To Dump, or Not to Dump, that is the question.....
Assessment of controlled versus uncontrolled OZ entries - WHL Alberta Division
Welcome back!
It has always been accepted in hockey that puck possession is one if not the most critical factors to success in hockey. However, I would argue that puck management (when you have possession - what decisions do you make with the puck) is more crucial than puck possession.
Control of the NZ is essential for having positive game outcomes. Controlled zone exits that lead to control zone entries are key drivers of offense off the rush or through positional pay in the OZ. Controlled OZ entries are where players and teams can display their skill and generate excitement for the fans.
Or is it…..?
Consider that failed controlled OZ entries are associated with high NZ turn over rates and higher odd man rushes against. So controlled zone entries do come with a risk. That’s not to say that uncontrolled entries/dump ins don’t come with risk but it is significantly less than the risk of a controlled zone entry.
This chart from Dump Ins: A Trend on the Rise from The Point Hockey shows this point when analyzing NHL data from past 3-4 seasons.
The bottom line is that you are more likely to get a scoring chance and goal scored based on a controlled OZ entry (puck possession) BUT if you are good at dump ins and puck retrieval (puck management) you can also have significant success at scoring chances and goals scored based on uncontrolled entries along with a significant decrease in NZ turnovers and odd man rushes against..
So, there’s a lot more to dumping the puck in (uncontrolled entry) than what appears to fans as boring hockey and there’s a reason teams are relying more on uncontrolled entries. The following chart from Dump Ins: A Trend on the Rise from The Point Hockey shows that this is a trend in the NHL that is not going away.
Although this rise in uncontrolled entries may not make sense to fans, the reason is quite simple. The goal in hockey is not to score as many goals as possible – it is to score more goals than your opponent (so defense is also important) and there is a statistically significant correlation between attempting to carry the puck into the attacking zone and turning the puck over in the neutral zone. Puck management is a concept many players and coaches seem to value over puck possession.
However, look at the following sample of quotes from the New York Islanders Barry Trotz that appear in Dump Ins: A Trend on the Rise from The Point Hockey:
The math works for the concept of making sure you put the puck in the right areas if you can’t make a play. So, you do have, maybe a little less possession numbers but you guard yourself against counters, you guard yourself against the quick-strike, transition type things but you still maintain possession.
The less risk you take entering the offensive zone, whether by dumping the puck in at a high rate or being selective in how you attempt to enter the zone with possession, the lower your odds of turning the puck over and risking a dangerous chance against. To determine if this is actually the case, I looked to see if there are statistically significant links between high dump-in rates, low neutral turnover rates and a low number of odd-man rushes against.
The connection between more dump-ins and fewer neutral zone turnovers as well as fewer odd-man rushes against is statistically highly significant. However, there is not a statistically significant association between neutral zone turnovers and odd-man rushes against.
The more you dump the puck in, the less you turn it over in the neutral zone and the fewer odd-man rushes you allow, despite there not being a statistically significant link directly between neutral zone turnovers and odd-man rushes.
The more you dump the puck in, the less you turn it over in the neutral zone and the fewer odd-man rushes you allow, despite there not being a statistically significant link directly between neutral zone turnovers and odd-man rushes.
Forget dump-and-chase, this is place-and-chase.
Good teams manage the puck and it’s not about possession numbers - it’s about possession and recovery numbers for us.
You have to know when there’s a time to live and fight another day.
Selective entries, more dump-ins and more thought behind how to recover them is the new norm in the NHL.
So, while mitigating risk in the neutral zone with an effective ‘place-and-chase’ system appears to be an effective overall strategy to produce more offense than you allow, it isn’t necessarily the best option for all teams. Hockey is a messy and chaotic game. Not only is it not practical to attempt to gain the offensive zone with a possession entry every time but for some teams, it’s not something they should be doing a majority of the time either.
So uncontrolled entries (dump ins) have transformed into more of a systems/tactical maneuver than merely a method of getting pucks in deep. The goal crease trapezoid rule and the implementation of more trap NZ forecheck systems has made the dump in part of the OZ entry playbook. If there’s no hole to exploit on the blueline, placing it deep behind the defense, into the zone in an area that forces a rearguard to pivot, or creates a puck race, or gets into a favorable position for a 50-50 battle is more desirable than a botched entry at the blueline, sparking the transition the other way, while forcing the immediate reversal of momentum.
The purpose of an OZ entry (either controlled or uncontrolled; rush or OZ positional play) is to set up and fire more potential attempts at a shot on goal from favourable high quality positions on the ice (the house), which leads to goals, which leads to wins. SO entering the OZ through controlled or uncontrolled means and gaining possession of the puck is just one facet of an OZ entry. Because once you are in the zone with possession if you can’t generate high quality shot attempts or scoring chances then entering the zone, by any means, is ineffective. So one factor we should look is of the OZ entries attempted (controlled or uncontrolled) how successful are we at maintaining possession or gaining possession
The other factor we must look at is effectiveness of the OZ entry (controlled or uncontrolled). How many high quality shot attempts or scoring chances to we generate off OZ entries (controlled or uncontrolled) where we have possession.
Given the above history in the NHL I wanted to delve deeper into the current state of controlled entries in the WHL. I analyzed the 5 teams in the Alberta Division to this point in their season. All data is even strength (5v5, 4v4). An OZ entry was defined as a puck entering the OZ and does not include failed entries. A controlled entry was an OZ entry with possession either through passing or carrying. An uncontrolled entry was a puck entering the OZ without possession. Scoring chances are those from inside the “house” and are high quality, above average, xG chances.
Data
If we look at the above two tables and a scatter plot of controlled entry % vs uncontrolled entry %, there are a few conclusions that can be drawn from the results.
Firstly, controlled entries represent the majority of all OZ entries while uncontrolled entries represent the minority.
Secondly, if we look at a scatter plot, Red Deer relies heavily on controlled OZ entries while MH relies heavily on uncontrolled entries. The other 3 teams in the Alberta division have a balanced attack involving both controlled and uncontrolled entries.
Controlled Entries
As we discussed above, getting the puck into the OZ with possession through controlled means is just the first step. We need to determine how effective we are at generating high quality scoring chances. Next we can look at a scatter plot of controlled entry % vs % of controlled entries leading to scoring chances for (effectiveness).
So Red Deer relies predominantly on controlled entries to make up a lion share of their OZ entries and they are good at generating scoring chances off those entries. Medicine Hat is more of an uncontrolled entry team but is good at generating scoring chances off their controlled entries. Lethbridge and Calgary are average in terms of controlled entry % but are poor at generating scoring chances off their opportunities. Edmonton is average at controlled entry % but in 1st place at generating scoring opportunities off those controlled entries.
Effectiveness, as I have defined it, is how many of successful controlled entries leads to a scoring chance. The effectiveness of controlled entries ranges between 14-24%. This % success rate surprises me! If you took 100 controlled OZ entries with possession, these possession entries would only generate 14-24 scoring chances. In my eyes, this is not very effective or productive especially when you consider the risk of a turnover in the top of the DZ resulting in transition and potential odd man rushes against. Teams must mitigate this risk reward through their transition defensive structure.
Uncontrolled Entries
From the tables above we know which teams rely on uncontrolled entries as a way of entering the OZ. Medicine Hat leads the way, while Edmonton, Calgary ad Lethbridge have a more balanced attack. Edmonton rarely uses uncontrolled entries as a method of entering the OZ.
With uncontrolled entries we must look at an element that we did not have to with controlled OZ entries. When we enter the OZ with and uncontrolled entry we must look at how successful we are at recovering the puck with possession. Because if we don’t have possession we are not generating a scoring chance.
To do this we can look at a scatter plot of uncontrolled entry % vs. uncontrolled entry recovery %.
Interestingly, Medicine Hat who uses a large % of uncontrolled OZ entries is below average at recovering the puck with possession. Red Deer and Edmonton who use below average uncontrolled OZ entries are actually very good at recovering the puck with possession. Lethbridge and Calgary who have a more balanced attack between controlled and uncontrolled entries are below average for puck recovery with possession.
Now that we know who has possession of the puck after an uncontrolled entry we would like to see the effectiveness of that possession in generating scoring chances. We can do that by looking at a scatter plot of uncontrolled entry recovery % vs. scoring chances generated off recovered pucks.
Red Deer who relies on controlled OZ entries more than uncontrolled entries surprisingly are good at recovering dumped pucks but are not very good at generating scoring chances from these recovered pucks. Edmonton who relies more on a balanced attack has an average puck recovery rate of dump ins but is also very poor at generating scoring chances of recovered pucks. Calgary and Lethbridge who rely on a more balanced attack are below average in uncontrolled entry puck recovery but are well above average in generating scoring chances off these recovered pucks. Medicine Hat relies primarily on uncontrolled entries but are above average in generating scoring chances off recovered pucks.
If you remember from controlled entries the effectiveness ranged between 14-24%. The effectiveness of uncontrolled entries for ranged from 24-66%. This is a much broader and more variable range than we saw for controlled entries.
The key take away from uncontrolled entries is that they appear to be more “effective” than controlled entries in terms of generating scoring chances! At the extremes of range, an uncontrolled entry can generate 2-3 times the scoring chances that a controlled entry can. An added benefit is that the puck is much deeper in the offensive zone. If the puck is turned over deep in the zone the transition defense has more real estate to defend coming back.
These findings have been previously found at the NHL level and reviewed in an article by Gus Katsaros in his article Shot Generation: Zone Entry Carry In & Dump In. It’s interesting to see that these findings exist at the WHL level.
Summary Review of Teams
Edmonton
Rely on a somewhat balanced attack between controlled and uncontrolled entries. They generate the highest % of scoring chances for their number of controlled entries for all 5 teams. Edmonton has the 2nd best puck recovery % from uncontrolled entries but is in last place for % of scoring chances generated off these recovered uncontrolled entries. This may be an area for research on how to improve scoring chances of recovered uncontrolled entries.
Medicine Hat
Rely predominantly off uncontrolled entries. Surprisingly they are 4th at ability to recover these dumped pucks but when they do are 3rd at generating scoring chances off recovered dumped pucks. They are 5th in terms of controlled entries but are 2nd in generating scoring chances off these controlled entries. Maybe a push for more controlled entries would benefit their future success.
Calgary
Another team that relies a balanced attack. They are average at controlled entry % and in 4th place for generating scoring chances off these controlled entries. They are average at uncontrolled entry % and slightly below average at puck recovery % but are 2nd at generating scoring chances of these recovered dumped pucks. They should work more on dump recovery and try more uncontrolled entries for success.
Lethbridge
Another team that relies a balanced attack. They are average in controlled entry % but are dead last in generating scoring chances off controlled entries. They are average at uncontrolled entry % and are dead last in puck recovery % of these dumped pucks, however, when they do recover dumped pucks they are in 1st place for generating scoring chances.
Red Deer
Relies predominantly on controlled OZentries. They are in 3rd place for generating scoring chances off these controlled entries. The are in 5th place in terms of uncontrolled entry %, 1st place i terms of uncontrolled entry puck recovery and 4th place in terms of generating scoring chances off these recovered dumped pucks.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the important concept to take away from this article is that controlled entries are important in terms of puck possession but uncontrolled entries can be just as important in terms of puck management. It’s more about what decisions you make when you have the puck than how much you have the puck. For this reason, I would argue that puck management will always be more important than puck possession.
As evidenced by the above work the % of controlled or uncontrolled entries that occur do not really matter per se, it is what you generate in terms of scoring chances when you have possession that counts. However, I will argue that this is where coaching plays a critical role in knowing your players individual identities and skill set along with matching team offensive systems to this skill set. Perhaps going all in for controlled entries (Red Deer) and uncontrolled entries (Medicine Hat) isn’t the best match of systems to players skill sets. The same can be said out about teams with balanced attacks that may benefit from more controlled or uncontrolled entries.
As evidenced above, some teams make better puck management decisions on controlled entries while others make better puck management decision on uncontrolled entries.
The key to success is to find the right blend of controlled and uncontrolled entries that matches the players and team identity. Once this right “blend” is found the players will make better puck management decisions which will lead to greater team success.
Analyses, like the above can be used in a pre-scout to determine team tendencies w.r.t. controlled and uncontrolled entries as well as ways we can exploit teams while on offense and better prepare defensively.
Most importantly, all of the above is meaningless if defensively your team is not good at preventing scoring chances off controlled and uncontrolled entries.
As you can see the teams in the top 3 spots in the standings have the best defense against scoring chances from controlled and uncontrolled entries. The bottom two teams have the worst.
I hope you enjoyed reading!