Yes the part of the game that decides who gains possesion is not important... Please resign now. You know absolutely nothing. A defensive face off win allows the defensive team to transition to offense and an offensive face off win allows the offensive team to generate a scoring chance but yea that isnt important......
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

In a macro sense, I can see where one could draw that conclusion that face-offs don't matter. So many face-offs at center ice and at the blue lines in the middle of games don't really mean squat. At the end of games and periods, powerplays, icings, etc., individual face-off situations can go a long way in deciding close games. Most coaches will put 2 centers out for important d-zone draws.

Yes the part of the game that decides who gains possesion is not important... Please resign now. You know absolutely nothing. A defensive face off win allows the defensive team to transition to offense and an offensive face off win allows the offensive team to generate a scoring chance but yea that isnt important......
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

I love your sarcasm when essentially arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.

There is absolutely zero correlation between winning in faceoffs.

The advantage for winning a faceoff lasts approximately four seconds.

You need to win about 50 facesoffs more than you lose to equate to a goal and about 250 to equate to a win. (Exact numbers evade me, but you can look it up).

It would be problematic if you lost 100% of your faceoffs, but in the NHL, the worst anyone ever does is lose six out of ten, and thus, faceoffs have no bearing on who wins.

You can tell me to resign, you can say this makes me an idiot, but you could also look this stuff up and find out that its mathematically true - I am providing you with facts about something that is not disputed by anyone who actually looks into it.

So, to conclude, your attempt at being condescending and providing no argument to support yourself is laughable.

Tanner wins again.

That is factually, empirically, objectively and un-equivalently false.
- James_Tanner

*unequivocally

Toews > McDavid

In a macro sense, I can see where one could draw that conclusion that face-offs don't matter. So many face-offs at center ice and at the blue lines in the middle of games don't really mean squat. At the end of games and periods, powerplays, icings, etc., individual face-off situations can go a long way in deciding close games. Most coaches will put 2 centers out for important d-zone draws.
- Davewn

It's been shown that unless something happens within about 15 seconds of a faceoff, the team that wins the faceoff has no actual advantage over those that don't.... and the advantages gained is only done so in about 1 of every few hundred draws.... essentially it's a minuscule advantage that is not outside of the %error on other plays (shooting percentage, save percentage etc etc)

Maybe you ought to read about Mr. Cruz before you reveal your ignorance of US Politics. I support him and if he does not win I will likely support the person that beats him in the primary.

Sorry if that offends you.
- jkumpire

It's not so much offensive as it is just sad.

It's not so much offensive as it is just sad.
- Blackstrom2

Between Cruz being Cruz and Trump claiming that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese, I have never been more pro democrat than I am right now...

Connor Mcdavid: 17 games played and he's the best in the world... Makes sense

Toews > McDavid
- Dabearshawks

At least 15 NHLers > Mcdavid.

Yea he has potential to be the best, but right now he's not close

Toews > McDavid
- Dabearshawks

AINEC because Cups

At least 15 NHLers > Mcdavid.

Yea he has potential to be the best, but right now he's not close
- drummer829

Toews is the only one better

Way to read wayyyyy too much into McD's first few games back.

The Holy one was held to a single point over the weekend while his team was out scored 13-2 in back to back games.....run for your lives, the world is ending!!!!

I love your sarcasm when essentially arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.

There is absolutely zero correlation between winning in faceoffs.

The advantage for winning a faceoff lasts approximately four seconds.

You need to win about 50 facesoffs more than you lose to equate to a goal and about 250 to equate to a win. (Exact numbers evade me, but you can look it up).

It would be problematic if you lost 100% of your faceoffs, but in the NHL, the worst anyone ever does is lose six out of ten, and thus, faceoffs have no bearing on who wins.

You can tell me to resign, you can say this makes me an idiot, but you could also look this stuff up and find out that its mathematically true - I am providing you with facts about something that is not disputed by anyone who actually looks into it.

So, to conclude, your attempt at being condescending and providing no argument to support yourself is laughable.

Tanner wins again.
- James_Tanner

You're wrong. This is only for 5v5 neutral zone faceoffs. In a research paper published by St. Lawrence University in 2012, along with Statistical Sports Consulting, LLC, they reported results from two analyses. In the first of these they found that, in terms of goal differential, not all faceoffs are equal. Tanner is going to say he did not read this. Faceoff wins in the offensive and defensive zone as well as those won on special teams yield a goal differential more quickly.

From the second analysis they conclude that faceoff win percent is a metric that does not currently need adjusting since raw faceoff win percentage is very highly correlated with adjusted faceoff win.

Their results suggest that there are strategic advantages to be gained by having the best faceoff players take faceoffs outside the neutral zone and on special teams. He really is going to say he did not read this. For players that win 60% of their faceoffs, taking 20% more outside of the neutal zone can add an additional 5-7 goals or 2-3 wins per season.

There are ~13,000 off/def zone, pp/pk faceoffs per season. 35 wins yields a goal differential, not 35 more than you lose, just 35 wins. For instance, Toews has already taken over 1000 faceoffs for his team, he will easily eclipse 1500. He has a FOW% of 58.2 this season. He has won 239 faceoffs in the OZ this year and 152 in the DZ, which means he has generated, solely by winning faceoffs, a +11.04 goal differential. Previous works by many others have concluded that a goal differential is worth 1/3 standings points. That means that Jonathan Toews, single-handedly, has earned 3.68 wins, or 7 standings points, for the Blackhawks just by winning faceoffs in the offensive/defensive zone and he will earn at least 2 more before the season is over.

Without telling me to "go find it myself," show me a study with sources, as I have done, that proves you are not a charlatan and making stuff up although "exact numbers evade you."

Tanner loses again.

I love your sarcasm when essentially arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.

There is absolutely zero correlation between winning in faceoffs.

The advantage for winning a faceoff lasts approximately four seconds.

You need to win about 50 facesoffs more than you lose to equate to a goal and about 250 to equate to a win. (Exact numbers evade me, but you can look it up).

It would be problematic if you lost 100% of your faceoffs, but in the NHL, the worst anyone ever does is lose six out of ten, and thus, faceoffs have no bearing on who wins.

You can tell me to resign, you can say this makes me an idiot, but you could also look this stuff up and find out that its mathematically true - I am providing you with facts about something that is not disputed by anyone who actually looks into it.

So, to conclude, your attempt at being condescending and providing no argument to support yourself is laughable.

Tanner wins again.
- James_Tanner

Unless it just so happens that the face off is in the Offensive zone, with 4 secs on the clock in a tie game. Offense wins face off, pops it back to the point who scores the game winning goal.

That there is one face off that matters.

call me crazy, but I think the Oilers are going to miss the playoffs

You're wrong. This is only for 5v5 neutral zone faceoffs. In a research paper published by St. Lawrence University in 2012, along with Statistical Sports Consulting, LLC, they reported results from two analyses. In the first of these they found that, in terms of goal differential, not all faceoffs are equal. Tanner is going to say he did not read this. Faceoff wins in the offensive and defensive zone as well as those won on special teams yield a goal differential more quickly.

From the second analysis they conclude that faceoff win percent is a metric that does not currently need adjusting since raw faceoff win percentage is very highly correlated with adjusted faceoff win.

Their results suggest that there are strategic advantages to be gained by having the best faceoff players take faceoffs outside the neutral zone and on special teams. He really is going to say he did not read this. For players that win 60% of their faceoffs, taking 20% more outside of the neutal zone can add an additional 5-7 goals or 2-3 wins per season.

There are ~13,000 off/def zone, pp/pk faceoffs per season. 35 wins yields a goal differential, not 35 more than you lose, just 35 wins. For instance, Toews has already taken over 1000 faceoffs for his team, he will easily eclipse 1500. He has a FOW% of 58.2 this season. He has won 239 faceoffs in the OZ this year and 152 in the DZ, which means he has generated, solely by winning faceoffs, a +11.04 goal differential. Previous works by many others have concluded that a goal differential is worth 1/3 standings points. That means that Jonathan Toews, single-handedly, has earned 3.68 wins, or 7 standings points, for the Blackhawks just by winning faceoffs in the offensive/defensive zone and he will earn at least 2 more before the season is over.

Without telling me to "go find it myself," show me a study with sources, as I have done, that proves you are not a charlatan and making stuff up although "exact numbers evade you."

Tanner loses again.
- sniper11

Good post.

Intuitively, this just makes so much more sense then faceoffs 'don't ever matter'.

Gustad and his 90% def zone FO % has to matter.

Good post.

Intuitively, this just makes so much more sense then faceoffs 'don't ever matter'.

Gustad and his 90% def zone FO % has to matter.
- Tumbleweed

Common sense has no place in here

call me crazy, but I think the Oilers are going to miss the playoffs
- jimbro83

Crazy butt

You're wrong. This is only for 5v5 neutral zone faceoffs. In a research paper published by St. Lawrence University in 2012, along with Statistical Sports Consulting, LLC, they reported results from two analyses. In the first of these they found that, in terms of goal differential, not all faceoffs are equal. Tanner is going to say he did not read this. Faceoff wins in the offensive and defensive zone as well as those won on special teams yield a goal differential more quickly.

From the second analysis they conclude that faceoff win percent is a metric that does not currently need adjusting since raw faceoff win percentage is very highly correlated with adjusted faceoff win.

Their results suggest that there are strategic advantages to be gained by having the best faceoff players take faceoffs outside the neutral zone and on special teams. He really is going to say he did not read this. For players that win 60% of their faceoffs, taking 20% more outside of the neutal zone can add an additional 5-7 goals or 2-3 wins per season.

There are ~13,000 off/def zone, pp/pk faceoffs per season. 35 wins yields a goal differential, not 35 more than you lose, just 35 wins. For instance, Toews has already taken over 1000 faceoffs for his team, he will easily eclipse 1500. He has a FOW% of 58.2 this season. He has won 239 faceoffs in the OZ this year and 152 in the DZ, which means he has generated, solely by winning faceoffs, a +11.04 goal differential. Previous works by many others have concluded that a goal differential is worth 1/3 standings points. That means that Jonathan Toews, single-handedly, has earned 3.68 wins, or 7 standings points, for the Blackhawks just by winning faceoffs in the offensive/defensive zone and he will earn at least 2 more before the season is over.

Without telling me to "go find it myself," show me a study with sources, as I have done, that proves you are not a charlatan and making stuff up although "exact numbers evade you."

Tanner loses again.
- sniper11

Great post, man. Well-researched, logical, statistically-sound. As such, there is no way in hell Tanner will respond to it

Sorry you had to waste your time

Who's the mod that keeps deleting comments...and why?

Great post, man. Well-researched, logical, statistically-sound. As such, there is no way in hell Tanner will respond to it

Sorry you had to waste your time
- AxlRose91

It is funny I posted something as well stating that the last 2 cup winners were ranked at least top 5 in Face off wins but that comment was mysteriously removed....

Way to read wayyyyy too much into McD's first few games back.

The Holy one was held to a single point over the weekend while his team was out scored 13-2 in back to back games.....run for your lives, the world is ending!!!!
- nikel

Nice of you to show up after the losses.

It doesn't offend me as much as it horrifies me.
- James_Tanner

I would sure like to hear you explain why you think that. Do you really believe that a massive, bloated, government run more and more by a massive bureaucracy with a political party that rules by executive order is more just and treats the poor and needy better than a smaller one?

Or is it that you do not have time to look over what candidates in the US are saying?

Not to get into politics, really, but that is just factually wrong. One guy wants to attempt to fight the two greatest issues of our time - income disparity and the environment - while the other two deny that those are even problems while spouting racist rhetoric and doing everything they can to scare and cajole people into further support of billionaires - ironic since it is the poorest and least educated who make up the biggegst faction of their supporters.
- James_Tanner

This is fantasy from the far left James. Maybe you ought o read the other side of the argument once in a while.

I doubt that you will, have a nice day.

You're wrong. This is only for 5v5 neutral zone faceoffs. In a research paper published by St. Lawrence University in 2012, along with Statistical Sports Consulting, LLC, they reported results from two analyses. In the first of these they found that, in terms of goal differential, not all faceoffs are equal. Tanner is going to say he did not read this. Faceoff wins in the offensive and defensive zone as well as those won on special teams yield a goal differential more quickly.

From the second analysis they conclude that faceoff win percent is a metric that does not currently need adjusting since raw faceoff win percentage is very highly correlated with adjusted faceoff win.

Their results suggest that there are strategic advantages to be gained by having the best faceoff players take faceoffs outside the neutral zone and on special teams. He really is going to say he did not read this. For players that win 60% of their faceoffs, taking 20% more outside of the neutal zone can add an additional 5-7 goals or 2-3 wins per season.

There are ~13,000 off/def zone, pp/pk faceoffs per season. 35 wins yields a goal differential, not 35 more than you lose, just 35 wins. For instance, Toews has already taken over 1000 faceoffs for his team, he will easily eclipse 1500. He has a FOW% of 58.2 this season. He has won 239 faceoffs in the OZ this year and 152 in the DZ, which means he has generated, solely by winning faceoffs, a +11.04 goal differential. Previous works by many others have concluded that a goal differential is worth 1/3 standings points. That means that Jonathan Toews, single-handedly, has earned 3.68 wins, or 7 standings points, for the Blackhawks just by winning faceoffs in the offensive/defensive zone and he will earn at least 2 more before the season is over.

Without telling me to "go find it myself," show me a study with sources, as I have done, that proves you are not a charlatan and making stuff up although "exact numbers evade you."

Tanner loses again.
- sniper11

If only the Oilers had read this and claimed Jarrett Stoll off of waivers. Another 5 wins booked.