I’ve always felt it important for coaches to set benchmarks for their teams. And If I ever had the chance to run my own team, I knew what I wanted to see. Basketball analytics have the four factors (shooting, turnovers, rebounding and free throw efficiency) which can go a long way to determining the success of teams – both past and future. In hockey, in order to be a successful, I would want three things from my team: outshooting opponents by an average of five shots a game, averaging 3.2 goals per game and 2.5 goals against per game. If a team can accomplish those three things, they are, almost by definition, a championship contender.
So the way to get there is through the individual steps and the process. That led me to find the things that I consider to be important to achieving those three season-long objectives became the “8 factors”.
1) +5 shots on opponent: This seems arbitrary but it isn’t. A +5 advantaged typically works out to be in the 52-57 percent Corsi/For All neighborhood (depending on total shots in a game). It’s a quick rough hand way to determine if a team is driving play.
2) 20 percent PP efficiency: A power play with this percentage throughout the season will typically end up in the top third of the league.
3) 30-plus shots: The top 10 teams in shots/G are right around the 30 mark.
4) .106 shooting percentage: The math brought us to this. If we’re looking for 3.2 goals per game and 30 shots 3.2/30=.106. Including shooting percentage sort of adds a little bit of weight for luck.
5) 28 or fewer shots allowed: Again back to the being in the top third of the league for a season average.
6) .900 save percentage: Average goaltending should be enough to win if a team does the other things well.
7) 3 or fewer penalty kills: The worst team in terms of power plays allowed gave up 3.29 per game so allowing three or fewer is a positive
8) 82 percent PK efficiency: Again this would be top-third of the league
While some factors are direct correlations of each other (a +6 shot advantage would be a -6 for the opponent) there is wiggle room so if a team achieves a Factor Score of 6, the opponent would not automatically have a score of 2. The sample below is from the season-opening game between Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh.
| Team | Opp | Result | Score | shots +5 | 20% pp | 30+SF/G | .106 spct | |
| PIT | TBL | W | 6-2 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 0.171 | |
| TBL | PIT | L | 2-6 | -7 | 0 | -2 | 0.071 | |
| Team | Opp | Result | Score | 28 SA/G | .900 svpct | 3 pk | 82% pk | GS |
| PIT | TBL | W | 6-2 | 0 | 0.929 | 1 | 100 | 7 |
| TBL | PIT | L | 2-6 | 7 | 0.906 | 1 | 100 | 3 |
Pittsburgh hit seven of the eight benchmarks, missing only 20 percent on the power play after going 0-for-1. The Lightning hit on save percentage and both penalty kill goals, but only had 28 shots and were outshot by seven.
It is possible to have what I call reverse wins and losses, where the opposite of what the game score would show occurs. These are the stolen wins where a team plays bad but still gets the victory or vice versa. A fair share of these types of games involve overtime or a shootout where luck plays a greater factor.