Are even strength points underrated in hockey ?

[Breakers]

While I don’t disagree, referring to Draisaitl as a PP specialist is blatantly incorrect (as the OP inferred). Unless we’re deciding to qualify anyone who produces a bigger portion of their points on the PP as power play specialists as well (e.g. Q. Hughes or JT Miller).

LOL
Didnt Hughes lead the league in even strength scoring for defense

 

[dgibb10]

I don’t think that can ever be true because of how major the goaltender is for the PK team. But I do think it’s underrated overall.

Very true factor that I didn't mention.
The carolina elite PK with relatively mediocre goalies is a lot different than the NYR elite PK led by shesterkin's excellence

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

That is true but players who are good at ES tend to be good on the PP anyways, and ES has more correlation with winning hockey games.

Again, the Penguins missed the playoffs entirely because their PP was ass all season. If they had even league average PP, they're in the playoffs. So while sure being able to play well at ES is a big thing, people who are DISMISSING production on the PP as though it doesn't affect results are also being obtuse. The Penguins are literally an example of a team whose wins/losses were affected dramatically by not scoring on the PP.

 

[RANDOMH3RO]

If anything pp points are underrated. They don’t ask you how, just how many. 5on5 is hockey at its best, but it’s played on the power play a lot as well so it all matters. I find it so ridiculous how often people try to turn scoring on the power play into a criticism against a player.

 

[PuckG]

LOL
Didnt Hughes lead the league in even strength scoring for defense

LOL

Draisaitl had 39 out of his 106 points come on the PP (36%).

JT Miller had 40 out of 103 points on the PP (38%).

Q. Hughes had 38 out of 92 points come on the PP (41%).

Whether he led defence at even strength or not, if we can label Draisaitl a PP merchant, Hughes gets the grand title too.

 

[Breakers]

LOL

Draisaitl had 39 out of his 106 points come on the PP (36%).

JT Miller had 40 out of 103 points on the PP (38%).

Q. Hughes had 38 out of 92 points come on the PP (41%).

Whether he led defence at even strength or not, if we can label Draisaitl a PP merchant, Hughes gets the grand title too.

And yet he still led all defense in even strength scoring

 

[PuckG]

And yet he still led all defense in even strength scoring

What’s your point?

Mine is clear. Canuck fans are very quick to label XX player as a ”merchant”, but absolves their own players who have metrics that substantiate they are worse “merchants.”

Very similarly, there’s the whole injury excuse with a third string goalie while simultaneously ignoring any injuries their opposition might have.

Some semblance of consistency is needed. When you find it, we’ll continue to chat.

 

[Breakers]

What’s your point?

Mine is clear. Canuck fans are very quick to label XX player as a ”merchant”, but absolves their own players who have metrics that substantiate they are worse “merchants.”

Very similarly, there’s the whole injury excuse with a third string goalie while simultaneously ignoring any injuries their opposition might have.

Some semblance of consistency is needed. When you find it, we’ll continue to chat.

Thread about even strength scoring

You: guys a merchant
Me: why does he lead the league in even EV scoring at his position?
You: guys a merchant

Brilliant logic

 

[Three On Zero]

Thread about even strength scoring

You: guys a merchant
Me: why does he lead the league in even EV scoring at his position?
You: guys a merchant

Brilliant logic

Entire thread is brilliant logic when it’s about the importance about even strength scoring. Lots of hoops being jumped through to move it away from that

 

[PuckG]

Thread about even strength scoring

You: guys a merchant
Me: why does he lead the league in even EV scoring at his position?
You: guys a merchant

Brilliant logic

Brilliant logic is ignoring the one tweet used to substantiate the OP’s claim and then acting utterly shocked when people refute it with stats.

The Canucks way…

”Stats apply to you, not to us.”

“Injuries apply to us, not to you.”

And then when you disagree, feign outrage.

 

[Regal]

Again, the Penguins missed the playoffs entirely because their PP was ass all season. If they had even league average PP, they're in the playoffs. So while sure being able to play well at ES is a big thing, people who are DISMISSING production on the PP as though it doesn't affect results are also being obtuse. The Penguins are literally an example of a team whose wins/losses were affected dramatically by not scoring on the PP.

Pens had only the 12th best ES GF% in the league at 52.4%. They were good at even strength but they weren’t a great ES team. If they were among the leaders in the 56-58 GF% range then their PP wouldn’t have mattered for making the playoffs. Usually you need both of course, but great ES teams have won with mediocre or bad PPs (Bruins in ‘11 and Hawks in ‘13 come to mind). I don’t know if anyone has won with a great PP and mediocre ES play.

 

[dgibb10]

Again, the Penguins missed the playoffs entirely because their PP was ass all season. If they had even league average PP, they're in the playoffs. So while sure being able to play well at ES is a big thing, people who are DISMISSING production on the PP as though it doesn't affect results are also being obtuse. The Penguins are literally an example of a team whose wins/losses were affected dramatically by not scoring on the PP.

Counterpoint.

Should I give credit to the members of that dogshit pens PP for the points they got there when comparing them to guys who simply didn't get opportunity on the PP?

 

[crowi]

Its clearly sarcasm.

When you read on this thread, then clearly it isn't. Good luck with the HOG.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I Like Blake Colman.

That's f***ed up

 

[CanadasTeam99]

Goofy ass post with the tweet you’re using to justify it.

A point is a point. A goal is a goal. Score more than the opposition to win irrespective of the circumstances.

Enjoy Hoglander with your 4 additional 5v5 goals in one season. We’ll enjoy Art Ross, Hart, Ted Lindsay, 5 x 100 point scorer, 3 x 50 goal scorer Draisaitl.

As a side note, Draisaitl had 39 out of his 106 points come on the PP (36%).

JT Miller had 40 out of 103 points on the PP (38%).

Q. Hughes had 38 out of 92 points come on the PP (41%).

Canucks players used as a comparison since that’s what the tweet started with. Don’t forget, many of those players play with each other on the ice. Don’t forget to implement your deductions based on them being “merchants” from one another.

Mic Drop. LOL

 

[Brookbank]

Again, the Penguins missed the playoffs entirely because their PP was ass all season. If they had even league average PP, they're in the playoffs. So while sure being able to play well at ES is a big thing, people who are DISMISSING production on the PP as though it doesn't affect results are also being obtuse. The Penguins are literally an example of a team whose wins/losses were affected dramatically by not scoring on the PP.

Im not saying they aren't important at all.

I'd just argue, in isolation, ES points are harder to get than PP points. And we have fringe NHL'ers getting more ES goals than the superstars. Its kinda strange. If the powerplay didn't exist, maybe star players woudln't have the room to run up their stats. And wrecking balls like Hoglander would be getting paid more.

It aint just about Hoglanders shooting %. He's a unique player. Garlund is also a ES monster. They are edgy little bastards

 

[Suntouchable13]

One thing I want to say is that you're not guaranteed to get PPs during a game so scoring even strength is very important. You can not rely on the PP to bail you out.

 

[Oddbob]

If anything, they are overrated, especially on HF. Guys get blasted because they get too many pts on the PP.

 

[benfranklin]

100% they're underrated, but you need PP producers because often games and series are won on the special teams.

But defensive play while on even strength is also underrated. The example you gave was Leon and he gets very generous O zone starts, 20 ES goals, 45 ES assists, and on the ice for ? more ES goals while not getting a point, and is "only" +26. Lots of arguments can be made there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A guy contibuting to an 85% PK is honestly providing just as much value as a guy contributing to a 25% PP.

I don’t think that can ever be true because of how major the goaltender is for the PK team. But I do think it’s underrated overall.

In addition to the goalie, I would also say team context in general contributes a lot more to PK% than PP%.

If every guy on the ice isn’t locked in during a PK, you’re going to get dunked on no matter how good your goalie and top PK’er are. All it takes is one guy who doesn’t have the skating or reacts a little too slow, and the whole structure collapses. And at least in theory, outstanding individual PK’ers could get bad results if they’re using a poorly aligned system.

Whereas on the PP, you can afford to have a plug who does nothing but hang around in the crease, or a defenseman who’s nothing but a decoy because he has a big slapper. But if you’ve got McDavid passing to Draisaitl on the other side of the ice, that’s probably gonna be a good power play regardless.

 

[Three On Zero]

So everyone should be able to do it at draisaitls rate then. Oh wait no because having that skill is valuable

Not everyone has a McDavid to draw 1-2 PKers in either. Not to downplay Draisaitl, he has a very accurate shot but when you also have McDavid on the ice people tend to leave Draisaitl open as a secondary threat and cover McDavid.

We saw similar things with Ovechkin and his “house”. You know the guy is a scoring threat but he’s not the one actively attacking or creating space so he gets left alone.

In addition to the goalie, I would also say team context in general contributes a lot more to PK% than PP%.

If every guy on the ice isn’t locked in during a PK, you’re going to get dunked on no matter how good your goalie and top PK’er are. All it takes is one guy who doesn’t have the skating or reacts a little too slow, and the whole structure collapses. And at least in theory, outstanding individual PK’ers could get bad results if they’re using a poorly aligned system.

