Bob Duff: Helm doesn't mind new faceoff rule As long as the officials stay consistent in their calls, Detroit Red Wings Darren Helm is one of the few NHL forwards who doesn't have a problem with the crackdown on faceoff violations.

Bob Duff: Helm doesn't mind new faceoff rule
As long as the officials stay consistent in their calls, Detroit Red Wings Darren Helm is one of the few NHL forwards who doesn't have a problem with the crackdown on faceoff violations.
- BobDuff

And we don't mind you Bob

Bob you are a (frank)ing joke.

The other problem with Parenteau is that he looked like a steaming pile of garbage. Getting out-shined by David Booth after your undisclosed injury doesn't help.

So Bobby D, another great 1 my nan!

What's your view about faceoffs?

A lot of analytical people that love possession stats actually think #faceoffsdontmatter

What's your thoughts?

Is Sheahan a good 3C?

So Bobby D, another great 1 my nan!

What's your view about faceoffs?

A lot of analytical people that love possession stats actually think #faceoffsdontmatter

What's your thoughts?

Is Sheahan a good 3C?
- Aussiepenguin

IMO he's one of the worst players in the NHL.

Trading #15 would be one of the best things that Holland can do for this team.

Also, faceoffs do matter. Individual (center) faceoff stats, maybe not as much, because wingers/defensemen certainly play a part in it, but beginning with possession of the puck is the best way to start a play (obviously).

IMO he's one of the worst players in the NHL.

Trading #15 would be one of the best things that Holland can do for this team.

Also, faceoffs do matter. Individual (center) faceoff stats, maybe not as much, because wingers/defensemen certainly play a part in it, but beginning with possession of the puck is the best way to start a play (obviously).
- DARKSEID

Great! Looks like we have our blog female dog before he's even a Pen!

Also, yes I can't understand possession stiffs not thinking the 1 thing that actually gives a team POSSESSION, doesn't matter! In saying that I don't suppose 'set plays' are used that much considering the dynamic nature of the game, but still getting the puck first helps if you can control the little (frank)er.

Does Ted Kulfan know that you just basically copy and paste his articles?

Enuff with Duff!

Trade Athanasiou to Pittsburgh. Please!? I'd rather him than this Sheahan character. I don't know anything about that guy. I hear Athanasiou has a better up side.

How about a Athanasiou trade to the Blackhawks for young dman Gustav Forsling?

Also, yes I can't understand possession stiffs not thinking the 1 thing that actually gives a team POSSESSION, doesn't matter! In saying that I don't suppose 'set plays' are used that much considering the dynamic nature of the game, but still getting the puck first helps if you can control the little (frank)er.
-Aussiepenguin

Speaking as a "possession stiff," it would be most accurate to say "faceoffs do matter, but a lot less than most people think."

Obviously it's better to start with the puck than without it, particularly in high-leverage situations (PP/PK, offensive/defensive draw). But the mitigating factors are:

1) Statistically speaking, the possession / shot advantages of winning a draw tend to disappear after and average of about 10 seconds of play. But more importantly...

2) The margins are really small league-wide. If you could put together a team that could win, say, 70+ percent of their draws consistently, that would be a huge advantage and would lead to several additional goals scored / saved at the end of the year. But on the team level, 55% is elite and most teams are in the 48% - 52% range. Even in just the highest-leverage situations (special teams, deep in the zone) it takes about 35 extra faceoff wins to produce or save an extra goal on average, and if even a great faceoff team can only win 52-53 percent of them it's just not enough of margin to make much of a difference.

Speaking as a "possession stiff," it would be most accurate to say "faceoffs do matter, but a lot less than most people think."

Obviously it's better to start with the puck than without it, particularly in high-leverage situations (PP/PK, offensive/defensive draw). But the mitigating factors are:

1) Statistically speaking, the possession / shot advantages of winning a draw tend to disappear after and average of about 10 seconds of play. But more importantly...

