Toggle sidebar

Line Combos: Don’t Touch PP1. It’s Good. Very Good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raspewtin said:
they have made adjustments. Fox and Panarin's shots are way up from previous years on the PP. Trochek gives them an additional threat in the slot that Strome didn't, where he played more of a decoy role. Kreider isn't really getting the tips lately but I'd say that's the only thing we haven't really had an answer for.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they can make more. Fox still does not shoot nearly enough in my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McRanger92
SA16 said:
The unit is not predictable. Zibanejad is the number one play but they get shots from everyone. The Rangers are nowhere close to the team most reliant on setting up the one timer. His percent of the units shots is not out of line with other teams and is lower than many.

If we look at forwards with 100+ mins at 5v4 this year all of Caufield, Ovechkin, Pastrnak, Robertson, Forsberg, MacKinnon, Thompson, Fiala, Kane, Meier, Connor, Stamkos, Kaprizov, Perron, and Matthews have a higher percent of their teams shot attempts when on the PP. If the Rangers PP is predictable because they try to feed Zibanejad as much as possible then so is at least half the PPs in the league.

Visual chart for reference as well:

View attachment 629704
Click to expand...

That's very interesting. So I'm coming back to that the PP1 unit is probably fine (though currently on a cold streak) and needs to switch up its tactics a bit and work on making crisper passes so the puck can be moved quicker. If we could get Kreider to score PP goals at a normal rate (not expecting him to reproduce last year), we're probably right around the same PP% as last year. Though it is worth noting that even if we had the same PP% as last year, we would not be a top 5 PP. This year's top 5 PPs all have a higher PP% than the #1 PP% from last year. If we were at 25.2%, we would be tied for 7th.
 
smoneil said:
Even if we take the assumption from the first two posts as fact (that the 1st unit, despite not actually being a top unit this year, has just been "unlucky"), there's still a flaw in the logic.

First, looking at the E/S production of the players on this team, we HAVE the horses to build two very good PP units (Fox/Miller/and I would add Schneider in there on the defense, and then Zib, Chytil Trocheck, Laf, Kakko, Bread, Kreider, and Kravtsov for the forwards). Right now, we have the "golden unit" that plays ~85% of each PP, and the "afterthought unit" with the leftover pieces, no plan, and no time to establish anything.

That works in the regular season. Things regress to the norm over the span of 82 games. A PP can be "unlucky" over ~40 games and still end up as one of the better PP units in the league by the end of the year. But in a playoff series? What happens when unit 1 goes cold in the ECF? You have no real second unit. If your top unit goes cold, you're shit out of luck.

To add to that, we skated some of our top guys into the ground last year. I legit wonder how much of the lack of ES scoring for our top six players is connected to them playing ALL of the PP and the PK. Ease their load and see if that gives them a bit of a spring in their ES steps.

If it's a game 7 and there's a PP where we NEED a goal late in the 3rd, sure. Put the "all star unit" in the same basket. But for long term success? We need two more balanced units. And that's not even getting to the likely confidence boost the kids would get from adding in some PP production rather than being stapled to the bench in any game with more than a couple of penalties.
Click to expand...
1. Where did you get 85%?
2. PP are the least energy expending ice minutes - premise that PP1 / PP2 allocation will cause the top unit being gassed come playoffs is ridiculous
 
Raspewtin said:
they have made adjustments. Fox and Panarin's shots are way up from previous years on the PP. Trochek gives them an additional threat in the slot that Strome didn't, where he played more of a decoy role. Kreider isn't really getting the tips lately but I'd say that's the only thing we haven't really had an answer for.
Click to expand...
Kreider's net-front play has actually been my biggest pet peeve this year since it clearly helped make Mika's shot more dangerous. The slap-pass play to Kreider at the net mouth hasn't been there that much because Kreider hasn't been as effective screening the goalie this year, and some of his best play came from when he'd peel off right before Mika shot and had the easy tap-in. He's tried it with Panarin a bit, but it's not as effective off the right wall as it is going from left-to-right.

The rest of the issues are really just shooting% variance like you highlighted earlier
 
kovazub94 said:
1. Where did you get 85%?
2. PP are the least energy expending ice minutes - premise that PP1 / PP2 allocation will cause the top unit being gassed come playoffs is ridiculous
Click to expand...
1- Eyeballing. If it's high, it's not by much.
2- I was talking about special teams (so not JUST PP)--Chytil and Kakko should have been worked into the PK rotation at least a year ago.

Also, you basically responded ONLY to the "ps" part of my post (the afterthought as it were) and used it to dismiss the entire premise. Nothing at all re: the idea that you want to have two viable units to protect against one going cold at the wrong time? Especially when we have the horses to build two very effective units?
 
Nobody would ever want a PP2 if it wasn't "always done that way." Why would you possibly want to take your best players off the ice at the highest leverage parts of the game? I predict in the coming 5-10 years PP2s will be a thing of the past and teams will only regularly one unit - the same way teams always used to run 3F/2D units with a dman on each point and now zero teams do that.

Additionally here is a proxy for a teams PP1 usage by comparing the TOI/Game of their leading player to the teams overall TOI/game while on 5v4. The Rangers are up there. They are certainly not out of line. 13 teams are between 70 and 80% and they are right there at 77%. The median is 68%. The difference between the Rangers and the median comes out to 11 seconds per full 5v4. That's what we're complaining about?

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]PP1 %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]WSH[/TD]

[TD]
96%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]EDM[/TD]

[TD]
83%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]COL[/TD]

[TD]
79%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NYR[/TD]

[TD]
77%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MIN[/TD]

[TD]
75%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TOR[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]T.B[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]BOS[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]VAN[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CHI[/TD]

[TD]
72%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NYI[/TD]

[TD]
72%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PIT[/TD]

[TD]
71%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CBJ[/TD]

[TD]
70%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]OTT[/TD]

[TD]
70%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]FLA[/TD]

[TD]
70%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]N.J[/TD]

[TD]
68%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]WPG[/TD]

[TD]
67%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]S.J[/TD]

[TD]
66%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MTL[/TD]

[TD]
65%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DET[/TD]

[TD]
65%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DAL[/TD]

[TD]
64%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CAR[/TD]

[TD]
64%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ANA[/TD]

[TD]
63%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PHI[/TD]

[TD]
62%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]VGK[/TD]

[TD]
61%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]STL[/TD]

[TD]
60%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ARI[/TD]

[TD]
60%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CGY[/TD]

[TD]
59%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]BUF[/TD]

[TD]
58%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NSH[/TD]

[TD]
58%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]L.A[/TD]

[TD]
56%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs, Lua and HockeyBasedNYC
smoneil said:
1- Eyeballing. If it's high, it's not by much.
2- I was talking about special teams (so not JUST PP)--Chytil and Kakko should have been worked into the PK rotation at least a year ago.

Also, you basically responded ONLY to the "ps" part of my post (the afterthought as it were) and used it to dismiss the entire premise. Nothing at all re: the idea that you want to have two viable units to protect against one going cold at the wrong time? Especially when we have the horses to build two very effective units?
Click to expand...
1. Your eyes are off. As an educator the difference would cause you to severely adjust your students grade on this

2. This thread is specifically about PP, not PK
 
SA16 said:
Nobody would ever want a PP2 if it wasn't "always done that way." Why would you possibly want to take your best players off the ice at the highest leverage parts of the game? I predict in the coming 5-10 years PP2s will be a thing of the past and teams will only regularly one unit - the same way teams always used to run 3F/2D units with a dman on each point and now zero teams do that.

Additionally here is a proxy for a teams PP1 usage by comparing the TOI/Game of their leading player to the teams overall TOI/game while on 5v4. The Rangers are up there. They are certainly not out of line. 13 teams are between 70 and 80% and they are right there at 77%. The median is 68%. The difference between the Rangers and the median comes out to 11 seconds per full 5v4. That's what we're complaining about?

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Team[/TD]
[TD]PP1 %[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]WSH[/TD]

[TD]
96%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]EDM[/TD]

[TD]
83%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]COL[/TD]

[TD]
79%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NYR[/TD]

[TD]
77%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MIN[/TD]

[TD]
75%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]TOR[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]T.B[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]BOS[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]VAN[/TD]

[TD]
73%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CHI[/TD]

[TD]
72%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NYI[/TD]

[TD]
72%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PIT[/TD]

[TD]
71%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CBJ[/TD]

[TD]
70%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]OTT[/TD]

[TD]
70%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]FLA[/TD]

[TD]
70%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]N.J[/TD]

[TD]
68%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]WPG[/TD]

[TD]
67%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]S.J[/TD]

[TD]
66%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MTL[/TD]

[TD]
65%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DET[/TD]

[TD]
65%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DAL[/TD]

[TD]
64%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CAR[/TD]

[TD]
64%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ANA[/TD]

[TD]
63%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PHI[/TD]

[TD]
62%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]VGK[/TD]

[TD]
61%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]STL[/TD]

[TD]
60%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ARI[/TD]

[TD]
60%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CGY[/TD]

[TD]
59%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]BUF[/TD]

[TD]
58%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NSH[/TD]

[TD]
58%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]L.A[/TD]

[TD]
56%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

I agree. I just think that the argument here is we perceive to have an amount of talent that enables us to load up two very formidable power play units in whatever configuration and to more evenly deploy them -- and we're not doing that. It is true that most teams heavily leverage their first power play unit.
 
kovazub94 said:
1. Your eyes are off. As an educator the difference would cause you to severely adjust your students grade on this

2. This thread is specifically about PP, not PK
Click to expand...

Against Florida, 1st unit had 75% (~3 minutes to ~1 minute). Against TB, the 1st unit had 5+ minutes, while the 2nd unit had ~50 seconds (84%). Against Washington, the 1st unit had ~7 minutes to ~3 minutes for unit 2 (70%). Against the Isles, Unit 1 had ~9 minutes. Unit 2 had about 2 minutes (82%). Against the Pens, unit 1 had ~3:30 while unit 2 had ~1:30 (~75%.

So over the last 5 games, unit one had ~27:30 and unit two had ~8:20. So over the last 5 games, the first unit had about 77% of the power play time. So like I said, not off by much.

2- Again, that was the afterthought. And again, you have yet to try to address the primary argument of my post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vaheh and Rangers in 7
Way more often than not the action on the ice dictates when the first unit changes. Sustained zone time or a partial clear that can be quickly brought back into the zone or even a quick up by Shesty to keep a tired PK unit on the ice…you don’t want the unit to change and regroup from our zone.
In the rare instance there will be a stoppage of play between like :50 and 1:10 left in the PP there is a coaching decision that actually has to be made.
 
smoneil said:
Against Florida, 1st unit had 75% (~3 minutes to ~1 minute). Against TB, the 1st unit had 5+ minutes, while the 2nd unit had ~50 seconds (84%). Against Washington, the 1st unit had ~7 minutes to ~3 minutes for unit 2 (70%). Against the Isles, Unit 1 had ~9 minutes. Unit 2 had about 2 minutes (82%). Against the Pens, unit 1 had ~3:30 while unit 2 had ~1:30 (~75%.

So over the last 5 games, unit one had ~27:30 and unit two had ~8:20. So over the last 5 games, the first unit had about 77% of the power play time. So like I said, not off by much.

2- Again, that was the afterthought. And again, you have yet to try to address the primary argument of my post.
Click to expand...
PP2 is completely ineffective - there's no or shouldn't be any argument there. It's ineffective as a unit as well as individually. How to fix it? You're suggesting breaking up an effective PP1 in HOPE that a. replacements will not make PP1 less effective, and b. demotees to PP2 will make it effective. I don't think it will be the case - most likely PP2 will stay ineffective more or less and PP1 replacements will drag it down as well. It's arguable who's right but in general I haven't seen any indications from PP2 parts that they wouldn't drag down an effective PP1. The latter is what noone wants (other than fanboys who's primary objection is not team's success but points accumulations of their idols regardless of how it is impacting the team elsewhere).

As I already posted I'd be open to try Kakko (especially) or Chytil in Kreider's spot on PP1 as a change. That doesn't mean that moving Kreider to PP2 will fix it - there should be another solution likely starting with removing quarterbacking duties from Trouba.

As far as your "what if" and that we need more options - this PP1 unit has been effective since Zibanejad - Fox - Panarin joined forces (you can also check posting history where I was advocating for Panarin on the right side even before Gallant made it a thing) and it went to 4R / 1L setup. It's not reasonable to presume that it will all of a sudden will stop working and won't be able to fix it "internally".
 
kovazub94 said:
PP2 is completely ineffective - there's no or shouldn't be any argument there. It's ineffective as a unit as well as individually. How to fix it? You're suggesting breaking up an effective PP1 in HOPE that a. replacements will not make PP1 less effective, and b. demotees to PP2 will make it effective. I don't think it will be the case - most likely PP2 will stay ineffective more or less and PP1 replacements will drag it down as well. It's arguable who's right but in general I haven't seen any indications from PP2 parts that they wouldn't drag down an effective PP1. The latter is what noone wants (other than fanboys who's primary objection is not team's success but points accumulations of their idols regardless of how it is impacting the team elsewhere).

As I already posted I'd be open to try Kakko (especially) or Chytil in Kreider's spot on PP1 as a change. That doesn't mean that moving Kreider to PP2 will fix it - there should be another solution likely starting with removing quarterbacking duties from Trouba.

As far as your "what if" and that we need more options - this PP1 unit has been effective since Zibanejad - Fox - Panarin joined forces (you can also check posting history where I was advocating for Panarin on the right side even before Gallant made it a thing) and it went to 4R / 1L setup. It's not reasonable to presume that it will all of a sudden will stop working and won't be able to fix it "internally".
Click to expand...

The five guys on PP1 wouldn't be yeeted to the sun. If it's tried and it doesn't work, what we have now is STILL available. Right now, the second unit doesn't work because it's an afterthought. For the first part of the season, it was literally just a full line (with two defensemen) based on the assumption that they would only be there for a tiny part of the actual power play. I want two units to be a priority so that, when one isn't working (or is getting "bad luck"), we can ride the other one and vice versa. That's why I want to do more than just tinker with Kreider. That still gives one actual PP unit and one afterthought unit. With the players we have, we can have two 1A powerplay units. Gallant just has to give enough of a damn to do some actual coaching and figure out the best way to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruggs225 and CLW
kovazub94 said:
This is where I’d also be open to maybe giving an opportunity to Kakko or Chytil - Kreider hasn’t been effective recently - and obviously a far cry from last season - in his front of the net spot (in terms of blocking goalies eyes or creating deflections and shot redirections).
Click to expand...
Yeah. Both of those guys are knocking on the door. Especially Kakko. I could see him filling in for Kreider at some point. Give the PP a slightly different look. He has terrific hands.
 
QJL said:
The Rangers have had 121 power play opportunities. 77% of those minutes equates to 93 power play opportunities.

The top unit has scored 26 times on 93 true power play opportunities. Their true power play unit percentage is 28%. THAT IS GOOD.
Click to expand...
What is this number for the other 31 teams' top PP unit? How do we know that 28% is actually good?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Crypto Guy
KirkAlbuquerque said:
2 empty nets certainly help lol . PP1 still looks like shit
Click to expand...
I see a very dominant pp that makes a lot of bad decisions. If that makes sense.
I was going to start off this post with ‘I disagree’ but from another point of view I appreciate the pp is shitty.

Satellite view, the team in general has a ton of talent and makes so many dumb plays. Right now they’re like 85% Globetrotters and 15% grunt work. They need to be like 50-50. I feel like they’ll get there though. These guys piss me off to no end but then, end of the day, they get the job done more often than not and i feel they’re on the upswing still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom