James Tanner: Weird Hockey Strategy Vol. 1

Please keep writing stuff like this all summer..I am legitimately intrigued and it got me thinking out of the box.

While I bet most people will trash you saying it’s crazy, I do think it might have merit. I would guess it has A TON of merit for teams like the Senators (for example) that lack a ton of true stars, so why not save whatever ounce of goodness you have for 5v5 knowing you’re not getting that much advantage on the PP.

With that said, after thinking about it a bit, wouldn’t the most clear argument against your theory be that teams with the leagues best stars (Tampa, Wash, Pitt, SJ, Col, Winnipeg) have the best PPs, and teams with little star power don’t? All those teams mentioned had top 10 PPs last year, and the teams at the bottom were also the ones that you would generally call a bad team, or a defensive/goaltending team (Nashville was dead last).

If your theory were true, then bad teams with no/few stars would be able to put up good points on the power play.

Of course your rebuttal should be that it’s not about the power play to begin with! It’s about the extra time you get 5v5 with your best players....which is....why I remain intrigued!!!

Nice post, James. Examining traditional thinking from oblique angles is what makes strategy fascinating to me, and I appreciate your thoughts. I am looking forward to reading your future challenges of hockey dogma.

Others may think articles like this as little more than just tilting at windmills, but I appreciate the 'outside the rink' ideas.

Marchessault was Vegas' top scorer. Reaves was a fourth liner. If you account for time on ice, Reaves scored 62% as often as Marchessault at even strength. Vegas also tried Reaves on the powerplay for a significant amount of time. If you account for time on ice, Reaves scored about 71% as often as Marchessault on the power play. This supports the idea that the gap shrinks on the power play, but it's not like they are anywhere close to being equal either. You're talking about losing a quarter to a third of your powerplay goals by throwing out bottom guys instead of top.

You're also ignoring a lot of resource management issues with the idea that 4 less minutes on the powerplay will result in 4 more minutes of even strength play from a top guy. Forwards aren't limited to 20 minutes per game because that's how much they can handle total, they are limited to 20 minutes because that's how much they can fit in given the rest required between shifts. The time on the powerplay you are using to rest them doesn't get spread around between their shifts as needed, it's one lump where they have 2+ minutes of rest right after the PP instead of 1. There is also the exertion factor. Most even strength shifts take more exertion than most power play shifts That, along with the time for the penalty to be called, is why top guys tend to be good to go right after a penalty call, and have a longer shift when on the powerplay. Because they need less rest to be ready for it, and can stay out for longer if on the powerplay. In economic terms, getting TOI from each player costs you exertion/rest for that player. You are getting cheaper and therefore more minutes from them by having them on the powerplay.

Interesting idea. I would like to see analysis of how starplayers icetime is affected in correlation to powerplay time.

My thought is that if you can handle 18min of 5v5 icetime, but your opponent gets 6 minor penalties through out the game, your icetime may be 14min 5v5 and 6min 5v4 which makes your total icetime go up 2min.

My hypothesis is that PP minutes gets on top of your 5v5, so even if you let your best players rest on the powerplay and only play 5v5 they you will not be able to get more minutes out of them rather if you play them both 5v5 and powerplay.

You figure there isn't enough Torontoe content on this site? You have to bring it to the coyotes blog as well?

Shhhh. Grown ups are talking.

This idea is very similar to what Sutter did with the kings in 2012 playoffs. He rolled 4 lines pp or 5v5. It worked

Best chance is to score on the PP over 5v5. Games are won and lost with special teams a lot of the time. So, not too sure about this tactic. There’s guys that score, lots, I’d want them on during the game when they had easier chances to get shots on net.

Even the Coyotes blogger doesnt want to blog about the Coyotes

You figure there isn't enough Torontoe content on this site? You have to bring it to the coyotes blog as well?
- kaptaan

Because Toronto is the NHLs most popular team. Hence more eyeballs. But jealous Westerners always just think people are biased towards the Leafs and stick content in for fun.

Best players, need to get the most ice time.....

5v5, PP, PK . Some players can't play PK b/c they just don't have the stamina to play PK , and it may take away from their effectiveness on 5v5 and PP.

Team composition also plays a large part. Deeper teams can have more players available on PP.

Lastly, opposing teams PK will be much more aggressive when players of less skill are on PK, whereas they give the higher skilled players more room at times in fear of getting beat.

I understand what you're saying, but the PP is far less taxing than 5-on-5. I'd say by a 2-to-1 margin at least. So 4 mins of McDavid PP time is worth 2 mins of 5-on-5 time, in terms of how tiring it is. Is that worth the drop off in PP production? Probably not

He's far more likely to score in that 4 minute span on the PP than in 2 minutes 5-on-5

Marchessault was Vegas' top scorer. Reaves was a fourth liner. If you account for time on ice, Reaves scored 62% as often as Marchessault at even strength. Vegas also tried Reaves on the powerplay for a significant amount of time. If you account for time on ice, Reaves scored about 71% as often as Marchessault on the power play. This supports the idea that the gap shrinks on the power play, but it's not like they are anywhere close to being equal either. You're talking about losing a quarter to a third of your powerplay goals by throwing out bottom guys instead of top.

You're also ignoring a lot of resource management issues with the idea that 4 less minutes on the powerplay will result in 4 more minutes of even strength play from a top guy. Forwards aren't limited to 20 minutes per game because that's how much they can handle total, they are limited to 20 minutes because that's how much they can fit in given the rest required between shifts. The time on the powerplay you are using to rest them doesn't get spread around between their shifts as needed, it's one lump where they have 2+ minutes of rest right after the PP instead of 1. There is also the exertion factor. Most even strength shifts take more exertion than most power play shifts That, along with the time for the penalty to be called, is why top guys tend to be good to go right after a penalty call, and have a longer shift when on the powerplay. Because they need less rest to be ready for it, and can stay out for longer if on the powerplay. In economic terms, getting TOI from each player costs you exertion/rest for that player. You are getting cheaper and therefore more minutes from them by having them on the powerplay.
- Antilles

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.

Best chance is to score on the PP over 5v5. Games are won and lost with special teams a lot of the time. So, not too sure about this tactic. There’s guys that score, lots, I’d want them on during the game when they had easier chances to get shots on net.
- Garnie

The game is won 5v5.

This year your #2 power play missed the playoffs, #4 almost did, #5 was the NHL's most disappointing team, of the top 16 Power plays, 5 teams missed the playoffs.

If there isn't equalization in skill on the PP then how do Toronto, Buffalo and Edmonton sit outside the top ten? These should be three of the five best PPs in the NHL.

Conversely, looking at Goals-for % for 5v5, 15 of the top 16 teams in the NHL made the playoffs, and the Canadiens (best goalie, top 3 5v5 team) where a total anomaly that makes the playoffs 99% of the time.

Because Toronto is the NHLs most popular team. Hence more eyeballs. But jealous Westerners always just think people are biased towards the Leafs and stick content in for fun.
- RogerRoeper

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.

The game is won 5v5.

This year your #2 power play missed the playoffs, #4 almost did, #5 was the NHL's most disappointing team, of the top 16 Power plays, 5 teams missed the playoffs.

If there isn't equalization in skill on the PP then how do Toronto, Buffalo and Edmonton sit outside the top ten? These should be three of the five best PPs in the NHL.

Conversely, looking at Goals-for % for 5v5, 15 of the top 16 teams in the NHL made the playoffs, and the Canadiens (best goalie, top 3 5v5 team) where a total anomaly that makes the playoffs 99% of the time.
- James_Tanner

We’ll use Boston for fun in the playoffs:

+10 goals in 60/mins on the PP

+5 goals in 700/mins 5v5

We’ll use Boston for fun in the playoffs:

+10 goals in 60/mins on the PP

+5 goals in 700/mins 5v5
- Garnie

This is an anecdotal argument based on something that it is very clearly an anomaly. Like telling me a guy who scores two goals in the first game of the season is going to score 164.

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

You've never played hockey, and it shows.

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

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.

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

There's a reason why players don't double shift consistently and play 18-22 minutes, there are physical limitations to recovery time. Statistically you make a valid argument but in practice the players are human and shift length and frequency are heavily monitored to maximize their effectiveness per shift. Hockey is such a tight close checking game that a rested, less talented player can negate a tired star player over time. Double shifting star players at 5v5 while taking away the "easier" PP minutes would decrease their effectiveness.

I would argue a guy like Matthews excels at 5v5 due to the fact that Babcock can roll lines, giving him enough recovery time to maximize his shifts. Sure he could probably play him a bit more but basically he's trying to get him to be effective at both ends for every second he's out there. Also using Bozak as a reference is not really a great comparison because Bozak happens to be a very good PP player, and that's probably why he was on the first PP last year, ahead of Matthews. Not every team's third line centre is going to be that effective.

In regards to the forwards not needing more time than defenseman, I dont think that's true, I'd like to see your evidence for that because it's a statement out of nowhere. Defensemen play a different game than forwards, it's easier physically to play more minutes as a dman than a centre or winger, thats why they generally can play more minutes and take longer shifts.

It's an interesting concept but I think putting it into practice would require much more thought and planning.

This is an anecdotal argument based on something that it is very clearly an anomaly. Like telling me a guy who scores two goals in the first game of the season is going to score 164.
- James_Tanner

Pretty sure you score more per/60 on the PP than 5v5, no?

Don’t think it’s anomaly.

Anyways, I understand the coaching side of putting Ovie out when he’s on the man advantage rather than letting him rest for a 5v5 shift.

+42 GF/GA in 342 PP mins vs

+17 in 1230 5v5 mins

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

Vegas or SHarks won't be as many readers. Fact.

Leafs are the most popular NHL team.

once again, your theory is flat out "differently abled"

use your worst players on the pp
use your offensive players on the pk

might as well just ice a team of players who cant skate. they will fall, refs will call tripping penalties.. then u have a full team of garbage players to thrive on your pp

Pretty sure you score more per/60 on the PP than 5v5, no?

Don’t think it’s anomaly.

Anyways, I understand the coaching side of putting Ovie out when he’s on the man advantage rather than letting him rest for a 5v5 shift.

+42 GF/GA in 342 PP mins vs

+17 in 1230 5v5 mins
- Garnie

facts are for jerks