Score%: Additional Context to Contemplate

GLENDALE, AZ - MARCH 10: Ryane Clowe #29 of the San Jose Sharks looks down as he anticipates the sharks caged shooting percentage and plummeting save percentage to normalize.

If advanced statistics is your brother's/cousin's/son's/daughter's T-ball league then the"Most Improved" trophy this year has to go to score effects (often used to describe the goal state of the game, eg. leading, trailing or tied). With Gabe's release of Fenwick% by score doors were opened for analysis of team wide score effects. In addition a lot of insight (shameless self-plug) was brought to in-game momentum and strategy through a look at expected points by goal differential. Although I'm leaving out a lot of great work, the articles I found most compelling this year were JaredL's look at how the extra bettman point influences in-game strategy, and Eric T's expansion of fenwick through SAF. There has been significant discovery of the influence of score effects, which now has become an important qualifier to any discussion during in-game and post-game analysis.

Last year saw a lot of work done on zone%, and with the recent surge of information on score effects, I thought about bridging the two. Zone% (aka zone starts) give us a lot of information about how coaches deploy their skaters, what role a skater may play on a team, and how those starts give context to other statistics. We can employ the same methods used to generate zone starts as we do with score effects. That is, take a percentage of the faceoffs a player is deployed at with respect to goal differential. For now I'm just calling this score%, although I suppose score starts could be synonymous. Due to time constraints I'm doing things a little backwards by looking at the sharks players first without confirming the existence of league-wide score%, suffice to say I'm assuming they exist and providing individual information first, then going back to examine league wide trends later. What I hope to see is some similar information provided by zone starts; what role players play, how coaches deploy those players, and how score% can give context to "traditional" and "advanced" stats (BTW I didn't make up the name "advanced stats", and I agree with some of you that it could be construed as pejorative).

This article will be a continuation of our look at deployment, (albiet backwards). In addition I feel this is a great time to address a concern often voiced by fans about the sharks system. The "making other goalies look good" concern, which may just be a reflection of score effects and the sharks overwhelming possession dominance while trailing. Pants first, then shoes...



On the y axis I have plotted score%, which as mentioned above is the percentage of faceoffs a player takes when a team is leading (while excluding score tied face-offs). The bar in the middle represents team average. I think of it in simple terms of offense vs. defense. A coach is far more likely to deploy a player with offensive talent when behind (ie. when the team needs goals) then when ahead. Likewise coaches will probably deploy players will defensive talent when ahead (ie. when the team needs to keep the other team from scoring).

On the x-axis I plotted CORSI Rel QOC, I could have used zone starts, but choose CORSI Rel QOC because the sharks have been a line-matching team (although it sure seems like the 3rd line is trending toward zone matching). Again the middle bar being team average. In the last article I suggested line-matching and zone-matching might be mutually exclusive for forwards, which there was marginal evidence for, and certainly no evidence when it comes to defensemen. I don't believe that to be the case here. Obviously CORSI Rel QOC and Score% can coincide (are not mutually exclusive). The size of the bubbles here indicate zone starts.

Looking at the graphs above, nothing really that surprising for the sharks. I limited players that have >300 faceoffs in total, I think this is where we can comfortable say that score% is reliable. T Mac leans heavily on the top 6 F while ahead and behind. Which is what we also found when exploring zone starts. The interesting thing here for me is the variability in the defense. Clearly the coaches think about splitting up the pairings by goal differential. Murray and White are out for faceoffs when the team is ahead far more often than while behind. And likewise Burns plays more when the Sharks are behind. This data definitely fits with my expectations, which is always a good thing when exploring a new stat.

Player Number -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 non-tied total 1s total score% score% 1s z-score% z-score 1s%
8 4 16 165 337 474 285 102 47 24 12 0 992 622 0.474 0.458 -0.301 -0.006
12 8 18 163 322 463 243 108 45 19 5 1 932 565 0.452 0.430 -0.818 -0.744
17 1 10 63 149 233 106 54 33 8 7 3 434 255 0.486 0.416 -0.011 -1.123
26 5 18 75 182 270 156 82 41 18 8 4 589 338 0.525 0.462 0.890 0.082
28 0 5 22 45 105 39 12 11 7 3 0 144 84 0.500 0.464 0.313 0.154
39 2 17 134 235 391 164 76 47 17 6 1 699 399 0.445 0.411 -0.977 -1.245
10 6 12 31 76 148 79 26 27 10 6 5 278 155 0.550 0.510 1.493 1.347
19 4 17 162 304 446 258 97 51 17 10 0 920 562 0.471 0.459 -0.375 0.017
44 9 21 138 261 456 239 84 45 18 9 3 827 500 0.481 0.478 -0.126 0.514
64 4 20 81 137 246 119 76 35 10 7 4 493 256 0.509 0.465 0.527 0.169
69 6 18 32 79 160 78 32 23 10 7 0 285 157 0.526 0.497 0.930 1.009
29 0 16 115 201 301 173 68 34 15 5 0 627 374 0.470 0.463 -0.378 0.109
9 0 5 61 75 131 82 33 20 1 0 0 277 157 0.491 0.522 0.102 1.678
57 6 8 35 49 62 42 14 6 3 2 0 165 91 0.406 0.462 -1.888 0.082
78 5 8 25 70 150 39 17 6 6 8 2 186 109 0.419 0.358 -1.576 -2.643
3 0 14 60 159 303 144 88 50 10 7 5 537 303 0.566 0.475 1.862 0.442
5 7 15 51 118 237 125 55 34 21 9 4 439 243 0.565 0.514 1.834 1.471
2 1 1 27 46 51 43 11 17 3 1 4 154 89 0.513 0.483 0.617 0.650
22 4 26 202 372 534 289 107 57 17 11 1 1086 661 0.444 0.437 -1.003 -0.557
61 4 18 66 146 269 157 78 22 21 5 4 521 303 0.551 0.518 1.505 1.569
60 5 12 65 145 203 112 31 35 16 10 0 431 257 0.473 0.436 -0.312 -0.594
88 5 26 168 316 436 236 104 52 16 13 2 938 552 0.451 0.428 -0.836 -0.811
1 18 42 152 151 270 153 91 49 16 6 0 678 304 0.465 0.503 -0.516 1.179
31 0 25 224 603 980 505 185 103 44 26 10 1725 1108 0.506 0.456 0.456 -0.069
Team 18 67 395 788 1251 667 279 154 60 32 10 2470 1455 0.487 0.458

Here is the raw data for the sharks. The first set of columns represent number of faceoffs (independent of strength and zone) given the goal differential. Then the total of those columns. 1s is looking at only 1 goal ahead and 1 goal behind. I excluded tied data for this entire article in order to get a better sense of score%, and to limit confounding. The z-score in the last columns represent the standard deviations a player is away from the team mean . Think of z-score as a rank, just with added information about how far apart each player is within that rank. Here a negative z-score indicates a score% well below the mean, ie. a player who takes a lot of draws when behind, and vice versa for a positive z-score. I provided 1s and total because I wasn't sure which was going to be more useful. Now that I have the data, I think the total score% provides more data, and is therefore more reliable, and a better indicator of true score%.

Lastly, I'll give some context to the sharks by looking at the master of zone starts disaster Align Vignot;


This time I plotted zone start% on the x-axis, as VAN tends to be a zone matching team. Well, they are the zone matching team. Here we see that not only is Malhotra taking a ridiculously low amount of face-offs in the defensive zone, but he also takes them close to a 3 out of 4 clip when VAN is ahead. Given this information, we can easily see that he is a far, far, better player than his numbers (CORSI, Points, etc.) might otherwise indicate.

