The power play merchant argument

[CN8]

I see a lot of posters arguing a guy has less value cause his points come on the power play. When I asked about why this was of lesser value during the season the answer I got was, “less power plays come playoff time”. Accepted that then but now when someone like McDavid is still downplayed cause of power play points. What’s the argument now? If it’s cause they are easier to get , then shouldn’t everyone be doing it?
Honest questions

 

[Oilslick941611]

the only people who care are the ones that don't matter to Oilers success.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

It's copium, really.

 

[Coffee]

As Nemesis Prime once put it.

“It’s copium, really.”

 

[LarKing]

As Coffee once put it.

"As Nemesis Prime once put it.

"It's copium, really." "

 

[Discipline Daddy]

I think there is an argument there. It is a slightly different game in the playoffs. Like obviously if a guy is good at the powerplay, that's a great asset to have. I'd love for the Canes to have a specialist powerplay sniper right now. Steph Noesen is the closest thing we got with our injuries.

By itself, being good at the PP is only a positive. However, there are a number of players who are bad defensively, and good offensively. Connor McDavid is below average defensively, but so elite offensively that he's well more than worth it. For the Canes last year, Tony DeAngelo was great on the power play, and pretty terrible defensively. In round 1, TDA was lights out, super helpful. In round 2 against the Rangers, TDA definitely did more harm than good.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I see a lot of posters arguing a guy has less value cause his points come on the power play. When I asked about why this was of lesser value during the season the answer I got was, “less power plays come playoff time”. Accepted that then but now when someone like McDavid is still downplayed cause of power play points. What’s the argument now? If it’s cause they are easier to get , then shouldn’t everyone be doing it?
Honest questions

It's essentially an argument that the player's productivity isn't entirely under his own control. If the refs decide to swallow their whistles, or the game is highly disciplined, that guy's productivity will plummet while an ES stud will continue to get his points.

 

[tarheelhockey]

"As LarKing once put it.

'As Coffee once put it.​

"As Nemesis Prime once put it.​

​

'It's copium really'"'"​

​

- Michael Scott​

 

[Freaky Styley]

I mean it's clearly obvious that it's easier to score when your team has an extra player on the ice, which is why people compare scoring rates 5v5.

Powerplay success is also heavily dependent on the skill players are surrounded by, but more importantly, the scheme the coaches implement. This is probably the most underrated part of powerplay success. Every season teams with dynamic offensive players go through stretches of PP struggles or just an overall bad PP because they are following coaches orders and what they practice.

So in this case, more credit should be given to Edmonton's coaching staff. Full marks for Bouchards' shot, Draisaitl's vision and McDavid's playmaking, but most skilled players will produce with the proper time in space. Credit Edmonton's staff for creating schemes and setups that utilize the talent of their players and provide them with that time and space.

The point being, a successful PP (especially a historically successful PP) is more of a reflection of the coaching staff than the players, but the players get the recognition for their execution. Which is fair, but it doensn't make them supreme beings compared to other skilled players around the league that would find equal success in the same situation

 

[authentic]

It's essentially an argument that the player's productivity isn't entirely under his own control. If the refs decide to swallow their whistles, or the game is highly disciplined, that guy's productivity will plummet while an ES stud will continue to get his points.

Also I can see it being used as a tiebreker, but in McDavid's case that require someone else being close to him offensively. He has also led the league in ES points 4 times so it's basically one season people could use this argument against him anyway, and pretty sure a lot all time greats had seasons where they were far more dominant on the powerplay than ES like Crosby in 2006-07 and Lemieux's 1995-96.

 

[Nasti]

I think the reason is that historically, teams that have won the cup are great 5 on 5 teams while not necessarily being great PP teams. Though I’m basing this on memory and not hard data.

 

[KovalchukFistPump]

I think the argument is more meant for guys who are the 4th or 5th best player on a dominant powerplay. I.e. whoever the Oilers throw out there as the defender on the PP probably isn't as good as their numbers end up.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I think it’s even bigger than “refs are less apt to give PPs in the playoffs”

I think the issue that pops up is that guys who get a large proportion of their points on PP’s are skilled, but it’s the type of skill that shows itself primarily when space is afforded. In the playoffs, whether at even strength or on the man advantage, there’s just less space period.

This stood out IMO during this most recent torture I endured in the Bruins-Panthers series. The Bruins had Florida outmatched on paper, but the Panthers had more guys that played balls to the wall 100% of the time. Even a defenseman like Radko Gudas who is prone to and does make mistakes was taking away time and space all series.

You have enough guys like that, life becomes more difficult for everyone on the other team regardless of skill level. 100 something point David Pastrnak had one good game all series. The best players for the Bruins were, no surprise, the ones who can grind. Marchand, Bettuzzi, Coyle etc

 

[EXTRAS]

I think it depends. If you can only put power points up at an average rate of a typical 1st line guy, then yeah, Power points are not as impressive. Because most teams will do it at the elevated rate.

But if having you on the powerboat moves your pp far past the typical 1st lines pp success, then obviously your acumen in that regard should be heavily valued.

Obviously mcdavid/draii giving edm the best pp of always is super valuable.

 

[Lacaar]

The only thing that really comes to mind for me is power plays are managed in the NHL.
So a player that does their damage on the power play in effect gets managed. Same with a player who's a pk specialist. They're at the mercy of the game managers for production.

If you produce great 5 on 5 you can kind of do your thing regardless of how the game is being managed for the most part. It's pretty hard to remove all 5 on 5 time from a game. You're impact can be limited but not really cut off.

 

[koyvoo]

Lots of players have individualized skill sets. Having a gift, or extra level on the powerplay is one of the most impactful skill sets in terms of impacting the outcome of games…because the powerplay already represents a huge opportunity to impact the outcome of games.

It’s only in the era of advanced stats, which I’m not an opponent of by any stretch, that being a killer on the PP has been devalued.

But there’s no applicable logic to the theory. Being a killer on the PP is indeed one of, if not the mist valuable abilities, in terms of getting your team positive results.

 

[Despote]

I mean it's clearly obvious that it's easier to score when your team has an extra player on the ice, which is why people compare scoring rates 5v5.

Powerplay success is also heavily dependent on the skill players are surrounded by, but more importantly, the scheme the coaches implement. This is probably the most underrated part of powerplay success. Every season teams with dynamic offensive players go through stretches of PP struggles or just an overall bad PP because they are following coaches orders and what they practice.

So in this case, more credit should be given to Edmonton's coaching staff. Full marks for Bouchards' shot, Draisaitl's vision and McDavid's playmaking, but most skilled players will produce with the proper time in space. Credit Edmonton's staff for creating schemes and setups that utilize the talent of their players and provide them with that time and space.

The point being, a successful PP (especially a historically successful PP) is more of a reflection of the coaching staff than the players, but the players get the recognition for their execution. Which is fair, but it doensn't make them supreme beings compared to other skilled players around the league that would find equal success in the same situation

Coaching cannot explain a powerplay a couple of SDs better than the #2 in the league. Sustained domination over several seasons. Systems wise, everything can be copied, but you can't copy the skill of McDavid and Draisiaitl.

 

[MXD]

...Between the guy who gets 50ESP and 0 PPP /82, and the one who gets 25ESP and 25PPP/82, I'm taking the first 1000 times out of 1000, and every one should do so.

 

[Freaky Styley]

Coaching cannot explain a powerplay a couple of SDs better than the #2 in the league. Sustained domination over several seasons. Systems wise, everything can be copied, but you can't copy the skill of McDavid and Draisiaitl.

So if you swap out Kucherov with Draisaitl, the Oiler's PP will suddenly be average?

Draisaitl finished with 15 more points that Kucherov. He had 12 more PP points. Does that make him another tier above Kucherov offensively? I think everyone knows the answer is no.

I agree McDavid and Draisaitl are a dynamic duo. Are they that much better than Crosby and Malkin?

The point is, as far as players go, PP dominance might be a reflection of pure skill level given the fact that there is more time and space available. McDavid is head and shoulder above everyone in the league in that aspect, and will therefore anyone will benefit from being on the PP with him.

5v5 numbers are a better representation of relative effectiveness and talent as a hockey player. So when comparing players to each other, this is a better metric to use. PP points inflate certain players point totals due to factors that are out of the player's control (teammates, coaching strategy etc.). While this is also true of 5v5 play, the difference is dimished with a large sample size, making it a stat that tells a more accurate story.

 

[TheOrangeDesk]

I mean it's clearly obvious that it's easier to score when your team has an extra player on the ice, which is why people compare scoring rates 5v5.

Powerplay success is also heavily dependent on the skill players are surrounded by, but more importantly, the scheme the coaches implement. This is probably the most underrated part of powerplay success. Every season teams with dynamic offensive players go through stretches of PP struggles or just an overall bad PP because they are following coaches orders and what they practice.

So in this case, more credit should be given to Edmonton's coaching staff. Full marks for Bouchards' shot, Draisaitl's vision and McDavid's playmaking, but most skilled players will produce with the proper time in space. Credit Edmonton's staff for creating schemes and setups that utilize the talent of their players and provide them with that time and space.

The point being, a successful PP (especially a historically successful PP) is more of a reflection of the coaching staff than the players, but the players get the recognition for their execution. Which is fair, but it doensn't make them supreme beings compared to other skilled players around the league that would find equal success in the same situation

Oilers pp is so succeful because of how unstructured it is....

 

[Freaky Styley]

Oilers pp is so succeful because of how unstructured it is....

Which is still a scheme instituted by the coaching staff.... lots of movement and different looks. You're proving my point. The PPs that struggle usually are the stagnant ones that are predictable.

 

[Community]

Put it this way (extremely simplified; when a goal is scored a minor penalty time is not a full 2 minutes)

- Player A is a stud 5v5 but average on the PP.
- Player B is average 5v5 but a stud on the PP.

A good powerplay is 25% (akin to 1 goal per 8 minutes of powerplay opportunities). Also averages out to 7.5 goals per game (60 minutes).

Average even stregth goals per game is ~2.5. So you're ~3x more likely to score on the powerplay than 5v5. This could also be seen as you need to play 3x as often at 5v5 to score the same rate as on the powerplay.

No player has a powerplay to Even strength TOI ratio of 1:3. (As in, a player that plays 20 mins of ice time plays 15 mins even strength, 5 mins PP) Ovi and Malkin are close. Nobody else is above 1:4.

So, in addition to having large discrepancies where you have a game or 2 with no powerplays and limited control on whether you get a PP opportunity or not (and typically less powerplays in the playoffs), a player typically has a bigger influence on the game over the course of all of their 5v5 minutes vs. their minutes on the powerplay.

In the end, it doesn't matter how you get your points ans a lot of people complaining about it just use that stat to nitpick players they don't like. However, if you have to choose between Player A and Player B, it's an easy choice to go with Player A (stud at 5v5).

 

[Despote]

So if you swap out Kucherov with Draisaitl, the Oiler's PP will suddenly be average?

Draisaitl finished with 15 more points that Kucherov. He had 12 more PP points. Does that make him another tier above Kucherov offensively? I think everyone knows the answer is no.

No, the powerplay could decline, even substantially, and still be the best powerplay in the league. Kucherov is one of the best powerplay players in the league, but he couldn't replace what Draisaitl does in that powerplay. Changing Draisaitl (or McDavid) for any player in the league would definitely make the PP worse.

What Kucherov does in the TBL powerplay wouldn't translate as well in the Oilers because there's no right-shot one timer in the left side for him to pass the puck to. Draisaitl is the main shooter and Kucherov wouldn't be able to replicate that. Pastrnak would likely come closest, but he's not near the passer that Draisaitl is, or able to protect the puck in the corners when the PK pressures like Draisaitl can.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Which is still a scheme instituted by the coaching staff.... lots of movement and different looks. You're proving my point. The PPs that struggle usually are the stagnant ones that are predictable.

The coaching staff of that pp is probably McDavid and Draisaitl.

 

[Freaky Styley]

No, the powerplay could decline, even substantially, and still be the best powerplay in the league. Kucherov is one of the best powerplay players in the league, but he couldn't replace what Draisaitl does in that powerplay. Changing Draisaitl (or McDavid) for any player in the league would definitely make the PP worse.

What Kucherov does in the TBL powerplay wouldn't translate as well in the Oilers because there's no right-shot one timer in the left side for him to pass the puck to. Draisaitl is the main shooter and Kucherov wouldn't be able to replicate that. Pastrnak would likely come closest, but he's not near the passer that Draisaitl is, or able to protect the puck in the corners when the PK pressures like Draisaitl can.

This makes me think you've never watched Kucherov rip one-timers on the PP, or have seen him pass the puck. Skill-wise, these two are extremely equal. I think it's ridiculous to claim the Oiler's PP would suffer if they traded places. Would Tampa's PP suddenly jump 5%?

Also what you're saying about 'right-handed shot' and Draisaitls role being situational alludes to the coach implementing systems that suit the players on their team. A lot of time this isn't the case.

For example, 2 guys that would be great on the PP for the Avs would have been Malgin and Hunt. Both have different, but amazing shots that are better than their teammates that saw the PP. This skill is one of the primary reasons they play in the NHL. A tactical PP coach would recognize this and try them out with players that can feed them the puck in open space. There are plenty of factors to successful PP that lies outside of a player's control.