Which Habs Players Completed the Most Successful Passes, Dekes, and Shots Per-minute Played?

Quantifying offensive-zone successes, and tendencies

As I wrote here,  the act of completing more than 60 offensive-zone passes (as a team) in one game had a substantial impact on the Montreal Canadiens ability to win games. The Habs won/loss record in games where they completed over 60 total offensive-zone passes (at even-strength) was 15-17. This gave them a winning percentage of .469; well above their overall 2011-12 winning percentage of .378.

A player with possession of the puck in the offensive-zone has 3 main options. He can pass the puck to a teammate, he can attempt to beat an opposing player 1on1 (deke), or he can direct a shot on net.

With this in mind, I decided to use my 2011-12 statistics to study which Canadiens players completed the most offensive-zone passes, dekes, and shots per-minute of ice-time. I've also broken down which percentage of their total successful offensive-zone play were passes, dekes, or shots. A successful shot is defined as a shot that is stopped by the goalie, or goes in the net (not blocked, and does not miss the net)  For example; if a player made 100 successful plays in the offensive-zone, and 50 of them were passes, that would mean that 50% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes. This helps give us an idea of both tendencies, and strengths for each player.

The graph is a visual representation of how many successful plays within these 3 categories each player listed averaged during each minute of ice-time.


*There were 13,706 individual events used to produce these results*


SUCCESSFUL OFFENSIVE-ZONE  PLAYS PER-MINUTE PLAYED

FORWARDS 


SCOTT GOMEZ completed substantially more offensive-zone passes per-minute played than any other Montreal player, and was also among the leaders in dekes per-minute played.

- 67% of Gomez's successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 19% of his successful o-zone plays were dekes.
- 15% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


TOMAS PLEKANEC was successful with the seventh-most offensive-zone passes and dekes per-minute played. 

- 56% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 20% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 24% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


PETTERI NOKELAINEN completed the least amount of passes per-minute played (among forwards), as he was successful with only 0.15 o-zone passes per-minute played.

- 50% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 12% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 27% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


BRIAN GIONTA had the third-most even-strength shots per-minute played; behind only Erik Cole and Max Pacioretty.

- 53% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 23% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 35% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



RENE BOURQUE was tied with four other forwards with the fourth-most shots per-minute of ES ice-time.


- 51% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 17% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 32% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



TRAVIS MOEN was tied for the second-least amount of successful dekes, as well as the third-least amount of successful passes per-minute of ES ice-time.


- 72% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes; mostly on the cycle
- 13% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 26% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



GABRIEL DUMONT produced the same amount of completed offensive-zone passes per-minute as both Moen and Bourque.

- 67% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 14% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 14% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



MICHAEL BLUNDEN produced the both the second-least amount of offensive-zone passes and dekes per-minute of even-strength ice-time.

- 53% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 13% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 34% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



DAVID DESHARNAIS produced the third-most offensive-zone dekes and passes per-minute of even-strength ice-time.

- 63% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
- 25% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
- 13% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



RYAN WHITE produced the least amount of offensive-zone shots per-minute of even-strength ice-time.

-84% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-13% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-3% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



BLAKE GEOFFRION  produced the tenth-most of offensive-zone passes per-minute of even-strength ice-time.

-67% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-10% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-24% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


AARON PALUSHAJ produced more successful offensive-zone passes per-minute played than any player not named Scott Gomez.

-62% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-18% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-20% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


MAX PACIORETTY had far-and-away more successful offensive-zone shot-attempts than any other player. He also had the highest successful shot tendency. Expressed differently, this means that Pacioretty was most likely to choose to shoot, and be successful at it more often than any other Montreal player.

-53% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-12% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-35% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


LOUIS LEBLANC had the fourth-most successful offensive-zone shots, and dekes per-minute played.

-48% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-24% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-28% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


ERIK COLE produced the second-most successful offensive-zone dekes, and shots per-minute played.

-48% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-25% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-28% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


LARS ELLER produced the most successful offensive-zone dekes per-minute of ice-time; even more than Erik Cole. He also had the fourth-most offensive-zone passes per-minute.

-54% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-27% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-19% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.



DEFENSEMEN


TOMAS KABERLE produced the most successful offensive-zone passes per-minute among defensemen. Surprisingly, he was also tied with 3 other d-men with the most successful shots per-minute.

-74% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-6 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-21% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


JOSH GORGES did not have any successful dekes last season. This speaks to his defense-first attitude.

-75% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-0 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-25% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


RAPHAEL DIAZ had the fifth-most successful  passes per-minute played among defensemen.

-75 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-5 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-26 % of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


FREDERICK ST. DENIS  had the fourth-most successful  passes per-minute played among defensemen.

-75% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-0 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-25% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


YANNICK WEBER was tied for the most shots on net per-minute among defensemen.

-68% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-0 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-32% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


ALEXEI EMELIN produced the fifth-most shots on net per-minute of ES ice-time among d-men.

-63% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-6 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-31% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


PK SUBBAN produced the most successful offensive-zone dekes per-minute of ice-time. In fact, he had as many o-zone dekes per-minute as Max Pacioretty. Subban also tied for the most shots on net per-minute among d-men.

-53% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-23% of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-23% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.


ANDREI MARKOV produced the second-most successful o-zone passes per-minute of ES ice-time.  He also had the second-most offensive-zone dekes among d-men

-69% of his successful offensive-zone plays were passes.
-10 % of his successful offensive-zone plays were dekes.
-21% of his successful o-zone plays were shots.

HABS: Impact of Powerplays for and Against on Wins and Losses

This post will focus on the impact of powerplay chances for and against; specifically thier impact on Montreal Canadiens wins and losses during the 2011-12 season. Logically,  more opportunities on the powerplay should result in more goals, while less time spent killing penalties should result in less goals against.

Aside from the obvious; goals for and against, I have yet to find any one even-strength event involving skaters that is constantly and substantially higher during wins. That said, there are some traditional statistics that are consistently higher during wins. One example is special team success; which I wrote about here. While the other is save percentage; which I wrote about here.

I also touched upon the impact of offensive and defensive-zone play in each of the three zones, the impact of offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries, and the impact of offensive-zone passing.


The first graph below represents the number of powerplay chances the Montreal Canadiens enjoyed in each game, while the lower graph is the number of times the Habs were forced to kill penalties in each game. The green line shows wins, while the red line shows losses.




PP CHANCES FOR BY GAME

The Montreal Canadiens averaged 3.62 powerplay chances per-game during the 2011-12 season. Incredibly enough, the Habs averaged more PP chances during losses than wins; enjoying 3.42 PP opportunities during wins, and 3.75 powerplays during losses.

The Habs had a record of 13-28 in games they had more than 4 or more powerplays. This winning percentage of .317 was actually lower than their overall winning percentage for the season. In games where they enjoyed 6 or more powerplays their record still only jumped to surprisingly-low 4-7.

The Habs struggled getting shot through to the net on the powerplay. Even during games where they enjoyed 6 or more PP chances, they only averaged 28.09 shots per-game; barely above their overall season average of 27.9 shots per-game.

As individuals, only Alexei Emelin and Yannick Weber were able to get more than 50% of their attempted shots on the powerplay through to the net. The only forwards to do the same were Scott Gomez, Travis Moen, David Desharnais, Mathieu Darche, Max Pacioretty, Erik Cole, and Lars Eller.