Whereas on the PP, you can afford to have a plug who does nothing but hang around in the crease, or a defenseman who’s nothing but a decoy because he has a big slapper. But if you’ve got McDavid passing to Draisaitl on the other side of the ice, that’s probably gonna be a good power play regardless.

You also need a cohesive group for a successful PK, if one guy moves too far out of position he’s likely leaving someone else wide open or a direct lane to the goalie. You’re essentially covering your teammate and two attackers

 

[MadLuke]

A guy contibuting to an 85% PK is honestly providing just as much value as a guy contributing to a 25% PP.

stopping a goal is the same than creating one for sure, but in the term of value it goes with offer/demand, how many people are able to stop goals vs how many can create them.

And the value does not come from goal created and goal prevented, it come from goal created a cheap replacement player would not have created and a goal prevented the best AHLER would not have prevented.

as for the question in general if a team can sign a player and replace there current worst top 6 guy by someone that score.

1) 50 pts on the PK and playing no other minutes elsewhere, would add almost certainly 50+ goals to a team
2) 50 pts at EV, harder to say, but probably a small fraction of number 1
3) 50 pts on the PP, even less than 2.

Mario Lemieux arguably the best PP player of all time, missing but playing a lot of games during his prime can offer some windows.

The Penguins in 91-92 and 92-93 combined together (a rare example of a superstar missing (40) but also playing (124) a lot of games).

With Lemieux they scored 4.64 goals a games, without Lemieux they scored 3.38 goal a game

Lemieux scored 2.36 points a game to add a giant 1.26 goals a game to a team, more than half a goal by points.

The Penguins added .23 power play goal a game and 1.03 non power play goals a game.
Lemieux had .82 powerplay point a game versus 1.52 non power play point game.

It seem grossly that a Lemieux PP point added .28 goals to is team, a non power play point added .677 goals to is team, more than twice.

 

[dgibb10]

stopping a goal is the same than creating one for sure, but in the term of value it goes with offer/demand, how many people are able to stop goals vs how many can create them.

And the value does not come from goal created and goal prevented, it come from goal created a cheap replacement player would not have created and a goal prevented the best AHLER would not have prevented.

as for the question in general if a team can sign a player and replace there current worst top 6 guy by someone that score.

1) 50 pts on the PK and playing no other minutes elsewhere, would add almost certainly 50+ goals to a team
2) 50 pts at EV, harder to say, but probably a small fraction of number 1
3) 50 pts on the PP, even less than 2.

Mario Lemieux arguably the best PP player of all time, missing but playing a lot of games during his prime can offer some windows.

The Penguins in 91-92 and 92-93 combined together (a rare example of a superstar missing (40) but also playing (124) a lot of games).

With Lemieux they scored 4.64 goals a games, without Lemieux they scored 3.38 goal a game

Lemieux scored 2.36 points a game to add a giant 1.26 goals a game to a team, more than half a goal by points.

The Penguins added .23 power play goal a game and 1.03 non power play goals a game.
Lemieux had .82 powerplay point a game versus 1.52 non power play point game.

It seem grossly that a Lemieux PP point added .28 goals to is team, a non power play point added .677 goals to is team, more than twice.

I would agree that an individual player on the PP can impact a PP more than an individual member of a PK

 

[eXile3]

I get trying to use them as a baseline to equate players but no. Scoring on the PP is easier, by no means easy. Plenty of guys get the opportunity and don’t put up crazy numbers.

 

[dgibb10]

In addition to the goalie, I would also say team context in general contributes a lot more to PK% than PP%.

If every guy on the ice isn’t locked in during a PK, you’re going to get dunked on no matter how good your goalie and top PK’er are. All it takes is one guy who doesn’t have the skating or reacts a little too slow, and the whole structure collapses. And at least in theory, outstanding individual PK’ers could get bad results if they’re using a poorly aligned system.

Whereas on the PP, you can afford to have a plug who does nothing but hang around in the crease, or a defenseman who’s nothing but a decoy because he has a big slapper. But if you’ve got McDavid passing to Draisaitl on the other side of the ice, that’s probably gonna be a good power play regardless.

I agree that individual superstars have more of an impact on the PP than PK.

But that is more of a credit splitting thing. I'm referring to the more secondary options on PPs.
Being an elite PP driver/weapon imo is underrated.

Being a secondary piece who's just kinda out there collecting points without actually impacting the pp much (an RNH or Hyman for example), or being an engine of a bad PP (Mike Matheson) is in my opinion very overrated.

Whereas value on a PK is much more evenly distributed.

The 4th guy on a PK provides more than the 5th guy on the PP, but the top guy on the PP provides a lot more impact than the top guy on the PK (unless you count the goalie)