Question about powerplays

[les_glorieux]

Why are statistics for a team's powerplay calculated by "opportunities" and not by time spent with a man advantage? Wouldn't it be more accurate?

Edited December 1, 2006 by les_glorieux

[shortcat1]

Why are statistics for a team's powerplay calculated by "opportunities" and not by time spent with a man advantage? Wouldn't it be more accurate?

agreed!!!! fully and heartily agreed!!!!!!

I think I did a thread on that a few months ago so it's nice to see a supportive opinion.

GO :hlogo: GO!

[les_glorieux]

Wow. This is pretty ridiculous. I emailed Scott Cullen at TSN. He does the power rankings, player rankings, and weekly NHL mail. I sent the message him maybe 3 minutes ago, and he already responded.

My guess would be that, when the league started keeping track, it was a lot

easier to do it by number of power play opportunities. That shouldn't be an

issue any longer, but I don't know if anyone will be able to convince the

NHL to change the measurement, even if it would be more accurate.

Edited December 1, 2006 by les_glorieux

[shortcat1]

Wow. This is pretty ridiculous. I emailed Scott Cullen at TSN. He does the power rankings, player rankings, and weekly NHL mail. I sent the message him maybe 3 minutes ago, and he already responded.

thanks lg & SC.

GO :hlogo: GO!

[simonus]

it has been suggested that PP efficiency (PPGs/PP minutes) would be a good alternative to PP%.

[Oleg Petrov]

This would get skewy because of the fact that a goal ends a power play. Many teams have 2 PP units, and you can see how some teams would have one good one and one mediocre one while others would have 2 strong units.

So a team with one good unit that always gets the first minute of the PP and scores 3 out of 8 shifts, and one mediocre PP unit that never scores, would have 3 goals out of 11:30 or so (assuming the scoring averages out to happening at the mid-point of unit 1's shift), for .26 goals/minute;

Meanwhile, a more balanced team might score 4 goals on 8 powerplays, but have the front unit get 2 of them and the back unit get the other 2, leaving 4 goals out of 13:00, or .31 goals/minute;

Present way of looking at these stats:

Team A has 37.5% pp

Team B has 50% pp, i.e. 33% better than team A

"Efficiency" method:

Team A has .26 g/min

Team B has .31 g/min, i.e. only 19% better than team A.

Same events, different stats, of course. I think the present way is more representative of a team's pp strength - it's the goals that matter, not how long it takes to get them. That said, I think the way the stats are done now leave a lot to be desired, especially when 13 seconds into a pp, your team draws a penalty, and it counts like a missed opportunity.

[huzer]

I pretty much agree with OP. Realistically, the only way to equitably do it, is if the minor penalty was once again a full 2 minutes. Then, either by minutes or opportunity, the number would technically be the same.

When the Habs score in 30 seconds on a PP, nobody minds when the stats say they're 1-1. But when there are offsetting penalties where there is a time difference, people get bent out of shape when the Habs go 0-1 on a 6 second PP. It all works out in the end. While it's not uncommon, it usually isn't the standard that there are minor penalties called when time is offsetting.

[Peter Puck]

This would get skewy because of the fact that a goal ends a power play. Many teams have 2 PP units, and you can see how some teams would have one good one and one mediocre one while others would have 2 strong units.

So a team with one good unit that always gets the first minute of the PP and scores 3 out of 8 shifts, and one mediocre PP unit that never scores, would have 3 goals out of 11:30 or so (assuming the scoring averages out to happening at the mid-point of unit 1's shift), for .26 goals/minute;

Meanwhile, a more balanced team might score 4 goals on 8 powerplays, but have the front unit get 2 of them and the back unit get the other 2, leaving 4 goals out of 13:00, or .31 goals/minute;

Present way of looking at these stats:

Team A has 37.5% pp

Team B has 50% pp, i.e. 33% better than team A

"Efficiency" method:

Team A has .26 g/min

Team B has .31 g/min, i.e. only 19% better than team A.

Same events, different stats, of course. I think the present way is more representative of a team's pp strength - it's the goals that matter, not how long it takes to get them. That said, I think the way the stats are done now leave a lot to be desired, especially when 13 seconds into a pp, your team draws a penalty, and it counts like a missed opportunity.

This analysis is correct as far as it goes and the scenario presented is better dealt with by the current system. The problem is that there is a much bigger problem with the current system.

Suppose team A has a very strong PP. But it also has many powerplays cut short by penalties or games ending.

Now team B has a weak powerplay but almost none of its powerplays are cut short except by goals by team B. The many unsuccesful 20 second powerplays by team A will make it seem like it has a weaker PP than team B.

I think this disparity is in fact not uncommon. Teams which play a chippy style tend to have many more brief powerplays. This makes the current PP rating system unreliable.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Peter Puck