PP CHANCES AGAINST BY GAME

The Montreal Canadiens averaged 3.84 powerplay chances against in 2011-12. They attempted to kill 4.04 penalties per-game during losses, and 3.52 penalties per-game during wins.

The Habs had a record of 17-20 in games where they allowed their opposition 3 or less powerplays. That record jumped to 9-9 when the Canadiens gave up 2 or less powerplay chances against.

The Habs brutal powerplay from last season just didn't produce enough goals to significantly impact their overall record. That said, strong discipline, combined with season-long success killing penalties did impact the Habs record.

HABS: Impact of Offensive-zone Passing on Wins and Losses

Total number of completed passes substantially more important than the rate of completion

This post will focus on offensive-zone passes, and their impact on Montreal Canadiens wins, goals, shots, and penalties drawn. The first graph is a visualization of the Habs offensive-zone passing success-rates from each 2011-12 game. The second graph represents the total number of completed offensive-zone passes in each game. The green lines are wins, while the red ones represent losses.

An offensive-zone pass is defined as any pass that originates in the offensive-zone. For a pass to be considered complete it has to be fully controlled by a teammate without being blocked or intercepted by the opposition.

Aside from the obvious; goals for and against, I have yet to find any one even-strength event involving skaters that is constantly and substantially higher during wins. That said, there are some traditional statistics that are consistently higher during wins. One example is special team success; which I wrote about here. While the other is save percentage; which I wrote about here.

I also touched upon the impact of offensive and defensive-zone play in each of the three zones, which you can find here, and the impact of offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries.


OFFENSIVE-ZONE PASSING PERCENTAGE BY GAME

The Montreal Canadiens were successful with an average of 59.8% of their offensive-zone passes at even-strength last season. In terms of raw numbers the 2011-12 season saw the Habs complete 4513 of 7434 o-zone pass-attempts. They completed an average of 60.91% of their passes during wins, and 59.12% of their passes in losses.

Succeeding with more than 60% of their o-zone passes had only a small impact on wins. They had a record of 16-25 in games where they completed over 60% of their offensive-zone pass-attempts. This gave them a winning percentage of 0.390; just slightly better than their overall season winning percentage of .378.

Getting above the 60% mark in o-zone passes did help them score more ES goals; but only slightly. Through all 82 games, the Habs scored an average of 1.99 even-strength goals per-game. In games where they completed more than 60% of their o-zone passes that average jumped slightly to 2.02 even-strength goals per-game. Overall, they scored an average of 1.40 ES goals per-game in losses, and  2.97 ES goals per-game in wins.

Completing more than 60% of their o-zone passes did not increase shot totals. Montreal averaged 27.9 shots per-game last season. That average jumped to 28.06 in wins, and dropped to 27.8 in losses. In games where the Habs were successful with more than 60% of their offensive-zone passes they actually averaged only 27.26 shots per-game; even lower than their average during losses.

In terms of individual players, Montreal had 7 forwards who completed over 60% of their offensive-zone pass-attempts. They include; Ryan White (69%), David Desharnais (65%), Aaron Palushaj (64%), Michael Blunden (61%), Blake Geoffrion (61%), Mathieu Darche (61%), and Lars Eller (60%).

Every defenseman who played for the Canadiens last season was successful with over 60% of his o-zone passes. Raphael Diaz led the group with a 72.33% success-rate.

TOTAL SUCCESSFUL OFFENSIVE-ZONE PASSES BY GAME

The Habs were successful with an average of 55.06 passes per-game during the 2011-12 season. They completed an average of 55.87 passes during wins, and 54.57 passes in losses.

Completing more than 60 offensive-zone passes in one game had a substantial impact on the Canadiens ability to win games. The Habs won/loss record in games where they completed over 60 total offensive-zone passes was 15-17. This gave them a winning percentage of .469; well above their overall 2011-12 winning percentage of .378.

The 60 offensive-zone pass mark also had a slight impact on the number of even-strength goals the Habs would average in each game. As mentioned earlier, Montreal averaged 1.99 even-strength goals per-game over the entire season. That average jumped to 2.09 ES goals per-game when they would complete over 60 offensive-zone passes.

Sixty completed o-zone passes also helped the team increase their shot total.  Once again, as mentioned earlier, Montreal averaged 27.9 shots per-game last season. That average jumped to 28.06 in wins, and dropped to 27.8 in losses. In games where they completed over 60 offensive-zone passes, that average jumped to 28.63 shots per-game.

In terms of powerplay chances, there was no obvious link between completed offensive-zone passes, and powerplay opportunities. Overall, the Habs averaged 3.62 powerplay chances last season, but only averaged 3.34 PP chances per-game when they completed over 60 offensive-zone passes at even-strength.

In terms of individual players, Scott Gomez averaged the most completed offensive-zone passes per-minute of even-strength ice-time (0.45). Other players who averaged more than 0.30 completed offensive-zone passes per minute played include; Aaron Palushaj (0.40), David Desharnias, (0.35), Lars Eller (0.34), Max Pacioretty (0.32), Andrei Kostitsyn (0.30), and Tomas Plekanec (0.30).

Tomas Kaberle led all defenseman, with an average of 0.25 completed offensive-zone passes per-minute of even-strength ice-time. He was the only defenseman above the team average, and well ahead of Andrei Markov's second-best total of 0.20. 

HABS: The Impact of Offensive-zone Loose-puck Recoveries on Wins

 This post will focus on offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries, and their impact on Montreal Canadiens wins, shots, and penalties drawn.

Offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries are exactly what their name indicates. The event is further described as the act of controlling any puck not currently in possession by any other player on the ice. Player with high loose-puck recovery totals generally demonstrate strong hockey instincts, as well as solid speed and agility over short-distances.

Aside from the obvious goals for and against, I have yet to find any one even-strength event involving skaters that is constantly and substantially higher during wins. That said, there are some traditional statistics that are consistently higher during wins. One example is special team success; which I wrote about here. While the other is save percentage; which I wrote about here.

I also touched upon the impact of offensive and defensive-zone play in each of the three zones, which you can find here.



OFFENSIVE-ZONE LOOSE-PUCK RECOVERIES BY GAME

The Canadiens averaged 56.23 offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries in games they won, and 57.49 in games they lost. Simply put, they averaged more o-zone puck-recoveries in losses than they did in wins. They were 10-22 in games where they recovered more than 60 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone, and were 4-9 in games where they recovered more than 70 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone.

Secure in the knowledge that loose-puck recoveries do not have a direct impact on wins and losses, I turned my focus to the impact of o-zone puck-recoveries and their impact on shots on net. The Canadiens averaged 27.9 shots for per-game during the 2011-12 season. They averaged 28.06 shots during wins, and 27.8 shots on goal per-game during losses. But, in games where they recovered more than 60 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone they were able to average 34.19 shots per-game; 6.29 shots per-game more than their average. 

The next thing I wanted to evaluate was whether more offensive-zone loose-puck recoveries would result in more drawn penalties. Logically speaking, the more often a team has the puck in the offensive-zone, the more likely the other team is take a penalty. That said, the numbers do not validate this hypothesis. The Canadiens averaged 3.62 powerplay chances per-game during the 2011-12 season. They averaged 3.75 PP chances during wins, and 3.42 in losses. But, in games where they recovered more than 60 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone, they averaged only 3.13 powerplay chances per-game.

