2016 Garbage bag day @ the dome

[Coach]

nvm

[old-fart]

Of course the numbers increase...

37.9% of all goals are scored within 4 seconds of entering the zone - these would be 'on the rush'.

Another 31.6% (total of 69.5%) of the goals are scored in the next 6 seconds - this would probably account for a dump and recover and quick goal.

That's basically 70% of all goals that are scored in the first 10 seconds. Further, this data presumably includes PP goals, meaning winning a faceoff and passing it around for 10 to 15 seconds, then blasting a shot from the point that is tipped or shovelled in on the rebound count in those remaining 30% of the goals. Does that count as a "cycle"? I don't think so.

There is no question that the ability to cycle the puck down low can lead to more goals. The perception that it drastically increases goal scoring is a fallacy. The Flames, the team you are suggesting is horrible at cycling the puck, ended up 11th in the league in scoring, well ahead of teams like Anaheim (18th) or LA (14th) - and that is with a horrible PP for a good chunk of the year.

[heep223]

I think what he's saying is that when you look at every even strength goal scored in the NHL, the vast majority are scored within 10 seconds of zone entry. Not much time for a long cycle in that period of time. Mostly on the rush, finding the trailer, turning up and passing back to the point, goal mouth scrambles.

Granted there is time for a quick cycle in that 10 seconds.

I for one am not a proponent of building a team in the new NHL around a heavy cycle game. I think the new model is actually moving away from that and to more of a 5 man attacking unit. I think the Flames have moved this direction naturally and while they do need to get bigger, they are being built for the new NHL. The real issue IMO like numerous have pointed out is the breakout, neutral zone and o zone entry. The stretch pass isn't working and the Flames are now developing the ability to move up as a 5 man unit with support, but the coach hasn't adapted the system for that. That's what I see as "possession game", it doesn't have anything to do with cycling.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by MattyC

But of the goals that are scored, more are scored after the 1st 10 seconds than before, so wouldn't that lead you to think that having zone possession for longer should result in more goals?

Incorrect. Most goals are scored within 10 second of entering the zone (69.5%) and only 31.5% are scored after, including PP goals that aren't what I would call "cycling the puck".

[Coach]

Yeah I worded my thought incorrectly so I removed it haha.

What I'm saying is that, of course most goals are scored in the 1st 10 seconds, because not many plays last much longer than that. But if you can stretch it out into that 10-20 seconds, you access those 30% extra goals (ie, not that you increase your chance by 30%, but there are 30% more potential goals that you don't have access to unless you stretch your possession time over 10 seconds).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah I worded my thought incorrectly so I removed it haha.

What I'm saying is that, of course most goals are scored in the 1st 10 seconds, because not many plays last much longer than that. But if you can stretch it out into that 10-20 seconds, you access those 30% extra goals (ie, not that you increase your chance by 30%, but there are 30% more potential goals that you don't have access to unless you stretch your possession time over 10 seconds).

Again, you're drawing a conclusion that isn't necessarily there.

Having the puck longer doesn't necessarily mean more goals - it could simply be the case that cycle teams take longer to score.

To put it another way, your argument only holds if the teams that can hold the puck for more than 10 seconds and then score, ALSO score as many under 10 second goals as rush teams. And I don't think you can assume that. (and the fact that cycle teams like LA and ANA aren't scoring more goals than rush teams, says the same thing).

Also, I would assume that many of the 'more than 10 second goals' are PP goals. Which doesn't support the cycle argument either.

[Enoch Root]

It would be good to see the breakdown for even strength goals only (pull the PP goals out of the data)

[Ryan Coke]

Goal scoring isn't a significant team problem, and honestly being 11th in goals for with a poor power play and young improving players speaks to Bob Hartleys strengths as a coach, not his weaknesses.

If the argument is his system doesn't promote puck possession and therefore is the reason for goals against them that may hold some merit. Or maybe just better goaltending and some fine tuning of defensive zone coverage.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Well, I think the stretch pass is being over-used, but it is a relatively large exaggeration to claim it is the only one. We see defencemen (Brodie, Hamilton and Giordano mostly) skate the puck into the offensive zone and do a quick pass to a player, or Gaudreau or Backlund especially do likewise, or they simply dump-and-chase. A lot of their stretch passes is almost like helping the defence from icing the puck and are just tap-ins.

I would say that the Flames use as many different ways of zone penetration as other teams do - they just seem to do the stretch pass too often and their cycle game is killing them in the offensive and defensive zones.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again, you're drawing a conclusion that isn't necessarily there.

Having the puck longer doesn't necessarily mean more goals - it could simply be the case that cycle teams take longer to score.

To put it another way, your argument only holds if the teams that can hold the puck for more than 10 seconds and then score, ALSO score as many under 10 second goals as rush teams. And I don't think you can assume that. (and the fact that cycle teams like LA and ANA aren't scoring more goals than rush teams, says the same thing).