2) The margins are really small league-wide. If you could put together a team that could win, say, 70+ percent of their draws consistently, that would be a huge advantage and would lead to several additional goals scored / saved at the end of the year. But on the team level, 55% is elite and most teams are in the 48% - 52% range. Even in just the highest-leverage situations (special teams, deep in the zone) it takes about 35 extra faceoff wins to produce or save an extra goal on average, and if even a great faceoff team can only win 52-53 percent of them it's just not enough of margin to make much of a difference.
- Sven22

Just to reply (not get in a heated discussion ), there are no guarantees in hockey. Chances of something happening may improve, or you can say on average - to suggest anything is a definite is inaccurate.

Depending on the state of any game, winning a faceoff may be the difference between winning & losing - Sid Crosby 2016 SCF. At any time if a team can win possession any way possible then it's usually an advantage. The problem with the possession stiffs, is that you want to break down everything into a number which cannot be done accurately for hockey. Analytics in its current form is inaccurate, but it gives you guys numbers to compare - those numbers are at times just averages & should be treated that way.

Just to reply (not get in a heated discussion ), there are no guarantees in hockey. Chances of something happening may improve, or you can say on average - to suggest anything is a definite is inaccurate.

Depending on the state of any game, winning a faceoff may be the difference between winning & losing - Sid Crosby 2016 SCF. At any time if a team can win possession any way possible then it's usually an advantage. The problem with the possession stiffs, is that you want to break down everything into a number which cannot be done accurately for hockey. Analytics in its current form is inaccurate, but it gives you guys numbers to compare - those numbers are at times just averages & should be treated that way.
- Aussiepenguin

No worries about "heated discussions" or the like. I enjoy having these conversations with fans who have a different perspective, so long as everyone is friendly and respectful about it!

Let me clarify something.

I'm aware that winning a big faceoff can directly lead to scoring a big goal or winning a big game. Obviously you want your centers to be good at it, and as the player taking the draw you should do everything you can in the moment to win it -- especially with the game on the line.

I'm looking at it the issue more from a team-building perspective. In the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of factors more important in winning hockey games than faceoffs. You might score a big goal to win a big game right off a draw. But even an elite faceoff guy is going to lose that draw 40+ percent of the time, and a trash faceoff guy is going to win it 40+ percent of the time. Plus even once you win it, it's pretty rare that it will lead immediately to a goal. A lot of other things have to go right as well. Just because Player A happened to win a draw and it happened to lead directly to a goal doesn't mean that Player A deserve all the credit, or that same wouldn't have happened if Player B took the draw.

So what's the value of optimizing your team for faceoff skill? How do you best take advantage of it? Again, I'm not disagreeing that winning a faceoff and starting with possession is definitely a good thing. And I'm not disagreeing that, depending on game state, it can make a big difference. All other things being equal, you'd much rather have a good faceoff taker than a poor one.

But the problem occurs when some teams or fans think you should pay some trash fourth liner a couple of million and put him out on the ice for every high leverage draws because he wins 58% of then. You might start with possession more often, but if the center isn't very skilled at other aspects of the game, you're still better off putting out a 51% faceoff taker who can give you a great advantage once the puck is in play, whether they win the draw or not.

How's Rasmussen doing?

Necas looks like he's gonna start the year with Skinner and Ryan.

One other quick thing: I think most analytics users (at least the ones who actually understand statistics) would broadly agree with you that there are no guarantees and that we're dealing with averages and probabilities and maybes rather than definites. I think most analytics users would also strongly agree that possession is only part of the story and that there's no way to reduce a player or team's contributions to a single stat or metric. So I think you're fighting a bit of a strawman -- although I would certainly concede that some users of fancystats are prone to overconfidence, especially those who don't really understand the underlying math or concepts.

There is certainly a push to be able to measure and track as much as possible statistically -- and then rigorously test it over multiple seasons to see how it holds up -- because it does give you a tool for comparison that goes beyond the "eye test," which can lie to even very experienced professionals. I don't think anyone thinks we'll ever get 100% of the way there, but the goal is to expand our knowledge and understanding of the game as much as possible using as many tools as necessary. Analytics is part of that process, but not the entire process.

There's also a bit of a different mindset at work here (long-term vs. short-term, future probabilities vs past events, etc.), and I think it's part of where the misunderstandings and tensions prop up. When a fancystats guy says "faceoffs don't matter," they're NOT saying "Faceoffs have no impact on the game" or "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose the draw." What they're saying is that, in the aggregate, a team's faceoff winning percentage has very little ongoing effect on their ability to win games. In this case, it's not because faceoffs don't matter, but because all teams are basically equally good at them, so nobody has the long-term advantage. But when more of a stats traditionalist hears someone say "faceoffs don't matter," they interpret that very differently.

