Who has the best PP in the League?
by Hawerchuk on Apr 4, 2011 7:00 AM EDT
Email
Print
I was watching the Sharks-Ducks game on Saturday and the Sharks announcers - I'm not going to lie, I don't think they know what they're talking about most of the time - said "San Jose has the third-best power-play in the league." Really? Let's look at 5-on-4 performance over the last four seasons:
| Season | Team | Shots/60 |
| 2010-11 | SJ | 71.8 |
| 2008-09 | DET | 64.5 |
| 2007-08 | DET | 61.9 |
| 2008-09 | ANA | 61.7 |
| 2009-10 | SJ | 61.2 |
| 2008-09 | NJ | 60.9 |
| 2008-09 | WSH | 60.2 |
| 2010-11 | ANA | 59.4 |
| 2009-10 | DET | 58.4 |
| 2010-11 | WSH | 58.2 |
Not only does San Jose have the best power-play in the league this season by a massive margin, they're way ahead of the next-best team we've seen since the NHL started tracking this stat in 2007-08. When you're trying to evaluate special teams performance, don't be misled by luck-driven PP shooting percentages like Vancouver's (Edmonton is 3rd in the league in 5v4 shooting percentage, after all) or teams that spent a lot of time at 5v3. The PP is all about directing shots on goal.
57 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think it was Drew Remenda who said it.
I was kinda confused by that too thinking “really? who’s better? Maybe Vancouver?” I couldn’t for the life of me come up with a 2nd team that was in any way better on the PP.
That said. The Sharks are awful on the PK sometimes and it’s kinda scary…
Drew: 'Oh no.. That is certainly the meaty part alright, but it's not the thigh..."
Randy: "No... that bone is NOT connected to the thigh bone..."
www.fearthefin.com
I rushed the farm's crappy field in 2009
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’m not going to lie, I don’t think they know what they’re talking about most of the time
Huh, and here I was thinking that they’re easily the best tandem there is (that does the regular game, at least). I’ll listen more attentively next time.
By the way, if you’re going to argue Hawerchuk’s point, make sure you’ve read JLikens on special teams.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
I was thinking that they’re easily the best tandem there is (that does the regular game, at least).
LA’s guys are good, as are Florida’s.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Florida’s are terrible. Most boring guys in the NHL.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 10, 2011 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps..
You say ‘forget about powerplays which are percentage driven’, and I’m on board with that fully – but according to http://www.behindthenet.ca/2010/team_data3.php?sort=26 , it seems the Canucks have the 2nd WORST shooting percentage at 5on4? Am I reading that incorrectly?
Wow – Florida and New Jersey have been really unlucky this year. Having a powerplay shooting percentage worse than your even strength percentage – that’s pretty impressive, in a impressively bad sort of way.
I suppose it could be worse – Edmonton hasn’t scored at all this season while 5-on-3.
Wow – Florida and New Jersey have been really unlucky this year. Having a powerplay shooting percentage worse than your even strength percentage – that’s pretty impressive, in a impressively bad sort of way.
New Jersey’s ES S% actually was worse earlier this season.
Just for kicks, I did a quick and dirty count on a piece of scrap paper of how many more goals NJ would have had if they shot league-average at ES and after learning it was about 31, my mood became Charlie-Brown-esque until I threw it out.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Someone needs to tell NJ this – they’ve finished last or second to last in PP S% in 3 of the last 4 years.
Unlike even strength, I think there may be some truth that PP shooting percentage is not purely luck driven. Some teams like to have their players shoot more often to get rebound chances, some teams pass the puck around a lot trying to find better shooting position like a backdoor play. By the same token, some teams being more picky about when and where to shoot the puck during the PP means they are likely to have fewer shots, but they can control the puck for most of the PP quite well. I wish they could track the amount of time the puck stays in the offensive zone. Why can’t they do it when they already track players’ ice time?
Isn’t there a pretty wide disparity in shot distance on the PP between different teams? If this is the case, and is persistent, then surely PP shooting percentage isn’t completely random.
Would you look at that?
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2010/5_on_4_shots.php?sort=6&mingp=&mintoi=1
I gave you the data you need to prove or disprove such an assertion!
You're undoubtedly right about the Sharks PP, especially this year IMO.
But sometimes I think that statements like the one above are the reason you get a lot of less savvy fans trolling these boards. The traditional method of power plays in the NHL has been PP %. It’s not the best way of ranking them, but it’s no different than saying that a team with the 3rd best ERA in the league has the 3rd best pitching staff, when more advanced measures would rank them at 1st. It’s not great or even correct, but it isn’t indicative of some fundamental failing as a sports commentator.
Drew Remenda was an NHL video analyst for a decade, then an assistant NHL coach for five years.
If Drew Remenda doesn’t think the Sharks have the best PP in the league, then I’d say he didn’t learn much from watching all those hours of video and spending all those years behind the bench.
If Drew Remenda doesn’t think the Sharks have the best PP in the league, then I’d say he didn’t learn much from watching all those hours of video and spending all those years behind the bench.
Oh, c’mon.
A: remenda may not know that SJ’s power play generates that many shots.
B: even if he did, he might not bother explaining that to a television audience.
I know that this sort of stuff sometimes gets me yelling at my television, but expecting a broadcaster to have this information, and to disseminate it, is years off. Although we did almost hear Bobby Valentine try to explain WAR last night…
Why can’t he say “the sharks have the best pp in the league, they’re just relentless in getting shots?” Its still broadcaster b.s. but its true
by Hawerchuk on Apr 4, 2011 6:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That would be great, except that I can almost guarantee the “guys in the truck” gave him the stats on PP% and the Sharks are ranked 3rd.
I don’t think you’d find any other announcer in the league give you a ranking based on shots on net per 60 minutes of PP time.
While I’m fine with ripping on Drew for many things, I don’t think this is really a failing to single him out for.
"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Tweet Tweet
I had a friend one time who found the notes used by a play-by-play guy for an NFL game a couple of years ago (my friend worked w/Hertz Rent-a-Car at a major airport, and the guy had left it behind). It was about 15-20 pages full of data and random tidbits of statistical information on the teams and their players that they could used to “spice up” the commentary. I don’t doubt that they have similar things going on for NHL games.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Apr 4, 2011 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I have never heard power play shot rate referred to on an NHL broadcast.
I had a friend one time who found the notes used by a play-by-play guy for an NFL game a couple of years ago (my friend worked w/Hertz Rent-a-Car at a major airport, and the guy had left it behind). It was about 15-20 pages full of data and random tidbits of statistical information on the teams and their players that they could used to "spice up" the commentary
NFL commentators don’t have a home team – broadcasters will do 17 games featuring 20 different teams. It’s easy to see why such a thing would exist in the NFL, and why Remenda likely does not have one of these for the Sharks.
NFL and baseball fans are also a different beast than hockey fans.
Football fans have been comfortable using an abstract statistic like passer rating for quite some time. (Not saying it’s a great metric, I don’t know enough about football, but it takes a huge comfort in the relevance of statistics to be accepting of using an all-in-one formula like that and not get caught up in the situations where it breaks down).
Baseball has always been the most metric-intensive sport which probably goes back to its history of the main way for fans to find out about their team being to read the next morning’s box scores.
Hockey fans – hell, /- has been around for close to 70 years at the organizational level and 40 years at the NHL level and many fans still think it pushes the envelope too far in terms of statistics.
a powerplays job is to score, so it is hardly ridiculous to say a team has the third best powerplay if they score on the third largest percentage of oppurtunities
by Ahmad Bradshaw on Apr 4, 2011 4:04 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Additionally, I do not think shooting percentage is completely random on the PP. Especially cause teams often have the same players out there for most PP’s so unlike even strength when there are like 18 different shooters, it is possible a team can have a couple very good shooters and thus high PP shooting percentage
“I do not think shooting percentage is completely random on the PP”
Everybody in unison: then do the analysis to prove it!!!!!!!!!!!
obviously do not have the ability nor the time to do that. Would not even know where to begin. Im sure its a lot easier said then done.
by Ahmad Bradshaw on Apr 5, 2011 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Playoffs are approaching. All logic gets thrown out the window for bubble teams who are hoping to make it into the playoffs and for those already in, hoping to get deep. :)
GO SHARKS!
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin (see profile for more info on this quote)
Using seasons since the lockout, the variation in EV SH% at the team level is 33% skill and 66% luck, whereas the variation in PP SH% at the team level is 9% skill and 91% luck.
But the average team takes far fewer shots on the powerplay (~500) than at even strength (~1800). It goes without saying that the % of variation due to luck varies as a function of sample size (i.e. number of shots).
In order to compare apples to apples, it’s necessary figure out how many extra goals a team that is one standard deviation above the league average with respect to EV shooting talent can expect to score over a team that is exactly league average in that respect, per X number of shots.
If the same calculation is repeated in relation to powerplay shooting percentage, the results can be compared.
We’ll use 1000 as the value for x, which is the number of shots.
The results:
EV SH% – 2.64
PP SH% – 1.43
So a team one standard deviation above the mean with respect to EV shooting talent can expect to score 2.64 more goals than a team with average EV shooting talent, per 1000 shots.
(We’ll ignore the fact that EV shooting talent and EV outshooting appear to be negatively correlated at the team level).
And a team one standard deviation above the mean with respect to PP shooting talent can expect to score 2.64 more goals than a team with average PP shooting talent, per 1000 shots.
So the implication is that team talent differences in EV SH% are wider than team talent differences in PP SH%.
Damn, the second last paragraph should read:
And a team one standard deviation above the mean with respect to PP shooting talent can expect to score 1.43 more goals than a team with average PP shooting talent, per 1000 shots.
This seems extremely nitpicky
The Sharks announcers called their third ranked powerplay third best in the league and this is somehow further evidence that they don’t know what they’re talking about? I can’t say that I follow. In fact, I’ve never heard NHL commentators league wide reference anything but results when it comes to powerplay and PK effectiveness.
I mean, have you ever caught a game where the the color commentator went " The Canucks have the first ranked powerplay unit in the NHL this year, but their shooting percentage is abnormally high and is unsustainable going forward. Also, the Sedins looking like superstars again this year is a result of them facing easy competition and an insanely high proportion of offensive zone starts."
So fans use an incorrect metric to rank the power-play and that absolves people who’ve spent 40 years in pro hockey from having to use the right metric?
You basically don’t expect announcers to know more about hockey than anybody else. That’s sad!
He obviously was not a Fire Joe Morgan baby.
by Corey Pronman on Apr 4, 2011 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
You basically don’t expect announcers to know more about hockey than anybody else. That’s sad!
The role of announcers is not to educate, it’s to entertain. And not many people find it entertaining to watch something where they’re constantly told that the way they think about things is wrong.
As such, until the average fan gets more intelligent, I think it’s foolish to expect announcers to treat them as such.
Except announcers are constantly purporting to offer us information that no outsider can know. People thrive on inside baseball – if they’re appalled by some part of that knowledge, it’s their fault for being close-minded.
Similar to what I said above, nothing is more entertaining than someone telling you how smart you are and how you’re on the leading edge of knowledge.
It doesn’t matter if it’s the fault of the fan or the announcer – the announcer’s job is to drive ratings so saying it’s the fan’s fault for wanting to be stupid doesn’t exactly help him out.
Except announcers are constantly purporting to offer us information that no outsider can know. People thrive on inside baseball – if they’re appalled by some part of that knowledge, it’s their fault for being close-minded.
it’s not a good format to present this kind of knowledge. did you see nate silver on baseball tonight, or ever heard david cone try to talk about fangraphs or pitch f/x as a color man?
using PP shots/60 implicitly derides the notion of shot quality, which i think just about any average NHL fan would believe in if he or she were asked the right questions to get it to pop out.
Except Ron MacLean brings up shot metrics. Mike Babcock talks about luck and dominating chances. Alain Vigneault understands zone starts. Jim Corsi invented Corsi! (Well, Harry Sinden probably did, but you get the point.)
People inside hockey are not exactly analytically unsophisticated. So announcers should not get a pass when they are.
The role of announcers is not to educate, it’s to entertain.
Hmmmm … and they can’t do both?
GO SHARKS!
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin (see profile for more info on this quote)
I completely disagree. It wouldn’t take that much for them to give info. They live and breathe hockey. They pass on all sorts of information constantly. People repeat what they say constantly on the blogs, making it meaningful, useful and accurate would be awesome.
GO SHARKS!
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin (see profile for more info on this quote)
So, let’s turn it around then … why do you think so few (if any) announcers actually are educational and entertaining?
I think it’s because it’s a difficult thing to do, which seems to align pretty well with how few people actually do it.
I think it’s because they don’t make that little effort it would take. Like too many, they don’t give people credit for having a brain, a functioning brain. Treat people like idiots and they will remain idiots. Expect nothing from people and they will give you nothing.
If we expect higher standards, we will get it. If we treat people as if they can think, they will think.
GO SHARKS!
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin (see profile for more info on this quote)
So there are what, ~60-120 or so announcing jobs in the NHL (2-4 per average NHL city)? These positions play hundreds of thousands of dollars and more.
And at the more amateur level, there are tons of people willing to do this stuff for free (colleges, high schools, juniors, etc.)
And your suggestion is that those who make the big bucks are lazy and aren’t making the effort to do their job to the best of their ability.
That seems to be quite the stretch and go against the competitive nature of the positions.
Hum, the problem is, when your PP scores, it shortens the PP, and skews the numbers. If you look at SJ and their “best” PP it is less than 2.4 shot/2minutes. Factor in that the FO% that begins the PP which will influence the speed at which they’ll be able to shot for the first time and I think it’s close to statistical noise.
by BECanucks on Apr 5, 2011 10:49 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Run that with some actual numbers. You’ll find it’s b.s. Teams don’t get anywhere near enough pp shots for that to make sense.
by Hawerchuk on Apr 7, 2011 8:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think you have to blame the NHL rather than the broadcasters.
If you go to nhl.com and click on powerplay teams, this is the ranking you get: http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLAAAAll&sort=powerPlayPercentage&viewName=powerPlay
When the league’s stats site lists power plays in order of power play success rate, I don’t think you can complain about the commentators doing so.
Ron MacLean reads this site. Scott Cullen. Elliotte Friedman. etc
If people in hockey don’t know about score effects, Corsi, transient shooting percentage, then it’s their own fault.
Knowledge and conformity are two different things.
The NHL publicly ranks powerplays by success rate – repeating it, even if you disagree with it, is conforming to accepted norms and not necessarily a demonstration of ignorance.
It’s similar to calling the Stanley Cup winner the best team in hockey. That’s not necessarily an equivalent statement, but it’s the common convention.
Or maybe I just am more accepting of the idea that the “mass” media’s role is to cater to the lowest common denominator.
speaking of Corsi, why is your PP ranking only determined by shots on goal? What about Corsi and/or Fenwick during 5-on-4? Or you have included missed and blocked shots already? Is shooting percentage still random when you include missed and/or blocked shots?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the conclusion of this article dependent on the assumption that every PP shot is a scoring chance? Because they most certainly aren’t.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 10, 2011 6:27 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
