The power play merchant argument

[daver]

I think it's a dumb way to discredit people.

I think a large part of it is the "let them play" nonsense that's been pushed for long and suckered so many fans into thinking power plays are somehow "lesser" than 5 on 5. This stupid idea that it's somehow better when they throw out the rulebook, that real hockey allows stupid shit like cross checks or absolutely ridiculous holding (like play is all the way down the ice and a guy is still trying to wrench himself free of an opponent).

Vs just recognizing how much a great power play impacts the game all over and loving how exciting it is when special teams take the ice. Of course this route means you get so sick of playoff hockey bullshit you want to quit watching altogether.

It is more exciting than a foul shot or a TD being called back because of a holding call, but more exciting than end-to-end action?

The game is meant to be played at 5-on-5, a bunch of PPs being called is something that should make you quit watching a game as it interrupts the flow,

A good ref sets the tone as to what players can and cannot get away with, a bad ref allows PPs to dictate the winner.

 

[thaman8765678]

I think it's a dumb way to discredit people.

I think a large part of it is the "let them play" nonsense that's been pushed for long and suckered so many fans into thinking power plays are somehow "lesser" than 5 on 5. This stupid idea that it's somehow better when they throw out the rulebook, that real hockey allows stupid shit like cross checks or absolutely ridiculous holding (like play is all the way down the ice and a guy is still trying to wrench himself free of an opponent).

Vs just recognizing how much a great power play impacts the game all over and loving how exciting it is when special teams take the ice. Of course this route means you get so sick of playoff hockey bullshit you want to quit watching altogether.

It is not exciting at all when special teams takes the ice. It really kills the flow of the game.

The best games are triple OT games with no penalties and players deciding the outcome of the games, rather than refs.

 

[Coffee]

It is not exciting at all when special teams takes the ice. It really kills the flow of the game.

The best games are triple OT games with no penalties and players deciding the outcome of the games, rather than refs.

You haven’t made a poll in a while

Can you think of a good one to make?

 

[kranuck]

It is not exciting at all when special teams takes the ice. It really kills the flow of the game.

The best games are triple OT games with no penalties and players deciding the outcome of the games, rather than refs.

"letting them play" is the dumbest thing in sports. It's so brain dead to just think throwing out the rule book is anything but the exact opposite of that.

The best ything in hocey is when a team loses an elimination game on a puck over glass penalty in OT. It's amazing. it's so good.

It is more exciting than a foul shot or a TD being called back because of a holding call, but more exciting than end-to-end action?

The game is meant to be played at 5-on-5, a bunch of PPs being called is something that should make you quit watching a game as it interrupts the flow,

A good ref sets the tone as to what players can and cannot get away with, a bad ref allows PPs to dictate the winner.

The game is meant to be played according to the rule book. A good ref does their best to follow the rule book.

Anything less isn't even hockey and is horribly dull becaue it's slower, less skilled, more dirty, and just generally crap.

 

[MichaelFarrell]

This is more of an issue when evaluating a prospect’s play in other leagues. People get concerned if a player can’t perform 5 on 5 because it likely shows deficiency in their game. You want to see a prospect dominate 5 on 5.

As for how it pertains to NHL players, it matters far less. However, if you are dealing with a team or a player that can only really score on the power play, it gives the opposing team a clear game plan. If your team can be as disciplined as possible, your team is likely to win.

Power Play success is absolutely essential for playoff success in my opinion. A lot of times the team with the best power play and goalie wins.

 

[Freudian]

Every points count. Being on a good PP might boost someone's numbers and there might be reason to think they will not be able to repeat it.

 

[daver]

The game is meant to be played according to the rule book. A good ref does their best to follow the rule book.

Anything less isn't even hockey and is horribly dull becaue it's slower, less skilled, more dirty, and just generally crap.

And hockey where a constant barrage of penalties being called is just as bad. A good ref finds a happy medium.

 

[majormajor]

The best argument against a PP guy is when he can be replaced by another player who would also see a big boost in his production from playing on the PP. The "replacement level" is much higher.

So none of that applies to McDavid or Draisaitl, and not even RNH who plays a complex role on that unit.

 

[RDTBay4]

Also would Kucherov have 13 goals right now playing with McDavid? The answer is obviously no

Absolutely hilarious take. If we replaced old ass Stamkos with flipping McDavid on our top line we'd score every time they were on the ice.

POINT MCDAVID KUCHEROV....are you kidding me. I'm dying laughing just thinking about it.

 

[hangman005]

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.

Really? So it's just vegas making it look difficult.

 

[Fourier]

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.

The bolded statement is simply not true. 5 vs 5 results are not simply the product of an individual but rather of the group that is on the ice with that individual. There is no absolute here. A great player with a weak supporting group who draws significant attention from the opposition could easily have lesser 5 vs 5 individual results than a very good player with a strong supporting group that is not individually targeted. Sample size will not change that.

The reality is that the goal is to outscore the opposition. pp points matter just as much as ES points. Both require both individual skill and team contributions. Trying to give one scenario the tag of being universally a better representation of the quality of a player over the other makes little sense.

 

[kranuck]

And hockey where a constant barrage of penalties being called is just as bad. A good ref finds a happy medium.

No a good ref calls a good tight game and relies on the players to adapt.

 

[authentic]

Absolutely hilarious take. If we replaced old ass Stamkos with flipping McDavid on our top line we'd score every time they were on the ice.

POINT MCDAVID KUCHEROV....are you kidding me. I'm dying laughing just thinking about it.

Kucherov would not score 13 goals in 8-10 games on a literal all star team. You would have to be delusional to think otherwise

 

[Freaky Styley]

The bolded statement is simply not true. 5 vs 5 results are not simply the product of an individual but rather of the group that is on the ice with that individual. There is no absolute here. A great player with a weak supporting group who draws significant attention from the opposition could easily have lesser 5 vs 5 individual results than a very good player with a strong supporting group that is not individually targeted. Sample size will not change that.

The reality is that the goal is to outscore the opposition. pp points matter just as much as ES points. Both require both individual skill and team contributions. Trying to give one scenario the tag of being universally a better representation of the quality of a player over the other makes little sense.

It's impressive the amount of mental hoops you're jumping through to make your argument.

Of course 5v5 isn't solely based on individual effort, there's 4 other players on the ice. The point i is it's at even strength and there's about 90% of the game played this way. Much bigger and better sample size with less variables attached to results. Yes, sample size does matter. No player exists in a vacuum but if you're comparing one or the other, even strength play/statistics should be heavily weighed over PP contribution.

Of course PP points count the same as ES points on the scoreboard, but they aren't as valuable contextually.

A player that is very effective at 5v5 will help you win more than a dominant powerplay player. RNH is the perfect example of this.

If you're trying to win a game, who do you pick - Lehkonen or RNH? One got over 100 points and had more PP points than the other had all season. Do we see the problem with using PP to determine a player's worth?

Meanwhile, their ES PPG was only a 10 point difference (pacing an 82-games for Lehkonen). Tells a much better story, and just further illuminates how overrated point totals are amongst fans when it comes to effectiveness as a hockey player.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

The bottom line is that 5x5 opportunities are always there, whereas PP opportunities require either the other team to be undisciplined or bad officiating.

iMHO, as the better-disciplined teams are more likely to advance deeper into the playoffs, the PP becomes even less important relative to 5x5.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Power Play points are less significant due to the replacement player factor. Some amount of goals will be scored on the Powerplay, that much is a given, no matter who you throw out there. Then factor in that if "star player" is out, it's not like you have random AHL guy taking powerplay time like he would at least some of his even strength time, it's likely your next best, already NHL roster player, which is likely a Middle Six player.

 

[Fourier]

It's impressive the amount of mental hoops you're jumping through to make your argument.

Of course 5v5 isn't solely based on individual effort, there's 4 other players on the ice. The point i is it's at even strength and there's about 90% of the game played this way. Much bigger and better sample size with less variables attached to results. Yes, sample size does matter. No player exists in a vacuum but if you're comparing one or the other, even strength play/statistics should be heavily weighed over PP contribution.

Of course PP points count the same as ES points on the scoreboard, but they aren't as valuable contextually.

A player that is very effective at 5v5 will help you win more than a dominant powerplay player. RNH is the perfect example of this.

If you're trying to win a game, who do you pick - Lehkonen or RNH? One got over 100 points and had more PP points than the other had all season. Do we see the problem with using PP to determine a player's worth?

Meanwhile, their ES PPG was only a 10 point difference (pacing an 82-games for Lehkonen). Tells a much better story, and just further illuminates how overrated point totals are amongst fans when it comes to effectiveness as a hockey player.

None of what you said refutes what I wrote.

You even bolded the word contextually. And then you go and completely negate this point by ignoring context in the example you give.

What is the key difference between Lehkonen this year and Lehkonen in the past. Would the Oilers pp be as good if you replace RNH with Lehkonen? What is RNH's actual role on the Oilers now and in the past? Answer these questions and you will have your answer for the RNH vs Lehkonen question.

And by the way< I never said that point totals were not overrated. What I said is that assuming that 5 vs 5 points matter more without context is wrong.

 

[tucker3434]

It’s because of last night’s game. Being overly reliant on a 6 min portion of the game to get your offense taken care of is a big ask. During the course of an 82 game season, it’ll all balance out, but when it is all on the line in one game, you could end up going 0 for 1.

 

[Freaky Styley]

None of what you said refutes what I wrote.

You even bolded the word contextually. And then you go and completely negate this point by ignoring context in the example you give.

What is the key difference between Lehkonen this year and Lehkonen in the past. Would the Oilers pp be as good if you replace RNH with Lehkonen? What is RNH's actual role on the Oilers now and in the past? Answer these questions and you will have your answer for the RNH vs Lehkonen question.

And by the way< I never said that point totals were not overrated. What I said is that assuming that 5 vs 5 points matter more without context is wrong.

I said 5v5 stats are a much better metric to use to evaluate a player, leaving the PP out of the equation. You seem to disagree. The Lehkonen example was meant to highlight that. Never did I say replacing Lehkonen with RNH would make the Oiler's PP better, in fact my point is that it doesn't matter how good the PP is, 5v5 play matters more.

 

[bossram]

Power Play points are less significant due to the replacement player factor. Some amount of goals will be scored on the Powerplay, that much is a given, no matter who you throw out there. Then factor in that if "star player" is out, it's not like you have random AHL guy taking powerplay time like he would at least some of his even strength time, it's likely your next best, already NHL roster player, which is likely a Middle Six player.

It's this.

PP points are (and should be) valued less because if you throw your "next man" out on your PP unit, he's still going to get points. How much value added is there from swapping out one 2nd liner on your PP1 unit to a different one?

Obviously guys like McDavid and Draisaitl are true PP creators and can lift a PP to otherwordly status. Most guys playing on the PP are not doing that. They're just getting PP points from virtue of being there.

 

[DuklaNation]

If your offense relies on the PP, come playoff time your offense may typically decline (depends on matchup and refs). So, it may be beneficial to structure the team with better 5 on 5 scoring and more balanced lineup. This has been known for quite some time.

 

[Fourier]

I said 5v5 stats are a much better metric to use to evaluate a player, leaving the PP out of the equation. You seem to disagree. The Lehkonen example was meant to highlight that. Never did I say replacing Lehkonen with RNH would make the Oiler's PP better, in fact my point is that it doesn't matter how good the PP is, 5v5 play matters more.

There is no evidence that 5 vs 5 stats tell you anything more about a player absent context than overall stats do. PP's matter.

The fact that RNH is an elite pp performer is relevant in comparing him with a guy like Lehkonen. BUt you also ignored the two other questions I asked you concerning these two which provide context as to why you use of 5 vs 5 stats in this case is spurious.

There is no absolute here, both 5 vs 5 production and pp production are part of what a player does to contribute to his team winning. The degree to which each is relevant in assessing the player can vary substantially from player to player depending on the players skill set and circumstance.

 

[Dust]

It’s because of last night’s game. Being overly reliant on a 6 min portion of the game to get your offense taken care of is a big ask. During the course of an 82 game season, it’ll all balance out, but when it is all on the line in one game, you could end up going 0 for 1.

I think last nights game just highlights goaltending more than anything else. It was probably one of Vegas' weaker games in the series at 5on5. More often than not when you give up double the shots and double the scoring chances at 5on5, you're going to lose.

 

[RDTBay4]

 

[tucker3434]

I think last nights game just highlights goaltending more than anything else. It was probably one of Vegas' weaker games in the series at 5on5. More often than not when you give up double the shots and double the scoring chances at 5on5, you're going to lose.

That’s its own recurring issue in Edmonton.

I know they improved at 5v5 this year, but it still seems a bit like they struggle to find traction when they can’t use the pp as a catalyst. You can look at this series and guess which games they couldn’t score on the pp for whatever reason. Vegas didn’t need the pp to score 5 in games 3 or 6.

If you can steal one game from Edmonton when the pp is going, like game 1, it’s a solid bet you can split the rest and advance.