Bottom line, we need to find better ways to communicate with one another, because most of the time we're fighting against what we think the other side is saying instead of what they're actually saying.

One other quick thing: I think most analytics users (at least the ones who actually understand statistics) would broadly agree with you that there are no guarantees and that we're dealing with averages and probabilities and maybes rather than definites. I think most analytics users would also strongly agree that possession is only part of the story and that there's no way to reduce a player or team's contributions to a single stat or metric. So I think you're fighting a bit of a strawman -- although I would certainly concede that some users of fancystats are prone to overconfidence, especially those who don't really understand the underlying math or concepts.

There is certainly a push to be able to measure and track as much as possible statistically -- and then rigorously test it over multiple seasons to see how it holds up -- because it does give you a tool for comparison that goes beyond the "eye test," which can lie to even very experienced professionals. I don't think anyone thinks we'll ever get 100% of the way there, but the goal is to expand our knowledge and understanding of the game as much as possible using as many tools as necessary. Analytics is part of that process, but not the entire process.

There's also a bit of a different mindset at work here (long-term vs. short-term, future probabilities vs past events, etc.), and I think it's part of where the misunderstandings and tensions prop up. When a fancystats guy says "faceoffs don't matter," they're NOT saying "Faceoffs have no impact on the game" or "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose the draw." What they're saying is that, in the aggregate, a team's faceoff winning percentage has very little ongoing effect on their ability to win games. In this case, it's not because faceoffs don't matter, but because all teams are basically equally good at them, so nobody has the long-term advantage. But when more of a stats traditionalist hears someone say "faceoffs don't matter," they interpret that very differently.

Bottom line, we need to find better ways to communicate with one another, because most of the time we're fighting against what we think the other side is saying instead of what they're actually saying.
- Sven22

An individual faceoff can be important. Faceoffs as a whole over the course of a season mean nothing.

Sounds like Duff is reading the Detroit news...

http://www.detroitnews.co...shing-problems/105848404/



PS - I sent an email to Ek, telling him I would blog as Duff is losing love in this forum. no response of course.

An individual faceoff can be important. Faceoffs as a whole over the course of a season mean nothing.
- BINGO!

That's ... basically what I said. Are we disagreeing? I don't think we are.

That's ... basically what I said. Are we disagreeing? I don't think we are.
- Sven22

We're not. I'm just summarizing.

IMO he's one of the worst players in the NHL.

Trading #15 would be one of the best things that Holland can do for this team.

Also, faceoffs do matter. Individual (center) faceoff stats, maybe not as much, because wingers/defensemen certainly play a part in it, but beginning with possession of the puck is the best way to start a play (obviously).
- DARKSEID

This entire post is wrong.

How's Rasmussen doing?

Necas looks like he's gonna start the year with Skinner and Ryan.
- BINGO!

He is still a bust. Looks invisible from what I've seen.

He is still a bust. Looks invisible from what I've seen.
- Feds91Stammer

Unfortunate. He was the guy I wanted all along but Necas has surprised everyone in camp. Guys are raving about his audacity to try some of the moves he does. Nobody is expecting them.

Unfortunate. He was the guy I wanted all along but Necas has surprised everyone in camp. Guys are raving about his audacity to try some of the moves he does. Nobody is expecting them.
- BINGO!

Europeans > NA boys

He is still a bust. Looks invisible from what I've seen.
- Feds91Stammer

He was invisible the first game, last night he played better but still left a lot to be desired.

He scored the only goal, I wouldn't call that invisible. Feds91Hater.

He was invisible the first game, last night he played better but still left a lot to be desired.

He scored the only goal, I wouldn't call that invisible. Feds91Hater.
- ezekial

Sorry I don't put a lot of faith into a preseason goal. Just because I am critical of a player doesn't mean I'm a hater. I hope he turns into a solid player but you can't ignore the fact it was a bad pick. Just like the year before when they take Smith over Raddysh.