[CP Story] Digging Into the Powerplay

[Bingo]

Digging Into the Powerplay

A step bay step drill down in splits and rates across time, home and away, scoring chances, and missing the net.

Comments always welcome.

[SebC]

The Flames have faced the best grouping of penalty killing units (top 5) in 25.4% of their powerplays, which is high as there are six groups suggesting an estimate would be closer to 17%.

Is this actually unusual, or do teams with better PKs take more penalties? Does it rain on our enemies too?

[vicarious]

I wonder how much difference the loss of Versteeg has made?

[Enoch Root]

Great article. Really liked the bit about passing into the danger zone. That speaks to what some of us have been saying about there being different degrees of high danger.

Then you also said this:

If you do get chances but you don’t score it has to come down to one of two things; a) a lack of finishing players or b) some bad luck.

which I would again argue misses a third option, that maybe your chances just aren't as high quality.

Conversely, we also have this:

They are 1st in crossbars, 5th in goal posts, 4th in shots that miss the net high, and 1st in shots that miss the net wide.

Pretty indisputable that there has also been some bad luck involved. IMO, bad luck is a residual of a lack of confidence. Hopefully, they get a little 'luckier' in the 2nd half.

There would be no way to quantify it I am guessing, but it would be interesting to see numbers on zone entries.

[Bingo]

To me the Flames as a whole are Sam Bennett.

When Bennett was struggling (most of last year, first 15 games this year) he didn't look like the player that we saw in his first season in Calgary. Plays were dying on stick, he wasn't creating and he wasn't dangerous.

But when it got rolling he returned to the guy we saw in year one.

Calgary's metrics overall and on the powerplay suggest to me that success will lead to more success.

The three game win streak is really important, they can't give it back with a two game slide.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by vicarious

I wonder how much difference the loss of Versteeg has made?

When Versteeg was in the lineup the flames were 11th connecting at around 22%. Since his injury on Nov 26th the PP was around 13%. Those 2 PPG against Chicago on NYE sadly inflates that a bit.

No question he was important to the unit.

[Enoch Root]

Ignoring all the stats (good and bad), watching our PP and comparing it to other teams, I don't like what I see and I have 3 major issues with it:

1) they use the same zone entry almost every time. It is mind-numbingly predictable

2) they have very little movement, they just stand around and pass it back and forth until they fumble a pass

3) I am not a fan of the 1-3-1. I find that the middle guy (Monahan, in our case), being in the middle of the box, is almost impossible to pass to. Watching Canada's PP in the WJs was interesting. They also deployed the 1-3-1 with Dube in that spot. It was extremely difficult to get him the puck in that situation as well. Just too heavily covered.

My preferred PP is two bombs from the point, a set-up guy on either side, and a big-body tip-in guy in front. And lots of movement.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Robbob

When Versteeg was in the lineup the flames were 11th connecting at around 22%. Since his injury on Nov 26th the PP was around 13%. Those 2 PPG against Chicago on NYE sadly inflates that a bit.

No question he was important to the unit.

It's not that he was this vital and irreplacable piece, it's that they haven't changed the strategy to fit new personnel.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's not that he was this vital and irreplacable piece, it's that they haven't changed the strategy to fit new personnel.

I think they have tried a lot of different things, problem is nothing is working and they are way too predicable.

[FBI]

Am I the only one that thinks the predictable bump back is actually still really effective? I think that is the least of the problems on the PP.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FBI

Am I the only one that thinks the predictable bump back is actually still really effective? I think that is the least of the problems on the PP.

It is an effective zone-entry strategy.

But it's the NHL, not bantam, you have to mix it up or defenses will eat you raw.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Conversely, we also have this:

Pretty indisputable that there has also been some bad luck involved. IMO, bad luck is a residual of a lack of confidence.

Are missed nets and crossbars bad luck or bad aim?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are missed nets and crossbars bad luck or bad aim?

Fair enough. Nothing pisses me off more than when they are constantly missing the net.

But I would call posts and crossbars bad luck - a half an inch difference and it's a perfect shot for bar and in.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Fair enough. Nothing pisses me off more than when they are constantly missing the net.

But I would call posts and crossbars bad luck - a half an inch difference and it's a perfect shot for bar and in.

I play goal and I call posts and crossbars “nothing to shoot at”. :-)

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are missed nets and crossbars bad luck or bad aim?

Posts and crossbars are bad luck. Missed net is bad aim.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are missed nets and crossbars bad luck or bad aim?

I remember cammalleri saying he tried to aim for “halves of the net”. Top or bottom. Left or right. You don’t have time to be more accurate than that.

[theg69]

Originally Posted by FBI

Am I the only one that thinks the predictable bump back is actually still really effective? I think that is the least of the problems on the PP.

Nope, I actually agree. Zone entry does not seem to be the issue and the bump back actually seems pretty effective at gaining the zone. I think that is mostly related to having Johnny on the team.

However, with how bad the pp has been, I think it is only natural to get a little irritated at something that is a constant throughout all our pps. The bump back just seems to be the scapegoat.

I think it's glaringly obvious that we lack a true top sniper on the team. I agree that bad luck may be part of the problem but maybe our lack of finish has something to do with a lack of finishers? It would be interesting to see if Tre addresses this problem, especially with our lack of assets to trade (without creating another glaring hole).

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ignoring all the stats (good and bad), watching our PP and comparing it to other teams, I don't like what I see and I have 3 major issues with it:

1) they use the same zone entry almost every time. It is mind-numbingly predictable

2) they have very little movement, they just stand around and pass it back and forth until they fumble a pass

3) I am not a fan of the 1-3-1. I find that the middle guy (Monahan, in our case), being in the middle of the box, is almost impossible to pass to. Watching Canada's PP in the WJs was interesting. They also deployed the 1-3-1 with Dube in that spot. It was extremely difficult to get him the puck in that situation as well. Just too heavily covered.

My preferred PP is two bombs from the point, a set-up guy on either side, and a big-body tip-in guy in front. And lots of movement.

I mostly agree with this, but I do think 1-3-1 can be effective some times. I don't understand why they don't switch between the two. They have the personnel to do it, and it would make them so much less predictable.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ignoring all the stats (good and bad), watching our PP and comparing it to other teams, I don't like what I see and I have 3 major issues with it:

1) they use the same zone entry almost every time. It is mind-numbingly predictable

2) they have very little movement, they just stand around and pass it back and forth until they fumble a pass

3) I am not a fan of the 1-3-1. I find that the middle guy (Monahan, in our case), being in the middle of the box, is almost impossible to pass to. Watching Canada's PP in the WJs was interesting. They also deployed the 1-3-1 with Dube in that spot. It was extremely difficult to get him the puck in that situation as well. Just too heavily covered.

My preferred PP is two bombs from the point, a set-up guy on either side, and a big-body tip-in guy in front. And lots of movement.

Is there many NHL PPs anymore that just bomb away from the point? (Nashville will employ this at times for sure) I think those days are long gone, mainly because so many guys block shots now...well everyone does actually. Improved player protection has made everyone warriors in this respect. Though I would love to see them switch it up and try to open up blasts from the point/slot...my guess is it is not effective any longer.

Also in regards to the Flames/TC Jr comparison...that TC PP was one of the most effective ever witnessed. Didnt they go 50% or something for the tourney? The system is fine, its the execution in Cgy that looks to be lacking.

Completing simple passes is a huge ask with this group apparently and that starts with #13. He is abysmal at times and since he has the puck the majority of it...well we are where we are. He isnt the only one mind you as collectively the passing ability of the group is cringe worthy at times.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is there many NHL PPs anymore that just bomb away from the point? (Nashville will employ this at times for sure) I think those days are long gone, mainly because so many guys block shots now...well everyone does actually. Improved player protection has made everyone warriors in this respect. Though I would love to see them switch it up and try to open up blasts from the point/slot...my guess is it is not effective any longer.

Also in regards to the Flames/TC Jr comparison...that TC PP was one of the most effective ever witnessed. Didnt they go 50% or something for the tourney? The system is fine, its the execution in Cgy that looks to be lacking.

Completing simple passes is a huge ask with this group apparently and that starts with #13. He is abysmal at times and since he has the puck the majority of it...well we are where we are. He isnt the only one mind you as collectively the passing ability of the group is cringe worthy at times.

They rang up the goals against the Slovaks and Denmark. But it wasn't very scary against the US and it looked anemic against Sweden.