|
On Friday, in an entertaining and tightly contested match, the Blue Jackets emerged victorious over the Blackhawks 5-3, capped off by Rick Nash wristing home an empty netter as Chicago’s late rally came up tantalizingly short.
A few minutes earlier, the result was very much in doubt. Columbus enjoyed a moderately comfortable 4-2 lead against their Central Division rival with eight minutes to go, but when Andrew Ladd drew a Hooking minor on Mike Commodore, the Blue Jackets’ hold on the game instantly became tenuous. Sure enough, on the ensuing power play with the help of Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane emerged from a scrum on the corner boards to lift a backhander past goalie Wade Dubielewicz, making it a one goal contest heading into the game's waning minutes.
That series of events occurred at a key juncture in the game and could have changed its outcome. Therefore, it’s worth asking: Who should get the most credit for the critical power play goal? While the immediate response would likely be Kane or a combination of Kane and Toews, let’s not forget the importance of Ladd drawing the penalty to significantly change the odds in Chicago’s favor for the duration of the power play. Our objective today is to quantify this contribution and to look at the best and worst players in the NHL when it comes to creating the man advantage.
This season, Chicago is converting 21.5% of their power plays, good for 6th in the National Hockey League, with only 5 Short Handed Goals Against (SHGA). In 5 on 5 situations, Chicago has outscored their opposition 132 Goals For (GF) to 103 Goals Against (GA), or by 2.7 Goals For per 60 minutes (GF/60) to 2.1 Goals For per 60 minutes (GA/60). In 60 minutes of game time with the teams at full strength, the Blackhawks have outscored average opposition by +0.6 Goals. In comparison, during 5 on 4 power plays, Chicago has outscored their opposition 55 GF to 4 GA, or by 7.7 GF/60 to 0.6 GA/60. In 60 minutes of 5 on 4 play, the Blackhawks have outscored average opposition by +7.1 Goals. Therefore, against an average team, the value of going from even strength to 5 against 4 for the Blackhawks is +6.5 Goals per 60 minutes, equivalent to +0.22 Goals over the two minute span of a minor penalty.
More generally, the value of drawing a penalty will vary depending on the relative strengths of teams involved and of the relative strengths of their even strength and specialty units. A good rule of thumb is that the value of drawing a penalty is worth about 1/5th of a Goal. You pretty much knew that already, as an average power play conversion rate is around 20%.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the power play -goal or no goal- the value of drawing the penalty remains 1/5th of a Goal. In our sample game, Mike Commodore took a Holding minor in the first period in addition to the aforementioned Hooking minor in the third period. As a goal could have just as easily resulted from the first minor, the negative contribution of Commodore to the Blue Jackets was the same for both penalties.
Capitalizing on the increased scoring potential is up to the power play unit. The expectation is no longer for the advantaged team to play the opposition to a net +0 Goal Differential like they would at even strength. Not only is the power play expected to score roughly 0.2 Goals more than their opposition over the next two minutes, but any goal scored on the power play will have been that much easier to score than an Even Strength Goal (ESG). Therefore, the contribution of players scoring a Power Play Goal (PPG) should be reduced by this threshold. The concept is akin to Baseball Prospectus’ replacement level stats in the sense that there is an established non-zero minimum for performance to be measured against.
To complete the picture for our example, let’s look at the other side of the ledger. This season, Columbus is killing penalties at an 81.4% clip, good for a middle of the pack 15th in the NHL, with 7 Short Handed Goals (SHG) scored. In 5 on 5 situations, the Blue Jackets have outscored their opposition 136 GF to 117 GA, or by 2.6 GF/60 to 2.2 GA/60. In 60 minutes of game time with the teams at full strength, the Blue Jackets have outscored average opposition by +0.4 Goals. In comparison, in 4 on 5 penalty killing situations, Columbus has been outscored by their opposition 7 GF to 47 GA, or by 0.9 GF/60 to 6.4 GA/60. In 60 minutes of an average opponent’s 5 on 4 power play, the Blue Jackets were outscored by 5.5 Goals. Averaging the +6.5 GF for Chicago and the +5.5 GA for Columbus gives an expected +6.0 Goals for Chicago over 60 minutes of man advantage against Columbus. That is equivalent to +0.2 Goals per 2 minutes of 5 on 4 power play, coincidentally the fifth of a Goal that we have been looking at as a rule of thumb.