CONCLUSION

Loose-puck recoveries in the offensive-zone did not have a direct impact on Habs wins, or the number of drawn penalties. That said, they did help increase shot on goal, and by extension; scoring chances.

Comparing Carey Price and Henrik Lundqvist

 Statistical comparison of two of the NHL's top goalies

The New York Rangers' Henrik Lundqvist is the reigning 2012 Vezina Trophy winner, and a 2012 Hart Trophy finalist. He is not only one of the game's top goalies, he is also among the NHL's overall elite. 

Carey Price has positioned himself among the league's top goalies, but has yet to enjoy the same level of success as Lundqvist.

The 6'1", 195 lbs. Lundqvist finished the 2012 regular season with a 39-18-5 record, a 1.97 goals against average, and a .930 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .920 during the regular season, and .917 during the playoffs.

Price is the Montreal Canadiens undisputed number 1 goalie. The 6'3", 220 lbs left-handed shooting goalie finished the 2011-12 regular season with a 26-28-11 record, a 2.43 goals against average, and a .916 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .916 during the regular season, and .907 during the playoffs.

The numbers included in these tables are based on five games of data for each goalie. Lundqvist's data was compiled during five 2012 NHL playoff games, while Price's data is from five 2012 NHL regular season games.  Obviously, more data is necessary to help create more definitive ratings. But,  for the purpose of this post I will work with the data I have, and continue to compile more data in the future. 

Please note, this post is not a statement as to whether Price is as good as, or better than Lundqvist. It is simply a statistical comparison using my goaltender tracking system.

*An explanation of the system I use to rate goaltenders is available at the bottom of this page.

 *The averages included here were compiled from 50+ goaltending scouting reports


SHORT-HANDED

NO REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders scouted using this system have been able to avoid giving up any short-handed rebounds is 36%.  Expressed differently, this means that 36% of short-handed shots faced by goaltenders were either deflected out of play or held for a whistle. As such, the higher the number, the better the rebound control.

Both goalies have well above-average "no rebound" percentages. Henrik Lundqvist has a higher percentage than Price. Lundqvist deflected the puck out of play or froze 42% of the shots he faced short-handed, while Price did the same with 39% of shots.

SAFE REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders were able to keep the rebounds they produced short-handed out of the slot was 43%. Expressed differently, this means that 43% of the short-handed  rebounds produced by goaltenders landed outside of the slot. Again, the higher the number, the better the rebound control.

Lundqvist has a substantially higher "safe rebound" percentage than Price. Seventy-one percent of the rebounds he produced short-handed landed outside of the slot, while 64% of Price's short-handed rebounds could be described as safe.

BIG SAVE %

The average percentage of short-handed saves made that were produced on shots considered scoring chances was 19%. Expressed differently, this means that 19% of the total short-handed saves made by goaltenders came on shots considered scoring chances. The higher the number, the higher the quality of saves.

Surprisingly, Price had a substantially-higher short-handed "big save" percentage than Ludqvist. Twenty-two percent of short-handed saves made by Price came on scoring chances, while only 17% of Lundqvist's saves were scoring chances. This could be explained many ways; from quality of competition, to better defensive-play.

SAVE %

This number is the percentage of shots faced that a goalie stops. It is identical to the traditional save-percentage widely used to evaluate goaltenders.

The average short-handed save percentage produced in games scouted was 89%.  Price's short-handed save percentage of 95% was substantially above-average, while Lundqvist's SH save percentage of 89% was both equal to the average; and surprisingly low.

SHORT-HANDED RATING

The average short-handed rating produced by goalies is 1.87. Due  to an impressive short-handed save percentage, Price has a solid short-handed goaltending rating of 2.19.  Thanks to impressive rebound control,  Lundqvist's identical rating of 2.19 overcame his relatively low save-percentage. 

PUCK HANDLING RATIO

The average short-handed puck-handling ratio produced by goaltenders is 5.25. This means that goaltenders made an average of 5.25 successful passes, or dump-outs for every 1 unsuccessful pass or dump-out.

Price has a below average short-handed puck-handling ratio, while Lundqvist has yet to make any unsuccessful puck-handling plays short-handed. That said, neither goalie has nearly enough events within this category to produce any reflective numbers.

 EVEN-STRENGTH 

NO REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders scouted using this system have been able to avoid giving up any even-strength rebounds is 35%.

Lundqvist has a slightly higher even-strength "no rebound" percentage than Price. Lundqvist deflected the puck out of play or froze 37% of the shots he faced at even-strength, while Price did the same with just under 37% of shots.

SAFE REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders were able to keep the rebounds they produced at even-strength out of the slot was 52%.

Price has a higher "safe rebound" percentage at even-strength. Sixty percent of the rebounds he produced landed outside of the slot, while 56% of Lundqvist's even-strength  rebounds could be described as safe.

BIG SAVE %

The percentage of even-strength saves made by the goaltenders I've scouted that were produced on shots considered scoring chances was 20%.

Price had higher ES "big save" percentages than the Lundqvist. Twenty percent of even-strength saves made by Price came on scoring chances, while only 17% of Lundqvist's saves were on scoring chances. Again, this could be explained many ways; from quality of competition, to better defensive-play.

SAVE %


The even-strength save percentage produced in games scouted was 93%.  Price's even-strength save percentage of 94.6% was just slightly under Lundqvist's ES save percentage of 94.9%.

EVEN-STRENGTH RATING

The average even-strength rating produced was 2.00. Thanks to above-average numbers in every even-strength category Price was able to push his even-strength goaltending rating (2.12) well above-average. Lundqvist also had an above-average ES rating (2.05); which was helped by his save-percentage, as well as his overall rebound control.

PUCK HANDLING RATIO

The average puck-handling ratio produced by goaltenders at even-strength is 3.31. This means that goaltenders made an average of 3.31 successful passes, or dump-outs for every 1 unsuccessful pass or dump-out.

Price has shown himself to be the more active puck-handler, as he engaged in over 4 times as many puck-handling events as Lundqvist (through the same amount of games). Price is also the more successful puck-handler, with a ratio of 3.55 successful events for every 1 unsuccessful event. Lundqvist has a ratio of 3.33.

One of the more interesting results within this exercise is the fact that both Lundqvist and Price have higher short-handed ratings than even-strength ratings. It is made even more interesting when we see that Montreal had the second-best penalty-killing success-rate last season, while the Rangers had the fifth-best.

Please keep in mind, this tracking system is still young. It will produce its best results in the future, as more data is compiled.

Comparing Malcolm Subban and Andrei Vasilevski

Malcolm Subban and Andrei Vasilevski were the top two goalies chosen in the 2012 NHL Entry draft. They are also the likely starters for their respective countries during the upcoming World Junior Hockey Championship.

Both goalies have good size, great balance, and strong lateral movement. There is no doubt that they are top-end goalies in their age-group. The next step for both netminders is to improve their consistency, play-reads, and rebound control.

The numbers included in these tables are based on four games of data for each goalie. Vasilevski's data was compiled during 2 WJHC games, as well as 2 games from the recent Canada Russia Challenge Tournament. Subban's data is from two OHL games, aas well as 2 games from the recent Canada/Russia series.  Obviously, more data is necessary to help create more definitive ratings. But,  for the purpose of this post I will work with the data I have, and continue to compile more data in the future.

