups make a difference.
Jokinen v Fraser is gonna come out different over time than Stoll v Maholtra.
That's part of the problem with Horc, he was the only guy so he always faced the best.
While the battle of wingers for a draw is a factor, I think Horc's percentages are mostly a reflection of the ability of the other centres on the Oilers and how that translates to the quality of opposition Horcoff has to face on the dot.
ReplyDeleteWhen Stoll, Peca and Reasoner were in Edmonton, Horcoff didn't have to face the best all the time and neither did they. There was more balance in the relative quality of the opposing centre and all four good faceoff guys won more than their share.
Since then, Horcoff has to take far more draws against the best faceoff guys, so he loses more. Belanger could end up helping Horcoff's numbers, maybe Gagner's too.
Zenon Konopka had 58% playing with goons and the shinebox.
ReplyDeleteJust luck, injury and matchup.
the faceoff stat should be as relevant for winger as the centremen when it comes to how the stat is delivered.
ReplyDeletewe should be able to look up, faceoff percentage while X player is on the ice, similar to how we are able to look at on ice save percentage.
it would be interesting to see which wingers hover in the 40% mark
So many factors influence FO %
ReplyDeleteHow many were PP and how many PK? How many were defensive zone draws after an icing when everyone was gassed? How much did the wingers impact the result? How much do the D men impact? (they line up on the inside of the circle in the defensive zone). How much time did the Oilers spend on FO practice given they had guys that needed to learn other basic things? How does one scorer judge a FO win compared to another?
There is a lot of noise there.
And of course there is the question of whether it really matters. What study has been done seems to indicate it may not - although you think it would. For example, if Horc gets the puck back to Strudwick and he immediately rings the puck around to the point where it is picked off by Lidstrom, does it really matter?
Just like ordinary lines of work, if you make one guy do all of the heavy lifting he gets tired.
ReplyDeleteHorcoff should be respected for watching his career take hits while carrying the schmozle that has been the Oilers. He did this while oft injured, and has kept a great attitude.
On a team full of young players, that is a great example of how to be a team player.
No, he's not the best player in the league, yes he got overpaid, but he is a very good hockey player and human. And he's good at face offs.
Lowetide,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love that you have started this conversation. You might remember me annoyingly (I call it persistently) harping about this at some point a few weeks ago. Like you say, it's a very tough nut to crack.
For those who are dismissing it out of hand, I should point out that the only way to get clarity on this is to compare the center to his own past performance. Konopka vs. Horcoff vs. Belanger doesn't do a thing - we already know it's tough to account for variables such as injury, different opponents, streaks, etc so adding an even bigger variable just mucks up an already dirty lens.
In a perfect world, you'd have a centre's performance over several years. None of these years would involve injury. All of these years would have consistent opposition and on-ice context. The only differences would be the wingers. Then and only then could you draw reasonable conclusions, IMO.
Obviously, we don't have that sort of clarity and life gets in the way of perfect modeling but I think these discussions are a good step in the right direction.
I also wonder how much of it was the coaching from the bench.
ReplyDeleteI know when MacT was here, that it made a big difference depending on what side the faceoff was on whether he was sending out a RH or LH centerman to take the draw.
Whether it was in the offensive or defensive zone probably had more to do with his personnel, but the RH/LH thing was big.
One question I have - were you looking at Horcoff specifically so we could get into another year long debate about whether he can hold a candle to Shinebox Robbie or just because he's taken a lot of faceoffs for EDM over the years? :)
ReplyDeleteBased on the very interesting (seriously) conversation about LH-RH the other day, I'd love to see what people have to say about how using your dominant hand low vs high impacts face-offs.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like something where you'd want your dominant hand low (but please correct me if I'm wrong), which makes me wonder about how the elite and terrible FO guys in the league break down according to whether they're shooting with their dominant hand or not.
Just to expand on my last comment, I looked at the numbers and it seems that MacT definitely spread out the faceoffs more between RH and LH faceoff men.
ReplyDeleteRenney: RH - 29.4%, LH - 70.6%
Quinn: RH - 30.8%, LH - 69.2%
MacT: RH - 38.5%, LH - 61.5%
MacT's numbers are an average of his last 3 years and I only took players who took 100 faceoffs or more. Renney and Quinn were about a 70-30 split, and MacT was 60-40 in favor of LHC. Horcoff seemed to be everyone's go-to).
Stoll getting hurt halfway through the 06/07 season really sung the percentages away from the RHCs. Only Pouliot (46 games) and Nedved (16 games and clearly a shell of his former self) were the only RH centers in the system.
LT,
ReplyDeleteWhither "Sail on, Crazy Train"?
Great point, imo, Henry..
ReplyDelete"When Stoll, Peca and Reasoner were in Edmonton, Horcoff didn't have to face the best all the time and neither did they. There was more balance in the relative quality of the opposing centre and all four good faceoff guys won more than their share."
misterloob - If you're looking for the post..it's here.
ReplyDeleteI figure Horcoffs falling numbers are due to injury(ies?). I also seem to remember that the officials were dropping the puck differently somehow for the last couple of seasons. It might just be in my head.
http://lowetide.blogspot.com/2011/06/sail-on-baie-comeau-drakkar.html
ReplyDeleteAnother place where faceoffs make a significant difference is on the pk.
ReplyDeleteForget where I saw it, but when you lose the faceoff on the PK, the chances of a goal being scored against you shoot up dramatically.
When you only have one truly reliable faceoff option (Horcoff) and you keep running him into the ground - and you know he's hurt, the numbers are no surprise.
It would not surprise me if healthy Horcoff has a bounce back kind of year just because he's not having to shoulder the entire load.
Great stuff here as always LT.
Not enough attention is given to the side that a draw is being taken from.
ReplyDeleteMost of you know this but for the uninformed, it's much easier to take a draw and win it on your back hand using a reverse grip on your lower hand. When you win, the puck will usually go back at a 45 degree angle. If, for instance, you are in the defensive zone on the left side of the goalie, you don't want a right handed player taking the draw, because the natural tendancy is to put the puck directly back to the goalie. This is why coaches try to have left and right shooting players who are proffecient at faceoffs on the ice and on the roster.
FYI - Gilbert Brule took 199 face offs last year and scored %53. He only took left side draws.
When people say Horcoff faced the "tough matchups" in terms of face offs I don't buy it. I don't realy see any correlation between quality of centre and quality of faceoff percentage. If Horcoff is playing the toughs, it doesn't not mean that he is going against the best faceoff guys.
ReplyDeleteHaving no right handed reliable centers on the team the past two years has probably hurt Horcoff. He always has to go out and take draws on his weak side.
Misfit made a good point about coaching too. MacT clearly focused a lot more on draws then his successors. They seemed to practice faceoffs more, and guys were sent out more often on their strong side.
Also, MacT frequently sent out two centers on own zone draws. That allowed the primary center to cheat a bit more because he knew there was a good faceoff guy to back him up if he got kicked from the circle.
With so many possible variables it is hard to say which of them have the biggest impacts or if they have any sizable impact at all.
Ribs, LT,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the re-post; I'd forgotten that the end actually came when the Oil chose not to qualify him.
Or maybe the whole thing is being overthought and just like scoring, a player is either good/consistent or he's not. Yanic Perreault was always near the top whether he was in Tor, Mtl, Nash, Phx or Timbuktu. Maholtra in Colu, SJ or Van, Stoll in Edm or LA.
ReplyDeleteStrong team or weak team these guys are just good at what they do no matter what the occasion or whose riding shotgun. Doesn't seem to be a talent that erodes with age either.
In Horoff's case his numbers have probably slipped from a combination of exhaustion and injury more than anything else. That'll happen when you're the only decent centre on a team. There is some correlation between him having Hemsky and Penner/Smyth and himself healthy for a good portion of any season but it doesn't explain why his replacements came in and bettered his numbers some years.
Horcoff might be more dependent on his supporting cast than some others mentioned. Maybe he's just one of those tweeners that just don't win as many clean and need help finishing things off. Whatever the case the guys been asked to take on too much for too many years.
He played a lot of 09-10 with a bum wing and two bums on his wings. That would certainly explain a bunch of it. Plus, I'd imagine he's taking more than his share of PK faceoffs and less than his share of PP faceoffs, which is really going to impact the average.
ReplyDeleteI remember someone (Scott? Derek? Gabe?) looking at the best face-off men and finding that they tended to stay the best well past the point where other skills started to fall off, guys like Brind'Amour for example. I'd imagine circumstance and injury contributing moreso than a genuine loss of skill.
The question I would ask on the whole faceoff question is this: is it not a teachable skill? Was this something MacT was able to personally advise his drawmen on in a way that Renney and OTC (when he was here) can't?
ReplyDeleteCan we bring someone in to help - beyond Belanger? Seriously, what is Oates doing with his retirement.
I remember Crosby set about becoming a better faceoff man when he found out that it was one of those rare facets of his game that he wasn't dominant in. Now he's above 50%. Sure it's Crosby but the point is that he was able to improve with focus practice.
Surely we are going to want Gagner and RNH to do the same - who do we get in to do the tutoring?
Doogie2K said...I'd imagine he's taking more than his share of PK faceoffs and less than his share of PP faceoffs, which is really going to impact the average
ReplyDeleteNot 100% sure this is relevant. Usually the best FO guy is out for PK's rather than PP's no? I'd think there is more emphasis on winning a faceoff shorthanded vs a man up and that your best FO man isn't necessarily you best PP centre.
Not a hard and fast rule for sure.
The question I would ask on the whole faceoff question is this: is it not a teachable skill?
ReplyDelete@ Douglas: Face-off is part teaching/technique, part reflex. part strength and as you can glean from some of the comments here it's also who you line up with. You get some savvy vets on the wing and they'll help you to steal a couple here and there.
But I think a good deal of it too is reflexes. I've seen many who have all the technique down but for whatever reason just seem to be a hair slow and that can make a big difference as well.
cabbiesmacker said...Usually the best FO guy is out for PK's rather than PP's no? I'd think there is more emphasis on winning a faceoff shorthanded vs a man up and that your best FO man isn't necessarily you best PP centre.
ReplyDeleteI think this is something that varies team by team and player by player. For example, Crosby is by far the best faceoff guy in PIT but rarely takes PK faceoffs. Yet Toews took the majority of both PP and PK faceoffs in CHI this past season. It just depends.
Oddly enough, Gagne was 50% on the PP last season...wow, I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years.
Since MacT can't seem to find another coaching gig, maybe he'd come back as our face-off guru.
ReplyDeleteI mean the guy was called on to take arguably the most significant face-off in NHL history (for the Rangers, in their zone up one on Vancouver at the end of Game 7 in '94 with Vancouver's net empty) and he won it.
I read most of the comments and didn't see any remarks on the strategy of getting waved out, or, in recent seasons, Horcoff's strategy of *not* getting waved out.
ReplyDeleteIn critical situations, how often did MacT run out a *second* dominant faceoff man? When Stoll was running the point, the 1st unit power play always had a guy who could step up. I mostly listen to games on the radio, so I couldn't say whether Stoll rotated into the dot on the PP or not. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Whatever, I've got enough words already.
Note that the edge from this strategy comes from cheating the drop *when you get away with it*. How much you risk depends on the cost of punishment. With CFP behind you, the cost is relatively low. With Stoll beside you ready to cycle in, the cost is low.
Wingers certainly make a difference! Often we think only of the injury situation or that he is tired with his workload but I think this is a great comment.
ReplyDelete@DeadmanWaking Stoll did step in to take the face-off from time to time when he was on the point of the powerplay and the centre was waived.
To me it's pretty obvious that everything on the ice is interconnected. I would say that, along with faceoffs, injuries, puck possession, and positioning are all directly connected to the quality of players and experience you have on the ice.
ReplyDeleteThe game moves so fast in in subtle ways that one rookie mistake can make the whole team look bad. I think that Horcoff must be excited to have help this year. Help for Horcoff means that he has a better chance of staying healthy.
This is why this kind of move should have been made 3 years ago. They sign Horcoff for a large contract like he is the mule that will pull along this mess until we have draft picks. If I were him, I'd be pretty pissed off about that.
MacT was a huge fan of the splits with the RH and LF centre with 16 and 10 being the go-to guy on either side and Reasoner being second to Horc for the LH side.
ReplyDeleteBelanger's gonna take some heat off 10 but I still wish he was RH just so we'd have some balance.
Good topic though
Don't forget Brodziak who took a shitload of RH faceoffs in MacT's last two years before being unceremoniously traded for scraps. The Horc/Brodz duo shared a lot of own zone draws with the first man in the circle being the guy whose "side" it was on. No doubt this helped the %s of both men, not to mention the team as a whole.
ReplyDeleteToo bad Belanger is a LH shot. This is an area where Gagner could really help himself and the team if he showed some ... any ... improvement.
Agree with LT that last year Oilers wingers were collectively abysmal at helping out. It seemed like Oilers lost about 80% of scrambled draws. ALL of the centres had crappy FO numbers, which is highly suggestive that it's not just them but truly a team deficiency.