The struggle to properly value players Special teams impacts

[dgibb10]

The impact of how good you are on special teams is massive to winning. But it is often very hard to quantify.

Power Play is easier. Points. Simple. But are guys on bad PPs, or guys who are bad on the PP, more valuable than guys who don't play power play at all?

Very often the impact of a bad power play guy is overvalued. It inflates point totals but provides no real value to winning hockey.
On the other hand, the impact of a truly elite power play weapon is frankly underrated, with people not assigning enough credit to those difference makers.

The PK is even worse to quantify. Arguably just as important as the power play, frankly there is no effort at all for the most part to evaluate how good of a penalty killer a player is.

They simply get credit for being on a teams penalty kill. It's a bonus.

*Insert player here* kills penalties. Whether he's the key cog on the number 1 ranked power play or he's out there leading a 70% dogshit powerplay that's losing his team games. All viewed the same.

Is a player going out there and providing below bad PK time valuable at all? Most teams have 8-9 forwards who can do that.
On the contrary, there are some truly elite PK guys out there. A guy spearheading an elite PK barely gets more credit, despite arguably being of similar importance to a guy leading a top PP

Are there any better ways to view these impacts? Accurately judge these players?

Click to read more...

 

[dgibb10]

And how much of the PP/PK is system based? how much credit should be given to Coaches vs Players?

I know the slingshot system on the PP generally requires an elite skater/entry guy such as McDavid or Jack Hughes to truly thrive, and falters without that element.

 

[majormajor]

One simple thing you can do with the PP is compare PP points between guys on the same PP unit. On a good PP the fourth or fifth best guy on the unit will still have a lot of PP points, even though it's much less than the primary players on the unit. That gap between players is a clue about who might be driving the bus on the unit.

 

[SenzZen]

Sorry about your Fantasy League season, OP.

I agree, it looked promising early on.

 

[dgibb10]

So about your Fantasy League season, OP.

I agree, it looked promising early on.

????

 

[Miro4Norris]

One simple thing you can do with the PP is compare PP points between guys on the same PP unit. On a good PP the fourth or fifth best guy on the unit will still have a lot of PP points, even though it's much less than the primary players on the unit. That gap between players is a clue about who might be driving the bus on the unit.

Nope. Players have different roles on pp. For example, elite mask player doesn't get as many points as playmakers. See what happened to Penguins powerplay when Hornqvist left

 

[dgibb10]

One simple thing you can do with the PP is compare PP points between guys on the same PP unit. On a good PP the fourth or fifth best guy on the unit will still have a lot of PP points, even though it's much less than the primary players on the unit. That gap between players is a clue about who might be driving the bus on the unit.

I tend to do that. But sometimes a PP may run through a guy (the QB) allowing him to rack up the most points even if he may not be good at his role.

It's generally pretty easy to see who a power play runs through, but tougher to see who is actually driving results.

Looking at NJD. Luke hughes is the PP QB, so gets a large portion of the points, but I wouldn't say he's a driving factor behind the success, anymore than Nico Hischier or Timo Meier, even though he'll generate most of the points.

Sometimes it's easy to just tell. In NJD, Jack Hughes is the blatant Engine of the PPs success. Dougie Hamilton's impact was clear. Tougher to see in some places

 

[majormajor]

Nope. Players have different roles on pp. For example, elite mask player doesn't get as many points as playmakers. See what happened to Penguins powerplay when Hornqvist left

That's why I called it a clue and not proof.