It is also important to note that Vasilevski averaged a higher quality of competition during the games scouted.

*An explanation of the system I use to rate goaltenders is available at the bottom of this page.

 *The averages included here were compiled from 50+ goaltending scouting reports


SHORT-HANDED

NO REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders scouted using this system have been able to avoid giving up any short-handed rebounds is 36%.  Expressed differently, this means that 36% of short-handed shots faced by the goaltenders were either deflected out of play or held for a whistle. As such, the higher the number, the better the rebound control.

Malcolm Subban has a higher "no rebound" percentage than Vasilevski. Subban deflected the puck out of play or froze 29% of the shots he faced short-handed, while Vasilevski did the same with 26% of shots.

SAFE REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders were able to keep the rebounds they produced short-handed out of the slot was 43%. Expressed differently, this means that 43% of the short-handed  rebounds produced by goaltenders landed outside of the slot.Again, the higher the number, the better the rebound control.

Andrei Vasilevski has a substantially higher "safe rebound" percentage than Subban. Fifty-one percent of the rebounds he produced short-handed landed outside of the slot, while 40% of Subban's short-handed rebounds could be described as safe.

BIG SAVE %

The percentage of short-handed saves made that were produced on shots considered scoring chances was 19%. Expressed differently, this means that 19% of the total short-handed saves made by goaltenders came on shots considered scoring chances. The higher the number, the higher the quality of saves.

Both Subban and Vasilevski had substantially-higher short-handed "big save" percentages than the average. Twenty-nine percent of short-handed saves made by Subban came on scoring chances, while 28% of Vasilevski's saves were scoring chances. This is as much a reflection of each goalies talents, as it is a reflection of the lack of defensive-maturity shown by junior-aged teams.

SAVE %

This number is the percentage of shots faced that a goalie stops. It is identical to the traditional save-percentage used to evaluate goaltenders.

The average short-handed save percentage produced in games scouted was 88%.  Vasilevski's short-handed save percentage of 93% was substantially above-average, while Subban's SH save percentage of 78% was substantially below average.

SHORT-HANDED RATING

The average short-handed rating produced was 1.87. Thanks to an impressive short-handed save percentage, Vasilevski has an above-average short-handed goaltending rating of 1.98. Subban's rating of 1.75 was hurt by his low save-percentage, as well as his inability to keep a higher percentage of rebounds out of the slot.

PUCK HANDLING RATIO

The average short-handed puck-handling ratio produced by goaltenders short-handed is 3.46. This means that goaltenders made an average of 3.46 successful passes, or dump-outs for every 1 unsuccessful pass or dump-out.

Neither Subban nor Vasilevski has attempted any short-handed passes, or dump-outs during the games scouted.

EVEN-STRENGTH 


NO REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders scouted using this system have been able to avoid giving up any even-strength rebounds is 35%.


Vasilevski has a higher even-strength "no rebound" percentage than Subban. Vasilevski deflected the puck out of play or froze 35% of the shots he faced at even-strength, while Subban did the same with 34% of shots.

SAFE REBOUND %

The average rate at which goaltenders were able to keep the rebounds they produced at even-strength out of the slot was 52%.

Subban has a higher "safe rebound" percentage at even-strength. Fifty-four percent of the rebounds he produced landed outside of the slot, while 51% of Vasilevski's short-handed rebounds could be described as safe.

BIG SAVE %

The percentage of even-strength saves made by goaltnders scouted that were produced on shots considered scoring chances was 20%.

Both Subban and Vasilevski had higher ES "big save" percentages than the average. Twenty-five percent of even-strength saves made by Subban came on scoring chances, while 22% of Vasilevski's saves were on scoring chances. Again, This is as much a reflection of each goalies talents, as it is a reflection of the lack of defensive-maturity shown by junior-aged teams.

SAVE %

The even-strength save percentage produced in games scouted was 93%.  Vasilevski's ES save percentage of 93% was average, while Subban's save percentage of 91% was slightly below average.

EVEN-STENGTH RATING

The average even-strength rating produced was 2.00. Thanks to an above-average "safe reound" percentage, as well as an above-average "big save" percentage, Subban was able to push his even-strength goaltending rating above-average. Vasilevski's slightly above-average ES rating was helped by his save-percentage, as well as his "no rebound" percentage.

PUCK HANDLING RATIO

The average puck-handling ratio produced by goaltenders at even-strength is 7. This means that goaltenders made an average of 7 successful passes, or dump-outs for every 1 unsuccessful pass or dump-out.

Subban has shown himself to be the better puck-handler, with a puck-handling ratio of 12 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Vasilevski has a below-average puck-handling ratio of 5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

*This metric has yet to produce enough events. As such, the average will likely change substantially over time.

My scouting reports for goalies focus on their ability to make saves, make big saves, and control rebounds. The results of these attributes are added together to produce the goaltender's rating. The highest possible rating is 4.00, while the lowest possible rating is 0.00. The higher the value the better a goalie has played.

The first number involved in the calculation is the percentage of saves a goalie makes without giving up a rebound. For example, if a goalie makes 10 saves and gives up only 1 rebound his "no rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performed.

The next number in the calculation is the percentage of safe rebounds a goalie gives up for each rebound allowed. Rebounds deflected outside of the main slot are considered safe. As such, a safe rebound is defined as a rebound outside of an imaginary line drawn from each goalpost to the corresponding board-side hash mark. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie gives up 10 rebounds and deflects 9 of those pucks outside the slot, his "safe rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

The next number is the percentage of saves that would be considered "big saves". A big save is defined as any save made on a play that would be considered a traditional scoring chance. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie makes 5 big saves on 20 shots his "big save percentage" would be .250. Once again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

I also track how a goalie controls the puck. I do this by tracking his successful or unsuccessful pass-attempts, as well as his successful or unsuccessful attempts to dump the puck out of his zone. The resulting numbers are used to produce a ratio of successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

HABS: Fourth 1-game Scouting Report for Charles Hudon

This one-game scouting report is from game-4 of the Russia/Canada Challenge Tournament. Canada won the game 4-2. This report does not include the numbers from the tournament-deciding overtime portion of game 4.

Charles Hudon was the Montreal Canadiens fifth round pick in the 2012 NHL Entry draft. The 5'10", 171 lbs left-handed winger scored 25 goals and added 41 assists in 59 QMJHL games in 2011-12. The Chicoutimi Sagueneens veteran also posted a traditional plus/minus rating of plus-28. Hudon continues to turn heads during this event. He has the ability to change direction quickly, while also maintaining puck-possession. He has a short-stride, but does show good speed over short distances.

Much like Mike Ribeiro, Hudon uses a long stick for his size. When he gets the puck he skates and passes much like Ribeiro. This is not to say that Hudon will be just like Ribeiro. This is more of an aesthetic resemblance; not a projection.

He played two powerplay shifts during the game, but was a huge part of the PK; with 5 short-handed appearances.


OVERALL GRADE

Hudon produced another above average overall grade (74). This makes it a clean sweep, as Hudon produced an above-average overall grade in each of the four games. Although he didn't produce any points, he did have 6 shots on net. His best work occurred in the offensive-zone, where 60% of his even-strength events took place.

EVEN-STRENGTH RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon earned an above-average even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.61, and an ES ratio of 1.83 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.  Hudon was involved in nearly every aspect of the play. The puck continued to follow him, as he engaged in an impressive 5.49 even-strength events per-minute of ice-time.

