It is often said that shot metrics offer a more telling glimpse into the process of any given team, relative to their record and goal differential.

I’ve often found myself at odds with this process assessment at the NHL level. The process isn’t distilled neatly into the shot attempts we so often accrue value with, but rather each incremental step set forward by the team in question. Shot based metrics aren’t the process; they’re the input towards the outcome. A means to an end if you will.

At a more absolute level, the process is measured in the advancement of the puck towards the opposition’s net. Hockey is a game of keep-away, and if the puck is in the oppositions end, it’s not in yours. Being able to execute this transition… that is the process. 

With this in mind, I found the commentary by Willie Desjardins on controlled zone entries to be rather refreshing. Puck possession was on the fringes of entering the hockey lexicon as the penultimate buzzword, but frankly, three-quarters of the coaches who address it by saying “we’re going to play a puck possession style” aren’t saying anything at all. One doesn’t simply tell a team to Corsi.

In singling out this one particular element to how he expects his team to play, Desjardins offered a tangible glimpse into the X’s and O’s of how this team will work towards a more puck possession oriented offensive approach.

If you’ve been following this blog closely the last few days, I’m sure you’ve noticed I share his affinity for observing neutral zone talent. On Sunday I outlined my methodology for a tracking project which will (eventually) span to cover every single game this season, by every single team. Yesterday, I revealed a detailed analysis into the data that I derived from the Canucks in October.

On the one hand, it was revealing in that it highlighted some of the skills that a player like Matt Bartkowski can bring to the table on a nightly basis. Skills that might override the occasional mental lapse in the defensive zone in the eyes of the coach. Remember, we live in the age of net defensive impact after all. 

Similarly, there was a confounding element to the data as well. The most glaring example was Sven Baertschi, who fared extremely well by nearly every metric recorded for the month of October. All the same, the diminutive Suisse forward found himself in the coaches crosshairs for much of this month and generally for all the wrong reasons.

These are just the pieces of the puzzle though, and I figured it would serve the audience to showcase their abilities as a team on the whole. Think of the bigger picture, if you will.

As a team, the Canucks executed 808 successful zone entries through the month of October; a grand total of 11 games. That averages out to about 73.45 entries a game. In total, they attempted to execute 975 entries. The Canucks launched 311 shots on goal on these completed entries, which averages to 0.38 shots per successful entry. On their 414 controlled zone entries in this span, the Canucks launched 0.54 on net per entry. That’s 224 shots in total on controlled entries if you’re curious.

As a team, the Canucks entered the offensive zone on a successful carry-in play 51% of the time. In comparison to the 2013-14 season, which was tracked in its entirety by Corey Sznajder, the Canucks are a entering the offensive zone with control of the puck 9% more often. Take me at my word when I say that is a huge improvement and is likely playing a massive role in the Sedins ability to rekindle much of their offensive scoring touch of old.

By that same token, the Canucks failed on attempted entries at a staggering 17% clip. That’s more than double their rate for the 2013-14 season, although, I would meet these concerns with the fact that they are still executing a net positive impact on their neutral zone play. In total, the Canucks failed 167 entries in the month of October.

All this paints a relatively pretty picture of the Canucks play through the neutral zone for the month of October. If the Canucks can maintain a Carry-in% this high for the entirety of their campaign, one might expect their share of the possession pie to increase accordingly. Similarly, as a team which predicates much of its offensive game plan off the rush, it might bode well for their goal differential. That’s what matters at the end of the day.