The Oilers Faceoff Prowess

[PDO]

Individual stats:
# 1 Stoll 62.9%
# 8 Peca 60.1%
#28 Horcoff 53.6%
#30 Reasoner 53.2%

Team stats:
#1 Oilers 57.7%
#2 Preds 55.9%

Mr. Adam Oates.. job well done. We were last in the league last time around.. now (albeit early) we're in first.

[Canadian26]

Winning face offs is a key to any game, you cant score unless you have puck possesion. Its good to see that, we where really hurting in the face off circle last year.

[TimmyTabasco]

The Preds are second due to Perrault and Johnson

It looks like it was a smart move to sign Perrault

[Iced Tea]

Individual stats:
# 1 Stoll 62.9%
# 8 Peca 60.1%
#28 Horcoff 53.6%
#30 Reasoner 53.2%

Team stats:
#1 Oilers 57.7%
#2 Preds 55.9%

Mr. Adam Oates.. job well done. We were last in the league last time around.. now (albeit early) we're in first.Interesting that you take the Faceoff% Leaders list off NHL.com. It might be better to look at the faceoff % for all NHL forwards no matter the number of faceoffs taken. You can argue that forwards who take few faceoffs shouldn't count but they should because when the centre gets thrown out of the faceoff, you hope the winger knows how to win. On the list of all forwards, Stoll is 29th, Peca is 44th, Horcoff is 99th and Reasoner is 101st.

Of course the first 15 have 100% success after winning 3 or less faceoffs but #16, RW Matt Bradley of the Caps has won 7 of 7, good player to have on the ice if the centre gets thrown out.

#20 is where the faceoff opportunities start to climb with #20, Michael Zigomanis(C) of Carolina having 18 wins and 8 losses in 26 faceoffs for a 69.2% success rate. Considering he's played 6 games, that's pretty good.

#27 Sergei Brylin(LW) of the Devils has 13 wins and 7 losses in 20 faceoffs for a 65.0% success rate. He's played 11 games.

#28 Sean Avery(C) of the Kings has 26 wins and 15 losses in 41 faceoffs for a 63.4% success rate with 11 games played and 4th line minutes.

So Stoll has a good success rate for the number of faceoffs he has taken but he isn't the best of the NHL, let alone centres.

[Daryl Shilling]

One annoying thing is to find league websites that don't place a qualifier on rate stats. For my part, I like take a similar stance as Major League Baseball on this, and place minimums. For faceoffs, at this stage of the season: a minimum of 135 Face-Offs Taken, and here's why.

Teams take an average of 62.6 Face-Offs per game. Split equally among four lines, that's an average 15.6 Face-Off opportunities per centre (or the winger moved into the circle), and NHL teams have played an average of 11.5 games so far. I favor using something similar to MLB's cut-off for Batting Average: roughly 75%.

Of course, face-offs aren't distributed equally. Better face-off men take more than weaker players, but this represents a down-the-middle method of determining a rate stat minimums for this category. For NHL Face-Offs, so far this season:

(15.6 Face-Off Opportunties X 11.5 GP Average) X 0.75 = 135 Face-Offs Taken minimum (at this time)

This, of course, essentially updates after each night.

Face-Off Percentage Leaders (min. 135 FOT)
1. Jarrett Stoll, EDM, 62.9
2. Chris Drury, BUF, 62.8
3. Rod Brind'Amour, 62.6
4. Bobby Holik, ATL, 61.3
5. Greg Johnson, NSH, 60.4
6. Dave Scatchard, BOS, 60.2
7. Mike Peca, EDM, 60.1
8. Mike Sillinger, STL, 59.4
9. Stephane Yelle, CGY, 58.9
10. Manny Malhotra, CBS, 58.5

Of course, winning more face-offs still doesn't relate very well to winning more, or scoring more goals, allowing fewer, taking fewer penalties. All of these thing have only the slightest relationship to winning face-offs, as much as I'd prefer to win a draw rather than lose one.

Daryl

[PDO]

Of course, winning more face-offs still doesn't relate very well to winning more, or scoring more goals, allowing fewer, taking fewer penalties. All of these thing have only the slightest relationship to winning face-offs, as much as I'd prefer to win a draw rather than lose one.

Daryl

Depends on the faceoff Daryl.. I'd argue very differently, (although, I've never taken a look at it statistically, nor am I sure that it's even possible..) for 2 reasons..

#1) Puck possession time. Winning a faceoff means you automatically have the puck, and the other team doesn't. Whether it's in your own end, or the oppositions end, it allows for set plays (either a breakout or a shot on goal, which both lead to positive things). Just off the top of my head we scored 2 goals against Dallas directly because of this.

#2) Special teams. These faceoffs are huge, because on the PK winning the faceoff can mean killing 20 seconds off the penalty, likewise, on the PP it can mean having instant puck possesion in the zone, which is directly related to PP success.

[Daryl Shilling]

Depends on the faceoff Daryl.. I'd argue very differently, (although, I've never taken a look at it statistically, nor am I sure that it's even possible..) for 2 reasons..

Keep in mind that I didn't say there is no relationship, only that the relationship isn't great. Yes, you can point to individual times when the club won a face-off and scored a goal, or cleared the zone. I never said those things don't occur.

You can certainly study some of these aspects with statistics.