*the average ES risk/reward among forwards is 1.10
*the average ES ratio among forwards is 1.87

OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

 Hudon produced a well-above average offensive-zone rating of 0.93, and an o-zone ratio of 1.79 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.  He was successful with his only attempt to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the offensive-zone, and recovered 6 loose-pucks. He completed 7 of 10 o-zone pass-attempts, and 5 of 9 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke).  He engaged in an impressive 3.30 offensive-zone events per-minute played. To put this in perspective, Hudon engaged in more o-zone events than many players' total event average.
 
*the average offensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.39
*the average offensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.62
 

DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.42, and a d-zone ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. Hudon's strong puck-possession play in the d-zone is only overshadowed by his involvement. He went from averaging 0.26 d-zone events per-minute game in the QMJHL to just under 0.80 during this series.

During game 4 he was successful with 1 of his 2 attempts to remove puck-possession from the opposition, and recovered 4 loose-pucks. He failed to recover 1other loose-puck, and completed both of his attempted passes. He also intercepted 1 opposition pass, and engaged in 1.27 defensive-zone events per-minute played. 

*the average defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.38
*the average defensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.95 

NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

 Hudon earned a neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.30, and a neutral-zone ratio of 1.75. He failed with all 3 of his attempts to remove puck-possession from the opposition, and recovered 3 loose-pucks. He completed his only pass-attempt and his only attempt to beat an opposition player 1on1 (deke). He was successful with 1 of his 2 attempt to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone, and engaged in 1.10 neutral-zone events per-minute played.

*the average neutral-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.30
*the average neutral-zone ratio among forwards is 2.14

Habs: Yet Another 1-game Scouting Report for Charles Hudon

This one-game scouting report is from game-3 of the Russia/Canada Challenge Tournament. Russia won the game 6-5.

Charles Hudon was the Montreal Canadiens fifth round pick in the 2012 NHL Entry draft. The 5'10", 171 lbs left-handed winger scored 25 goals and added 41 assists in 59 QMJHL games in 2011-12. The Chicoutimi Sagueneens veteran also posted a traditional plus/minus rating of plus-28. Hudon continues to turn heads during this event. He has the ability to change direction quickly, while also maintaining puck-possession. He has a short-stride, but does show good speed over short distances. He also uses a long stick for his size.

He played only one substantial penalty-killing shift during the game, but was a huge part of the powerplay, with 6 powerplay appearances.


OVERALL GRADE

Hudon produced his third-straight above-average overall grade (74) during the tournament. He had a solid powerplay risk/reward rating of 2.72, and an equally solid PP ratio of 2.88 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He scored 1 goal, and added 1 assist, while getting 3 shots on net. He did not engage in any short-handed events, and 64% of his even-strength events took place in the offensive-zone.

EVEN-STRENGTH RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon earned a solid even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.09, and an ES ratio of 1.93 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 3.43 even-strength events per-minute played; his lowest involvement through the first 3 games.

*the average ES risk/reward among forwards is 1.10
*the average ES ratio among forwards is 1.87

OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon produced another above-average offensive-zone risk/reward rating (0.67). He also earned a solid offensive-zone ratio of 1.89. He recovered 6 loose-pucks, but failed to recover one other. He completed an impressive 7 of 9 o-zone pass-attempts, but only 2 of 6 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke). He failed to get either of his 2 shot-attempts through to the net, and engaged in 2.18 offensive-zone events per-minute played.

*the average offensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.39
*the average offensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.62

DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had a defensive-zone rating of 0.25, and a d-zone ratio of 2.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He continued to fight the urge to fly the zone early, and was aware enough to collapse-in on the weak-side when necessary. He was successful with 1 of his 2 attempts to remove puck-possession from the opposition, and failed to recover 1 loose-puck. He completed both of his d-zone pass-attempts, and engaged in 0.59 defensive-zone events per-minute played.

*the average defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.38
*the average defensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.95

NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon earned a neutral-zone rating of 0.20 and a neutral-zone ratio of 1.67 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 1 loose-puck, competed his only pass-attempts, and was successful with both his attempts to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone. He failed with his only attempt to beat an opposing player 1on1 (deke), and engaged in 0.80 neutral-zone events per-minute played.

*the average neutral-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.30
*the average neutral-zone ratio among forwards is 2.14

Habs: Which Events in Which Zones Translate to Wins

At even-strength, getting the puck is just as important as what you do with it. 

Aside from the obvious goals for and against, I have yet to find any one even-strength event involving skaters that is constantly and substantially higher during wins. That said, there are some traditional statistics that are consistently higher during wins. One example is special team success; which I wrote about here. While the other is save percentage; which I wrote about here.

Here, I will focus on the impact the Montreal Canadiens ability to remove or acquire puck-possession, as well as their ability to maintain puck-possession within each zone had on wins and losses. The statistics used are from the 2011-12 regular season

The numbers included in this chart represent the average success-rates withing each category. The numbers in the red column represent the average success-rates during losses, while the numbers in the green column represent the average success-rates in wins.

 O-ZONE POSSESSION

"Offensive-zone possession" represents the team's ability to maintain possession of the puck in the offensive-zone. Events included in this category are limited to those that take place when a player has the puck on his stick in the offensive-zone.

In games that saw the Habs lose, they were successful with 56.2% of their attempts to either beat opposition players 1on1, pass the puck to a teammate,  or get a shot on net.  In wins, they were successful with 57% of these events. The team average through all 82 games was 56.5%.

At even-strength, the Habs engaged in 14024 events while in possession of the puck in the offensive-zone. This translates to an average of  171 per-game. Breaking down the above success-rates, we see that the Habs were successful with an average of  98 of those events during wins, and 96 during losses.

O-ZONE DEFENSIVE

"Offensive-zone defensive" represents the team's ability to remove or acquire puck- possession from the opposition in the offensive-zone; otherwise expressed as forechecking. Events included in this category are limited to those that take place when either the other team, or neither team has possession of the puck in the offensive-zone. 

In games that saw the Habs lose, they were successful with 70.6% of their attempts to either win puck-battles, recover loose-pucks, poke-check, or intercept opposition passes.  In wins, they were successful with 72.3 % of these events. The team average through all 82 games was 71.2%.

At even-strength, the Habs engaged in 10473 events while attempting to remove or acquire puck-possession from the opposition in the offensive-zone. This translates to an average of  127 per-game. Breaking down the above success-rates, we see that the Habs were successful with an average of  92 of those events during wins, and 90 during losses.



 N-ZONE POSSESSION

"Neutral-zone possession" represents the team's ability to maintain possession of the puck in the neutral-zone. Events included in this category are limited to those that take place when a player has the puck on his stick in the neutral-zone.

In games that saw the Habs lose, they were successful with 69.4% of their attempts to either beat opposition players 1on1, pass the puck to a teammate,  or dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone.  In wins, they were successful with 70.2% of these events. The team average through all 82 games was 69.7%.

At even-strength, the Habs engaged in 8833 events while in possesson of the puck in the neutral-zone. This translates to an average of  108 per-game. Breaking down the above success-rates, we see that the Habs were successful with an average of  76 of those events during wins, and 75 during losses.


