Following a promising 2015-16 season that saw the Flyers ride a late surge into the postseason, hopes were high within the organization and the fanbase this time last year. The mood at training camp in September was one of anticipation — both for prospects like Ivan Provorov and Travis Konecny’s attempts to make the big club, and for a team expected to take another step forward toward true relevancy in the Eastern Conference.

Instead, the 2016-17 Flyers season was marked by inconsistency and ineffectiveness. There were many reasons for the team’s failure to return to the playoffs, but none stood out more on a nightly basis than Philadelphia’s utter toothlessness at 5-on-5. Out of 30 NHL clubs, only three (Buffalo, Colorado and New Jersey) scored fewer than 127 goals at 5-on-5, the total the Flyers mustered in 2016-17. The Flyers were legitimately one of the worst offensive teams in hockey at even strength.

Yet, the Flyers were not struggling to create shots. After adjusting for minutes in the situation, they ranked ninth in the NHL in shot–attempt creation, 14th in unblocked attempts, and 16th in shots on goal at 5-on-5. Those aren’t world–beating rankings, to be sure, but they’re also certainly not what would be expected from a bottom-five NHL offense. Clearly, something else was driving the goal–scoring shortfall.

This isn’t a new problem for the Flyers. The last time they were even a mid-table club in terms of 5-on-5 scoring was back in 2013-14, when they ranked 14th in 5v5 goals per 60 minutes. Since then, Philadelphia has finished in the bottom-third of the league each year. Still, their performance in 2016-17 was particularly vexing because they created more shots than in either of the preceding two seasons, yet ended up with their worst results.

Surely, the Flyers organization has spent the entire summer trying to diagnose the root cause of this issue. It’s the most important question facing the team entering the 2017-18 season.

But like most difficult issues, there is no silver bullet to solve the Flyers’ goal-scoring problem. Instead, it must be tackled from multiple angles. Where shots are being taken, which players are taking the shots, what passes lead up to shots – all of these factors will play a role in determining whether the Flyers can score more goals this season at 5v5. Some extra prayers to the hockey gods wouldn’t hurt, either.

Shot quality can’t be ignored as a factor

If the Flyers’ goal-scoring problem cannot be pinned on their raw shot-creation ability, the logical next theory is that the quality of Philadelphia’s shots has been lacking. As it turns out, there is legitimate evidence to support that theory.

Micah Blake McCurdy’s visualization makes the issue glaringly obvious. In 2016-17, the Flyers took more shots from over 50 feet away from the goal line than the average team, and fewer shots than average from within 30 feet of the net. Logically, shots taken from distance will be less likely to fool an opposing goaltender than ones launched closer to the net, since the goalie will have less time to react to the latter. This chart provides strong evidence that Philadelphia’s shot-location choices were not especially efficient from a goal-scoring standpoint.

In addition, the heavy reliance on point shots persisted throughout the lineup. A case could be made that forwards lower on the depth chart — without much in the way of puck possession skills or high-end shooting talent — might be right to defer to defensemen in terms of initial shot creation and simply crash the net looking for rebounds. But on the 2016-17 Flyers, it was the top-of-the-lineup forwards who tended to defer most often to their blueliner counterparts.

Forward Role % On-Ice Shot Attempts Taken By Defensemen Valtteri Filppula 2nd Line 44.7% Michael Raffl 2nd Line 43.5% Matt Read Bottom-Six 42.2% Nick Cousins Bottom-Six 41.9% Jordan Weal Middle-Six 41.6% Claude Giroux Top Line 41.4% Jakub Voracek Top Line 40.3% Dale Weise Bottom-Six 39.7% Sean Couturier 2nd Line 39.3% Wayne Simmonds 2nd Line 38.3% Brayden Schenn 2nd Line 38.2% Pierre-Edouard Bellemare 4th Line 35.8% Travis Konecny Middle-Six 34.5% Chris VandeVelde 4th Line 32.8% Roman Lyubimov 4th Line 31.1%

According to data collected by Tyler Dellow, fourth liners like Bellemare, VandeVelde and Lyubimov were actually less likely to allow their defense to carry the shooting load than scorers like Giroux and Voracek. Even if you believe that the Flyers’ stars are currently in decline, it’s highly unlikely that they are less able to create their own shots than the least threatening offensive forwards on the roster.

When players act in a way that seems counterintuitive to both their natural instincts and hockey logic itself over a large sample size, it’s fair to surmise that outside influences are at play. In this case, the heavy reliance on defensemen to carry the shooting load sure looks like an intentional strategy on the part of the coaching staff.

Of course, a coach teaching systems is not going to simply direct his team to take lots of shots from the point. Players realize that those shots are less likely to result in goals. There has to be some degree of tactical justification for the strategy.

Enter the Low-to-High offensive zone style.

While the strategy is often derided as “just a lot of point shots,” that is not a truly fair way to describe Low-To-High. The point of the tactic is to open up a defense that is using a collapsing formation around its own net. With most NHL teams looking to protect the slot and netfront at all costs while in the defensive zone, it can be difficult for the offense to create shots from a low section of the attacking zone, particularly with the puck along the boards. There just isn’t much room in front.

By kicking the puck up to a defenseman at the point, the offense essentially dares its opponent to break ranks and put pressure on the new puck carrier, breaking the collapsing formation. This then allows the offense to either continue cycling around the perimeter (but now against a more spread-out coverage), or to release a distance shot with forwards down low taking advantage of the ensuing structural weakness to penetrate the low slot, creating screens and collecting rebounds.

The Low-to-High style certainly has its uses, and every NHL offense employs it at times. However, through the tracking work of Corey Sznajder and data analysis of Ryan Stimson, it’s become clear that point shots taken directly after a Low-to-High pass rarely produce goals. Sznajder’s current 2016-17 dataset includes 6,257 tracked unblocked shots that directly originated from a Low-to-High pass, and only 60 of them ended up in the back of the net. That means that just 0.95 percent of all unblocked Low-to-High attempts turned into goals.

To be fair, the Low-to-High tactic also resulted in 23 rebound goals in the dataset, pushing its effective success rate up to 1.33 percent. Still, this doesn’t seem to be a tactic that an efficient offensive team would want to overuse. Unfortunately, the Flyers were in the top third of the league in usage, ranking ninth with 22.7 percent of their unblocked attempts coming immediately after a Low-to-High pass.

Team Low-To-High Usage Percentage Sharks 38.2% Maple Leafs 30.6% Panthers 27.2% Blue Jackets 26.7% Blackhawks 25.2% Wild 24.5% Penguins 24.4% Bruins 23.2% Flyers 22.7% Avalanche 22.3% Red Wings 21.4% Ducks 20.8% Canucks 20.6% Jets 20.6% Oilers 20.4% Blues 20.2% Flames 19.9% Rangers 19.2% Canadiens 19.1% Islanders 18.7% Kings 18.7% Hurricanes 17.9% Devils 17.7% Lightning 17.7% Stars 16.7% Predators 16.4% Sabres 15.8% Senators 14.7% Capitals 14.3% Coyotes 12.9%

Note: While the Flyers’ dataset is complete, other teams’ datasets are incomplete and do not contain the entirety of their 2016-17 seasons.

However, heavy usage of the Low-to-High system does not guarantee that a team will struggle in goal creation. The Maple Leafs, Blue Jackets, Blackhawks, Wild and Penguins all finished in the top-10 in 5-on-5 scoring last season, yet they used the Low-to-High shot–creation tactic even more often than Philadelphia did. Why did those teams not run into similar issues?

It could be due to the fact that those teams combined the Low-to-High with heavy usage of truly efficient shot creation tactics, while the Flyers did not. Two examples of more efficient tactics would be Home Plate passes, and Behind-the-Net passes. For a shot to be given the Home Plate designation, the preceding pass needs to move through the low-slot area prior to the eventual shot. As for Behind-the-Net, the pass initially preceding the shot must originate from below the red line (and not go back to the point).

While Low-To-High shots only turned into goals 0.95 percent of the time, Behind-the-Net unblocked shots were successful on 6.38 percent of instances, and Home Plate unblocked shots worked at a whopping 15.61 percent rate. This is where the Flyers paled in comparison to their Low-to-High peers. While those teams counterbalanced volume-heavy tactics with more threatening passing plays, the Flyers lagged behind in their usage of Home Plate and Behind-the-Net strategies in 2016-17.

Team Low-to-High Behind-the-Net Home Plate Maple Leafs 30.6% 10.0% 5.3% Blue Jackets 26.7% 12.0% 4.7% Blackhawks 25.2% 8.7% 11.6% Wild 24.5% 13.8% 6.5% Penguins 24.4% 16.2% 8.7% Flyers 22.7% 4.6% 6.4%

Toronto, Columbus, Minnesota and Pittsburgh all set up shop behind the net on a regular basis last season, while the Blackhawks relied upon their ability to be creative with their passes just in front of the goaltender. The Flyers, on the other hand, failed to regularly employ these more efficient tactics, and their goalscoring suffered for it.

A Low-to-High dominant offense without any efficient secondary strategies in the arsenal is not an especially threatening goal-scoring machine. Unless the Flyers find a way to increase their usage of tactics like Home Plate passes and Behind-the-Net originating shots, it’s unlikely they will become a high-end NHL offense at 5v5.

Impact of bad luck and unsustainable, poor execution

Of course, the Flyers do not necessarily have to be a well-oiled scoring machine on the level of the Penguins or Maple Leafs to make noise in 2017-18. Most fans would settle for a solidly mid-tier offensive performance, which would put Philadelphia right back into the playoff hunt.

That’s why it’s heartening to note that if Philadelphia makes no changes whatsoever to its offensive zone tactics in 2017-18, it will still likely see better results. That’s because even accounting for the team’s shot quality issues, the Flyers should have scored many more goals last season considering their underlying process.

Let’s return to Sznajder’s passing and shot data. For the Flyers, he tracked 3,675 unblocked attempts at 5v5 during the 2016-17 season, and recorded 126 goals resulting from those shots. That’s a 3.43% unblocked shooting percentage for the team on the season.

But what were the league averages in Sznajder’s dataset for each shot type? Did the Flyers dramatically underperform shooting percentage expectations even after controlling for how they created their shots?

For the most part, the answer is a resounding yes.

Final Pass Type Before the Shot Dataset Average Unblocked SH% PHI 16-17 Unblocked SH% Behind-the-Net Pass 6.38% 3.39% Stretch Pass 4.24% 4.50% Defensive Zone Pass 2.62% 2.68% Home Plate Pass 15.61% 11.86% Low-to-High Pass 0.95% 0.71% Neutral Zone Faceoff 0.00% 0.00% Neutral Zone Pass 2.64% 1.30% Offensive Zone Faceoff Win 1.59% 0.00% Offensive Zone Center Pass 5.18% 5.43% Offensive Zone Left Pass 3.23% 2.90% Offensive Zone Right Pass 3.60% 3.13% Rebound 17.47% 20.30% Other 2.04% 1.68%

The Flyers underperformed in multiple categories, from the usually-dangerous Behind-the-Net and Home Plate passes, to less efficient ones like Low-to-High and Neutral Zone passes. Only in shots taken off rebounds did the Flyers dramatically exceed the dataset average.

Now, let’s have some fun with these numbers. We can take the Flyers’ actual shot-creation counts for each of these categories, give each the dataset average shooting percentage outcome, and check what happens to the Flyers’ 5v5 goal scoring totals. Unsurprisingly, they take a measurable leap.

Final Pass Type Before the Shot Total Unblocked Shots Dataset Average Unblocked SH% Predicted Goals Scored Actual Goals Scored Behind-the-Net 118 6.38% 7.53 4 Stretch Pass 111 4.24% 4.71 5 Defensive Zone Pass 112 2.62% 2.93 3 Home Plate Pass 177 15.61% 27.63 21 Low-to-High Pass 708 0.95% 6.73 5 Neutral Zone Faceoff Win 6 0.00% 0 0 Neutral Zone Pass 230 2.64% 6.07 3 Offensive Zone Faceoff Win 63 1.59% 1 0 Offensive Zone Center Pass 313 5.18% 16.21 17 Offensive Zone Left Pass 517 3.23% 16.7 15 Offensive Zone Right Pass 415 3.60% 14.94 13 Rebound 133 17.47% 23.24 27 Other 772 2.04% 15.75 13 Totals 3675 143.44 126

Had the Flyers simply scored at the dataset’s average rates, they would have potted an extra 17 goals at 5-on-5 last season. Now, that would not have made them an offensive dynamo – 143 goals would have ranked 19th in the NHL, and the resulting 7.49% shooting percentage still would have fallen below the league average of 7.67 percent, understandable considering their shot quality issues. However, the season would not have been the goal-scoring disaster that it ended up being in reality.

Some would conclude that the team’s underperformance relative to statistical expectations was just bad luck; others may argue that it’s a lack of finishing talent or simply poor execution that caused the goal-scoring outage. Considering the research done by Stimson, however, I’m inclined to trust the process and assume that better outcomes for the Flyers are on the way from sound practices like Behind-the-Net and Home Plate passing strategies.

Bad luck does not absolve inefficient tactics

Based on the available data, the Philadelphia Flyers could make absolutely no changes this season to their offensive zone tactics, and still could expect a sizable bounce-back in terms of 5-on-5 goal-scoring. Even accounting for the Flyers’ shot quality, the team missed out on somewhere between 14-17 tallies relative to reasonable projections. That almost certainly will not happen again.

Still, the Flyers are not an especially efficient offensive zone squad at 5-on-5 in terms of tactics. They lean heavily upon a Low-to-High shot-creation style that rarely results in goals, place a large amount of the shot-taking load upon their defensemen, and appear allergic to the most creative and effective offensive zone passing plays.

The expected regression should help the Flyers in 2017-18, and barring a dramatic dropoff in the true talent level of the Philadelphia roster, they will not be keeping residence in the basement of the 5v5 scoring charts. But simply adhering to the same tactics as 2016-17 won’t get them any higher than middle-of-the-pack relative to the rest of the league. The coaching staff’s sights should be set far higher.

The new additions to the roster should help. No longer will the fourth line be devoid of offensive skill, considering the fact traditional middle-sixers like Jori Lehtera, Matt Read and Dale Weise will all probably spend time at the bottom of the lineup this year. Rookies like Nolan Patrick and Oskar Lindblom could also infuse the forward corps with additional creativity up front.

But the coaching staff should push their forwards to take more of an active role in the offensive zone, as well. Low-to-High passes may be an easier way to generate raw shot volume, but they are not an efficient way to generate goals. If the Flyers organization wants to turn its 5-on-5 goal scoring weakness into a strength, encouraging the creativity and assertiveness of the forwards on the roster is a good place to start.