Brett Shirreffs

Paul Sommers

English

Research Papers in Economics

 
 
 
 
 
 
A Matching Penal-t in Men’s Ice Hockey 
 
 
 
by 
 
 
 
Brett P. Shirreffs 
Paul M. Sommers 
 
 
 
 
July 2005 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 05-16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS 
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE 
MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753 
 
http://www.middlebury.edu/~econ 
 
                                                                                                                                               2 
   
 
 
 
 
 
A Matching Penal-t in Men’s Ice Hockey 
 
 
 
 
 
by 
 
 
 
 
 
Brett P. Shirreffs 
Paul M. Sommers 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Department of Economics 
Middlebury, College 
Middlebury, Vermont 05753 
psommers@middlebury.edu 
 
                                                                                                                                               3 
   
 
A Matching Penal-t in Men’s Ice Hockey 
 
 
 
  Team benches in most collegiate hockey arenas are placed next to each other along one 
side of the rink.  The penalty box is at center ice on the opposite side of the rink.  Middlebury 
College in the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) and Norwich 
University in the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC), long-time ice hockey rivals, are 
alike in several respects.  Both schools are located in the state of Vermont.  Both teams have 
recently won National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s Division III national 
championships, Norwich in 2002-03 and Middlebury in 2003-04 and again in 2004-05.  And, 
both teams play in rinks (Kenyon Arena at Middlebury and Kreitzberg Arena at Norwich) with 
team benches, one on each side of the rink, and a penalty box that is closer to one end of the rink 
than the other.  That is, during the first and third periods of each home game, home team skaters 
emerging from the penalty box are closer to the opposing team’s goal.   
  The proximity of the penalty box to the opposing team’s goal seemingly gives the home 
team an advantage in two of the three periods played, arguably creating more scoring chances for 
the home team.  A home team skater whose penalty has just expired might be inclined to signal 
his teammates to make a long, home-run type of pass that the skater can take on a quick break 
into the offensive zone for a shot on goal.  Middlebury College’s rink configuration with the 
penalty box located on one side of the red (center) line is unique to all schools in NESCAC; 
Norwich University’s similar configuration is unique to all schools in the ECAC.   
  The purpose of this brief note is to determine whether the average number of even-
strength goals scored by the home team within a minute following the expiration of a penalty on 
the home team (hereafter, “after penalties”) is greater than the average number of even-strength 
goals scored (per minute) by the home team at any other time during periods 1 and 3 (hereafter, 
“before penalties”).                                                                                                                                               4 
   
  Table 1 summarizes the number of even-strength goals scored by Norwich University in 
periods 1 and 3 combined for each home game in 2004-05.  (All data are from 
www.collegehockeystats.net. )  We note that the sum of the two times at even strength before and 
after penalties [columns (2) and (5) in Table 1] do not always add up to 40 minutes (or two 20-
minute periods).  We exclude the number of minutes (during periods 1 and 3) when one team is 
on a power play (i.e., one team enjoys a one- or two-man advantage), but we include the number 
of minutes of sudden-death overtime (when teams do not change sides from period 3).  The 
average of the paired differences reported in column (7) of Table 1 is discernibly greater than 
zero (p = .046).  In other words, Norwich University scored significantly more even-strength 
goals at home games in the minute after penalties than it did at even strength before penalties 
during periods 1 and 3.  A similar t-test was not significant for Norwich the year before (p = .23).  
And, the paired t-test results for Middlebury College in 2004-05 and 2003-04 revealed that the 
home team scored, on average, significantly fewer even-strength goals (per minute) after than 
before penalties (p < .01). 
 
Concluding Remarks 
  The unusual placement of the penalty box in hockey rinks to one side of the red line is 
one thing, but to take advantage of it is quite another.  When a player emerges from the penalty 
box, he may not be able to skate free of defensemen (or the opposing player with whom he shared 
a matching penalty) to take, let alone safely handle, a long, fast pass.  His teammates may be 
penned inside their own blue line zone and may not even control the puck to attempt a pass the 
moment he emerges from the penalty box.  Some passes will be inaccurate, too far in front of or 
behind the player.  And, in some instances, the puck will slide off the end of the blade, as so often 
happens when the pass is fast and a little too far ahead for easy handling. 
  In 2004-05, Norwich University’s men’s ice hockey team had the Division III Player of 
the Year in Kurtis McLean.  One would expect that if goals were evenly distributed throughout                                                                                                                                               5 
   
the game that Norwich University’s most prolific scorer would tally about two-thirds of all goals 
scored at home during the first and third periods.  In 2004-05, McLean scored 79 percent of all of 
his goals at home games during the first and third periods (when the penalty box is closer to the 
visiting team’s goal). 
  If the location of a rink’s penalty box can indeed provide better scoring situations, then 
visiting teams must be alert to this fact: always think outside the box, the penalty box.                                                                                                                                               6 
   
 
 
Table 1.   Even-Strength Goals at Home, Periods 1 and 3, 
Norwich University, 2004-05 
 
 
 
      Before Penalties      After Penalties    (7) 
    (1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5)  (6)  Difference 
  Home  Norwich  Time  Goals per  Norwich  Time  Goals per  between 
  Opponent  goals  (mins.)  minute  goals  (mins.)  minute  cols. (6) and (3) 
 
   
 
  Curry  0  31.08  0  0  1.00  0  0 
  Tufts  5  26.70  .187  1  1.20  .833  .646 
  Connecticut College  3  20.98  .143  0  4.60  0  -.143 
  Elmira  2  31.05  .064  0  2.00  0  -.064 
  Manhattanville   1  26.65  .038  0  0  *  * 
  Southern Maine  4  20.15  .199  0  1.20  0  -.199 
  Salem State  2  30.73  .065  0  1.00  0  -.065 
  Babson  1  37.07  .027  0  1.00  0  -.027 
  U.Mass. – Boston  3  27.57  .109  1  0.23  4.286  4.177 
  Colby  3  37.08  .081  1  0.47  2.143  2.062 
  Bowdoin  2  25.50  .078  1  0.47  2.143  2.065 
  Williams  1  24.43  .041  0  2.00  0  -.041 
  Middlebury  2  25.32  .079  0  2.13  0  -.079 
  Castleton  9  32.90  .274  1  1.67  0.600  .326 
  New England College  1  45.30  .022  0  1.60  0  -.022 
 
 
 
 

A Matching Penal-t in Men’s Ice Hockey

http://www.middlebury.edu/services/econ/repec/mdl/ancoec/0516.pdf

A Matching Penal-t in Men’s Ice Hockey

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics