Couple thoughts. Defensemen play more because it's less grueling minutes. Less skating, less stops and starts, and it just takes less out of you being the guy pushing on someone's back in a board battle than being the one pushed. I think you have the causality reversed, there are less defensemen because they are able to play more, not they play more because there are less of them. The number of guys you get to dress was decided by around how many guys teams were needing to use, not pulled from thin air.

Teams tend to have around 50 minutes of play at even strength. If you are talking about getting more than 18-22 minutes out of top guys, and not using them on the PP (and I assume not the PK) you aren't talking about going from them taking every 4th shift at ES to every 3rd, you are expecting them to take every other shift at ES. I really don't think getting a couple minutes of extra rest 2 or 3 times a game is going to make that feasible.

I used Reaves because I knew he was a bottom line guy who got PP minutes off the top of my head. But since you weren't big on him, I figured I'd look at a team most likely to use an AHL talent level guy on the PP. Just counting time in Ottawa, I compared top line guy Mark Stone with AHL top 6 talent but fringe for the NHL Bobby Ryan. Ryan scored 56 percent of what Stone scored at ES, and 80% of what Stone scored on the PP, so gap was indeed much smaller. However, Stone was still worth 1.31 points more than Ryan for every 60 PP minutes, while only worth 1.18 points more than Ryan for every 60 ES minutes. (I know you are thinking of up and coming guys, but working with what actual data I can easily figure out. Ignore salary and age, and I think it's fair to say Bobby Ryan has top line AHL skills still, but wouldn't crack a solid NHL team's top 6.)
Basically, the percentage gap between lower end guys and higher end does shrink, but even when it does so significantly, it doesn't make up for the fact that teams score at a much higher rate on the power play than at even strength. Your expected points is still higher giving top guys PP time.
- Antilles

Yeah these are all good points. This is why I made a post about this, hoping to get something like this going. I really don't have to rebut or expand right now, but I did enjoy this and will try to later.

I would argue that much of Carolina's turnaround in season began when Brind'Amour put Aho and TT on the PK. Prior to that move their PK was bottom of the league. During their turnaround with Aho and TT on the PK it made its way to the top 10. Aho also scored several shorthanded goals. Rather than relying exclusively on analytics, just let coaches coach and plug their players into situations where they can be of most use for the team. Using two of your top offensive players on the PK doesn't fit well with analytics but it sure paid dividends for the Canes.

Wrong again. This guy sits in Torontoe and can't be bothered to find something relevant related to the coyotes themselves. A coyotes fan probably relates more to teams they actually watch play in their division. Why not use the Vegas or the Sharks as an example. But this guy probably doesn't want to watch teams in that division play including the coyotes.
- kaptaan

Aw poor baby

From a purely aesthetic view, a significant number of Toronto fans are losing their minds because Babs played AM 18 minutes instead of 20 in game seven. They want him canned.

Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing if he put his fourth line out on the PP - and they didn't score? Effigy, meet flame.

From a purely aesthetic view, a significant number of Toronto fans are losing their minds because Babs played AM 18 minutes instead of 20 in game seven. They want him canned.

Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing if he put his fourth line out on the PP - and they didn't score? Effigy, meet flame.
- SmileandWave

There would be no effigy...

Yeah these are all good points. This is why I made a post about this, hoping to get something like this going. I really don't have to rebut or expand right now, but I did enjoy this and will try to later.
- James_Tanner

I appreciate the discussion.

Bruins pretty much won the game on the PP again last night. I think you would rather your talent out more with the man advantage then not. Tough league and tough to score 5v5. Just my thoughts.

Bruins pretty much won the game on the PP again last night. I think you would rather your talent out more with the man advantage then not. Tough league and tough to score 5v5. Just my thoughts.
- Garnie

Lots of games are won on the PP. The question here is do you gain more by getting extra ice time at 5v5 than you lose by taking it away on the PP.

The Leafs seemed to be experimenting with this because they loaded a super power play, with three centres.....but they took it off the ice after 1 minute no matter what.

Lots of games are won on the PP. The question here is do you gain more by getting extra ice time at 5v5 than you lose by taking it away on the PP.

The Leafs seemed to be experimenting with this because they loaded a super power play, with three centres.....but they took it off the ice after 1 minute no matter what.
- James_Tanner

Probably want 1 of those 3 C’s fresh for the other teams top line right after the PP?

Some interesting thoughts. First, Reaves is the kind of player that probably shouldn't be in the NHL. I'd like to see the kind of players who currently are like first line AHLers who can't crack a top six in the NHL and subsequently lose their ice time to grinders.

Guys like Nic Petan - every team has them. If Reaves can do 80% I think we're on the right track.

I think resting your guys on the special teams will allow them to take longer shifts, and more shifts. I see where you're going, but I do think you're underestimating the effect of cumulative time.

As for the minutes, you make an interesting point, but I really do think it's erased by the fact that NHL coaches are way too conservative in their ice time allotments.

I'd be looking to get way more than 18-22 minutes out of my best players. Defenseman are the same athletes, but they play more. Why? There's less of them.

There is no need for a fourth line, forwards need no more rest between shifts than defenseman do, so I think you're wrong about that point.

You are right, however, about the power-play having a lesser cost and being cheaper minutes, but I do think that that is alleviated by being better more often 5v5.
- James_Tanner

laughable....the flyers gave several top ahl players ice time this year and they proved why they are not nhl players. They did next to nothing.

you must be no older than 25 is my guess.

Probably want 1 of those 3 C’s fresh for the other teams top line right after the PP?
- Garnie

They would almost always go fourth line after the PP. I think it was because it's a balanced approach that gives you one super great chance at scoring, but gives all your guys one theoretical minute of extra 5v5 time?

They would almost always go fourth line after the PP. I think it was because it's a balanced approach that gives you one super great chance at scoring, but gives all your guys one theoretical minute of extra 5v5 time?
- James_Tanner

Better chance is to score on the PP. Not sure about the extra min 5v5. But I’ll watch the Leafs next year and we’ll discuss again.

Lots of games are won on the PP. The question here is do you gain more by getting extra ice time at 5v5 than you lose by taking it away on the PP.

The Leafs seemed to be experimenting with this because they loaded a super power play, with three centres.....but they took it off the ice after 1 minute no matter what.
- James_Tanner

That's just Babcock being old school. It hasn't been until fairly recently that you've seen PP1 out there for 1:30 or more. Sometimes guys like Ovechkin or Kovalchuk would stay out the entire PP, but with 2 separate lines.