The hockey faceoff - initially called a "Bully", has evolved from a barely strategic start/resumption of play in a hockey game to the present NHL version with skater rosters ~ twice the size with situation specific substitution and use of players. The ideal skaters, attributes, skill, tactics and handedness are positioned exactly for each situation in each zone - defensive, neutral, offensive. Today the Faceoff spots are very limited and clearly defined. Not so historically when the vague, interpretive and variable approach prevailed.
How is the importance of NHL faceoffs defined, evaluated and interpreted?
In NFL football, the snap is the NHL faceoff equivalent. The participation of the 11 offensive, defensive, kicking team players is strictly monitored and analyzed. Counted - most, % of team/unit total and much more.
Should similar methodologies be developed and applied to NHL hockey faceoffs?
Unless roster sizes are expanded I don't think you'll see NHL faceoffs get as specialized as NFL snaps. Many NFL teams have a roster spot for a long-snapper who only plays on field goal attempts and punts...all of his other "football skills" are not at the pro level. At current roster sizes it is not worth it for NHL teams to have a player's role be that specialized.
Unless roster sizes are expanded I don't think you'll see NHL faceoffs get as specialized as NFL snaps. Many NFL teams have a roster spot for a long-snapper who only plays on field goal attempts and punts...all of his other "football skills" are not at the pro level. At current roster sizes it is not worth it for NHL teams to have a player's role be that specialized.
NHL has standardized and limited the number of possible faceoff spots to a limited number. Moving forward this will make it easy to track and compare faceoff participation in the NHL.
In the NFL there is a huge number of possible snap positions on the field,yet the NFL manages very well when it comes to evaluating snap participation of 11 players as opposed to 5 with one goalie.
Should similar methodologies be developed and applied to NHL hockey faceoffs?
... they already are, have been for as long as Ive been watching, played the game. Some Coaches, like Alain Vigneault of Vancouver seriously micro-manage player positioning, pinching, handedness of the guy on the draw, his wingers & defenceman, taking a time out before the puck drops or instructing his players before a change-up, or from the bench with hand signals. Almost every face-off in a game in fact, regardless of where it takes place on the ice. Most of the very best Coaches' do it. I remember seeing Billy Reay, Scotty Bowman & a few others practicing it. Most effective, astute.
NHL has standardized and limited the number of possible faceoff spots to a limited number. Moving forward this will make it easy to track and compare faceoff participation in the NHL.
In the NFL there is a huge number of possible snap positions on the field,yet the NFL manages very well when it comes to evaluating snap participation of 11 players as opposed to 5 with one goalie.
I don't understand, how does this address NHL teams carrying half the amount of players NFL teams can?
53 - 11 Offensive starters and 11 defensive starters = 31 spots to dedicate to special teams, subs, and specialists
If the NHL could afford the same you'd probably see plenty of faceoff or shootout specialists.
... they already are, have been for as long as Ive been watching, played the game. Some Coaches, like Alain Vigneault of Vancouver seriously micro-manage player positioning, pinching, handedness of the guy on the draw, his wingers & defenceman, taking a time out before the puck drops or instructing his players before a change-up, or from the bench with hand signals. Almost every face-off in a game in fact, regardless of where it takes place on the ice. Most of the very best Coaches' do it. I remember seeing Billy Reay, Scotty Bowman & a few others practicing it. Most effective, astute.
And now we are asking why. The teams have internal data that tracks face-off efficiency and performance.
Having dropped the puck for thousands of face-offs at every level of the game, I personally, don't see the advantage of the positioning of the centers nowadays. First of all the rule states that they should be approximately one stick length apart. Now, their heads are almost touching. No way are they approximately one stick length apart. Their lower hand is way down on the shaft, in the backhand position. How many time have you seen a direct shot on goal from this position? Before this position was taken up, I believe that you would see more goals scored off of the face-off. In one WHA game I worked, I saw four goals scored off of face-offs. One from a direct shot. Dave Keon was involved in three of those goals, scoring one from a direct shot and assisting on two more.
Having dropped the puck for thousands of face-offs at every level of the game, I personally, don't see the advantage of the positioning of the centers nowadays. First of all the rule states that they should be approximately one stick length apart. Now, their heads are almost touching. No way are they approximately one stick length apart. Their lower hand is way down on the shaft, in the backhand position. How many time have you seen a direct shot on goal from this position? Before this position was taken up, I believe that you would see more goals scored off of the face-off. In one WHA game I worked, I saw four goals scored off of face-offs. One from a direct shot. Dave Keon was involved in three of those goals, scoring one from a direct shot and assisting on two more.
