# The overrated value of a faceoff

Cam Charron
August 01 2011 09:23AM

Every so often, an analyst will talk about how a certain player deserved a "three star" nominee because he won two or three big faceoffs. Even more so often a coach will send out two centremen in a high-leverage situation to win a key, late draw. The question is whether this tactic has a tangible value.

Let's use the Corsi number here. The Corsi number is, of course, an advanced +/- statistic that counts every goal, saved shot, missed shot and blocked shot while a player was on the ice and is a reliable indicator of which team had possession of the puck when a player was on the ice. Since a won faceoff essentially gives one team possession over the other, logically, faceoff percentage would correlate well to a player's Corsi number.

In the beautiful, scenic spreadsheets offered at Behind The Net there exists data on 1799 players who have played 60-or-more games over the course of a season. I looked at a few, key bits of data from those players to determine faceoff value.

Microsoft Excel kept crashing on me, so I couldn't label the chart. However, the Y-axis indicates a player's Corsi number while the X-axis indicates the team's faceoff percentage while he was on the ice. I've added a trendline, as well:

With an r-squared value of .015, there is little correlative value between winning a faceoff and actually turning the possession into anything tangible.

I ran a similar correlation between where a player started his shift [ Offensive zone starts / Total Offensive and Defensive Starts ] and his Corsi number. Let's see this result:

The r-squared value is .160. It doesn't mean that there's a determination in where you started your shift as to having tangible possession, but it does show us that the location of the puck is more important than who actually has the puck. This is where the dump-and-chase gets away with being a still useful, method of zone-entry. A team concedes possession for puck location and works to get it back in a similar spot.

Oilers blogger Tyler Dellow has looked at the value of a faceoff on the penalty kill recently and I have to add that I've come up with a similar conclusion at even strength. There's a 60-40 split between the top and the bottom regular faceoff men in the league. At 10 draws a game (roughly) that equals two touches of the puck on your defenseman's stick before anything can happen on the play.

I will add, however, that there are some faceoff specialists who double as strong defensive players: Manny Malhotra, Jarrod Smithson, Steve Ott, Paul Gaustad and [I guess] Selke winner Ryan Kesler had strong seasons on both draws and preventing shots. Players like Zenon Konopka and Jarrett Stoll had less generous defensive numbers, and Jonathan Toews, who came second in Selke voting purely by virtue of his faceoff skill was 169th in shot prevention among the 314 forwards who had played more than 600 minutes this past season.

Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
#1 Flamesforum
August 01 2011, 10:37AM

Your R2 value implies there's astronomically no relation between faceoffs and results. I would be interested to know what that value is on powerplays.....

#2 RKD
August 01 2011, 12:06PM

From a stats point of view it maybe fodder. However, winning or losing a key draw is seen of more value in how it develops into a play. It can end up resulting in a goal or a team being able to secure a last second victory.

A better comparison would be to correlate faceoff wins vs. possession time or wins. That might be a stronger indicator of the value of a faceoff.

#3 John Chambers
August 01 2011, 12:10PM

Thank you, Cam Charron. I've grown quite tired of listening to how crappy Evgeni Malkin is because he is below average on faceoffs. Now can't we all be happy that Zenon Konopka wasn't given a dumptruck full of money to ply his trade in Wild Rose country?

#4 gorby
August 01 2011, 12:16PM

What percentage of face-off wins aren't clean. To what extent is face-off wins just a proxy for skilled wingers?

#5 justDOit
August 01 2011, 12:25PM

I guess this explains why our centerless Oilers have done so well since jettisoning Stoll, Reasoner and others.

#6 Walter Sobchak
August 01 2011, 12:53PM

So,what your saying is the Oilers will continue to loose face offs until they get a better defense/play better defensively.~Hmmmmm that sounds too logical~

#7 Wax Man Riley
August 01 2011, 01:17PM

I know what the numbers say...but without the puck in your possession, you can't score, and if you can't score, you can't win.

