The Penguins and Process. How Did We Stack Up?

Process.

As hockey fans, we hear a lot about it these days.

Sites like Natural Stat Trick are devoted to tracking every conceivable metric in an attempt to define whether a team’s process is successful. I marvel at the amount of detailed information available. It’s truly mind boggling. (I also wonder who sits and compiles all this data.)

Wind up on the sunny side of these metrics? Your process is considered good. If not?

It’s generally held that the Penguins’ process (if not our execution) is sound. So I decided to see where we ranked league-wise in a handful of 5v5 metrics, including Corsi, Shots for Percentage (SF%), Goals for Percentage (GF%) and Expected Goals for Percentage (xGF%), along with Shooting Percentage (SH%) and Save Percentage (SV%).

All data is courtesy of Natural Stat Trick. Fifty percent is break-even for shot-based stats.

Corsi

Corsi measures shot activity, basically how many shots a team attempts, including missed and blocked shots, versus how many it allows.

Consistent with coach Mike Sullivan’s attacking, puck-retrieval style, the Pens ranked 12^th among 32 NHL teams with a Corsi of 51.31.

It’s interesting to note that six out of the top 16 Corsi teams, including the black-and-gold, failed to qualify for the postseason. On the flip side, six playoff teams, including the Presidents’ Trophy-winning Rangers and Boston, finished in the bottom half of the league in Corsi. The Rangers ranked 19^th and the Bruins 24^th, just ahead of the Islanders and Capitals.

So much for the importance of puck possession, eh?

Shots for Percentage

Shots for Percentage is pretty much what it implies…the number of actual shots on goal a team attempts offset by the number of shots on goal it allows.

This proved to be one our strengths. We ranked ninth in the league and second among non-playoff teams. Five non-playoff qualifiers finished among the top 16, while elite teams like Jim Rutherford’s Canucks (18^th) and the Bruins (23^rd) ranked in the bottom half.

Goals for Percentage

Another straightforward metric. Our Pens ranked 15^th at 51 percent…almost smack in the middle of the pack and one notch ahead of the Metro champion Rangers. We were one of two non-playoff teams, the Sabres being the other, to breach the top half of the league rankings.

For reference, the Lightning ranked 25^th and the Caps, who had a disastrous overall goal differential of minus-37, ranked 29^th.

Expected Goals for Percentage

Here’s where simple and straightforward take a hike…at least for me. What the heck are expected goals?

Jon Sorensen of NovaCapsFans does an excellent job of explaining.

“For those that aren’t familiar with the xGF metric, in the simplest of terms, the stat simply applies additional characteristics to your typical shot stat, including shot location, shot type and other relevant descriptors. Each shot is then given a value based on success rates for that specific shot type and location becoming a goal, based on years of historical data for that shot location and type.”

Our Pens ranked a respectable 13^th out of 32 teams in xGF%.

If you’re beginning to sense a pattern, you’re right. The Pens finished in the top half of the league in each of the four metrics mentioned, which suggests that perhaps we were a playoff-worthy team and better than our 19^th place ranking in the overall standings. Especially when you compare us to the Islanders and Caps, who were swimming with the fishes on most metrics, to put it in Godfather terms.

Shooting Percentage

Given our rep as a poor finishing team, I decided to throw 5v5 shooting percentage into the mix. At 8.57 percent we weren’t great (ranked 17^th) but we weren’t awful, either.

Save Percentage

Same thing. Despite our reputation for leaky defense and checkered goaltending, we were tied for 17^th in 5v5 save percentage with Central Division kingpin Dallas and the CBJ. Again, ahead of the playoff-bound Caps and, surprisingly, Andrei Vasilevskiy and the Lightning (29^th).

So How Did We Miss the Playoffs?

So what gives? How did we finish out of the money, while statistically inferior teams like the Islanders and Capitals squeaked in?

I’ll sum it up in two words.

Power play.

As every Pens fan is painfully aware, our man-advantage unit was atrocious. An anchor that served to drag us under the waves and down into the shinny version of the Marianas Trench.

Twenty-ninth in power-play goals with 40. Thirtieth in power-play percentage with an anemic 15.3 conversion rate. Not to mention a dozen shorthanded goals against, tied for the league-worst.

On the flip side, teams that had sub-ordinary shot-and possession-based metrics like the Rangers and Lightning attained their comparatively lofty standing due in no small part to prolific power plays.

It should likewise be noted that the 10 teams with the fewest power-play goals, including our Pens, all missed the playoffs. Underscoring the importance of special teams.

Let’s hope whoever’s in charge of power play this coming season will be able to fix, or at the very least patch, what’s broke.