#1) Puck possession time. Winning a faceoff means you automatically have the puck, and the other team doesn't. Whether it's in your own end, or the oppositions end, it allows for set plays (either a breakout or a shot on goal, which both lead to positive things). Just off the top of my head we scored 2 goals against Dallas directly because of this.

And how long does that possession last? Until the next face-off? How many goals are scored difrectly from face-offs? You note the Oilers' face-off success, and how it resulted in two goals against Dallas, while also completely ignoring their dominance on face-offs during a 7 game losing streak. Correlation coefficients between winning face-offs and:

Shots on Goal: 0.04
Goals For: 0.01

If there was a strong relationship between winning face-offs and getting more shots or more goals, we'd see a much higher correlation between them. You need a correlation of 0.6 to even begin suggesting there's a strong link between them.

#2) Special teams. These faceoffs are huge, because on the PK winning the faceoff can mean killing 20 seconds off the penalty, likewise, on the PP it can mean having instant puck possesion in the zone, which is directly related to PP success.

Correlation between Face-Win% and Special Teams
PP%: 0.06
PK%: 0.20

Again, there's nothing even close to a strong relationship here. If it is SO vitally important to win face-offs to have success in these situations, then why isn't there a strong correlation between them? This isn't an anomaly; the same numbers keep coming up year after year.

Again, I'm not suggesting face-offs have no importance. If I'm on the penalty kill, I'd just as soon win the face-off every single time, and clear the ice. With 30 seconds left, killing a penalty, and an extra opposition attacker on the ice, I know I'd rather not lose the face-off. What we can't do is seek validation through individual situations and attempt to apply them to the whole picture, when we're trying to see if something is real. It's just far too open to subjective bias and selective memory.

Every year, any number of teams have great records despite being poor face-offs teams, and any number of teams have terrible records despite winning alot of face-offs. The Oilers have been a far better face-off team than the Red Wings, but I know whose record I'd rather have.

Daryl

[PDO]

Keep in mind that I didn't say there is no relationship, only that the relationship isn't great. Yes, you can point to individual times when the club won a face-off and scored a goal, or cleared the zone. I never said those things don't occur.

You can certainly study some of these aspects with statistics.

Well, when I stated that, I was referring more to situational faceoffs. I don't believe the NHL keeps track of offensive/defensive zone faceoffs, which are far more important than netural zone faceoffs. Is there anyone who has taken a direct look at faceoff numbers that only take place at the 4 circles?

And how long does that possession last? Until the next face-off? How many goals are scored difrectly from face-offs? You note the Oilers' face-off success, and how it resulted in two goals against Dallas, while also completely ignoring their dominance on face-offs during a 7 game losing streak. Correlation coefficients between winning face-offs and:

Shots on Goal: 0.04
Goals For: 0.01

Note that I said that they were off the top of my head ;). What it does do, is generate a scoring chance. I'm obviously over-simplifying it to a point, but if you create enough scoring chances, you'll eventually put some of them in. Likewise, by winning a defensive faceoff you're directly nullifying a chance for the other team to score.

Having said that, I'm still not precisely sure where you've taken your #'s from in this case? I think what you've done is simply graph shots on goal for every team in any given year and compare it to their faceoff %? I'm a bit foggy here...

If there was a strong relationship between winning face-offs and getting more shots or more goals, we'd see a much higher correlation between them. You need a correlation of 0.6 to even begin suggesting there's a strong link between them.[



Correlation between Face-Win% and Special Teams
PP%: 0.06
PK%: 0.20

Again, there's nothing even close to a strong relationship here. If it is SO vitally important to win face-offs to have success in these situations, then why isn't there a strong correlation between them? This isn't an anomaly; the same numbers keep coming up year after year.

Ditto.

Again, I'm not suggesting face-offs have no importance. If I'm on the penalty kill, I'd just as soon win the face-off every single time, and clear the ice. With 30 seconds left, killing a penalty, and an extra opposition attacker on the ice, I know I'd rather not lose the face-off. What we can't do is seek validation through individual situations and attempt to apply them to the whole picture, when we're trying to see if something is real. It's just far too open to subjective bias and selective memory.

You know I'm a statistically inclined person, and I definetly agree with what you're saying here. My point though remains one that is based on the logic that if you're winning the faceoff 60% of the time, that means you have the puck 50% more often than the other team to start off, either in an attacking or defending position.

Every year, any number of teams have great records despite being poor face-offs teams, and any number of teams have terrible records despite winning alot of face-offs. The Oilers have been a far better face-off team than the Red Wings, but I know whose record I'd rather have.

Daryl

Could this largely be due to the fact that the best faceoff teams are often 55% while the worst are 45%? With the stat being almost a coinflip, is it not fair to argue that faceoffs are extremely important, but it's hard to measure their importance statistcally due to the numbers being too close?

[slapshot™]

After 18 games...

1. Edmonton - 56.1%
2. Nashville - 54.9%
3. Carolina - 54.4%
4. Boston - 54.1%
5. Detroit - 52.1%

Only the top 13 teams are above 50% in the circle.

1. Rod Brind'Amour (Car) - 63.6%
2. Yanic Perreault (Nash) - 63.4%
3. Jarret Stoll (Edm) - 61.6%
4. Mike Sillinger (StL) - 60.8%
5. Mike Peca (Edm) - 59.5%

16. Shawn Horcoff (Edm) - 55.0%

There isn't another Oiler player in the top 89 (as of Nov 13).