In case you guys don't know, there's a new rule in the PWHL where if a team that scores a shorthanded goal the PP ends. I did an analysis to see if being more aggressive on the PK as a result of this rule is worth potentially weakening your PK. Please let me know what you all think.
Here's my analysis:
The top row of matrixes are most favorable circumstances for the PWHL rule, I used highest PP%, most shorthanded goals, and fewest PP opportunities. The bottom is average league-wide. The Matrixes are made up of scenarios for two assumptions, one how quickly a shorthanded goal is scored and the other what kind of bump you're expecting in shorthanded goals scored due to additional aggression. How quickly a goal is scored is a simplified assumption it assumes that scoring is evenly distributed throughout the two minutes. So if a team scores scores a shorthanded goal 60 seconds in it assumes that a 20% PP had a 10% chance to score in the final 60 seconds. Therefore it's calculated in the hypothetical Power Play goals saved by this rule. This assumption is favorable to the PWHL rule because we know that it's easier to score in the first 60 seconds than the second 60 seconds because your #1 unit is out there.
The other assumption is the multiple by which you increase shorthanded goals will go up due to the aggression. I personally think that they are pretty optimistic, especially on the higher end of the range.
The left Matrixes are PK% break-even point. So at this amount of seconds and this SHG inflation, if the PK drops by this amount you break-even. This takes into account hypothetical PP goals saved and additional shorthanded goals created due to additional aggression (the SHG inflation). If it drops by less you're adding positive expected value. The lower the stronger the case for this rule. The right Matrixes puts that into perspective, if you add this PK % to the league average PK %, this is where you'd rank. I highlighted the top 10 in green. The higher the rank, obviously the higher the percentage and the more you have cushion in terms of a weakened PK due to your aggressiveness leading to goals against. What my analysis shows is that if you're facing a league best PP and lead the league in shorthanded goals weakening your PK is worth it because you'll be net positive. However, on average unless you expect your shorthanded goals to sky rocket it's not worth it. One thing that I didn't take into account for simplicity sake was PK %, as if you have a great PK it might not make sense to play more risky because you'll likely kill off the penalty anyway.
Edit: I change the name from "PP Time Left" to "Time to Score SHG" because that original classification was the opposite of what I wanted to convey.
@Machinehead , thoughts?
Here's my analysis:
The top row of matrixes are most favorable circumstances for the PWHL rule, I used highest PP%, most shorthanded goals, and fewest PP opportunities. The bottom is average league-wide. The Matrixes are made up of scenarios for two assumptions, one how quickly a shorthanded goal is scored and the other what kind of bump you're expecting in shorthanded goals scored due to additional aggression. How quickly a goal is scored is a simplified assumption it assumes that scoring is evenly distributed throughout the two minutes. So if a team scores scores a shorthanded goal 60 seconds in it assumes that a 20% PP had a 10% chance to score in the final 60 seconds. Therefore it's calculated in the hypothetical Power Play goals saved by this rule. This assumption is favorable to the PWHL rule because we know that it's easier to score in the first 60 seconds than the second 60 seconds because your #1 unit is out there.
The other assumption is the multiple by which you increase shorthanded goals will go up due to the aggression. I personally think that they are pretty optimistic, especially on the higher end of the range.
The left Matrixes are PK% break-even point. So at this amount of seconds and this SHG inflation, if the PK drops by this amount you break-even. This takes into account hypothetical PP goals saved and additional shorthanded goals created due to additional aggression (the SHG inflation). If it drops by less you're adding positive expected value. The lower the stronger the case for this rule. The right Matrixes puts that into perspective, if you add this PK % to the league average PK %, this is where you'd rank. I highlighted the top 10 in green. The higher the rank, obviously the higher the percentage and the more you have cushion in terms of a weakened PK due to your aggressiveness leading to goals against. What my analysis shows is that if you're facing a league best PP and lead the league in shorthanded goals weakening your PK is worth it because you'll be net positive. However, on average unless you expect your shorthanded goals to sky rocket it's not worth it. One thing that I didn't take into account for simplicity sake was PK %, as if you have a great PK it might not make sense to play more risky because you'll likely kill off the penalty anyway.
Edit: I change the name from "PP Time Left" to "Time to Score SHG" because that original classification was the opposite of what I wanted to convey.
@Machinehead , thoughts?
Last edited:
