Are even strength points underrated in hockey ?

[Honour Over Glory]

No not really, 7th in the league over the last 2 years in goals/60 allowed on the PK, and overall an above 80% pk in both years

The fact that it's difficult to score short handed puts those stats as something that has a higher degree of difficulty, but overall, like I stated, I would value 5v5 scoring more, but that if you were to look at special teams, there's a caveat to shorthanded points - like you pointed out, on a good PK that stat matters more because not only is the PK unit doing an immense job at not allowing any powerplay goals, but they're using it to their advantage to pressure turnovers and capitalize on it.

Context is everything.

 

[K1984]

If you think 6/11 top teams in 5v5 goal share winning the f***ing cup is somehow an argument against 5v5 goals being important you might just not understand statistics at all.

If you think 4/5 top teams in 5v5 goal share getting outed in the first or second round is somehow an argument for 5v5 goals being important you might not understand statistics at all.

 

[Brookbank]

^ The argument was that 5 v 5 goals are harder. Not that they are more important per se. Granted that is an interesting discussion too

 

[Brookbank]

The conclusion to draw from that isn't "PP points are overrated" but "context matters". Do you for example consider Zach Hyman one of the best Even-strength goalscorers in the NHL, or do you apply context that playing with McDavid helps a ton?

Overall, PP points are underrated imo.

PP points are not underrated at all. Just by the fact that most underrated players are ones that get lots of ES points. Hyman being another one. You can argue they're fairly rated but not underrated.

 

[SEALBound]

Maybe a little yes and maybe a little no.

I don't think anyone would balk at having a player that score 50 PP goals a year on their team, right? I might take that over a 30g 5v5 sorer. At the end of the day, it's about having more goals than your opponent. However you get there, who cares.

 

[Brookbank]

They are overrated, by a lot.

A point is a point. It's worth the same at ES or PP or SH.

How can you possibly argue that PP points are not easier to get than ES points? There's one less player on the ice.

So ES players are underrated.

 

[dgibb10]

If you think 4/5 top teams in 5v5 goal share getting outed in the first or second round is somehow an argument for 5v5 goals being important you might not understand statistics at all.

No, it is once again you who does not understand statistics.

Every team to win the cup in the last 7 years has had at least a 58% share of 5v5 goals (a massive edge in 5v5).

Except for Florida, who at only 54.5% is lower, but again, that was better than ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE PLAYOFFS this past year.

You need to win your Even strength minutes to win the cup.

Here are the deepest playoff runs of the last 16 years (15 game minimum guarantees at least 3 rounds). Highlighted are teams that gotoutscored 5v5.

Winning your 5v5 minutes is VASTLY important

 

[Machinehead]

Forget about Draisaitl. It's a terrible example from an obvious troll tweet.

Yes. You can't fairly compare players without taking into account ice time and production at even strength. This is obvious.

 

[K1984]

No, it is once again you who does not understand statistics.

Every team to win the cup in the last 7 years has had at least a 58% share of 5v5 goals (a massive edge in 5v5).

Except for Florida, who at only 54.5% is lower, but again, that was better than ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE PLAYOFFS this past year.

You need to win your Even strength minutes to win the cup.

Here are the deepest playoff runs of the last 16 years (15 game minimum guarantees at least 3 rounds). Highlighted are teams that gotoutscored 5v5.
View attachment 907525
View attachment 907526
Winning your 5v5 minutes is VASTLY important

Cool, never said otherwise. Not sure what you're arguing anymore.

Strong 5v5 play gets neutered by bad goaltending, bad special teams and poor performance elite vs. elite, ultimately making those three things critical for playoff success and a major factor in who wins series. For some reason you have chosen to ignore these points and repeatedly post the same thing.

"Why did all those strong 5v5 teams go out early if 5v5 GF% is THE most important indicator of playoff success?"

"SOME OF THE BEST 5V5 TEAMS WON THE CUP"

"Ok, but why didn't the others?"

"SOME OF THE BEST 5V5 TEAMS WON THE CUP"

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Machinehead]

No, it is once again you who does not understand statistics.

Every team to win the cup in the last 7 years has had at least a 58% share of 5v5 goals (a massive edge in 5v5).

Except for Florida, who at only 54.5% is lower, but again, that was better than ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE PLAYOFFS this past year.

You need to win your Even strength minutes to win the cup.

Here are the deepest playoff runs of the last 16 years (15 game minimum guarantees at least 3 rounds). Highlighted are teams that gotoutscored 5v5.
View attachment 907525
View attachment 907526
Winning your 5v5 minutes is VASTLY important

And that Canucks team got drubbed a couple of times in the Final. If you ignore those games, the top 29 were all outscoring their opponents at 5v5.

 

[dgibb10]

Cool, never said otherwise. Not sure what you're arguing anymore.

Strong 5v5 play gets neutered by bad goaltending, bad special teams and poor performance elite vs. elite, ultimately making those three things critical for playoff success and a major factor in who wins series. For some reason you have chosen to ignore these points and repeatedly post the same thing.

"Why did all those strong 5v5 teams go out early if 5v5 GF% is THE most important indicator of playoff success?"

"SOME OF THE BEST 5V5 TEAMS WON THE CUP"

"Ok, but why didn't the others?"

"SOME OF THE BEST 5V5 TEAMS WON THE CUP"

Rinse and repeat.

Because 1 team out of 16 can win the cup every year.

And a number of those teams ran into better EV play from the opponent in the round they lost in.

No, the best 5v5 team does not win every series. Winning the 5v5 battle is however more important than winning the special teams battle.

And that Canucks team got drubbed a couple of times in the Final. If you ignore those games, the top 29 were all outscoring their opponents at 5v5.

Yup, that canucks series further proves the point.

They were great 5v5 getting to the cup (except against Chicago, where they won 3 games by 1 goal, 1 by 2 goal, lost 1 in OT, and got SMACKED in the other 2 games to win in 7), but boston smoked them like a blunt in the finals even strength (15-6) and so boston won the cup

 

[McVespa99]

1 goal on the powerplay and 1 goal at even strength has the same effect on the outcome of the game. Anyone trying to argue 1 is more important than the other has some sort of agenda.

 

[Machinehead]

1 goal on the powerplay and 1 goal at even strength has the same effect on the outcome of the game. Anyone trying to argue 1 is more important than the other has some sort of agenda.

Nobody is arguing that. It's a very silly framing that no one uses.

 

[McVespa99]

Nobody is arguing that. It's a very silly framing that no one uses.

Its just a fact. Not framing.

 

[Machinehead]

Its just a fact. Not framing.

It's a fact that doesn't address any argument.

The efficacy of measuring even strength points is rooted in

1) You spend more time playing at even strength.

2) Even strength scoring trends are more reliable over the long term and less prone to boom and bust.

Nobody has ever said they're worth more goals.

That's like somebody saying the Oilers suck and I go "but they're blue!" It's a true statement.

 

[biturbo19]

I think strong even strength production is underrated, up to a point. It's contextually sensitive though. You ultimately still need guys who can operate a world class powerplay too. Ideally, you have a good mix of both types.

But i think more than anything, guys who can produce strong even strength results without strong linemates, are potentially underrated/undervalued. Compared to players who produce well, but rely on top-6 deployments, cushy matchups, and extremely strong linemates and big powerplay time to produce.


The Hoglander thing really just picks at the heart of the issue. Where...Hoglander has very good even strength production, but there's a reason he doesn't score more in general. His skillset is very limited to a specific sort of "Bottom-6" style production. He plays a hugely disjointed game that is built on capitalizing on broken plays and "quick strike" scoring. He's useless on the powerplay, if not actively detrimental. Same deal when you go to put him with a creative Top-6 scoring line and he gets his role muddled, less effective himself, and tends to drag a line down with him as well.


So ultimately, it's really all about fit, context, and roster construction. Understanding who is good at what, and where they really thrive and are deployed to their maximum effectiveness. And in that, it sure is nice to have some guys who are capable of producing strong even strength scoring results...with relatively minimal help.

 

[Letsdothis]

You can pretty fairly compare cornerstone franchise superstars in their effectiveness on the powerplay. That's the guys you're stuck with and they'll run your powerplay for the better or worse. Say if you compare McDavid vs Barkov, those guys will run your PP through their careers but the other guy is the more dynamic talent and generates much more offense on the PP. Crosby is a much better 5vs5 player than Ovechkin, but it's fair to say that having Ovechkin in your team in his prime is better for your PP than having Crosby. There's no reason a comparison like this can't be made for players that will be the main drivers of your powerplay regardless.

It gets muddier when you get past that and the main reason is that a powerplay replacement player is a lot better than a 5vs5 replacement player. There are players without value-driving PP abilities that get major roles in PPs due to the team being mediocre, which can skew their point totals above their true ability, but they aren't actually driving value on the PP. There are also role players that are beneficiaries of an elite PP but don't actually drive any value there that isn't easily replaceable See: Alex Chiasson scored 20 goals when he got on the EDM PP1, but obviously didn't do anything that can't be replaced by many other players that can be easily acquired.

On the flip side there are teams like Monteal, who had guys like Danault and Gallagher who were beasts at 5vs5 but couldn't drive a PP to save their lives and thus Montreal was stuck with a bottom tier PP through the Price years. But those guys would be more valuable assets for contenders than good PP players that can't drive 5vs5 results, as almost any contender will already have the talent to run a good PP.

I think the most important thing is to have the franchise players that can drive an elite PP year after year. Teams like EDM, TBL, Tor, Col etc. that have the best offensive talent of the era.