How to reduce powerplays in the NHL

[Chainshot]

So you were not there in the 80s and 90s? Remember when Gilmour slashed Wayne in the face in the 93 playoffs? Remember holding and grabbing were "allowed" back. It was still "wrong" but refs would tolerate some of it. Esp. in the playoffs. The player had to actually fall to get a holding penalty. And not even that.

Nah man, I was and your idea that there were no calls is bullshit.

For example, I was at this game with my coworkers.

Tell me again about no penalties:

1988-89 Adams Division Semi-Finals Game 3, Boston Bruins vs. Buffalo Sabres Box Score: April 8, 1989 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the Boston Bruins vs. Buffalo Sabres game played on April 8, 1989 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

Or how about this one, which was the first time someone gave me a playoff ticket (my friend Bill's birthday, six of us went, sat in the oranges behind the pressbox in the Aud):

1979-80 Preliminary Round Game 2, Vancouver Canucks vs. Buffalo Sabres Box Score: April 9, 1980 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the Vancouver Canucks vs. Buffalo Sabres game played on April 9, 1980 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

It has never sat well with me that star players are basically powerplay merchants. To the point where teams become powerplay merchants. This isn't just a dig at the Oilers. The Sedins had some years where they'd just kill you on the PP. Less powerplays puts a premium on 5 on 5 hockey.

So what if powerplays were only rewarded after every 3rd minor infraction ? There would be a tally for each team through the game. Only after the 3rd infraction does the opposing team get the powerplay. Nothing else would have to change.

It would also lead to some suspense as both teams get closer to 3.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

There's nothing inherently wrong with skilled players getting power play points. The challenge is making sure you adjust for that when comparing players. There are plenty of elite 5v5 producers who just won't get significant power play opportunities on their teams regardless of their abilities, because their team's top unit is essentially fixed.

And even then, PP production can be very role dependent - just because a guy is on PP1 doesn't mean he's getting a ton of touches in their team's power play setup. And some teams rely more on their top unit than others.

But there is value in being able to take advantage of the time and space afforded on a power play. It requires patience, hands, and puck skills. There's nothing wrong with being a PP specialist, it's still a valuable role. It gives highly skilled guys like Connor Bedard an opportunity to contribute while developing their all around 5v5 game.

That said, the threshold for being a truly elite player starts with being able to produce and control possession at 5v5 more than anything else. Special teams production is an added layer that should be evaluated with nuance, like anything else.

 

[elmaco]

Team A "cheats" and breaks the rules, therefore gets assessed a penalty. Team B now has an advantage for 2 minutes. What's so wrong with this concept? I don't get the OP.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

I witnessed the dead puck era of the late 90s early 00s...what we have now is better.

I share your frustration with all the PPs but that era is why we have this one now. Go back and watch the footage it is absurd the things refs wouldn't call and the league got sick of their elite players being unable to show their talents because of a league filled with bums who's only talents were being able to grab, hook and cheap shot people every night

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not that I am in anyway agreeing with the OP but it annoys me that the NHL needs PP goals to have scoring at 6 per game.

You realize the # of PP’s is the lowest it’s been since the NHL began tracking it, in the 1960’s.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I witnessed the dead puck era of the late 90s early 00s...what we have now is better.

I share your frustration with all the PPs but that era is why we have this one now. Go back and watch the footage it is absurd the things refs wouldn't call and the league got sick of their elite players being unable to show their talents because of a league filled with bums who's only talents were being able to grab, hook and cheap shot people every night

Sort by PPO, you will then need to
Scroll down to the bottom of the list,
# of PP per team per game, the lowest ever.

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

 

[Chainshot]

You realize the # of PP’s is the lowest it’s been since the NHL began tracking it, in the 1960’s.

Don't let actual stats get in the way of a good rant.

 

[Tawnos]

The best way to reduce powerplays in the long-run is to call the rulebook tight and consistently minute-to-minute and game-to-game. You'd get an initial increase, but players would adapt and eventually, you'd end up with fewer infractions. As long as players think they can get away with things, they're going to try.

There's no need to come up with a convoluted way to do it. The method exists within the current system.

 

[Toby91ca]

I witnessed the dead puck era of the late 90s early 00s...what we have now is better.

I share your frustration with all the PPs but that era is why we have this one now. Go back and watch the footage it is absurd the things refs wouldn't call and the league got sick of their elite players being unable to show their talents because of a league filled with bums who's only talents were being able to grab, hook and cheap shot people every night

Here's the thing though....are you really frustrated with the amount of PPs now vs. 90s and 00s? If so, perhaps your memory has faded or you are frustrated there isn't more PPs. As far as I can tell, this past season was the lowest on record for PP opportunities....going back to 1963. The 90's was actually pretty high....I think the problem then was there was so much hooking and holding, they still called a lot of it, but so, so much, there was tons that you got away with as well, so they only called the egregious stuff.

EDIT: just a quick stat. The leader in PP TOI per game this past season was Ovechkin at 4:09 and he basically played every second of his team's PP's. In 1997/98 (year they started tracking time on ice), the leader was at 6:40 per game.

 

[LeonDraisaitl]

So... what happens if a minor penalty is committed but we're not up to three?

Edit: And where do major penalties fit into this?

Sounds like each of the refs do an imaginary little “okay Washington has one uncalled penalty and the islanders have two”in their head, seems realistic.

 

[syz]

The dead puck era wouldn't have been so dead if the powerplays then were as good as they are now. Or if 90s goalies didn't get to dress like Marshmellow Men.

 

[PistolPete]

You realize the # of PP’s is the lowest it’s been since the NHL began tracking it, in the 1960’s.

Yes.

But it's still a factor in the league's average being at around 6 goals per game.

Can't put my finger on it but it just bugs me for some reason.

 

[Summer Rose]

The best way to reduce powerplays in the long-run is to call the rulebook tight and consistently minute-to-minute and game-to-game. You'd get an initial increase, but players would adapt and eventually, you'd end up with fewer infractions. As long as players think they can get away with things, they're going to try.

There's no need to come up with a convoluted way to do it. The method exists within the current system.

I was thinking about this one last night when I was in bed, attempting (and failing) to sleep.

While I don't think you're advocating for calling the rules 100% to the letter (just tightening things up), I started imagining the league hypothetically calling everything 100% to the letter. Considering how much everyone cheats on faceoffs, games early on would feature a parade to the penalty box for double faceoff violations before they could even drop the puck. Maybe by the time 5 or so guys were sitting in the box for it they'd stop cheating and finally allow the game to get underway, but who knows?

Thank you for listening to my stupid thoughts on the matter.

 

[Tawnos]

I was thinking about this one last night when I was in bed, attempting (and failing) to sleep.

While I don't think you're advocating for calling the rules 100% to the letter (just tightening things up), I started imagining the league hypothetically calling everything 100% to the letter. Considering how much everyone cheats on faceoffs, games early on would feature a parade to the penalty box for double faceoff violations before they could even drop the puck. Maybe by the time 5 or so guys were sitting in the box for it they'd stop cheating and finally allow the game to get underway, but who knows?

Thank you for listening to my stupid thoughts on the matter.

The faceoff violation thing right now is a pet peeve of mine. Everyone wants to blame the linesman ("drop the puck!") but the players cheat so much because there's no fear of consequences. That's the bigger reason for all the delaying than the linesman doing a bad job. I don't remember which game it was in, but it was a later game in the Rangers season. One guy got tossed, then the next guy CLEARLY jumped early on his own. Nothing happened. I'm sure the centerman on the other side doesn't want it either, because it could be them next time. I was extremely annoyed.

It's one penalty that would be called more than it is now with tighter enforcement, even after the adjustment period. I do think that the players would figure it out though. Not perfectly, because players can't be perfect. But reasonably well.

 

[PistolPete]

I was thinking about this one last night when I was in bed, attempting (and failing) to sleep.

While I don't think you're advocating for calling the rules 100% to the letter (just tightening things up), I started imagining the league hypothetically calling everything 100% to the letter. Considering how much everyone cheats on faceoffs, games early on would feature a parade to the penalty box for double faceoff violations before they could even drop the puck. Maybe by the time 5 or so guys were sitting in the box for it they'd stop cheating and finally allow the game to get underway, but who knows?

Thank you for listening to my stupid thoughts on the matter.

The thing that boggles my mind is after over 100 years and with thousands of many smart people passing through, it seems to have never occured or at least caught on that not all infractions have to be treated the same- I.e. award a pp to the opponent if the offending team

Examples:
Obstruction in offensive zone by Team A Simply do as basketball does and award possession to Team B in Team A's zone. Loss of offensive possession will determine teams enough to avoid obstruction on offense.

Cheating on FO

Give direct possession to other team- as on no FO, the other team has direct control of the puck to start the play

The biggest obstacle is people are averse to new things, they don't like it simply because it's not the way it was done before.

If people stopped to question the validity of having a FO in the defensive zone at the start of a PK or after an icing, it would have to strike them as absurd that a team being punished is being rewarded on a way by being allowed to contest for the puck to start the next play.

The only argument against awarding direct control is FO have always been the way to do it. That's it

 

[Summer Rose]

The faceoff violation thing right now is a pet peeve of mine. Everyone wants to blame the linesman ("drop the puck!") but the players cheat so much because there's no fear of consequences. That's the bigger reason for all the delaying than the linesman doing a bad job. I don't remember which game it was in, but it was a later game in the Rangers season. One guy got tossed, then the next guy CLEARLY jumped early on his own. Nothing happened. I'm sure the centerman on the other side doesn't want it either, because it could be them next time. I was extremely annoyed.

It's one penalty that would be called more than it is now with tighter enforcement, even after the adjustment period. I do think that the players would figure it out though.

They did try one year to crack down on faceoff violations, which I think was 13-14 because I had season tickets to the Coyotes that year. They called several penalties for double faceoff violations in the preseason and I think in some of the early regular season games as well.

Unfortunately it quickly became very unpopular with fans, players, and presumably the officials alike, so they stopped cracking down on it. I wish they hadn't, because I feel like that despite a painful short-term adjustment period that it would have been (that the league pulled the plug on before coming to fruition), the game would have been better off in the long run for it.

 

[Tawnos]

The thing that boggles my mind is after over 100 years and with thousands of many smart people passing through, it seems to have never occured or at least caught on that not all infractions have to be treated the same- I.e. award a pp to the opponent if the offending team

Examples:
Obstruction in offensive zone by Team A Simply do as basketball does and award possession to Team B in Team A's zone. Loss of offensive possession will determine teams enough to avoid obstruction on offense.

Cheating on FO

Give direct possession to other team- as on no FO, the other team has direct control of the puck to start the play

The biggest obstacle is people are averse to new things, they don't like it simply because it's not the way it was done before.

If people stopped to question the validity of having a FO in the defensive zone at the start of a PK or after an icing, it would have to strike them as absurd that a team being punished is being rewarded on a way by being allowed to contest for the puck to start the next play.

The only argument against awarding direct control is FO have always been the way to do it. That's it

I've sometimes wondered what would happen in the NHL if they took a cue from soccer and indoor lacrosse (could be outdoor too, but I've only ever been to an NLL game). Some infractions don't result in a penalty, but instead cause a stoppage where the other team begins play with possession at the whistle.

There's actually a lot about the NLL setup that I admire. It's WAAAY too out there to implement in hockey at this point, though.

 

[Summer Rose]

The thing that boggles my mind is after over 100 years and with thousands of many smart people passing through, it seems to have never occured or at least caught on that not all infractions have to be treated the same- I.e. award a pp to the opponent if the offending team

Examples:
Obstruction in offensive zone by Team A Simply do as basketball does and award possession to Team B in Team A's zone. Loss of offensive possession will determine teams enough to avoid obstruction on offense.

Cheating on FO

Give direct possession to other team- as on no FO, the other team has direct control of the puck to start the play

The biggest obstacle is people are averse to new things, they don't like it simply because it's not the way it was done before.

If people stopped to question the validity of having a FO in the defensive zone at the start of a PK or after an icing, it would have to strike them as absurd that a team being punished is being rewarded on a way by being allowed to contest for the puck to start the next play.

The only argument against awarding direct control is FO have always been the way to do it. That's it

As weird as it may sound for a professional league, or games played with formal rules in general, I don't think I'd object entirely to something similar to how I usually see it handled in pickup hockey: when a team concedes possession for some kind of rules infringement, or after a goal is scored, they just shoot the puck down the ice to the other team, then don't forecheck the breakout, letting the other guys exit their own zone uncontested.

If we're going to go down that route, you could do something like saying it's illegal to cross the red line until the opposing team crosses their own blue line. On the first violation, you start over. Do it a second time and it's a minor penalty... followed by starting over again. Further random thought: the clock doesn't run to restart play until the team with the "free breakout" crosses their own blue line. Furthermore, since you could game that system a bit to run a couple seconds off the clock each time, teams can elect an attacking zone faceoff in lieu of the "free breakout" if they so desire. Or maybe move the lines over by one (team has to stay in their own zone until the other team crosses the red line). Random food for thought I guess.

 

[PistolPete]

I've sometimes wondered what would happen in the NHL if they took a cue from soccer and indoor lacrosse (could be outdoor too, but I've only ever been to an NLL game). Some infractions don't result in a penalty, but instead cause a stoppage where the other team begins play with possession at the whistle.

It's WAAAY too out there, though.

Only because it's never been done.

The game started with no zones and offside was merely no forward passes, then the blue lines were added to allow forward passing in a limited space; then the res line was added to allow exit passes out of the defensive zone.

Then the red line was taken out and passes could be made up to the opposing blue line.

Penalty Shots were taken from 28 feet out at one point- from a set position

Goalies were limited to where they can touch the puck.

Any change of that nature seems wild and crazy but then after a couple seasons it's as if that is the way it always was

 

[PistolPete]

As weird as it may sound for a professional league, or games played with formal rules in general, I don't think I'd object entirely to something similar to how I usually see it handled in pickup hockey: when a team concedes possession for some kind of rules infringement, or after a goal is scored, they just shoot the puck down the ice to the other team, then don't forecheck the breakout, letting the other guys exit their own zone uncontested.

If we're going to go down that route, you could do something like saying it's illegal to cross the red line until the opposing team crosses their own blue line. On the first violation, you start over. Do it a second time and it's a minor penalty... followed by starting over again. Further random thought: the clock doesn't run to restart play until the team with the "free breakout" crosses their own blue line. Furthermore, since you could game that system a bit to run a couple seconds off the clock each time, teams can elect an attacking zone faceoff in lieu of the "free breakout" if they so desire. Or maybe move the lines over by one (team has to stay in their own zone until the other team crosses the red line). Random food for thought I guess.

Whoa. Now we're getting a little crazy here.



I like that idea. Could simplify it and give possession in the offensive zone or at centre ice.

Would lead to a lot more immeduate offensive pressure for sure

 

[M88K]

Best way to reduce the amount of PPs is to actually call penalties correctly.

The biggest problem today is 1 game you can tackle someone, then the next you have players up in arms as to why their tackle is suddenly a penalty.

They had 1 consistent standard that was enforced properly, the players would eventually adjust and you would see them drop

 

[Toby91ca]

The thing that boggles my mind is after over 100 years and with thousands of many smart people passing through, it seems to have never occured or at least caught on that not all infractions have to be treated the same- I.e. award a pp to the opponent if the offending team

Examples:
Obstruction in offensive zone by Team A Simply do as basketball does and award possession to Team B in Team A's zone. Loss of offensive possession will determine teams enough to avoid obstruction on offense.

Cheating on FO

Give direct possession to other team- as on no FO, the other team has direct control of the puck to start the play

The biggest obstacle is people are averse to new things, they don't like it simply because it's not the way it was done before.

If people stopped to question the validity of having a FO in the defensive zone at the start of a PK or after an icing, it would have to strike them as absurd that a team being punished is being rewarded on a way by being allowed to contest for the puck to start the next play.

The only argument against awarding direct control is FO have always been the way to do it. That's it

I'm going to go with "no" with main reason being.....hockey isn't basketball....possession isn't the same....possession can change in hockey 3 times in 2 seconds.

 

[MXD]

5 minutes minors, 10 minutes majors. That will reduce penalties, significantly.

 

[Tawnos]

Only because it's never been done.

The game started with no zones and offside was merely no forward passes, then the blue lines were added to allow forward passing in a limited space; then the res line was added to allow exit passes out of the defensive zone.

Then the red line was taken out and passes could be made up to the opposing blue line.

Penalty Shots were taken from 28 feet out at one point- from a set position

Goalies were limited to where they can touch the puck.

Any change of that nature seems wild and crazy but then after a couple seasons it's as if that is the way it always was

Some of that stuff is more on the order of tweaks than anything fundamental, which starting play from anything but a faceoff would be.

 

[PistolPete]

Some of that stuff is more on the order of tweaks than anything fundamental, which starting play from anything but a faceoff would be.

I guess this begs the question what differentiates a fundamental change from a tweak?