Also, I would assume that many of the 'more than 10 second goals' are PP goals. Which doesn't support the cycle argument either.

True, these are good points. I'm not really sure which side I stand on. Or if there's even a side to stand on. Good teams will be able to do both. I think that scoring off the rush has more to do with the individual talent level of your players, whereas scoring on the cycle (while obviously talent dependent) is more system-based.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

That chart is not your odds of scoring a goal based on possession time. You can't draw this conclusion from that data. For this conclusion, you would need all of the shifts of X length that didn't result in a goal. Plus, goal-scoring is not an odds-based metric.

I would bet that most zone times of 3 seconds or less result in no goal. The vast majority, in fact. But that's because the vast majority of zone entries don't result in a goal.

this is a good reading of the stats.

if anyone is interested, the full article for zone time and goals, plus context, is here: https://jenlc13.wordpress.com/2016/0...ne-time-goals/

like five hole says, it doesn't prove whether zone entries or cycling is a better way to score goals. the data is tracked from 72 skilled players, and I think reflects their tendencies. also, the data doesn't adjust for score situation, which might or might not make a difference.

the problems with the flames is that, outside of a few players (like johnny and monny, included in the data), we are not very good at maintaining possession through the neutral zone and gaining the zone cleanly, so this data is moot for us. this is most obvious on our powerplay, but it's a constant in our 5-on-5 play as well. as mentioned before, our system has difficulty recovering the puck and breaking out w control, which is a pretty good way to start a rush anyway.

[GranteedEV]

Cycling down low probably doesn't increase your chances of scoring a goal. But I believe that it increases your chances of keeping the opponent from scoring a goal.

[Harry Lime]

I can hardly wait until a coach tries the '10 second rush, then pass back to your own goalie to create another 10 second rush', offence.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

True, these are good points. I'm not really sure which side I stand on. Or if there's even a side to stand on. Good teams will be able to do both. I think that scoring off the rush has more to do with the individual talent level of your players, whereas scoring on the cycle (while obviously talent dependent) is more system-based.

Good points.

[GranteedEV]

Listened to Tre's interview on the FAN.

"Our style of game is chasing the puck. Rather than chasing puck and spending calories to go get it back, how do we have it more? How do we get it, hold on to it, get it to NZ / Keep it in the OZ. Some may be individually. some as a team. You have to be in a constant state of learning/improving. "

Sounds like there will be pressure on Hartley to change his systems.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Listened to Tre's interview on the FAN.

"Our style of game is chasing the puck. Rather than chasing puck and spending calories to go get it back, how do we have it more? How do we get it, hold on to it, get it to NZ / Keep it in the OZ. Some may be individually. some as a team. You have to be in a constant state of learning/improving. "

Sounds like there will be pressure on Hartley to change his systems.

His viewpoint is a very accurate one, in my opinion. The top teams are , for the most part, top end puck possession teams.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Listened to Tre's interview on the FAN.

"Our style of game is chasing the puck. Rather than chasing puck and spending calories to go get it back, how do we have it more? How do we get it, hold on to it, get it to NZ / Keep it in the OZ. Some may be individually. some as a team. You have to be in a constant state of learning/improving. "

Sounds like there will be pressure on Hartley to change his systems.

i was just listening to this too. it's an in-depth interview and worth discussing in its own right imo. he attributes the bad start to goaltending but also to too many chances against, inside chances, and defensive coverage.

he says that he would like a possession game. says it's rare to have bad things happen when we have the puck. usually don't get scored on when you have the puck, and usually to score you need the puck. the work is figuring out how to get and keep possession. he made a lot of references to other teams around the league.

on improving the team game: can evaluate now and can take a step back, will begin to evaluate how to improve

was asked in relation to possession if we are too reliant on shot blocking. answered that we are not too reliant or not reliant enough. says it's a part of the game and defending but not the only part. (this is somewhat different from hartley saying part of the reason we were bad this season was because we didn't block enough shots. we are 2nd in blocked shots)

[Coach]

I think people take Hartley's comments a little to literally. When asked about what went wrong early on, and he's speaking off the cuff, he's not going be able to list every single thing. So he picked a few examples of things (including, but not limited to) and continued on with the press conference.

[GranteedEV]

Hartley actually elaborated on the shot blocking comment yesterday. He said the team wasn't as committed defensively, but also pointed out that it's not that they need to run shot blocking drills or anything. He's just saying he wants more commitment, not even blocking shots but simply being more urgent and present in the shooting lanes.

Also pointed out that this season their PK was more aggressive than passive and that's how he prefers it.

On a side note, Hartley also said he thought in his 20+ games at center, rookie Sam took more defensive zone draws than rookie Monahan did all year, and rookie Bennett did very well matched with "solid" players while rookie Monahan was more sheltered against 3rd/4th liners.

[heep223]

That's the one thing I worry about Hartley. That the players are going to start tuning him out because he demands urgency and intensity at all times, but seems reluctant to change systems when they're not working. That would be tough as a player.