OK, whew, now onto a brief discussion of score effects and the Sharks.

We know a hell of a lot of the game can be traced to score effects. JLiken's and Gabe first began investigating the relation between shooting percentage (how many of your shots go in the net) and score effects back in 2009 and uncovered that it probably increases as teams have the lead, but essentially remains the same while behind. You can speculate all you want on why this happens, but it's probably multi-factorial. Now that we have close to 5 years worth of data, we can analyze score effects with additional clarity. The emerging trend seems to be that teams that are behind control possession in a score dependent step wise fashion. As I said earlier, I believe (although not totally convinced, and I think this needs further analysis) teams maintain a relatively similar shooting percentage when behind, even though they are pumping shots on net. As many of you know, this has been the montra during the McLellan era, but at times comes under fire. Before we jump into a discussion of the sharks system, I think it's good to give some context. Below is the time on ice (TOI) both home and away by goal differential.

Home TOI Goal Diff Away TOI
0 -4 0.43655914
0.700666667 -3 1.570967742
6.176785714 -2 6.596236559
12.23763441 -1 13.18697917
19.87204301 0 22.32708333
10.27944444 1 11.21822917
4.991954023 2 3.394791667
4.066049383 3 1.764
2.005128205 4 0.204666667
1.152564103 5 0
0.35 6 0

Something totally peculiar stands out here, do you see it? Despite a winning record the sharks have been playing down a goal more than up a goal, none the more striking than the difference between up 1 goal and down 1 goal. I think this really speaks to the sharks season thus far. I leave you to consider if that is due to "not showing up at the start of the game" or "luck." Despite this hole the Sharks as a team have been absolutely dominant in possession when down a goal compared to league average. In fact they are currently (when this was written) only 2nd to the beast of the central, STL. If possession stats don't speak to you, take Goals For/60 TOI, where the sharks are also elite at 3rd in the league. If your of the mindset that teams must be limiting the sharks "shot quality," again, I'm not seeing that either. From the table below, the sharks are scoring at the exact same percentage tied as they are down 1.

Goal Diff -1 0 1
Goals 49 90 33
Shots 587 1038 549
Sh% 0.0835 0.0867 0.0601

So why does it always seem like the sharks are "making the goalie look good?" I think it's the natural way we watch the game. Down 1 is stressful and comes often at the end of the game with points on the line. Yes the sharks pepper the goalie when down 1, but this is mostly due to score effects, as all teams out-shoot their opponents when down 1. On top of that the sharks play in a system that encourages shots of all types on net, with clear success. Despite being elite, they don't always score to tie the game up, thus leaving us with a bitter taste in our mouth. We remember the games when the sharks lost while badly out-shooting the other team, and we don't remember the games when the sharks evened it up quickly. Again, they didn't badly outshoot the other team because of some unforeseen superiority, its the natural flow of the game, as the game significantly changes by score effects.

Unfortunately the sharks have been damn near the opposite when up a goal. Their posession numbers are decent, but not nearly as good (as compared to league average), and their Goals For/60 TOI is horrendous. This further augments our understanding of the sharks, as they do seem to put way more shots on net when down a goal as compared to up 1. And because they are more liklely to lose down1 than up 1, this unsettles us. Basically, what I hope you can see is that score effects significanty influence both possession and "traditional" numbers, and you have to take context into account when looking at at shots and goal data. I might even go so far as to say it's not the down 1 that's been the problem. It's constantly starting behind, and not putting teams away when up a goal.

That being said, the current fall is out of the bounds of normal. Losing streaks are expected, but 2 months of poor play starts impinging on a tired rhetoric of puck luck, bounces, or whatever u want to call it. This team has got to find a way to finish if they want a seat at the dance in April.

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Fear The Fin

You must be a member of Fear The Fin to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Fear The Fin. You should read them.

Join Fear The Fin

You must be a member of Fear The Fin to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Fear The Fin. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.