Better for Playoffs: Elite PP (30%) or Elite PK (90%)

[JaegerDice]

I've long contended that teams are better off having an elite PK in the playoffs than an elite PP. My reasons being:

1) If the mission of any PP is to score a goal and the mission of any PK is to prevent a goal from being scored, an elite PK simply wins the special teams battle more often. While an elite PP can hope to score on only 1 of 3 special teams battles, an elite PK can expect to prevent a goal 9 out of 10 times. Obviously when an elite PK clashes with an elite PP, that 90% rate is going to go down, but it's not going to fall all the way to 60%.

2) An elite PK can essentially delete an oppenent's PP scoring from the equation and force them to beat your team at 5v5. Good teams are generally good 5v5 teams, so assuming your team is a legit contender than this is a great deal for them.

3) An elite PK can give players the freedom to play a little more recklessly, with red-line intensity in every puck battle because they can be confident that even if they are called for a penalty, the team will kill it off.

What do you think?


*I'm only including two options for clarity. Obviously, every team would like to have both, and obviously, most teams would love to have either.

Click to read more...

 

[DJJones]

Either works. Important thing is winning special teams. Both ways are viable.

 

[Regal]

Is the team roughly average on the other side of the coin or are they bad?

If the opposite is bad I would say definitely the PK, and then try to win the ES battle as a bad PK can really put you behind the 8 ball even with a good PP.

If it’s average though, I think I’d take the PP, as I think it’s always easier to shut down than create. If you have a dominant PP then you can try to play more defensive and wait for your opportunities. Especially if you’re not dominant at ES.

And while the point about liberties is a good one, I think the opposite is true as well. If your PP is elite, teams will be scared to take liberties with you and not play on the edge. This can actually be a bigger advantage because it can give you space at ES to make plays and keep your stars from being targeted.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Elite PK allows you take more liberties 5v5

 

[wintersej]

Elite PK allows you take more liberties 5v5

Elite PP prevents the other team from taking liberties.

 

[wintersej]

Over a seven game series it often can become much more of a chess match than when you see a team during the regular season. My gut says that should favor the PK more often than not, but would be curious to see if that is true.

 

[Regal]

Over a seven game series it often can become much more of a chess match than when you see a team during the regular season. My gut says that should favor the PK more often than not, but would be curious to see if that is true.

I’d be curious to see the numbers for whether PP percentage changes over a series and how elite PPs vs elite PKs stack up over time

 

[wintersej]

I’d be curious to see the numbers for whether PP percentage changes over a series and how elite PPs vs elite PKs stack up over time

As with anything in the playoffs, it’s all so matchup dependent…but yeah would be curious to see the averages.

 

[bobholly39]

I voted pp - but honestly I can see the argument for both.

But I'm probably a little scarred as a Habs fan with usually having shitty offense/shitty power play. It seems we've lost so many playoff rounds where the feeling was "man, if only our pp could have been going and gotten a cpl goals, we'd have won".

I guess in the end my rationale is - you absolutely need to score goals to win games. Having a high pp guarantees you're scoring goals, and probably rather often. So at least it gives you a baseline.

With PK - maybe over the long run in a 24 game playoff run having such an effective PK can be a differentiator, but in the short term, to win a 7 game series, I don't see a huge difference between a 90% pk and an 85% pk. That's 1 goals more or less allowed - and maybe it's in a game you were already losing to begin with.

Good poll

 

[tarheelhockey]

Either works. Important thing is winning special teams. Both ways are viable.

This.

There are a lot of ways to finish the game with more goals than your opponent. Special teams is a big part of that, but even then, it can be done multiple ways.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Going with the elite PP. If your team is disciplined, you can avoid penalties. You have control over that and I prefer this.

Conversely, you can murder undisciplined teams.

 

[NyQuil]

I remember when Anaheim played Ottawa in the 2007 SCFs, the Senators had 3 (Three!) 5 on 3s and didn't capitalize.

In a series where 3 of the 4 wins by the Ducks were decided by one goal, that's inexcusable. Ottawa ended up scoring 4 PP goals over the 5 games.

The following year, the Ducks gave up 10 PP goals in 6 games enroute to a 4-2 loss in the opening round.

It's hard to play tough and dirty if the other team makes you pay every time you end up in the box.

 

[Chelios]

PK for me for sure. An unsuccessful PK means you go down a goal (from where you were prior to the penalty). An unsuccessful PP just means you are two minutes later in the game.

 

[banks]

Went with the powerplay. Nothing changes the momentum of a game like a goal.

Teams get hyped up after a good PK sometimes, sure. But just as often the other team gets a boost of momentum even when the PP doesn't convert. So a good PK isn't likely to sway a game's momentum/pace in your favour.

But converting on the PP? That always gets a team going. Your top forwards get some confidence, and the other team gets a bit of a deflating moment.

I'll take the powerplay.

 

[JaegerDice]

I’d be curious to see the numbers for whether PP percentage changes over a series and how elite PPs vs elite PKs stack up over time

I could try scraping a database with the requisite data to pull a query if I have time.

At least for the cap era.

To be clear you're looking for PP% and PK% change from regular season vs playoff matchup against an elite PK or PP?

If so, you'd need to tell me what you want the criteria to be for an elite PP or PK, cause few reach 30% or 90% respectively. I could probably do something like top 5 PK/PP or top 10 PP/PK (regular season) if you like.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Gimme the PP and the fear it instills crossing the line 5v5 as a result.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I've long contended that teams are better off having an elite PK in the playoffs than an elite PP. My reasons being:

1) If the mission of any PP is to score a goal and the mission of any PK is to prevent a goal from being scored, an elite PK simply wins the special teams battle more often. While an elite PP can hope to score on only 1 of 3 special teams battles, an elite PK can expect to prevent a goal 9 out of 10 times. Obviously when an elite PK clashes with an elite PP, that 90% rate is going to go down, but it's not going to fall all the way to 60%.

2) An elite PK can essentially delete an oppenent's PP scoring from the equation and force them to beat your team at 5v5. Good teams are generally good 5v5 teams, so assuming your team is a legit contender than this is a great deal for them.

3) An elite PK can give players the freedom to play a little more recklessly, with red-line intensity in every puck battle because they can be confident that even if they are called for a penalty, the team will kill it off.

What do you think?


*I'm only including two options for clarity. Obviously, every team would like to have both, and obviously, most teams would love to have either.

#1 is funny since the worst PK in the league will be a higher percentage than the best PP in the league.

 

[Nico Hischier]

I’m too lazy to look it up right now but I remember when Boston won the cup over Vancouver they had a terrible pp, might have never even scored ppg. But they had a great pk

 

[wetcoast]

I’m too lazy to look it up right now but I remember when Boston won the cup over Vancouver they had a terrible pp, might have never even scored ppg. But they had a great pk

Boston actually scored 5 PPG that series and the Canucks scored only 2.

I'm a Canucks fan and they had the best PP in the league during the regular season and 3rd best PK.

 

[cupface52]

A great PP can win a game. A great PK can not.

 

[HolyHagelin]

I was actually having this discussion IRL yesterday about when you posted this.

PK for sure. More penalties get called in the playoffs, but PPs get cold. Solid PKs do not typically “dry up” or “get goalied.”

Also, think back to when chi/la split 5 straight cups. I remember both of those teams having absurd PKs.

Now think about which champs had absurd PPs. I can’t recall PP being a “carrying strength” for a team that won it, but i can remember PK teams.

 

[Buck Naked]

Now think about which champs had absurd PPs. I can’t recall PP being a “carrying strength” for a team that won it, but i can remember PK teams.

Colorado had an elite PP (+30%) and an average PK (80ish).

 

[HolyHagelin]

Colorado had an elite PP (+30%) and an average PK (80ish).

Colorado had a 24% PP that is a far cry from 30+.

They are a weird team in a lot of ways too, 7 20 goal scorers but no 40 goal scorers for example.

They were +33 5v5, while giving up more hdc than they created, and they got 41 more PPO than the opponents (17.3% more).

 

[ijuka]

If the mission of any PP is to score a goal and the mission of any PK is to prevent a goal from being scored, an elite PK simply wins the special teams battle more often. While an elite PP can hope to score on only 1 of 3 special teams battles, an elite PK can expect to prevent a goal 9 out of 10 times.

Okay.

So, let's say 20% is average. Elite PP scores 30% of the time, and elite PK allows a goal 10% of the time.

So let's say there are 30 PPs in a series. Average result: 6 goals scored. vs elite PK: 3 goals scored. With elite PP: 9 goals scored. The goal swing is 3 goals in both cases.

I feel like you're presenting the information a bit strangely.

Of course, you could argue that in a low-scoring game, 1 goal is more valuable than in a high-scoring game, which would give a stronger PK more value.

Then again, your numbers are not fairly weighed. A 90% PK is a much bigger deal than a 30% PP. Only one team was over 85%.

 

[HolyHagelin]

3 in round 1 (nashville) 24.4%pp 79% pk
4 in round 2 (st lou) 27% pp 84% pk
2 in round 3 (edmonton) 26% pp 79% pk
2 in round 4 (tbl) very similar reg season #s

The avs scored 20 pp goals in the playoffs that year and allowed 11, as seen above. I looked at each team’s reg season #s as well. Not formatted all nice like hockey outsider because i am on my ohone in bed.