In terms of powerplay TOI, the Stanfield / McNab / Smith troika is essentially a normal 2nd unit with one minute taken away by Bathgate. Were they to play together as an atomic 2nd unit, they would likely be the single worst 2nd powerplay forward unit in the draft. I strongly suspect that your "modulated" powerplay setup is designed to hide this otherwise glaring weakness by mixing the weak players in with the good ones, but that simply serves to bring down the quality of the powerplay as a whole.
That sounds a lot like what you're doing on your own powerplay....
I'm using my best PP players more, and my weaker players less. When I need to load up, I can load up. When I need to spread out the talent, I can do that too.
None of the 3 lesser guys will drag anything down. They all have specific roles that they will do very well. NcNab parks himself in the slot, which he is very good at. Smith and Stanfield work on puck recovery, start the set up, and also get to the net. These guys do the dirty work, which allows the skill guys to focus on the finess part.
The major players are Bathgate, Ullman, and Dunderdale - they provide most of the scoring punch, so they'll get the most ice time.
Also, your lines would seem to have Andy Bathgate playing the whole two minutes at times, which is a bad idea at this level. Or am I misunderstanding you? I don't see how you can avoid playing all six forwards through a full two minutes unless you really mean to leave Bathgate out there for the whole thing sometimes. I mean, if McNab / Ullman / Bathgate come out to start the powerplay, who relieves them? You don't have a Smith / Stanfield / Dunderdale line in your setup. This smells like a shell-game meant to deflect criticism from what is an extremely weak group of second unit powerplay forwards.
When I posted that roster, I said "here is what it would look like if you assume each shift is 1 minute:". In real games, shift lengths vary quite a bit, especially on the PP. Some shifts will be 30 seconds, some a minue, some 90 seconds, and some 2 full minutes.
Ice time will depend entirely on how the PP went. In many cases, some PP guys just float around on the far side of the box for extended periods of time. In those situations, it's not hard for players to take a double shift. Sometimes, the PP players spends his whole shift battling in the corner or in the slot. In those situations, a short shift is a good idea. Whenever Bathgate has an easy first shift, he'll get a second one.
Fred Stanfield has close to zero penalty killing credentials. We don't have the information for the time Stanfield spent shuffling between Chicago and the minor leagues (though I think it's safe to assume he wasn't a big part of the PK), but for the rest of his career we have the information, and he was never a first unit penalty killer. He peaked at 29% PK usage during one season in Buffalo, and was not higher than 18% outside of that year. In five of his NHL seasons, he was at 2% or less PK usage. This is not a player who should be anywhere near an ATD penalty kill, even as an extra skater. He is likely the single worst penalty killer in the draft.
I've said already that my PK forwards are a weakness of my team. I have two excellent ones in Mahovlich and Laprade, but after that it gets pretty thin.
While Stanfield wasn't a top unit PKer during his career, he did kill panalties. He was a consistent player who was very reliable defensively. In Boston, there are two reasons that he wouldn't have spend a lot of time on the PK. First, Sandeson, Westfall, and Marcotte were some of the best PKers in the league, so they would all eat up a big chunk of time. Also, Stanfield played a lot of time on the PP. Not many guys can handle the ice time of playing major roles on both special teams.
We know nothing about Andy Hebenton's penalty-killing. We don't have the data for his career, and you have provided no quotes on the subject. Given how specialized players were in this era, if Hebenton was a regular PKer in New York, the evidence should not be hard to find. Maybe there are quotes out there and you just haven't found them? Until we see something, though, I will have to assume he's no better than a mediocre penalty killer at this level.
Hebenton, like Stanfield, was a consistent and reliable two-way player. He's not here to be a dominant PKer.
Neither Standfield nor Hebenton are there to be elite PKers. They are there to be reliable defensively, and they are there to bring some counter-punch ability.
Just curious.... do you have quotes about Hooley Smith's and Frank Boucher's PK ability? I know there is a lot on their good defensive play, but you seem to think that good defensive play at even strength is not the same as on the PK.
Also, at 4 minutes each, I think you are overplaying Laprade and Mahovlich. Other GMs may disagree, but in my opinion very few forwards should be playing more than half of the PK at this level. An approximately 60% PK usage rate at this level should be reserved for the absolute elite, and is just too much for Laprade and Mahovlich.
It depends on how the game goes. If there are some back-to-back penalties, they will have to play a little less. If the penalties are spread out, they can easily play 60%, and probably more.
We've already been over the issues with Green as a penalty killer
Yes. He was a good defensive player who's skil set transletes very well to the role of a PKer. I'm very happy with him next to Ray Bourque.
I see no reason to believe that Randall would be a good penalty killer, either, or was good defensively, in general. Randall only played the tail end of his career after the NHL adopted the modern penalty system (starting in 1921-22) and it's not clear how much time he even spent on defense during that period.
Ken Randall was a good all-around player. The fact that he played in a certain era should not take away from that.
Just like Stanfield and Hebenton, he's not here to be an elite PKer. He's here to be steady playing beside Hod Stuart.
As it is with your powerplay, you seem to be trying to use misdirection to hide what are in fact very poor lower special teams units.
You can call it misdirection al you want, but it's actually good strategy.
Just like I do with the real teams I coach, I identify my top 2 PK forwards, and then split them up. Keep them separate in order to ensure that one is always on the ice.
Were you to put Stanfield - Hebenton - Green - Randall out as an atomic second penalty killing unit, they would get eaten alive by Gwinnett's second powerplay, so you have chosen to hide the weaker players by mixing them with the better ones.
What do you think would happen if you put out Bob Carpenter, Wilf Paiement, Kimo Timonen, and Mark Tinordi against my best PP unit?
