Scoring Goals

Last night’s game between the Rangers and the Canadiens was a clinic on how to score goals and generate offense in today’s game. You want to score more? Watch what these pros do, where they go and how these goals are scored: https://www.nhl.com/video/recap-nyr-3-mtl-4-fot/t-288491810/c-51451403

Advertisements

Goals Scored in the 2015 NCAA Tournament: Regionals

This weekend, there were 12 games played in the NCAA Division I Men’s Hockey Tournament. Those 12 games resulted in four regional champions that are heading to Boston for the Frozen Four.

In those 12 games, there were a grand total of 66 goals scored. I took a closer look at those 66 goals, where they came from and if there were any trends that could be noticed. I looked at a few different categories on each goal – strength, time in zone prior to goal, zone entry type (carry, dump, faceoff), goal type (rush, in zone possession, forecheck, faceoff, empty net), clearing attempts prior to goal, turnovers prior to goal, and lost battles prior to goal. Here’s a brief summary of the numbers:

  • Of the 66 goals:
    • 9 were empty net (13.64%)
    • 14 were on the Power Play (21.21%)
    • 3 were Shorthanded (4.54%)
    • 40 were even strength (60.61%)

Let’s look closer at the 40 even strength goals

  • 31 of the 40 (77.5%) came after the puck was carried into the offensive zone
  • 20 came off the rush
    • Average length of possession in zone was 5.05 seconds from entry to goal scored
  • 14 came from offensive zone possession
    • Average time in zone was 22.07 seconds from entry to goal scored
    • 13 of 14 came from at least one lost battle by the defending team (92.86%)
    • 9 of 14 came after the defensive team had an opportunity to clear (64.29%)
    • 8 of 14 came after a change in possession in zone (57.14%)
  • 1 came off of a faceoff
  • 4 were the result of good forechecks

Taking a closer look at the goaltending (57 goals allowed):

  • 15 of the 57 (26.32%) goals beat the goaltenders clean (goalie had time to set on the shot)
  • 18 of the 57 (31.58%) came immediately following a pass
  • 12 of the 57 (21.05%) were scored on a rebound
  • 12 of the 57 involved traffic at the net – either a tip (3 – 5.26%) or a screen (9 – 15.79%)

Observations:

  • I had suspected prior to doing this research that a good majority of goals were scored after a failed clear. While it is a very small sample size, about 65% of goals scored in the offensive zone come after a failed clear.
  • I was surprised with the high number of rush goals – having half of the goals scored at even strength be off the rush is a surprisingly high number.
  • I am not surprised that the number of goals after a lost battle is very high. Often teams that maintain possession do so as a result of winning puck races and 1v1 battles – the longer you possess the puck, the more fatigue sets in and the higher your chances of scoring.
  • Turnovers in the defensive zone are especially damning as well – 57% of goals scored off off OZ possession come after a turnover.
  • The number of goals scored that beat the goaltenders clean was surprising. Over 25% were shots that beat a goaltender that was set on the shot. More on par with expectations was the number of goals after a pass and off of rebounds.

It is a small sample size, but it is very interesting to look at and see how goals are scored in the biggest games in Division I hockey. Bottom line – execute your clears, don’t turn the puck over and limit possession time in the offensive zone for your opponent…things that all good coaches preach on a regular basis.

Update: Here is the data set that I used in a pdf form: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4jlijyn9edph7f4/2015%20NCAA%20Tournament%20Goals.pdf?dl=0

Paradox of the Product Goal

This is from an article by Jason Selk on Forbes.com:

Strategy number two is to help the CEO identify with the process, not the result.  Think about a baseball player in the batter’s box. If all he’s thinking about is, “I gotta get a hit,” he won’t. It’s what’s called the “paradox of the product goal.” What the batter needs to think about are the actions that will get him a hit – tracking the ball, the short swing, and the follow-through.

The same truths apply to CEOs. Instead of dwelling on meeting their numbers, they need to think about the process that will ensure that success. All they need to do is focus on the three most important tasks to get them to their goal. Science tells us that focusing on process is what brings results.

How many players get caught up in the paradox of the product goal? They think “I have to score” or “I have to make a play” and get so focused on doing that one thing that they forget the details that allow them to do that in the first place. They forget about moving their feet, seeing their options, skating hard, making the smart plays and instead try to force things and do it all themselves. Focusing on the process will ultimately lead to a successful result. Doing the little things right leads to big success.

Successful People

To be successful, I firmly believe that you must understand that what you have to do is far more important than what you want to do.

No matter how you define success or what area of life you want to have success in, there are certain things that must get done. To achieve the success you want, these must be your priorities. People that put their success first are “doers” and the people achieve their goals.

Today, first do what you have to do to be successful; you’ll find you still have time later to do what you want.