The Predators’ Overtime Woes
Note: In this post, “shots” refer to all shot attempts taken by a team or player toward the opposing team’s net (often referred to as Corsi) and “shots on goal” refer to those attempts which count as either a save or a goal.
This month hasn’t been particularly kind to the Nashville Predators. After a sparkling November in which they righted most of the early season wrongs, the December iteration of the team posted a 5–6–3 record, earning 13 of a possible 28 points. With the team two spots out of a Wild Card spot nearly halfway through the season, my friend and NHL.com writer Robby Stanley had this to say after last week’s heartbreaking loss to the rival Chicago Blackhawks:
Taking a quick look at some of the numbers, it’s not entirely obvious what’s wrong. Despite the incredibly slow start, the Predators are fifth leaguewide in even-strength score-adjusted shot differential and, unlike other top shot differential teams such as Carolina and Boston, Nashville’s shooting and save percentages hover around the league average. Special teams don’t seem to be moving the needle in either direction whether you look at goals per opportunity or per 60 minutes. If you talk to a Predators’ fan, however, they’ll be quick to bemoan the one game state that has yet to be mentioned: overtime.
In order to get a better view of things, because teams don’t get a lot of 3-on-3 time over the course of a season and because the Predators weren’t any good in overtime last year either, we’re going to look at the time period beginning with the introduction of 3-on-3 OT in 2015–16 through today. Take your pick of the differential: shots, shots on goal, scoring chances, Corsica’s expected goals or actual goals. It doesn’t matter. Nashville finishes dead last in every single one of them.
In the past month the Predators have played in four overtime games, losing three and winning the fourth in a shootout. I’ve watched two of those, against the Rangers and Flyers. In both overtime periods (each went the full five minutes), the Predators possessed the puck for the vast majority of the time, which is a recurring theme during Nashville overtime games. Common hockey knowledge would lead you to believe that more puck possession means you are dominating the play. There is only one issue with that notion: 3-on-3 hockey doesn’t play by the same rules.
If you follow me on Twitter, you know that I love to point out the strategy involved in overtime hockey and the mistakes teams make. My strategy is based on two core beliefs about overtime. The first is that at the NHL level, the fewer players there are on the ice the easier it is for a defender to cover his man. In 3-on-3 it is nearly impossible for an attacking player to slip away from his defender once the teams are setup in a zone. The second belief is that counterattacking rush shots are the holy grail of overtime opportunities and every other shot has roughly the same, small chance of success. While it is a project that I plan on undertaking in the future, I currently do not have access to supporting statistical evidence for these claims and so these are subject to my personal viewing biases. However, take a look at any overtime game and you’re likely to see what I’m saying — teams spend an incredibly unnecessary amount of time in the offensive zone cycling around, making passes and waiting for the defense to open up for a great chance that rarely comes. Then they finally take a shot high and wide, it comes back up the boards and the opposing team takes off on a 2-on-1 which likely results in a goal.
Here is a visual representation of one instance during the NYR-NSH game a few weeks back where Nashville over-possesses the puck and ends up with a net loss in chance generation. This first clip features some solid play by the Predators, with Mike Fisher winning the faceoff and a few smart plays by Viktor Arvidsson resulting in a good opportunity for Ryan Ellis at the point.
In the next clip things start to go downhill. Fisher and Arvidsson both swing out wide from behind the net, meaning Ellis has nobody in front to screen or deflect the shot. Instead, they both provide Ellis with a pass to a worse shooting location than the one he already finds himself in. Arvidsson’s right-handedness means that he has trouble corralling the puck and needs to regroup outside the zone. Fisher provides a good outlet for his teammate in the neutral zone and is able to carry the puck back into the offensive end.
At this point in the shift, a smart play by Fisher might involve simply putting the puck on net, particularly with Arvidsson coming in fast from the blueline and no defenders in the low slot. He decides to loop back, which wouldn’t be a bad decision if he then fired off a quick pass to Ellis for the one-timer. However, Fisher instead elects to throw the puck into the corner for Arvidsson, who now has his back to the center of the ice and a defender playing tight coverage. The ensuing puck battle risks the end of Nashville’s possession, which has lasted comfortably for 25 seconds but produced no scoring chances.
A strong play on the boards by Kevin Hayes gets the puck out of the zone for the Rangers and almost creates an odd-man rush the other way, although he and Rick Nash don’t quite have the speed to fully capitalize. The Predators have now had the puck for nearly the entire shift but find themselves on the wrong end of the only dangerous opportunity during that time.
In the final clip, the Rangers exhibit some of the same issues as the Predators. Nash makes a nice pass to Brady Skjei, who is wide open at the point. However, instead of quickly sending the puck in the direction of Kevin Hayes, who can deflect the puck toward the goal, Skjei hesitates before moving it back to Nash, allowing Pekka Rinne to square up to the shot.
This is obviously only one instance but is emblematic of the Predators’ misguided overtime strategy. Under Peter Laviolette the team has played a strong puck possession game which has resulted in considerable success over the past two and a half seasons. However, the lack of adjustment to four fewer players on the ice in overtime has meant that Nashville is missing out on critical points in the standings. By refocusing the overtime tactics to emphasize the exaggerated value of odd-man rushes, Nashville can not only take more quality chances but also conserve energy that is currently spent skating circles in the offensive zone and instead use that energy to turn on the burners during the counter-attack. With a stronger overtime record, Nashville would likely be holding onto a wild card spot as we head into 2017. However, it’s not too late for the team to turn things around and supplement its strong 5-on-5 play by finishing off those grueling overtime games.