N-ZONE DEFENSIVE

"Neutral-zone defensive" represents the team's ability to remove or acquire puck-possession from the opposition in the neutral-zone. Events included in this category are limited to those that take place when either the other team, or neither team has possession of the puck in the neutral-zone. 

In games that saw the Habs lose, they were successful with 71.8% of their attempts to either win puck-battles, recover loose-pucks, poke-check, or intercept opposition passes.  In wins, they were successful with 71.4 % of these events. The team average through all 82 games was 71.6%. There is no typo here. Incredibly enough, the Habs were actually more successful removing or acquiring puck-possession from the opposition in losses than in wins.

At even-strength, the Habs engaged in 4875 events while attempting to remove or acquire puck-possession from the opposition in the offensive-zone. This translates to an average of  59 per-game. Breaking down the above success-rates, we see that the Habs were successful with an average of  43 of those events during wins, and an equal 43 during losses.



D-ZONE POSSESSION

"Defensive-zone possession" represents the team's ability to maintain possession of the puck in the defensive-zone. Events included in this category are limited to those that take place when a player has the puck on his stick in the defensive-zone.

In games that saw the Habs lose, they were successful with 67.8% of their attempts to either beat opposition players 1on1, pass the puck to a teammate,  or dump the puck out of the defensive-zone.  In wins, they were successful with 67.2% of these events. The team average through all 82 games was 67.5%. Again, there is no typo here. Incredibly enough, the Habs were actually more successful maintaining puck-possession in the defensive-zone during losses*.

At even-strength, the Habs engaged in 15212 events while in possesson of the puck in the defensive-zone. This translates to an average of  186 per-game. Breaking down the above success-rates, we see that the Habs were successful with an average of  125 of those events during wins, and 126 during losses.

*A possible explanation of this result exists in the fact that successful dump-outs are included in this calculation. Successful dump-outs don't allow you to maintain puck-possession; they simply allow you to avoid a defensive-zone give-away. Looking at the numbers more closely, I found that the Canadiens averaged 2 more successful dump-outs during losses, thereby easily covering the extra successful play during those losses. 


 D-ZONE DEFENSIVE

"Defensive-zone defensive" represents the team's ability to remove or acquire puck-possession from the opposition in the defensive-zone. Events included in this category are limited to those that take place when either the other team, or neither team has possession of the puck in the defensive-zone. 

In games that saw the Habs lose, they were successful with 68.2% of their attempts to either win puck-battles, recover loose-pucks, poke-check, block shots, or intercept opposition passes.  In wins, they were successful with 69 % of these events. The team average through all 82 games was 68.5%.

At even-strength, the Habs engaged in 18114 events while attempting to remove or acquire puck-possession from the opposition in the defensive-zone. This translates to an average of  221 per-game. Breaking down the above success-rates, we see that the Habs were successful with an average of  153 of those events during wins, and 151 during losses.


CONCLUSION

Although the success-rates calculated during even-strength events fluctuate little from wins to losses, and are not as apparent as special team numbers, there are still some metrics that change more than others. These include the ability to maintain, remove, and acquire puck-possession in the offensive-zone, as well as the ability to remove or acquire puck-possession in the defensive-zone.

Expressed more simply, among even-strength play; successful forechecking and maintaining puck-possession in the o-zone (completed passes, successful dekes, and shots through to the net), as well as good defensive-play in the defensive-zone (blocking shots, intercepting passes, winning puck-battles, recovering loose-pucks) seemed to have the most impact on whether the Habs won or lost games during the 2011-12 season.

HABS: Another 1-game Scouting Report for Charles Hudon

This one-game scouting report is from game-2 of the Russia/Canada Challenge Tournament. Russia won the game 6-3.

Charles Hudon was the Montreal Canadiens fifth round pick in the 2012 NHL Entry draft. The 5'10", 171 lbs left-handed winger scored 25 goals and added 41 assists in 59 QMJHL games in 2011-12. The Chicoutimi Sagueneens veteran also posted a traditional plus/minus rating of plus-28. Hudon has an ability to change direction quickly, while also maintaining puck-possession. He has a short-stride, but does show good speed over short distances.

He played only one substantial powerplay shift during the game, but was a huge part of the penalty-killing unit, with 7 short-handed appearances.


OVERALL GRADE

Hudon produced an above-average overall grade of 72. He had no points, and 3 shots on goal. He had a solid short-handed ratio of 4.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. As with game-1 of the series, Sixty-three percent of his even-strength events took place in the offensive-zone. It is also important to note that due to some discipline issues withing Team Canada, 22% of Hudon's overall ice-time was spent killing penalties.

EVEN-STRENGTH RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had an above-average even-strength risk/reward rating of 0.95, and an even-strength ratio of 1.73 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. His best rating was produced in the offensive-zone, and he engaged in 3.53 even-strength events per-minute played. Hudon was less involved in this game than he was in game-1.

*the average ES risk/reward among forwards is 1.10
*the average ES ratio among forwards is 1.87 

OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had an above-average offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.69, and an offensive-zone ratio of 1.89 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 4 loose-pucks, but failed to recover 3 others. He completed 5 of 7 o-zone pass-attempts, and 4 of 5 attempts to beat opposition players 1on1 (deke). He was able to get 3 of his 4 shot-attempts through to the net, and engaged in 2.24 offensive-zone events per-minute played.

*the average offensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.39
*the average offensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.62

 
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.09, and a defensive-zone ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He had far fewer defensive-zone events in this game than he did in game-1.  He was successful with his only attempt to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the defensive-zone, and recovered 1 loose-puck. He failed to recover one other loose-puck, and engaged in 0.26 defensive-zone events per-minute played. 

*the average defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.38
*the average defensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.95

NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had a neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.20, and a neutral-zone ratio of 1.4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 3 loose-pucks, and completed only 1 of his 3 pass-attempts. He was successful with 2 of his 4 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke).  He dumped the puck into the offensive-zone on one occasion, and engaged in 1.20 neutral-zone events per-minute played. 

*the average neutral-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.30
*the average neutral-zone ratio among forwards is 2.14

 








 

HABS: One-game Scouting Report for Charles Hudon

This one-game scouting report is from game-1 of the Russia/Canada Challenge Tournament. Canada won the game 3-2.

Charles Hudon was the Montreal Canadiens fifth round pick in the 2012 NHL Entry draft. The 5'10", 171 lbs left-handed winger scored 25 goals and added 41 assists in 59 QMJHL games in 2011-12. The Chicoutimi Sagueneens veteran also posted a traditional plus/minus rating of plus-28. Hudon has an ability to change direction quickly, while also maintaining puck-possession. He has a short-stride, but does show good speed over short distances.

He played on the powerplay and penalty-killing units. In fact, he was on the ice in the last minute of the game to defend a 1 goal lead.

OVERALL GRADE

Hudon produced a well above-average overall grade of 74. He had no points, and 3 shots on goal. He had a solid powerplay ratio of 6 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play, and also had a short-handed breakaway. Sixty-three percent of his even-strength events took place in the offensive-zone.

EVEN-STRENGTH RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had an impressive even-strength risk/reward rating of 2.09, and an even-strength ratio of 2.44 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. His best rating was actually produced in the neutral-zone, and he engaged in 4.98 even-strength events per-minute played.

*the average ES risk/reward among forwards is 1.10
*the average ES ratio among forwards is 1.87 

OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had an above-average offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.72, and an offensive-zone ratio of 1.60 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He was successful with 1 of his 2 attempts to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the offensive-zone, and recovered 8 loose-pucks. He completed 6 of his 9 offensive-zone pass-attempts, but was successful with only 2 of his 6 attempts to beat opposition players 1on1 (deke). He was able to get 3 of his 6 shot-attempts through to the net, and engaged in 3.13 offensive-zone events per-minute played. 

*the average offensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.39
*the average offensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.62

 
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.56, and a defensive-zone ratio of 8 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He had more defensive-zone events in this game than he did in any other I've scouted; not because Canada struggled defensively, but because he didn't fly the zone as often as usual. He was successful with his only attempt to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the defensive-zone, and recovered 3 loose-pucks. He completed his only pass-attempt, and engaged in 0.72 defensive-zone events per-minute played. 

*the average defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.38
*the average defensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.95

NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Hudon had a neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 1.00, and an impressive neutral-zone ratio of 6 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He was successful with 1 of his 2 attempts to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the neutral-zone, and recovered 3 loose-pucks. He completed both his pass-attempts, as well as both his attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke).  He intercepted 1 opposition pass, and engaged in 1.40 neutral-zone events per-minute played. 

*the average neutral-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.30
*the average neutral-zone ratio among forwards is 2.14

HABS: One-game Scouting Report for Alex Galchenyuk

Alex Galchenyuk was the Montreal Canadiens first pick (third overall) in the 2012 NHL entry draft. Galchenyuk is a 6'0", 200 lbs left-handed centre. Due to a serious knee injury, he played only 2 regular season, and 6 playoff games during the 2011-12 season.

This one-game scouting report is from a 2012 US world-junior development camp tournament game between the US (team blue) and Finland. The US won the game 5-4. Galchenyuk was not his usual puck-possession machine during the game. He actually had more success removing puck-possession from the opposition in the offensive-zone than he did maintaining possession.

He had 5 offensive-zone starts at even-strength, as well as 5 defensive-zone starts at even-strength. He won 7 of his 9 faceoffs, and had 1 powerplay, as well as 1 penalty-killing shift.


OVERALL GRADE

Galchenyuk had an average overall grade of 69. He engaged in 4.06 events per-minute, and 34% of his events took place in the offensive-zone. His overall grade was helped by his 4 shots on goal, and  he scored 1 goal.

EVEN-STENGTH RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Galchenyuk produced a slightly below-average even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.03, and an ES ratio of 1.63 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. His best work was produced in the offensive-zone, and he engaged in 4.3 even-strength events per-minute played.


*the average ES risk/reward among forwards is 1.10
*the average ES ratio among forwards is 1.87

OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Galchenyuk had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.43, and an o-zone ratio of 1.83 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 1 loose-puck, but failed to recover 2 others. He completed his only offensive-zone pass, but was successful with only 2 of his 5 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke). He was able to get 4 of his 5 attempted shots through to the net, and engaged in  1.46 offensive-zone events per-minute played.

*the average offensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.39
*the average offensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.62

DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

Galchenyuk had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.26, and a d-zone ratio of 1.33 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He was successful with 3 of his 6 attempts to remove puck-possession from the opposition in the defensive-zone, and recovered 5 loose-pucks. He completed 1 of his 2 pass-attempts, and engaged in 1.81 defensive-zone events per-minute played.

*the average defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.38
*the average defensive-zone ratio among forwards is 1.95

 












 NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO

 Galchenyuk had a neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.29, and a neutral-zone ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He was successful with his only attempt to remove puck-possession from the opposition, and recovered 3 loose-pucks. He completed 3 of his 4 n-zone passes, failed with his only attempt to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone, and engaged in 0.86 neutral-zone events per-minute played.

*the average neutral-zone risk/reward among forwards is 0.30
*the average neutral-zone ratio among forwards is 2.14

One-game Scouting Report for Carey Price and Jonas Gustavsson

This scouting report is from the March 3rd, 2012 game between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens. Toronto won the game 3-1.

Carey Price is the Montreal Canadiens undisputed number 1 goalie. Price is a 6'3", 220 lbs left-handed shooting goalie. Price finished the 2011-12 regular season with a 26-28-11 record, a 2.43 goals against average, and a .916 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .916 during the regular season, and .907 during the playoffs.

Jonas Gustavsson recently signed a 2-year deal with the Detroit Red Wings. Gustavsson played the 2011-12 season with Toronto, before being traded to the Winnipeg Jets on June 23rd, 2012. Winnipeg wasn't able to come to terms with The 6'3", 192 lbs Gustavsson; making him an unrestricted free agent. The left-handed shooting Gustavsson had a 17-17-4 record in 2011-12, with a 2.92 goals against average, and a .902 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .900 during the regular season, and has yet to play an NHL playoff game.

My scouting reports for goalies focus on their ability to make saves, make big saves, and control rebounds. The results of these attributes are added together to produce the goaltender's rating. The highest possible rating is 4.00, while the lowest possible rating is 0.00. The higher the value the better a goalie has played.

The first number involved in the calculation is the percentage of saves a goalie makes without giving up a rebound. For example, if a goalie makes 10 saves and gives up only 1 rebound his "no rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performed.

The next number in the calculation is the percentage of safe rebounds a goalie gives up for each rebound allowed. Rebounds deflected outside of the main slot are considered safe. As such, a safe rebound is defined as a rebound outside of an imaginary line drawn from each goalpost to the corresponding board-side hash mark. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie gives up 10 rebounds and deflects 9 of those pucks outside the slot, his "safe rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

The next number is the percentage of saves that would be considered "big saves". A big save is defined as any save made on a play that would be considered a traditional scoring chance. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie makes 5 big saves on 20 shots his "big save percentage" would be .250. Once again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

I also track how a goalie controls the puck. I do this by tracking his successful or unsuccessful pass-attempts, as well as his successful or unsuccessful attempts to dump the puck out of his zone. The resulting numbers are used to produce a ratio of successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

SHORT-HANDED GOALTENDING RATING

Carey Price continued his strong short-handed goaltending; producing another above-average short-handed rating. This, despite a low save-percentage. He stopped 5 of 6 short handed shots. He produced rebounds from 3 of those 5 saves, but only 1 of those 3 rebounds landed in the slot. He also made 1 save on a Toronto scoring chance.

Gustavsson had a perfect short-handed save-percentage, but a below average short-handed goaltending rating. He stopped both shots he faced, but allowed rebounds from both of those saves. One of those 2 rebounds landed in the slot, and none of his saves came on Montreal scoring chances. 

OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING

Price's even-strength rating was slightly better than his short-handed rating; pushing his overall rating to a solid 2.11. Overall, he stopped 39 of 42 shots. He allowed rebounds on 26 of those 39 saves. 
Ten of those rebounds landed in the slot, and he made an impressive 9 saves on Toronto scoring chance.

Price completed 7 of 8 pass-attempts; giving him a puck-handling ratio of 7 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Gustavsson's even-strength rating helped improve his overall rating substantially. Overall, he stopped 21 of 22 shots. He allowed rebounds from 13 of those 21 saves. Seven of those rebounds landed in the slot, and he made 3 saves on Montreal scoring chances.

Gustavsson completed 5 of 7 pass-attempts; giving him a puck-handling ratio of 2.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Keep in mind, this is simply a one-game scouting report. As such, it is only meant as a reflection of each goalies performance during this one-game. 

One-game Scouting Report for Carey Price and Roberto Luongo

This scouting report is from the March 10th, 2012 game between the Vancouver Canucks and the Montreal Canadiens. Montreal won the game 4-1.

Carey Price is the Montreal Canadiens undisputed number 1 goalie. Price is a 6'3", 220 lbs left-handed shooting goalie. Price finished the 2011-12 regular season with a 26-28-11 record, a 2.43 goals against average, and a .916 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .916 during the regular season, and .907 during the playoffs.

The 6'3", 217 lbs. Luongo finished the 2011-12 regular season with a 35-21-13 record, a 1.95 goals against average, and a .929 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .919 during the regular season, and .917 during the playoffs.

My scouting reports for goalies focus on their ability to make saves, make big saves, and control rebounds. The results of these attributes are added together to produce the goaltender's rating. The highest possible rating is 4.00, while the lowest possible rating is 0.00. The higher the value the better a goalie has played.

The first number involved in the calculation is the percentage of saves a goalie makes without giving up a rebound. For example, if a goalie makes 10 saves and gives up only 1 rebound his "no rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performed.

The next number in the calculation is the percentage of safe rebounds a goalie gives up for each rebound allowed. Rebounds deflected outside of the main slot are considered safe. As such, a safe rebound is defined as a rebound outside of an imaginary line drawn from each goalpost to the corresponding board-side hash mark. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie gives up 10 rebounds and deflects 9 of those pucks outside the slot, his "safe rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

The next number is the percentage of saves that would be considered "big saves". A big save is defined as any save made on a play that would be considered a traditional scoring chance. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie makes 5 big saves on 20 shots his "big save percentage" would be .250. Once again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

I also track how a goalie controls the puck. I do this by tracking his successful or unsuccessful pass-attempts, as well as his successful or unsuccessful attempts to dump the puck out of his zone. The resulting numbers are used to produce a ratio of successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

SHORT-HANDED GOALTENDING RATING

 Price produced a substantially higher short-handed goaltending rating than Luongo. Luongo made more "big saves" short-handed, but Price did a better job controlling the existence of any rebounds.

Price had an impressive short-handed rating of 2.75. He stopped all 4 short-handed shot he faced. He allowed 2 rebounds from those 4 saves, none of which landed in the slot. He also made one save on a Vancouver scoring chance.

Luongo had a low short-handed goaltending rating of 1.76. He stopped 8 of 9 shots he faced, and allowed 4 rebounds. All 4 of those rebounds landed in the slot, and 3 of his 8 saves came on Montreal scoring chances.






OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING

Price's even-strength rating was actually lower than his short-handed rating, while Luongo's overall rating was helped by his play at even-strength.

Price had an above-average overall goaltending rating of 2.12. His rating was buoyed by a high save-percentage, and solid rebound control. Overall he stopped 32 of 33 shots. He produced rebounds from 17 of those saves, while 8 of those rebounds landed in the slot. Five of his saves came on Vancouver scoring chances.

Price was successful with only 5 of 9 pass-attempts; giving him a puck-handling ratio of 1.25 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. 

Despite a low save-percentage, Luongo produced a solid overall goaltending rating of 2.01.  This was thanks to a high "big save" percentage, and some solid work avoiding the existence of rebounds. Overall he stopped 31 of 35 shots. He allowed rebounds from 17 of those saves, and 10 of those rebounds landed in the slot. He also made an impressive 8 saves on Montreal scoring chances.

Luongo was successful with 4 of 6 pass-attempts, and failed with his only attempt to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone. As such, he produced a puck-handling ratio of 1.33 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Keep in mind, this is simply a one-game scouting report. As such, it is only meant as a reflection of each goalies performance during this one-game.

One-game Scouting Report for Peter Budaj and Cam Ward

This scouting report is from the April 5th, 2012 game between the Carolina Hurricanes and the Montreal Canadiens. Carolina won the game 2-1 in a shoot-out.

Peter Budaj is the Montreal Canadiens back-up goalie. Budaj started 17 games for the Habs in 2011-12.  Posting a 5-7 record, a 2.55 goals against average, and a solid .913 save percentage. Both his save percentage and goals against average this season were substantially higher than his career average.

The 6'1", 200 lbs. Cam Ward finished the regular season with a 30-23-3 record, a 2.74 goals against average, and a .917 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .910 during the regular season, and .917 during the playoffs. He won the Conn Smythe trophy as the playoff MVP during Carolina's Stanley Cup win in 2006.

My scouting reports for goalies focus on their ability to make saves, make big saves, and control rebounds. The results of these attributes are added together to produce the goaltender's rating. The highest possible rating is 4.00, while the lowest possible rating is 0.00. The higher the value the better a goalie has played.

The first number involved in the calculation is the percentage of saves a goalie makes without giving up a rebound. For example, if a goalie makes 10 saves and gives up only 1 rebound his "no rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

The next number in the calculation is the percentage of safe rebounds a goalie gives up for each rebound allowed. Rebounds deflected outside of the main slot are considered safe. As such, a safe rebound is defined as a rebound outside of an imaginary line drawn from each goalpost to the corresponding board-side hash mark. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie gives up 10 rebounds and deflects 9 of those pucks outside the slot, his "safe rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

The next number is the percentage of saves that would be considered "big saves". A big save is defined as any save made on a play that would be considered a traditional scoring chance. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie makes 5 big saves on 20 shots his "big save percentage" would be .250. Once again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.

I also track how a goalie controls the puck. I do this by tracking his successful or unsuccessful pass-attempts, as well as his successful or unsuccessful attempts to dump the puck out of his zone. The resulting numbers are used to produce a ratio of successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

SHORT-HANDED GOALTENDING RATING

Cam Ward had a better short-handed rating than Budaj. Ward did a much better job controlling the existence of rebounds, and keeping those rebounds he did produce out of the slot.

Ward stopped 6 of 6 short-handed shots. Only 2 of those saves produced rebounds, and 1 of those 2 rebounds landed in the slot.

Budaj stopped 6 of 7 short-handed shots. He allowed rebounds from 5 of those 6 saves, and 3 of those rebounds landed in the slot. One of Budaj's SH saves occurred on a Carolina scoring chance.

OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING

Both goalies' even-strength rating were enough to push their overall ratings above 2.00.

Budaj produced an overall goaltending rating of 2.04. He did a better job controlling rebounds at even-strength, and had a better ES save-percentage. Overall, he stopped 28 of 29 shots. He produced 14 rebounds from those 28 saves, and 10 of those rebounds landed in the slot. Budaj also made an impressive 8 saves on Carolina scoring chances to boost his rating even higher.

Budaj was successful with 8 of 10 pass-attempts; giving him a puck-handling ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Ward had an impressive overall goaltending rating of 2.11. He produced more overall rebounds than Budaj, but did a better job controlling the placement of those rebounds. Overall, Ward stopped 30 of 31 shots. He produced 17 rebounds from those 30 saves, and 10 of those rebounds landed in the slot. Ward also made an incredible 9 saves on Montreal scoring chances.

Ward was successful with 10 of 11 pass-attempts. The one failed pass-attempts actually resulted in a Montreal scoring chance. Ward's work outside of his crease produced a puck-handling ratio of 10 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Keep in mind, this is only a one-game scouting report. As such, it is only meant to reflect these goalies performance during this one game.