Memories. Jean Beliveau a LHS suckering Don Simmons a RH catching goalie from the LW offensive face-off. Motioned his players wide ride, Simmons and the Bruins adjusted. Beliveau nailed the short side from the face-off.
Dave Keon against a WHA center. Mismatch potential.
Today, especially since the retirement of Gretzky and Lemieux, the idea has been to effectively neutralize the face-off.
And now we are asking why. The teams have internal data that tracks face-off efficiency and performance.
... well, certainly it was practiced to the nth degree by Reay and throughout the Black Hawks organization, from the old Dixie Beehives Jr.B teams through St. Catherines of the OHA Jr.A & in Chicago while he was around, large and in charge.
You can see it in the care & precision taken by the BlackHawks & Habs of the late 50's & 60's in how they approached faceoffs'. Like surgeons. Conversions to attack. Directed from the bench, practiced, sessions of 5on5, 5on4, 4on4, 4on3 and individually, one on one. Some players deliberately moved to off natural shot wings or points based on the centres handedness, size & so on.
Imlach full-on defensive mode, even in an offensive zone faceoff, neutralizing with the body, clutch & grab, technically a mindset of an earlier decade but still effective enough with the specific players the Leafs employed at that time. In Montreal, from Blake to Bowman; Lemaire and other "pupils" taking with when they went elsewhere, be it Jersey or Minnesota or wherever else. Indeed, permeated the entire organization from Peterborough on up, and if Im not mistaken copied en mass in Quebec from AAA to the QMJHL influencing many, including Vigneault as mentioned earlier.
From those basics developed by Blake et al, we have an even more sophisticated pardigm, whereby everything from video replay & more intensive scouting, the sourcing of specific criteria & collection of statistics to the most minute of details allows for the maximization of ones talent in winning draws, as the more draws you win, the more goals you score, the more games you win. And that is the Why IMO & Im sure many others opinions C58. Win the draw with better positioning, gain possession, convert. Real simple.
Players are indeed "specialists" in todays game. Its that fact, the loss & absence of a whole host of additional arts & skills, the "well rounded" player that we of a certain age bemoan. Still, there are enough bright lights, Datsyuk, Lidstrom & tens of dozens more who are a lot more than just one or two dimensional specialists, and even back in the day every team had role players so I guess overall a wash. Its really quite apparent in the face-off circle, the time taken by todays players compared to yesteryears, just how micro-managed the games become.
Having dropped the puck for thousands of face-offs... Dave Keon was involved in three of those goals, scoring one from a direct shot and assisting on two more.
... ya, gone is the forehand on the shaft between two Centres, whereby if you were a goalie facing that, a guy on his natural Left or Right forehand could get off a really nasty shot at you if he beat your Centre to the puck when it hit the ice. From a goalies perspective, deadly as your facing what is essentially a one timer from in-close. Might as well give the Ref the point for the Assist.... Todays Centre uses a short stick, often grasping the shaft a foot above the blade on the backhand, bent right over with legs wide apart and edges planted, maybe a foot from helmet to helmet, immediately leaning into the other Centre, looking to feed rather than getting a shot off at the net. Inevitably this can lead to a lot of waive outs, as the Ref's apply the Rule Book be it for crowding or excessive blade movement & parry in order to gain the advantage. Can be annoying as all Hell.
I think you misunderstood his post...when he was using the term "spots" he was referring to roster spots not faceoff spots
Understood his post perfectly.
Point is that there are almost an infinite number of "snap" spots on a field.
As for roster spots, hockey is played with 5 skater spots per side. Applying the distributive property this creates 3 to 4 options for each skater spot at a face-off even though the game roster is very limited compared to the NFL.
Conversely NFL football is played with 11 dedicated position spots on offence and defence for a total of 22 per team out of a much larger roster of 53. Applying the distributive property after factoring out the kicking specialists and you are left with 29 subs for 22 positions or roughly 1.3 per position.
I did get some advice from Stan Mikita. "Quit waving the F n Puck and drop it."
You learn something new every game.
How did puck dropping techniques change over the years as face-off strategies evolved? Also the responsibilities given officials during face-offs. Each one has distinct responsibilities depending on the spot.
Years ago determining the spot of a face-off was an interesting process in itself.
How did puck dropping techniques change over the years as face-off strategies evolved? Also the responsibilities given officials during face-offs. Each one has distinct responsibilities depending on the spot.
