An Analysis of Offensive Zone Hits
By Trey Elder Aug 28, 2025
My goal for this project was to determine if there is any particular part of the offensive zone in which hits were more effective at creating offensive opportunities. If true, this could provide a blueprint for teams looking to improve their forecheck by targeting specific areas of the ice in which hits are inherently more likely to lead to scoring chances. Using Dan Morse’s hockeyR package, I analyzed a dataset containing play-by-play data from every NHL regular and postseason game from 2010 to 2023 to determine the impact of offensive zone hits.
I decided to split the ice into four sections: the side boards, the two corners, behind the net, and the “middle” (the remainder of the zone. Exact dimensions for each zone can be found in the appendix.) Unsurprisingly, almost 96% of all offensive zone hits at even strength happen within ten feet of the boards, either along the side boards, in the corners or behind the net. This is because typically when forechecks are executed correctly, the opponent is forced to play the puck along the boards rather than with a pass up the middle that could potentially bypass the forecheckers. Correspondingly, about 96% of the shots that result from offensive zone hits happen in these three areas*. As shown in the first two columns of the chart below, the percentages of hits and shots resulting from hits originating in each zone are roughly the same, differing at most by less than 2%. This means that, as can be seen in the third column, the rate at which hits generate shots remains relatively similar (within 4%) regardless of the zone in which those hits occur, which would imply that the region in which a hit occurs does not affect its ability to generate a scoring chance in any kind of significant manner.
Regular Season at 5 on 5
| Region | % of Hits | % of SOG After Hits | SOG Rate | XG per SOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behind the Net | 29.20% | 30.19% | 27.63% | 0.0678 |
| Boards | 45.65% | 43.92% | 25.72% | 0.0619 |
| Corners | 20.95% | 22.05% | 28.15% | 0.0636 |
| Middle | 4.20% | 3.84% | 24.46% | 0.0666 |
But even if that is the case, it could still be possible that hits made in certain areas of the offensive zone generate higher quality scoring chances than others. For example, if the shots being created from hits behind the net were always right in front of the goal while those resulting from hits along the side boards mainly came from near the blue line, this could mean that behind-the-net hits are more effective, because they create scoring opportunities that are inherently easier to convert into goals. However, no such pattern exists. The final column of the chart shows that the average expected goals per shot (expected goals is defined as the probability that a shot results in a goal) across each of the four regions are separated by at most by 0.59%. This negligible difference in scoring chance quality, coupled with comparable rates of shot generation, leads us to the conclusion that the location of a hit within the offensive zone has virtually no impact on its chances of resulting in a shot on goal or on the quality of that shot.
In the NHL postseason, teams tend to emphasize physicality, as evidenced by the fact that the average number of five-on-five offensive zone hits per playoff game is around 13 compared to only about 8 in the regular season. However, despite the increased hitting, the same trends continue. Not only are the shot generation rates and expected goals per shot across each zone once again very similar, but they both have an even narrower dispersion than their regular season counterparts, meaning the zone in which a hit occurs has even less of an impact on its ability to lead to a scoring chance. In fact, both of these metrics are lower for every region in the playoffs than in the regular season, implying that despite conventional wisdom, offensive zone hits are actually slightly less effective in the postseason.
Postseason at 5 on 5
| Region | % of Hits | % of SOG After Hits | SOG Rate | XG per SOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behind the Net | 30.02% | 30.93% | 24.12% | 0.0645 |
| Boards | 45.00% | 43.80% | 22.79% | 0.0612 |
| Corners | 20.35% | 20.18% | 23.22% | 0.0612 |
| Middle | 4.63% | 5.09% | 25.70% | 0.0632 |
What all this ultimately means is that, to borrow a phrase from “Moneyball,” scoring chances resulting from forechecking are not something that can be “made up in the aggregate.” There is no overarching strategy, no specific area of the ice that can be systematically exploited in order to manufacture offense through hitting. But just because forechecking can’t be optimized in this regard doesn’t mean it should be abandoned entirely. Whenever you hit someone in your offensive zone, the evidence shows that there is still a greater than one in four chance that your team will get a shot on goal from it. And in a sport where games are often decided by the slimmest of margins, if there is a play that can yield a scoring chance a quarter of the time, teams will and should try to utilize it.
Because we have established that there is no preeminent forechecking strategy, NHL teams looking to gain offense from their forecheck need to prioritize acquiring players who are individually efficient hitters rather than attempting to implement a system designed to make the team more efficient at hitting. The ability to not just hit a player, but do so in a manner that separates them from the puck while simultaneously giving you or your teammate a chance to gain possession of the puck, is a microskill that not very many players have and, as we have seen, no gameplan can replicate. Some examples of great individual hitters from the past decade include Marcus Foligno, Nic Deslauriers, and Boone Jenner, who from 2014 to 2024 all ranked in the top ten for total offensive zone hits while maintaining shot generation rates of 36.1%, 30.8%, and 34.4%, respectively, while the league average since 2010 has been around 26%. According to the data, drafting or signing players like these will help teams create more offense from their forecheck than any new strategy or adjustment ever will.
Hits From 2014 to 2024
| Rank | Player | Total Hits | SOG Resulting from Hits | SOG Generation Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Matt Martin | 689 | 182 | 0.264 |
| 2 | Ryan Reaves | 617 | 166 | 0.269 |
| 3 | Milan Lucic | 462 | 138 | 0.299 |
| 4 | Cal Clutterbuck | 430 | 101 | 0.235 |
| 5 | Alex Ovechkin | 422 | 120 | 0.284 |
| 6 | Nicolas Deslauriers | 416 | 128 | 0.308 |
| 7 | Marcus Foligno | 415 | 150 | 0.361 |
| 8 | Tom Wilson | 373 | 113 | 0.303 |
| 9 | Adam Lowry | 359 | 92 | 0.256 |
| 10 | Boone Jenner | 358 | 123 | 0.344 |
This chart includes only offensive zone hits that occur at even strength.
Appendix
Region Coordinates: The right half of an NHL rink has a length of 100 ft from the red line to the back boards and a width of 85 ft from side board to side board. If we think of the center ice faceoff dot as having an (x, y) coordinate of (0,0), then the boundary coordinates for each region are as follows. All coordinates are given in clockwise order starting from the bottom left.
- Behind the Net: (89,-25), (89, 25), (100, 25), (100, -25)
- Corners: (89, 25), (89, 43), (100, 25) and (89, -43), (89, -25), (100, -25)
- Side Boards: (25, 31), (25, 43), (89, 43), (89, 31) and (25, -43), (25, -31), (89, -31), (89, -43)
- Middle: (25, -31), (25, 31), (89, 31), (89, -31)
*A shot was classified as being generated from a hit if in the play-by-play dataset, the shot was the first recorded event after the hit occurred.