With this logic, we can almost throw the zonestart stat out the window, because if winning a draw doesn't matter, then why does it matter what end of the rink you start in?

#8 a lg dubl dubl
August 01 2011, 01:30PM

I think a part of the problem the Oil had last year was the wingers lack of willingness to go help the centerman and dig for the puck, it cant always be left up to the center to win the battles on the dot.

#9 Wax Man Riley
August 01 2011, 01:33PM

Just by my "saw him good," I saw the Oilers fail on the dot and saw the puck end up in the back of the net too many times in the last couple of years.

I saw the Oilers dominate the draw in the '06 run and remember how many times it was commented that they won another draw and have possession again.

#10 Horcsky
August 01 2011, 01:56PM

Yup, faceoffs are overrated. If your team can play, they will position themselves well to retrieve the puck after a lost draw.

#11 thebiggestmanintheworld
August 01 2011, 02:09PM

I'm not sure how getting possession of the puck at the start of each play is 'overrated'. Seems like a pretty big advantage to me.

#12 C\$\$\$\$\$\$\$
August 01 2011, 02:37PM
thebiggestmanintheworld wrote:

I'm not sure how getting possession of the puck at the start of each play is 'overrated'. Seems like a pretty big advantage to me.

This idiot just wants hits on his article....."my excel crashed"

#13 Aitch
August 01 2011, 03:15PM

If your team can't forecheck, backcheck or keep possession of the puck once it has it, faceoffs are important. Otherwise, it's a nice advantage, but hardly the be-all and end-all that some folks make it out to be.

(That said, I'm still glad that we picked up Belanger.)

#14 speeds
August 01 2011, 03:15PM
Wax Man Riley wrote:

I know what the numbers say...but without the puck in your possession, you can't score, and if you can't score, you can't win.

With this logic, we can almost throw the zonestart stat out the window, because if winning a draw doesn't matter, then why does it matter what end of the rink you start in?

http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2005/12/09/a-game-of-puck-position/

#15 John Chambers
August 01 2011, 03:33PM
thebiggestmanintheworld wrote:

I'm not sure how getting possession of the puck at the start of each play is 'overrated'. Seems like a pretty big advantage to me.

It seems odd but consider this:

But when team A wins a faceoff, team B is in an optimal defensive position. Very rarely does team A win a faceoff then develop a scoring chance on the same puck possession sequence.

More often than not, a scoring chance gets created as a result of a break-out, turnover, or offensive-zone cycle. Now to your point faceoff wins are more valuable in the offensive zone, and especially valuable when on the powerplay. From a game logistics standpoint, that is undeniable.

I think what Cam is suggesting is that faceoff prowess isn't as valuable a skill in comparison with tools such as footspeed, hands, or the ability to dispossess an opposing player of the puck. Ergo, a guy who posts a 46% faceoff success rate can hardly be considered a liability, and I wouldn't go crazy armchair GM'ing a team's need to throw big money after Boyd Gordon.

#16 Wax Man Riley
August 01 2011, 03:40PM
speeds wrote:

http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2005/12/09/a-game-of-puck-position/

This is why I like football, I like basketball, I like rugby....

...but I love hockey. It is a game of possession, position, transition, and reaction all rolled into one. Going by the title of this article, "The Overrated Value of a Faceoff", the faceoff is overrated depending on how much value you put into it. I don't believe winning a faceoff is the be-all and end-all to winning the game, but it definitely gives you an advantage.

On a PP in the offensive zone, winning the faceoff gives you an advantage to have the puck while attacking. If you take a shot and the goalie saves, then you have another chance at that advantage without wasting 25 seconds of that powerplay by having the defensive team ice the puck.

#17 Walter Sobchak
August 01 2011, 03:58PM

@John Chambers

I'm not in complete disagreement here but, scoring chances are created as a result of a break out and the cycle. You win the draw back your wingers break out, hence first pass defense man are so important to have. The offensive cycle is created by winning the puck back in an offensive draw which is then kept in play by the offensive team.

#18 stevezie
August 01 2011, 04:01PM

Food for thought. Is Toews overrated?

#19 John Chambers
August 01 2011, 04:10PM
stevezie wrote:

Food for thought. Is Toews overrated?

Interesting question.

I bet Toews wouldn't get much attention on a bad team. Like Shane Doan. That said, I think a player like him who matches against the other team's top players is an invaluable asset to a winning team.

Coaches love him. Poolies and fantasy junkies, not so much.

#20 John Chambers
August 01 2011, 04:19PM

Hey Colin White is on waivers. Should the Oilers or Flamers pick him up?

One year left on a contract that pays the 33-year old 3 mil. Last year was only -2 on a rotten Devils team.

For your money and cap hit it's a far better value than Kotalik wouldn't ya say?

#21 melancholyculkin
August 01 2011, 04:26PM

Interesting study here Cam. How would you reconcile your findings with what Desjardins found when he looked at faceoffs and goals using the RTSS?

http://www.behindthenet.ca/faceoff.html

#22 Matt Henderson
August 01 2011, 05:03PM

And then I was all like "check out the value of R squared!" and he was all like "DUDE, check out the sweet conditional formatting on this excel sheet." and then I was all like, "NO WAY!!!"

So what you're saying is that all these smart hockey people like controlling the puck for no reason because excel said so? Must be true. I read it on the Internet, and nobody lies on the internet.

#23 Lofty
August 01 2011, 05:33PM
Horcsky wrote:

Yup, faceoffs are overrated. If your team can play, they will position themselves well to retrieve the puck after a lost draw.

Vancouver, San Jose, Detroit, Florida and Boston were the top 5 faceoff teams in the league last year. Aside from Weiss and Florida I think there's some sort of correlation between being an elite team and winning faceoffs.

I don't know what the definition of a face-off win is? Is it just the draw or is possession factored in?

Either way I think its a big advantage to have the puck more than the competition and it all starts at the drop of the puck. Without much evidence, I think its tough to be in the top 1/3rd of league without winning more draws than you loose. The Oil have been losing a lot of draws

#24 Rick
August 01 2011, 05:37PM

And yet every coach in the NHL game plans based on winning the face-off and will tell all who ask that it is one of the most critical points of the game.

Maybe someone should e-mail them the corsi to show them they are doing it wrong.

#25 OilFan
August 01 2011, 05:50PM

~Having a hard shot overrated ?~

#26 Mark-LW
August 01 2011, 06:19PM
Wax Man Riley wrote:

I know what the numbers say...but without the puck in your possession, you can't score, and if you can't score, you can't win.

With this logic, we can almost throw the zonestart stat out the window, because if winning a draw doesn't matter, then why does it matter what end of the rink you start in?

The point of the article was to illustrate that zonestart is in fact more important than faceoff wins. If you lose an offensive zone faceoff then the puck is still 200ft away from your net and you have a strong possibility of retrieving it. Likewise for defensive zone starts, you may win the draw but then be able to breakout and give up a goal.

#27 David S
August 01 2011, 06:59PM
Lofty wrote:

Vancouver, San Jose, Detroit, Florida and Boston were the top 5 faceoff teams in the league last year. Aside from Weiss and Florida I think there's some sort of correlation between being an elite team and winning faceoffs.

I don't know what the definition of a face-off win is? Is it just the draw or is possession factored in?

Either way I think its a big advantage to have the puck more than the competition and it all starts at the drop of the puck. Without much evidence, I think its tough to be in the top 1/3rd of league without winning more draws than you loose. The Oil have been losing a lot of draws

More like top faceoff teams don't load up their squads with rookies and prospects who aren't experienced or strong enough yet to win the facoff scrums.

#28 Saytalk
August 01 2011, 07:06PM

Ok, for one thing, R-squareds are more relevant to time-series data. You're using cross-sectional data which always has a low R-squared, so you can't just downplay faceoffs because of an indicator that favours other forms of data.

Second, whoever said Corsi numbers were the be-all and end-all of statistics? I'm sure every coach in the league is putting his best faceoff man out there because he's thinking "man, I need to get my Corsi numbers up!" How about doing a correlation between team wins and team faceoff percentage?

Lastly, Sam Gagner is terrible at faceoffs and should be traded at the end of this year, but that should go without saying.

#29 Lofty
August 01 2011, 07:15PM
David S wrote:

More like top faceoff teams don't load up their squads with rookies and prospects who aren't experienced or strong enough yet to win the facoff scrums.

Nice tangent.

#30 DSF
August 01 2011, 07:35PM

At some point...the mathletes are going to figure out that "Time of Possession" is more useful in measuring the worth of a hockey team (and the players who are on the ice at any given time) than Corsi or FO winning%.

Thing is, it's pretty easy to measure, and yet none of these guys have figured that out yet.

#31 stevezie
August 01 2011, 07:42PM

No one is saying faceoffs don't matter, just that they don't matter as much as is often claimed. I thought the linked Dellow article did a very good job of showing that you're better off with a good player who is bad at faceoffs than a bad player who is good at them.
Maybe faceoffs are in the same category as size, fighting, leadership etc.; a really great thing to have but pretty useless without the solid hockey skills. Let's not confuse the icing with the cake.

#32 Horcsky
August 01 2011, 09:19PM

@Lofty

Correlation is not causation my friend, as my stats prof would say. Are elite squads good partially because they win faceoffs, or do they win faceoffs more so because they are good?

Playoff teams that are below the 'dreaded' 50% in faceoff wins stat: Pens, Habs, Sabres, Rangers, Ducks.

Also, this year, 2/3rds of the teams were above 50% in faceoffs, so let's extend the above list to include teams in the bottom half of the league in faceoffs that still made the playoffs and we can add the following teams to that list: Bolts, Flyers, Preds.

So 8 of the 16 playoff teams were in the bottom half of the league in faceoff percentage during the season. That's just this year, so maybe it's an anomaly, but I would also point out that teams #3-#27 in faceoff percentage are separated by a lousy 4 percent (roughly), meaning that most teams tend to vary very little in faceoffs, even though they are very far apart in the standings. This all seems to support the article.

What does it all mean? I think Mr. Charron might be onto something.

#33 FastOil
August 01 2011, 10:18PM

Stats refer to an average over time. In an average game, at an average point in it, no, face offs don't matter much.

But as time runs out, each event becomes more significant if the game is still on the line.

Nobody sweats it in the first period of the first game of the year, but they really care at any point in game 7 of the finals.

The world cannot correctly be viewed through numbers that have no correlation to it's complexity or it's tendency to do enormous things in very short time spans. Like hockey.

#34 ubermiguel
August 01 2011, 10:30PM

Over the last few years I've watched the Oilers lose too many defensive zone draws only to get pinned in their own end for a couple of minutes to say the "faceoffs don't matter" theory passes the sniff test.

Maybe it's something about players that can't retrieve the puck or defend in general.

Still, I'd rather start a shift with the puck than without.

#35 Quicksilver ballet
August 01 2011, 11:14PM

Winning the faceoff is overated.

Just be the better team getting off the bus. Teams have possession of the puck 70+ times a game. It's what you do with it while you have possession of it that matters. Starting with possession isn't as important as finishing the play with it.

#36 Marcus
August 02 2011, 02:33AM

You're pretty much questioning whether or not puck possesion is important. LMFAO

#37 paul wodehouse
August 02 2011, 05:14AM

eggheads...is Eric Belanger our Manny Malhotra?

#38 SurfacetoAirMissile
August 02 2011, 07:29AM

As important as faceoffs are and having great centers, I think we may have a more pressing problem on the left wing in 2012/2013. Where is MPS gonna play with Smyth, Hall and Parise ahead of him?

#39 Rick
August 02 2011, 08:45AM
stevezie wrote:

No one is saying faceoffs don't matter, just that they don't matter as much as is often claimed. I thought the linked Dellow article did a very good job of showing that you're better off with a good player who is bad at faceoffs than a bad player who is good at them.
Maybe faceoffs are in the same category as size, fighting, leadership etc.; a really great thing to have but pretty useless without the solid hockey skills. Let's not confuse the icing with the cake.

That's some ace research right there.

How about a good player who is young vs a bad player who is experienced or a good goalie who is small vs a bad goalie that has size?

Why not compare apples to apples instead?

Obviously going with the best players available is where you start but in the games within the game further skillsets and player attributes do matter. And in this case where the coaches are outright telling you that it's vital then it's pretty much a non-question.

#40 Leafer
August 02 2011, 08:51AM

This just seems like a shot at justifying Connolly's losing face-off % over Bozak's Winning face-off %. There are a lot more face-offs than goals. There is where you're low numbers come from. This should be broken down more into face-off locations and even strength vs. PP vs. PK on a team to team player to player basis. A lot of work to prove anything can happen. Strategies and ability of the opposition to read plays is another tangible. The fact of the matter is you don't win without possession and the face-off is where it all starts.

#41 Neal Schmidt
August 02 2011, 09:40AM

@John Chambers

The Toews "un-love" by some of the supposed stats guys has become beyond ridiculous. Really good player and really good advanced stats to back it up.

And Toews was a deserving Selke nominee.

#42 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
August 02 2011, 10:20AM
stevezie wrote:

Food for thought. Is Toews overrated?

I'd say so, it seems he's talked about as a top 5-10 player in the leauge.

He's good, but not that good IMO.

#43 Death Metal Nightmare
August 02 2011, 11:48AM

hockey is chaotic.

thats basically the point of all these lame stats. its chaotic. its not baseball and its not rigid football. small, micro-events always happen that can keep trends from surfacing.

are faceoffs important? depends. is shooting important? depends.

can you still play sick defense and have the puck go off your skate or body into your own net? sure.

did Vancouver have the best numbers of the regular season? yes. did determinism dictate they win the Cup? nope.

numeric determinism in hockey makes hockey boring. chaos and chance is why we watch it. keep winning faceoffs the best you can.

#44 dawgbone
August 02 2011, 12:09PM
DSF wrote:

At some point...the mathletes are going to figure out that "Time of Possession" is more useful in measuring the worth of a hockey team (and the players who are on the ice at any given time) than Corsi or FO winning%.

Thing is, it's pretty easy to measure, and yet none of these guys have figured that out yet.

Of course possession time is more useful, and while it's easy to measure for an individual team, it's much harder to measure over the the whole league.

This is why, in lieu of TOP, things like Corsi/Fenwick exist. If there was a way to get the TOP in the various zones, it would be used far more.

#45 dawgbone
August 02 2011, 12:21PM
Saytalk wrote:

Ok, for one thing, R-squareds are more relevant to time-series data. You're using cross-sectional data which always has a low R-squared, so you can't just downplay faceoffs because of an indicator that favours other forms of data.

Second, whoever said Corsi numbers were the be-all and end-all of statistics? I'm sure every coach in the league is putting his best faceoff man out there because he's thinking "man, I need to get my Corsi numbers up!" How about doing a correlation between team wins and team faceoff percentage?

Lastly, Sam Gagner is terrible at faceoffs and should be traded at the end of this year, but that should go without saying.

For the simple reason that in order to score, you need to shoot and goals represent a small % of the shot attempts.

And I'm pretty sure that coaches are putting their best face-off man out there to either help the team generate a shot (offensive zone draw) or prevent a shot (defensive zone draw), especially in the late stages of a hockey game.

#46 Lawndemon
August 02 2011, 12:25PM

It isn't much of a logical stretch to conclude that faceoff losses are more significant to bad teams (teams that can't regain possession). When the Oilers lost a draw it was balls-deep panic time.

Meanwhile, I recall a number of instances where the Oil won the faceoff and still couldn't get the puck out of their own zone or get a shot on goal. Why? Because the other team just took the puck away from them anyway.

Bad overall hockey players are for more significant to team success than bad faceoff artists.

#47 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
August 02 2011, 12:47PM
Death Metal Nightmare wrote:

hockey is chaotic.

thats basically the point of all these lame stats. its chaotic. its not baseball and its not rigid football. small, micro-events always happen that can keep trends from surfacing.

are faceoffs important? depends. is shooting important? depends.

can you still play sick defense and have the puck go off your skate or body into your own net? sure.

did Vancouver have the best numbers of the regular season? yes. did determinism dictate they win the Cup? nope.

numeric determinism in hockey makes hockey boring. chaos and chance is why we watch it. keep winning faceoffs the best you can.

Which of course would be why you don't know who would consistantly help a team win more between Strudwick and Crosby.

#48 Hemmertime
August 02 2011, 01:30PM
stevezie wrote:

Food for thought. Is Toews overrated?

Yes. By some. I like Toews, he is a very good Center and a great leader. That being said without Patrick Sharp being as good as he is as a #2 (or 1B) Toews would not look near as good as he does and the expectations on him would be ten-fold. People would complain about how he only gets cracked 70 pts for the first time this season and say he's disappointing. The person who mentioned Doan is a good example of good player bad team. Toews has his great reputation because of good player + great team.

You know who puts up Toews point #'s (does it on Wing not Centre, and C's should get more pts) and plays against the other teams toughs? Hemsky. Toews 0.89 PPG last 3 seasons, Hemmer - 0.91. Much much much worse team (Stanley cup vs Last) and yet most people regard 83 as a decent second line RW and praise the hell outta Toews. The east people are so uneducated about the Western Conference its laughable. We have the east force-fed to us on all channels so at least we know enough about the Eastern Conf. to usually wipe the floor with the East fans in the pools.

Even more food for thought: Would you trade RNH and a 2nd rounder for Toews? Its tempting, but I think I'd lean towards no. Toews took a step forward this year but doesn't strike me as a 100 pt man. RNH might be 60-90, but Ill take that risk over guaranteed 70

#49 book¡e
August 02 2011, 03:24PM
Marcus wrote:

You're pretty much questioning whether or not puck possesion is important. LMFAO

Well, you may be LYFAO, but while doing so, you are identifying yourself as someone who would have trouble thinking more than one move ahead in a chess game.

Winning faceoffs would clearly have some value in NHL hockey, however, this value may be very very small given the number of times that possession changes and the nature of the advantage of that possession. The positioning and nature of immediate possession after the drop of a puck may have very little influence on the outcome of games. The math provided in this analysis suggests that may be the case. So, it may be that team building strategies that emphasize winning faceoffs (and selecting personnel based upon that) may be a poor strategy.

#50 Matt Henderson
August 02 2011, 03:49PM
book¡e wrote:

Well, you may be LYFAO, but while doing so, you are identifying yourself as someone who would have trouble thinking more than one move ahead in a chess game.

Winning faceoffs would clearly have some value in NHL hockey, however, this value may be very very small given the number of times that possession changes and the nature of the advantage of that possession. The positioning and nature of immediate possession after the drop of a puck may have very little influence on the outcome of games. The math provided in this analysis suggests that may be the case. So, it may be that team building strategies that emphasize winning faceoffs (and selecting personnel based upon that) may be a poor strategy.

Or maybe the stats and formulas used for the study arent the best way to interpret whether winning a faceoff is important.

Considering the great disconnect between the focus of professional coaches and management's desire to win faceoffs with regularity and this study's result showing that "Winning faceoffs is over-rated", maybe the results and how they were contrived should come into question before the concept that winning faceoffs is important comes into question.