Why is Time on Attack not one of the most common team stats?

[oilersfan87]

Whenever I play NHL video games I always look at time on attack between periods because I think it's a good reflection of team performance. If you aren't aware, time on attack is the amount of time a team has possession of the puck in the other team's defensive zone.

I've always thought that they should show time on attack at the end of intermissions and perhaps even show it during games, instead of showing shots on goal most of the time. Time on attack actually shows how well a team is playing, since the goal of each shift is to play in the other team's end of the ice. Shots on goal can be taken from anywhere, and don't necessarily reflect a team playing in the other team's zone for very long.

 

[izzy]

I actually agree, maybe have it seperated for ES and PP

 

[Theokritos]

That would be a helpful piece of the stats puzzle indeed.

 

[sharks9]

Apparently they used to keep it but stopped for some reason

I know some stat companies keep it and TV stations like Sportsnet use it on their broadcasts

 

[Tatar Shots]

I've always been annoyed that this isn't publicly tracked anywhere.

 

[NightmanCometh]

Jack Edwards usually emphasized the zone time stats at the end of each period. It's a very useful stat if you want a clearer picture of how well each team played.

 

[Spade]

I believe most NHL teams would keep it as part of their own analytics, but the NHL's stats guys would find that annoying as hell because you can't throw it on a gamesheet anywhere. The people they already have hired to keep stats in-game that are available to the public would have to add another job to their already overworked positions. I think that's why they took it out in the first place.

Basically, it's another hassle in a world that keeps begging for more information, but doesn't want to pay extra for the service. Info is money, but too many assume it's free.

I would pay slightly more on Gamecenter (not that I have it, but the point remains) if it meant the NHL had more staffers so they could keep the track because I agree, I always check ToA in between periods in NHL 15/16. It's a perfect possession stat, not the same way as "advanced" but still geared towards identifying keys to good teams. But the large majority of fans don't need the stat to enjoy the game and would just get mad that they had to pay more to watch.

And if the NHL just had a special service where you could pay a small fee to get access to more detailed statistics, those fairweather fans would complain that they should get the same privilege because they paid for a separate, but pricey, service. So it's a no-win for the NHL.

Sometimes people (not on this board, since we're ALL stats geeks and lonely nerds and basement bloggers) are jerks that way.

 

[hockeyes]

I believe most NHL teams would keep it as part of their own analytics, but the NHL's stats guys would find that annoying as hell because you can't throw it on a gamesheet anywhere. The people they already have hired to keep stats in-game that are available to the public would have to add another job to their already overworked positions. I think that's why they took it out in the first place.

Basically, it's another hassle in a world that keeps begging for more information, but doesn't want to pay extra for the service. Info is money, but too many assume it's free.

I would pay slightly more on Gamecenter (not that I have it, but the point remains) if it meant the NHL had more staffers so they could keep the track because I agree, I always check ToA in between periods in NHL 15/16. It's a perfect possession stat, not the same way as "advanced" but still geared towards identifying keys to good teams. But the large majority of fans don't need the stat to enjoy the game and would just get mad that they had to pay more to watch.

And if the NHL just had a special service where you could pay a small fee to get access to more detailed statistics, those fairweather fans would complain that they should get the same privilege because they paid for a separate, but pricey, service. So it's a no-win for the NHL.

Sometimes people (not on this board, since we're ALL stats geeks and lonely nerds and basement bloggers) are jerks that way.

Hiring 16 guys at 40k per year (easily could pay less I'm sure) would represent 0.01% of last seasons revenue. I really don't think it would require a direct rate hike to cover.

 

[DJJones]

This and scoring chances together would be way better than corsi

 

[cgf]

...Tradition?...

 

[Mantis]

I have often wondered this myself. I have played pretty much every EA NHL game and always thought this would be such an interesting stat

 

[MessierII]

I agree very used top possession stat. Much better than Corsi.

 

[jdatb]

It's very good stat in ea NHL. I'm sure it's also useful IRL. I'd love to see it

 

[NewBoysClub97*]

Boggles my mind why they don't have it. I was watching Boston's telecast tonight and they kept showing it all night.

 

[Semantics]

What's the point? It correlates almost exactly with Corsi.

 

[MessierII]

What's the point? It correlates almost exactly with Corsi.

Except way more presentable to the casual fan.

 

[NYI365]

What's the point? It correlates almost exactly with Corsi.

For obvious reasons, its easier to understand for not only hardcore hockey fans but also casual ones as well. In addition to the usefulness of TOA being in the EA games, soccer keeps track of a team's possession percentages with the ball. Hockey's equivalent would be accurately tracking time on attack and it definitely should be implemented imo.

 

[rumrokh]

Because if all you're doing is possessing the puck and not shooting or scoring, it doesn't tell you much.

If they were going to start highlighting a stat like this, I'd much rather see median zone time before a clear per entry, which could give a clearer idea of one-and-done vs. prolonged pressure than just total time.

 

[Zoidberg Jesus]

For obvious reasons, its easier to understand for not only hardcore hockey fans but also casual ones as well. In addition to the usefulness of TOA being in the EA games, soccer keeps track of a team's possession percentages with the ball. Hockey's equivalent would be accurately tracking time on attack and it definitely should be implemented imo.

Just because it's slightly easier to understand doesn't make it better. Time on attack is basically just a proxy for shot attempts - which soccer also keeps track of - so why not just use shot attempts? Corsi is more accurate and easier to track. No need to reinvent the wheel for people too lazy to figure it out.

 

[s7ark]

Teams keep their own stats as well. I'd be shocked if offensive, defensive and neutral zone times aren't kept by team and by player.

 

[izlez]

Corsi is more accurate and easier to track. No need to reinvent the wheel for people too lazy to figure it out.

Funny because, if they are basically the same thing as everyone says... there was no reason to reinvent the wheel in the first place and get rid of TOA and invent Corsi

 

[Zoidberg Jesus]

Funny because, if they are basically the same thing as everyone says... there was no reason to reinvent the wheel in the first place and get rid of TOA and invent Corsi

Was TOA ever a widespread stat in hockey? I don't remember ever having access to that as a fan.

 

[Toggel]

If I remember correctly the year the ave's were hot and made the playoffs, some MSM used time of possession to prove that they were a good team even though corsi showed that they were actually bad and would crash. Maybe time in the offensive zone would be better but just time of possession isn't good.

Again why use a proxy for corsi when corsi works just fine. Corsi shouldn't be hard to understand its shot attempts for/against. Pretty simple concept.

 

[CanadianHockey]

If I remember correctly the year the ave's were hot and made the playoffs, some MSM used time of possession to prove that they were a good team even though corsi showed that they were actually bad and would crash. Maybe time in the offensive zone would be better but just time of possession isn't good.

Again why use a proxy for corsi when corsi works just fine. Corsi shouldn't be hard to understand its shot attempts for/against. Pretty simple concept.

Time on attack isn't time of possession, it's time of possession in the offensive zone.

 

[DJJones]

If I remember correctly the year the ave's were hot and made the playoffs, some MSM used time of possession to prove that they were a good team even though corsi showed that they were actually bad and would crash. Maybe time in the offensive zone would be better but just time of possession isn't good.

Again why use a proxy for corsi when corsi works just fine. Corsi shouldn't be hard to understand its shot attempts for/against. Pretty simple concept.

I think there is a drastic difference between the two. Just because when one stat goes up the other one generally does too doesn't mean they are proxys for eachother.