Years ago determining the spot of a face-off was an interesting process in itself.
When I started officiating in 1953, I dropped the puck from around waist high. In 1958, when I was a Linesman in my first pro game, WHL, Vern Buffey was the referee and he told me that I should present the puck before dropping it. Slightly bent knees, bend over at the waist, hold the puck knee high and over the face-off spot. Much cleaner face-off. The players are always watching the Linesman's hand and as soon as the hand starts to move, they are moving their sticks, trying to get the puck before or as soon as it hits the ice. That's the way I dropped the puck for the next thirty years. They did do it that way in the NHL and I'm not sure exactly when they got away from that and went back to dropping it from waist high. Sometime in the 1980's. They're back to presenting the puck now, on the face-offs.
As far as determining where the face off was, it's not complicated at all. Attacking team causing the whistle to stop play in the defending zone, the face-off goes to the nearest spot at the blue line in the neutral zone. Defending player causing stoppage, the face-off went fifteen feet from the boards, in line with the face-off spot. If it was in the middle of the ice above the face-off spot it was taken at the spot where the puck was or where it was shot from that caused the stoppage of play. Stoppage of play in the neutral zone, same thing. All face-offs had to be at least fifteen feet from the side boards.
At one time, the Referee would take all face-offs in the Defending Zone. One Linesman would be standing about one foot outside the blue line opposite him. The reason being that if the puck was to come out to the blue line, the Linesman wouldn't keep it in the zone and give the attacking team and advantage if it hit him. If He's standing outside the blue line and it hit him and went back in the zone, it would be a delayed off-side. The other Linesman would be on the same side as the Referee, about three feet inside the red line.
Things have changed and so have the rink markings.
Memories. Jean Beliveau a LHS suckering Don Simmons a RH catching goalie from the LW offensive face-off. Motioned his players wide ride, Simmons and the Bruins adjusted. Beliveau nailed the short side from the face-off.
Dave Keon against a WHA center. Mismatch potential.
Today, especially since the retirement of Gretzky and Lemieux, the idea has been to effectively neutralize the face-off.
Memories indeed. Adam Oates scored against Bufffalo in the 1992 playoffs from the left face off circle against I believe Pat Lafontaine --- only one that I've ever seen.
There are definitely some interesting questions here - while most faceoffs probably don't affect the game result to any real degree, there are certainly some that are critical to win (for instance, comparing a faceoff at the start of the game to a faceoff in the offensive zone with 0:15 left in a tied game).
How do teams gain the advantage when they need it? Player choice? Tactics? Strategy?
There are definitely some interesting questions here - while most faceoffs probably don't affect the game result to any real degree, there are certainly some that are critical to win (for instance, comparing a faceoff at the start of the game to a faceoff in the offensive zone with 0:15 left in a tied game).
How do teams gain the advantage when they need it? Player choice? Tactics? Strategy?
How have the strategies evolved over the years?
Importance and strategies/tactics. Let me find a certain video and we will kick start these sub discussions.
Is each faceoff an independent event? Teams and centers will game a faceoff to gain a desired advantage on a later faceoff.
Is available statistical data about faceoffs sufficient? It is possible to extrapolate total faceoffs from success ratios but this does not provide data about distribution of faceoffs amongst the nine spots. Or performance in each spot.
Sadly the present NHL situation precludes rough laboratory work while watching that would serve to establish data gathering techniques.
Let me find the video.
Will look at other subtopic issues in due time to avoid overloading a post.
Importance and strategies/tactics. Let me find a certain video and we will kick start these sub discussions.
Is each faceoff an independent event? Teams and centers will game a faceoff to gain a desired advantage on a later faceoff.
Is available statistical data about faceoffs sufficient? It is possible to extrapolate total faceoffs from success ratios but this does not provide data about distribution of faceoffs amongst the nine spots. Or performance in each spot.
Sadly the present NHL situation precludes rough laboratory work while watching that would serve to establish data gathering techniques.
Let me find the video.
Will look at other subtopic issues in due time to avoid overloading a post.
Is there faceoff data for each individual faceoff spot or for each of the three zones (offensive, defensive, and neutral)?
It's probably safe to say that, in general, or most of the time, offensive and defensive zone faceoffs are more important/valuable to a player. Would be interesting to see if some players have significantly better win percentages in the offensive/defensive zones than the neutral zone either because they are actually trying harder or because they are "gaming" those less important neutral zone faceoffs to gain an advantage later.
