So I had this great, long, politically correct piece about advanced stats and how they relate to this year's Canadiens, and whether or not the fans should be concerned with an all-but-certain regression, and well, I goofed up an embed code and had to delete the whole thing.
The idea for this blog was inspired by a couple of things. First, Jack Todd wrote a great piece, pulling the HNIC wags under the rug for their dismissal of the Habs' valid claim to their spot in the Eastern Conference. I agree with Jack, it's not all luck and goaltending, even if those two elements play a large role in the how the Canadiens have fared thus far.
When Jack wants to, he writes great pieces.
This is one of them.
The second thing that inspired me to write something on the subject is that I really believe that while Corsi, Fenwick and other metrics that indicate a team's possession advantage or disadvantage have had a very positive influence on how we analyze the game, it bothers me that we don't have sufficient data regarding scoring chances, moreover the quality of scoring chances to balance that analysis; to put it into better context.
The fact is, the NHL doesn't keep data on scoring chances. Teams do so individually, and they all have different criteria for what they focus on, even if most of that criteria is universally considered.
Follow me on this: If a team believes in a certain way of playing, they may not consider a scoring chance to be of a certain quality--especially if their system intentionally allows for that chance, which they don't consider to be a scoring one.
For example, the Canadiens allow too many shots on net. They rank 21st in the category of average shots allowed per game. But, what proportion of those shots can really be considered scoring chances? And even if one team might consider them to be scoring chances, maybe the Canadiens don't, because they're okay with certain types of shots hitting Carey Price.
Advanced stats tell us of a Canadiens team that rocks too far back on its heels rather than towards its toes. It points to a systemic flaw in Michel Therrien's outlook, given he has good puck movers on the back end and a pretty speedy, balanced crop of forwards to play a more aggressive style than the team employs. Some believe the breakout is too disconnected, with the forwards too far up ice. Some believe the forecheck is too sporadically successful because of the deficiencies in the breakout. Some believe Therrien's "first on puck" mantra can't be followed through on given the age and lack of mobility on his defense corps. As Todd points out in his piece, the situation is fluid, and a few recent personnel decisions have changed some of these perceptions.
Given that the Canadiens are roughly a 49% possession team, the analysis is that their PDO (team shooting percentage+even strength save percentage) propels them to a higher success rate than they deserve. To a degree that's undeniable. The norm is that a team with below average possession stats, relying on above average PDO is likely to crash, and of course there are always outliers.
The stats prediction is supposed to balance the eye test.
Here's what the eye test tells me about the Canadiens, and this is purely the eye-test, because the data doesn't exist for me to justify it.
The Canadiens are aware they have the best goaltender in the world. They play a pretty conservative game that relies heavily on counterattacking, and with their speed, and the way they're spread, it meshes pretty well with the league's 6th-best shooting percentage at even strength (8.76%). When they aren't able to intercept the rush, they face some tough minutes in their own end. Be that as at may, the Canadiens are pretty sound at employing their players in the defensive zone. They largely keep the opposition to the perimeter. Price rarely gives up big league rebounds, and the team does a solid job clearing the ones he does.
That's not to suggest spending more time than you should in your own zone won't burn you, no matter how good your goalie is. It takes a lot out of you to play that way over 82 games, and when the competition level rises in the playoffs...well, you get the point.
Let me depart from this for a second...
War-on-ice.com is doing some progressive work. Heck, at least they've made some attempt at defining scoring chances. I can't necessarily agree with all the criteria, but here's how they break it down.
Summarizing:
They believe the offensive zone breaks into three scoring zones (
check the image at the bottom of this link):
-The low scoring zone is essentially the perimeter. Outside the faceoff circles, ranging to the point, and spanning from each half of the blue line out to the half wall and down to the goal line.
-The medium scoring zone covers the high slot, the areas to the immediate right and left of the high slot, and as you get closer to the net, the sides where bad angle shots come from.
-The high scoring zone is the slot and the crease. Right between the dots, right in the middle of that area, and moving towards the goalie.
They track scoring chances as follows:
In the low danger zone, unblocked rebounds and rush shots only.
In the medium danger zone, all unblocked shots.
In the high danger zone, all shot attempts (since blocked shots taken here may be more representative of more “wide-open nets”, though we don’t know this for sure.)
According to the data collected by war-on-ice.com, the Canadiens rank 7th in scoring chances given versus 13th in scoring chances for. The Leafs rank 1st in scoring chances given (must be nice to be the best at something, eh Leafs fans?). The problem I have is that not all of these scoring chances are equal. And the ones from the lower probability areas (the low and part of the medium danger zone) are bigger chances against some teams than they are against others.
The hockey world agrees that Carey Price is exceptional. But Carey Price aside, we all have standards for starting and back up goalies in the NHL. The first universal standard is that if the goalie can see the shot he can stop it. The second is that they're supposed to make the first save, unless it's impossible to stop the conclusion of a fabulous rush play. Any shot war-on-ice.com considers a scoring chance that I would deem to be a bad goal on any goalie in the league--well, I can't group those with the ones where I'd say "well, the goalie didn't have a chance on that one.".
It's my assumption that while the Habs allow too many shots to be directed at their net in relation to what they direct at the opposition, they don't allow the type of scoring chances some other negative possession teams do.
Knowing how good the Canadiens goaltending is, how can they concern themselves as much with the low and medium scoring areas as they do with the high danger scoring area?
Does it stand to reason that if the Canadiens are among the best negative possession teams at stifling chances from the high danger area, that they're fine playing the way they do? War-on-ice.com counts all blocked shots from the high danger area as scoring chances, assuming that the blocker is taking an empty net away from the shooter, but that has to be less true of Carey Price than it is of roughly 59 of his counterparts.
Anyways, I'm sure my thoughts came out more clearly the first time around, but all I'm trying to say is we need to expand on the work being done to define scoring chances. Those who rely heavily on possession metrics to analyze any given Canadiens game often describe it differently than I see it. When I see the Habs play the way they have over the last five games, deflecting play to the perimeter, jumping on chances to clear rebounds, I become far less concerned with the possession disadvantage.
We all know the biggest deficiency on the Habs is their defense group. They're improving, but they could still use a boost. Systemically, it might not change all that much about the fact that the team regularly performs below average on Corsi and Fenwick.
At their best, the Habs limit opportunities to first shots (most of them from the perimeter). Price comes up big when he has to, and that isn't likely to change all that much over the next 43 games. At their worst, they allow too much through the middle of the ice (7-1 to TBAY, 6-2 to CGY, 5-0 to CHI, 3-0 EDM, 5-0 to NYR, 4-0 to PIT... you get the picture).
It's generally conceded that a boost in their powerplay efficiency would go a long way towards balancing whatever regression they have in even strength shooting percentage over the next 43 games. And chalk up another point for the possession crowd that says 29th in the league in powerplay opportunities has to have something to do with the fact that they aren't applying enough pressure in the offensive zone.
Coming full circle, even a slight regression in even strength save percentage still keeps Price in the goalie stratosphere. A slight regression in even strength shooting percentage will be reflected in the win/loss columns if their inability to drive more than 49% of the play continues. Hey, game 40 is up next, and the Habs have plenty of time to improve. By my eye--which I have to trust until the data exists to my satisfaction--so long as they continue to reduce quality scoring chances against, the team will continue to thrive as it has. They have balanced scoring, they have players that are committed in the defensive zone, and they have the best goalie in the world.
Montreal Canadiens Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»