• Defending A Lead II

    by Tyler Dellow • September 26, 2013 • Hockey • 8 Comments

    It kind of got buried, what with the “Zack Kassian should be in jail” post, but there were some interesting comments on the post below that about score effects and how things change when one team has the lead. It’s pretty well known at this point that teams with a lead tend to do worse in terms of shots than they do when the game is tied. This is kind of difficult to wrap your head around because coaches will frequently insist that they don’t tell their teams to sit back or anything when they get a lead but the evidence that something happens is overwhelming.

    Jesse Dahl expressed one theory pretty well:

    Assuming there is some data out there that the number of total shots goes down for both sides (i.e. low event hockey), and I’m pretty sure there is, do you think the following could be true?

    At some point in the game it would be more optimal to just sit back even though in the long run it is a losing strategy. In other words, a goal for is less valuable than a goal against is damaging when you’re near the end of the game. If you can lower the variance over that small period of time you will get 2 points more often (and hopefully?) more points on average.

    To use an extreme example to illustrate the point, with only 30 seconds left (or less) in the game, up by one, prevent defense is obviously optimal over a more aggressive style even though it is more likely you will score a goal with a more aggressive style. A two goal lead is not as valuable here as preventing a goal.

    The reasoning is correct, I think, so let’s look at the data. I grabbed the data for while game play is tied and while a team has a one goal lead for the past six years. Does the data support the theory that the total number of shots for both sides is reduced when one team has a one goal lead?

    Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 2.49.48 AM

    So, nope, that doesn’t really work. It’s a reasonable hypothesis because it would be justify getting outshot if you could drive down the volume of shot attempts, but the data says it doesn’t really happen. We know that shooting percentage increases for teams that are leading:

    Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 2.50.08 AM

    The bump in shooting percentage doesn’t make up for getting outshot by as much as teams leading by one goal do though:

    Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 2.50.25 AM

    It’s not a huge change but, if anything, it favours the teams that are trailing, not the teams that are leading.

    I wondered if maybe this was a bad team thing. Maybe the bad teams screw it up and can’t hold leads. Maybe teams that are good when things are tied are strong when they’re leading too? I grabbed the data for the top five teams based on goal share in each of the past six seasons to check. Here are the same graphs:

    Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 2.50.39 AM

    So a huge difference in goal difference between when the game is tied and when they’re one goal up.

    Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 2.51.55 AM

    And again, we see that there’s a big decline in terms of the share of the shots that they get from when they’re tied to when they go one up.

    Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 2.52.09 AM

    This is a bit different from the norm. The teams that did best in terms of goal difference when things were tied were really good (or lucky) at keeping down their opponents’ shooting percentage and that disappeared when they were one up. I suspect that that’s just some regression and not a coaching thing.

    Basically though, it shows the same thing: the best teams in the NHL over the past six years in terms of outscoring when the score is tied get fewer than 50% of the shots when they go a goal up despite crushing their opposition in shots when the score is tied. Their 5v5 goal difference in tie games was 0.77; when they went one up, it fell to 0.13. Note that, as with the league-wide data, there’s no reduction in the total number of goals scored at 5v5; it actually increases slightly.

    In the absence of some confounding factor, there’s something not right here. We expect people to make decisions that maximize their outcomes. If the best 5v5 teams in the NHL when the score is tied become much less dominant when they go up one goal, either they’re making improper tactical decisions when they go up a goal or their opposition are making improper tactical decisions when the score is tied or some combination of the two.

    Some of this may relate to the data not being sufficiently granular. We know, for example, that teams will play to the score late in a tie game – if a game is tied with, say, five minutes to go in the third, both sides are generally happy to take their point and head to the lottery. This probably starts earlier than that.

    It’s worth digging into this a little more deeply, I think. The first step would probably be doing it on a time stamped basis. That would allow you to cut out the score effect of teams playing for OT/SO. Even if you cut that out, I’m having a hard time imagining that it would explain the results that we see. Odd.

    Email Tyler Dellow at mc79hockey@gmail.com

    About Tyler Dellow

    8 Responses to Defending A Lead II

    1. Steven Olson
      September 26, 2013 at

      I won’t necessarily claim that what is going on is only based on randomness, but the data you posted here certainly fits with the idea that you can explain all of these effects via randomness.

      I will just quote myself from my comment on your previous article (which I posted only a few hours before you posted this article)

      “Corsi events do not happen with regularity and there is an element of randomness to their occurance. We never see a game that is 50% corsi that completely alternates corsi events. Teams always have times were they pile up the corsi events for, and other times when they pile up the corsi events against.

      And given that generally an increase in corsi events causes an increase in goals, a team will be performing above their natural corsi level when they get the lead, and then naturally regressing to the mean. Alternatively, when a team gets behind, they will have generally been performing below their natural corsi level, and regress to the mean, increasing their corsi % when playing from behind.

      I know its more complicated than that, but I think a purely random model of corsi events without considering tactics can completely explain why teams universally have a lower corsi percentage when playing with a lead. Because they performed above their natural level temporarily to get the lead in the first place.”

      • Tyler Dellow
        September 26, 2013 at

        I think a purely random model of corsi events without considering tactics can completely explain why teams universally have a lower corsi percentage when playing with a lead. Because they performed above their natural level temporarily to get the lead in the first place.”

        I don’t think you’re right. You’re missing that the score-tied data includes times when your play was followed up by the opposition scoring first and taking the lead. If I was just using score-tied when next goal was a goal for team X, I’d think there might be something to what you’re saying but I’m not.

    2. Triumph
      September 26, 2013 at

      Kent Wilson made the point on the previous post, and I think it bears repeating – I think years of instruction about how to protect leads makes players slightly worse at defending them. My guess would be that teams who are ahead (whether it be coaches or players) overrate the risk of giving up a late odd man rush and play less aggressively as a result. It leads to less offensive zone pressure and consequently less shots for. That’d be my guess – difficult to find the data set to back it up, I imagine.

    3. bob
      September 26, 2013 at

      Are there any outliers? Teams or coaches who don’t defend a lead like this. Do we have evidence that playing a different style in that game state is more successful?

    4. Jesse Dahl
      September 26, 2013 at

      I’m not sure my theory has been really disproved yet.

      What does the data say when you filter by time remaining in game (if your data can do this)? There’s a difference between a 1 goal lead with 2 periods of play left and 2 minutes left.

      I think my extreme example is a pretty solid position, and the other extreme obviously favors aggressive play, so it seems like there is some line in the sand somewhere. Maybe it’s only 1 minute though.

      Also, what are the numbers for other goal leads/trailings?

      • Jesse Dahl
        September 26, 2013 at

        Oh it would help if I read to the end. Still, gave you something else to dig into. Although I can easily see it not helping my argument since there’s often a mad scramble near the end of the game where lots of chances and shots occur.

        Maybe it’s something that needs some new data? It would be kinda hard to objectively determine if a team sat back more. I think if you’re familiar with the team enough you could do an ok job.?.?

        I think I could do ok for the Kings since they normally forecheck hard and don’t play the trap all that much.

        - @BobKnob2point0

    5. Pingback: Is Corsi really as predictive as we think? - discountednews.com

    6. Pingback: Is Corsi really as predictive as we think? - Sport Spy – Get Your Sports On!

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *