Game Theory: Defending a 5 on 3

Defending a five on three is inherently difficult. Not only does the opposition have two more players they also have their most talented offensive players on the ice. In this situation the defending team must acknowledge that the offense will create some offensive opportunities. Instead of aiming to prevent all offensive chances, the goal for the defense is to force the offense to score with their second option.

The way I explain the strategy of a five on three to my players is by comparing it to football. In football the defensive game plan is built around taking away the opposition’s strength, either passing or running. Taking away both is challenging if not impossible, so you take away one and force them to beat you with the other. Five on threes are similar, depending on the system, the defense can either take away shots at the point or back-door passes down low. 

The triangle or 1-2, has only one forward which entices the offensive team into shooting one-timers at the point. As you can see from this game against Philadelphia, although the Wings have only one forwards, the Flyers have two shooting options at the point. 

 

The play is designed so that Gostisbehere can either shoot or pass to Voracek for another one-time shot. Although using this system gives the offense the opportunity to create shots from the point it can better defend back-door passes, which we saw in Columbus. The Blue Jackets are in a similar set up to Philadelphia, but Savard (58) is not a one-time threat. As a result, DeKeyser can stay lower in the zone to defend a potential back-door pass, which he eventually does. 

The inverted triangle or 2-1, has two forwards and only one defenseman. Against a team like Carolina who wants to set up one-timers from the point, the Red Wings smartly used a 2-1 in order to better defend these shots.

Although it allows them to defend point shots you can see that the Red Wings are vulnerable down low. Against Carolina that is an acceptable cost because Carolina’s strength and preferred option on the power-play is a one-timer from Justin Faulk. However using this strategy against Chicago, who prefers to look for the backdoor pass is a poor decision. The Red Wings set up in a 2-1 even though neither Keith or Seabrook (out of the screen) is a one-time threat. The lack of support down low is exactly what Chicago wants, and allows Kane to make this back door pass to Panarin. 

 

The key is to accept that with two less men, you will give up chances of some kind. The only choice is which kind the defense would prefer to give up, and that should be determined by the offense’s strength. The system should force the offense into relying on their second option. Last night against Tampa we saw the Red Wings use the 2-1 to defend against Tampa Bay’s first and second options, a Stamkos or Hedman one-timer.

 

This forced Tampa Bay to go to their second option, a back door pass. When they went to the second option the Red Wings defended the play decently but Johnson made an incredible pass to create the goal. The fact that Tampa Bay scored does not mean the system failed, only that Tampa Bay made a great play. If you shut down the opposition’s all-star running back but lose because the quarterback made a great play, you don’t blame the strategy. The defense made the quarterback beat them knowing that most of the time the quarterback will not make that play, but once in a while he does. So next time the Wings put two forwards one the ice for a five on three try to identify the opposition's favorite play. If it's someone taking a slapshot from the point (Stamkos, Ovechkin, Gostisbehere, Subban etc..) then resist the urge to scream at the coaching staff; they made the right choice.