OT: Changing the way the NHL ranks power plays.

[deluca67]

The current system of percentage based on attempts is archaic and doesn't give you any real sense of how successful a power play or penalty kill really is. You get hit with a penalty with one second on the clock it counts the same as a full 2 minute penalty. I suggest the NHL rank power plays by how long on average it takes a team to score. For comparison I give you Vancouver's and Buffalo's actual power play times.

 

Vancouver:

 

5 on 4 they score every 6:26 (69 goals in 444.27)

 

5 on 3 they scored once in 7:07

 

4 on 3 the scored every 3:46 (2 goals in 7:31)

 

Total: A PP goal every 6:23 of PP time.

 

Buffalo:

 

5 on 4 they score every 9:01 (48 goals in 432.42)

 

5 on 3 they scored every 2:18 (5 goals in 11:30)

 

4 on 3 the scored once in 9:10

 

Total: A PP goal every 8:24 of PP time.

 

IMO, this is a more accurate portrayal of the difference between the Sabres and Vancouver power plays. On average it took Buffalo 2:01 of pp time longer to score a pp goal.

[dEnnis the Menace]

The current system of percentage based on attempts is archaic and doesn't give you any real sense of how successful a power play or penalty kill really is. You get hit with a penalty with one second on the clock it counts the same as a full 2 minute penalty. I suggest the NHL rank power plays by how long on average it takes a team to score. For comparison I give you Vancouver's and Buffalo's actual power play times.

 

Vancouver:

 

5 on 4 they score every 6:26 (69 goals in 444.27)

 

5 on 3 they scored once in 7:07

 

4 on 3 the scored every 3:46 (2 goals in 7:31)

 

Total: A PP goal every 6:23 of PP time.

 

Buffalo:

 

5 on 4 they score every 9:01 (48 goals in 432.42)

 

5 on 3 they scored every 2:18 (5 goals in 11:30)

 

4 on 3 the scored once in 9:10

 

Total: A PP goal every 8:24 of PP time.

 

IMO, this is a more accurate portrayal of the difference between the Sabres and Vancouver power plays. On average it took Buffalo 2:01 of pp time longer to score a pp goal.

 

That is a much better way of looking at it rather than the percentage.

 

So just put it into a decimal (i.e. Buffalo scores 0.119 G/PPmin and Vancouver scores 0.157 G/PPmin). Much easier to grasp and to compare rather than the percentage! :clapping:

[nobody]

Good stuff. I've always hated counting those 20 second power plays.

[thesportsbuff]

That is a much better way of looking at it rather than the percentage.

 

So just put it into a decimal (i.e. Buffalo scores 0.119 G/PPmin and Vancouver scores 0.157 G/PPmin). Much easier to grasp and to compare rather than the percentage! :clapping:

 

Of course then there's the whole "0.119 isn't a percentage" thing... but it works everywhere else. :nana:

[nobody]

That is a much better way of looking at it rather than the percentage.

 

So just put it into a decimal (i.e. Buffalo scores 0.119 G/PPmin and Vancouver scores 0.157 G/PPmin). Much easier to grasp and to compare rather than the percentage! :clapping:

 

And an excellent addition.

 

So the Sabres Power Play percentage would be .119 right? ;)

[dEnnis the Menace]

And an excellent addition.

 

So the Sabres Power Play percentage would be .119 right? ;)

 

:doh: :death:

 

haha definitely will need a disclaimer that says NOT A PERCENTAGE (HENCE THE DEFINITION/UNITS AT THE END OF THE NUMBER: G/PPmin

[shrader]

I've always wanted to see something like this (not that powerplay rankings are something that the NHL uses to seed the playoffs or anything like that). I don't think it would make too much of a difference in the end though. More than likely, the amount of abbreviated powerplays probably balances out across teams and the end result would look a lot like the regular efficiency stats we always see.

[Knightrider]

The current system of percentage based on attempts is archaic and doesn't give you any real sense of how successful a power play or penalty kill really is. You get hit with a penalty with one second on the clock it counts the same as a full 2 minute penalty. I suggest the NHL rank power plays by how long on average it takes a team to score. For comparison I give you Vancouver's and Buffalo's actual power play times.

 

Vancouver:

 

5 on 4 they score every 6:26 (69 goals in 444.27)

 

5 on 3 they scored once in 7:07

 

4 on 3 the scored every 3:46 (2 goals in 7:31)

 

Total: A PP goal every 6:23 of PP time.

 

Buffalo:

 

5 on 4 they score every 9:01 (48 goals in 432.42)

 

5 on 3 they scored every 2:18 (5 goals in 11:30)

 

4 on 3 the scored once in 9:10

 

Total: A PP goal every 8:24 of PP time.

 

IMO, this is a more accurate portrayal of the difference between the Sabres and Vancouver power plays. On average it took Buffalo 2:01 of pp time longer to score a pp goal.

 

I like it, although I'd go PPG/hour.

[spndnchz]

So, the amount of points acquired that were available during say, 60 minutes of hockey should tell us whether a team is above .500?

[tom webster]

The current system of percentage based on attempts is archaic and doesn't give you any real sense of how successful a power play or penalty kill really is. You get hit with a penalty with one second on the clock it counts the same as a full 2 minute penalty. I suggest the NHL rank power plays by how long on average it takes a team to score. For comparison I give you Vancouver's and Buffalo's actual power play times.

 

Vancouver:

 

5 on 4 they score every 6:26 (69 goals in 444.27)

 

5 on 3 they scored once in 7:07

 

4 on 3 the scored every 3:46 (2 goals in 7:31)

 

Total: A PP goal every 6:23 of PP time.

 

Buffalo:

 

5 on 4 they score every 9:01 (48 goals in 432.42)

 

5 on 3 they scored every 2:18 (5 goals in 11:30)

 

4 on 3 the scored once in 9:10

 

Total: A PP goal every 8:24 of PP time.

 

IMO, this is a more accurate portrayal of the difference between the Sabres and Vancouver power plays. On average it took Buffalo 2:01 of pp time longer to score a pp goal.

 

Does Vancouver get more fdor their goals because they took less time? You just gave all those who scream shoot right from the start something to hang their hat on.

[Weave]

Does Vancouver get more fdor their goals because they took less time? You just gave all those who scream shoot right from the start something to hang their hat on.

 

 

All it does is rate powerplay efficiency.

 

Goals against average for goalies is based on actual time spent in net, not appearances in games. Why not do the same for powerplays? I think it makes sense. All it is is a ranking of powerplay strength. It makes sense that if you convert more quickly on average that your PP is likely stronger than a team that doesn't convert quickly, if at all.

[deluca67]

All it does is rate powerplay efficiency.

 

Goals against average for goalies is based on actual time spent in net, not appearances in games. Why not do the same for powerplays? I think it makes sense. All it is is a ranking of powerplay strength. It makes sense that if you convert more quickly on average that your PP is likely stronger than a team that doesn't convert quickly, if at all.

Exactly.

 

It's not a proposed change intended to revolutionize the game. It is simply taking a statical category that is often talked about and making it more accurate. I am simple taking the partial power plays and providing a way to accurately account for them and taking away their inflated value under the current system.

[spndnchz]

Either way there's no change in the top 8 teams. meh.

[X. Benedict]

The current system of percentage based on attempts is archaic and doesn't give you any real sense of how successful a power play or penalty kill really is. You get hit with a penalty with one second on the clock it counts the same as a full 2 minute penalty. I suggest the NHL rank power plays by how long on average it takes a team to score. For comparison I give you Vancouver's and Buffalo's actual power play times.

 

Vancouver:

 

5 on 4 they score every 6:26 (69 goals in 444.27)

 

5 on 3 they scored once in 7:07

 

4 on 3 the scored every 3:46 (2 goals in 7:31)

 

Total: A PP goal every 6:23 of PP time.

 

Buffalo:

 

5 on 4 they score every 9:01 (48 goals in 432.42)

 

5 on 3 they scored every 2:18 (5 goals in 11:30)

 

4 on 3 the scored once in 9:10

 

Total: A PP goal every 8:24 of PP time.

 

IMO, this is a more accurate portrayal of the difference between the Sabres and Vancouver power plays. On average it took Buffalo 2:01 of pp time longer to score a pp goal.

I guess that would show an efficiency quotient.....is it really more meaningful than total PP goals scored.

 

The thing that immediately comes to mind is this: If you have a full two minutes, usually you can be patient setting up and take shots that don't lose possession. Taking more time to score is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

If you have 25 seconds the PP unit is going to try to get the puck to net in the first 15 seconds so they don't get caught with a man out of the box. There is more desperation.

 

Good post.

[shrader]

Exactly.

 

It's not a proposed change intended to revolutionize the game. It is simply taking a statical category that is often talked about and making it more accurate. I am simple taking the partial power plays and providing a way to accurately account for them and taking away their inflated value under the current system.

 

So what would you do with a 5 minute major, start the timer over if a goal is scored? So if a team scored at the 2 minute mark of a major, then scored again at the 3 minute mark, would you put them down as:

-1 PP goal in 2 minutes of ice time

-1 PP goal in 1 minute of ice time, and

-a PP failure during 2 minutes of ice time

 

 

How about 5-on-3s? Should they have their own scale somehow?

[deluca67]

So what would you do with a 5 minute major, start the timer over if a goal is scored? So if a team scored at the 2 minute mark of a major, then scored again at the 3 minute mark, would you put them down as:

-1 PP goal in 2 minutes of ice time

-1 PP goal in 1 minute of ice time, and

-a PP failure during 2 minutes of ice time

 

 

How about 5-on-3s? Should they have their own scale somehow?

No need to change anything with a 5 minute power play. I am taking away the segmented time of each individual power play and basing the rankings on the cumulative. Two 5 minute pps is the exact same as five 2 minute pps. It's not about total opportunities, it's about the time it takes between pp goals. The Canucks on average score every 6:26 of pp time, Buffalo scores every 9:01. That tells me that the Canucks are the more efficient unit by 2:01 per pp goal.

 

I did break down the 5 on 3 and 4 on 3 power play times. The Sabres are highly efficient on 5 on 3 power plays scoring 5 times in 11:30 for a goal every 2:18. They were far less efficient 4 on 3 scoring just the once in 9:10 they had this season.

[Assquatch]

Shrader I must be misunderstanding what you're misunderstanding.

 

There is no resetting a timer. 2 goals in a 5 minute major is .4 goals per minute or 2.5 minutes per goal.

 

YTD PPG scored divided by YTD PP time = goals per minute.

[shrader]

Shrader I must be misunderstanding what you're misunderstanding.

 

There is no resetting a timer. 2 goals in a 5 minute major is .4 goals per minute or 2.5 minutes per goal.

 

YTD PPG scored divided by YTD PP time = goals per minute.

 

Yeah, my question relates more to a success vs. failure discussion than the timing conversation. 2 goals over a 5 minute major is a huge success, but that ultimately gets ignored when you look at the cumulative time numbers. There's always little details like this that will be ignored in one ranking vs. another.

 

 

Here's another flaw in the total time idea. Say team A has 60 two second powerplays while team B has one full 2 minute powerplay. They've both spent a full 2 minutes on the powerplay, yet team B more than likely had a much better chance of scoring. Deluca's proposal doesn't catch this at all. We still need to factor in the number of powerplay attempts. Once you do that, it's going to start looking an awful lot like the original powerplay success rate that we're all familiar with.

[deluca67]

Yeah, my question relates more to a success vs. failure discussion than the timing conversation. 2 goals over a 5 minute major is a huge success, but that ultimately gets ignored when you look at the cumulative time numbers. There's always little details like this that will be ignored in one ranking vs. another.

 

 

Here's another flaw in the total time idea. Say team A has 60 two second powerplays while team B has one full 2 minute powerplay. They've both spent a full 2 minutes on the powerplay, yet team B more than likely had a much better chance of scoring. Deluca's proposal doesn't catch this at all. We still need to factor in the number of powerplay attempts. Once you do that, it's going to start looking an awful lot like the original powerplay success rate that we're all familiar with.

Those 60 two second power plays are exactly what I am trying to devalue. Under the current system those 60 two second power plays equal 60 two minute power plays. You score once out of those 60 two second power plays and your pp% is 1.6%. Is that 1.6% a fair representation of a teams power play efficiency?

[Taro T]

All it does is rate powerplay efficiency.

 

Goals against average for goalies is based on actual time spent in net, not appearances in games. Why not do the same for powerplays? I think it makes sense. All it is is a ranking of powerplay strength. It makes sense that if you convert more quickly on average that your PP is likely stronger than a team that doesn't convert quickly, if at all.

If there is a factor in it for pp's that actually convert (and an adjustment for sh ga), then it is rating pp efficiency.

 

Because honestly, w/ all things being equal AND if the team IS going to score on the pp, I'd rather see the team score towards the end of it, so the pk'ers have gotten tired and the other teams' top offensive forwards have been off the ice for an extended break rather than score right off the faceoff. (Obviously, things aren't equal, as we don't KNOW the team will score on a particular pp, so we prefer them scoring sooner than later in realtime.)

 

A team that scores right off the faceoff (say 6 seconds in) on 1/3 of their pp's would have an efficiency of 0.244 gpmpp. A team that takes the full 2 minutes to score but scores on 1/2 of their pp's would have a rating of 0.25. While both would look almost identical based on this ranking (the quick scoring team is rated at 97.6% of the slow scoring team), the one that scores on 1/2 of their chances would have 50% more ppg's after the same # of chances as the other one.

 

Also, giving up a shg should be reflected in a pp's efficiency if we're looking at new ways of ranking pp's.

 

But it is an interesting concept and the league could easily track it. (Heck, I'd be surprised if individual teams don't track this on their own.) To DeRuca - :thumbsup:

[IKnowPhysics]

The current system of percentage based on attempts is archaic and doesn't give you any real sense of how successful a power play or penalty kill really is. ...

 

Vancouver:

Total: A PP goal every 6:23 of PP time.

 

Buffalo:

Total: A PP goal every 8:24 of PP time.

 

IMO, this is a more accurate portrayal of the difference between the Sabres and Vancouver power plays. On average it took Buffalo 2:01 of pp time longer to score a pp goal.

 

I would redefine "Power Play Percentage" as the number of power play goals scored per two minutes of man-advantage ice time played. In my opinion, it gives the most meaningful look and it's a familiar statistical feel to the current PP% definition, as it provides the historical probability of scoring on the power play for a full two minute opportunity.

 

Those numbers above (total) work out to be:

 

((1 goal / average time in minutes to score one goal) * 2 minutes * 100%)

 

Vancouver: 31.3%

Buffalo: 23.8%

 

 

There's some differences of note, though, with this math from the previous definition of PP%: the faster a team scores, the higher their PP%. IE, the higher their PP%, the less time they needed to produce a goal with the man advantage, which is a pretty telling concept.

[shrader]

Those 60 two second power plays are exactly what I am trying to devalue. Under the current system those 60 two second power plays equal 60 two minute power plays. You score once out of those 60 two second power plays and your pp% is 1.6%. Is that 1.6% a fair representation of a teams power play efficiency?

 

But in trying to devalue them, you instead are setting 60 two second powerplays equal to one full two minute powerplay, which, clearly, they're not. Just adding up the total time is not going to catch those powerplays where a team had zero realistic shot of scoring a goal. Ideally you would just throw those impossible powerplays away, but good luck defining a uniform standard for that definition.

[deluca67]

But in trying to devalue them, you instead are setting 60 two second powerplays equal to one full two minute powerplay, which, clearly, they're not. Just adding up the total time is not going to catch those powerplays where a team had zero realistic shot of scoring a goal. Ideally you would just throw those impossible powerplays away, but good luck defining a uniform standard for that definition.

Is that not better than setting 60 two second powerplays equal to 60 full two minute powerplays as the current system does? It's not a perfect system but I believe it makes it better by 59 powerplays under your scenario.

[Weave]

I would redefine "Power Play Percentage" as the number of power play goals scored per two minutes of man-advantage ice time played. In my opinion, it gives the most meaningful look and it's a familiar statistical feel to the current PP% definition, as it provides the historical probability of scoring on the power play for a full two minute opportunity.

 

Those numbers above (total) work out to be:

 

((1 goal / average time in minutes to score one goal) * 2 minutes * 100%)

 

Vancouver: 31.3%

Buffalo: 23.8%

 

 

There's some differences of note, though, with this math from the previous definition of PP%: the faster a team scores, the higher their PP%. IE, the higher their PP%, the less time they needed to produce a goal with the man advantage, which is a pretty telling concept.

 

This would be a worthwhile adjustment to DeLuca's idea. It handles powerplays similar to the way GAA is handled for goalies.

[shrader]

Is that not better than setting 60 two second powerplays equal to 60 full two minute powerplays as the current system does? It's not a perfect system but I believe it makes it better by 59 powerplays under your scenario.

 

The point is that there is no perfect system. Like I said earlier though, I get the feeling that in the end, the two would come out nearly identical.

 

 

Edit: I just ran all the rankings for the entire league. They are the same. The left column is the ranking by goals/powerplay attempt. The second column is the ranking by goals/powerplay time.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 9

9 8

10 12

11 13

12 10

13 11

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 19

19 18

20 22

21 24

22 23

23 20

24 21

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 29

29 28

30 30

 

So yeah, there's some noise in the middle, but the in both systems, the best are still the best and the worst are still the worst.