Now let’s see how we could modify Plus/Minus to account for power play and penalty killing contributions. In the case of a Chicago 5 on 4 power play against Columbus, the power play unit would be expected to score 0.2 Goals more than the opposition per power play opportunity. If the unit did not deliver, they would have -0.2 Goals deducted from their modified Plus/Minus rating. If the Blackhawks did score, their skaters on ice at the time would earn the +1 for an ESG. This is less than the expected threshold of +0.2 or a reduced +0.8 each. The reverse would be true for the penalty killers, but with the responsibility for a Power Play Goal Against (PPGA) divided between 4 skaters instead of 5; the result would be -0.8 x 5/4, or -1 each if a PPGA was scored; if a PPGA was not scored, the result would be +0.2 x 5/4, or +0.25 each. Over the course of playing on 5 power plays, if 1 PPG was scored with no SHGA, each skater on the power play would receive +0.8-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.2 = +0 modified Plus/Minus rating for delivering performance exactly at the expected level. Similarly, each penalty killer would receive -1+0.25+0.25+0.25+0.25 = +0 modified Plus/Minus rating for delivering performance exactly at the expected level.
Who should get the most credit for the PPG in our example?
Player Contribution GF Modified plus/minus
Andrew Ladd Drew penalty 0.20 1.0
Patrick Kane On ice for PPG (scored) 0.16 0.8
Jonathan Toews On ice for PPG (assisted) 0.16 0.8
Cam Barker On ice for PPG (assisted) 0.16 0.8
Troy Brouwer On ice for PPG 0.16 0.8
Brian Campbell On ice for PPG 0.16 0.8
Mike Commodore Took penalty -0.20 -1.0
Jan Hejda On ice for PPGA -0.20 -1.0
R.J. Umberger On ice for PPGA -0.20 -1.0
Aaron Rome On ice for PPGA -0.20 -1.0
Antoine Vermette On ice for PPGA -0.20 -1.0
Total 0 0
Paradoxically, Ladd gets marginally more credit for the PPG than his teammates that were on the ice for the goal, while Commodore gets equal blame for the PPGA as his penalty killing teammates did. But over the course of several power plays, modified Plus/Minus would even out.
To get some perspective on what good and bad performances are as far as drawing and taking penalties, let’s take a look at what players have been the best in Net Penalties (Penalties Drawn less Penalties Taken) for this season:
Player Team Pos Taken Drawn Net PTAKE/60 PDRAW/60 Net/60
Dustin Brown LAK RW 10 52 +42 0.7 3.6 +2.9
Jarome Iginla CGY RW 6 29 +23 0.3 1.7 +1.4
Patrick O’Sullivan EDM* RW 5 28 +23 0.3 1.9 +1.6
Erik Cole CAR* RW 14 36 +22 1.0 2.5 +1.5
Cal Clutterbuck MIN RW 10 30 +20 0.9 2.6 +1.7
Mike Ribeiro DAL C 13 32 +19 0.8 1.9 +1.1
Maxim Lapierre MTL C 9 28 +19 0.7 2.2 +1.5
Henrik Zetterberg DET LW 6 25 +19 0.4 1.7 +1.3
Devin Setoguchi SJS RW 5 24 +19 0.4 1.7 +1.3
*Player was traded during the season. Current team is shown.
-Whatever it is that Dustin Brown does, he’s damn good at it. The Kings’ captain is doubling up second place Jarome Iginla in Net Penalties, which is the kind of statistical dominance you don't often see in sports, even when it comes to esoteric statistics. Many of you know that Brown was the leader in Net Penalties last year as well, so this is no fluke.
-Often, the NHL's top scorers will be high on the list of Net Penalties, forcing the opposition to haul them down frequently instead of allowing scoring opportunities. Jarome Iginla is the only perennial blue chip scorer on this list, with Evgeni Malkin (+18) falling just outside the list. Sidney Crosby (+7) and Alex Ovechkin (+1) are far behind on this count.
-Edmonton and Carolina saw enough value in Patrick O’Sullivan and Erik Cole to trade for each player respectively, perhaps with Net Penalties in mind. In contrast, the Kings may not have had Net Penalties in mind when giving up O'Sullivan. Hopefully, they will not regret the exchange for Justin Williams. O’Sullivan’s scoring stats may have been disappointing this season, but Los Angeles will have to live with losing a great complementary penalty drawer to Dustin Brown.
Player Team Pos Taken Drawn Net PTAKE/60 PDRAW/60 Net/60
Mike Commodore CBJ D 25 5 -20 1.3 0.3 -1.0
Chris Pronger ANA D 22 2 -20 1.1 0.1 -1.0
Jay Bouwmeester FLA D 28 7 -21 1.4 0.3 -1.1
Milan Jurcina WSH D 25 4 -21 1.5 0.2 -1.3
Rob Blake SJS D 26 4 -22 1.7 0.3 -1.4
Lukas Krajicek TBL D 22 0 -22 1.5 0.0 -1.5
Mattias Ohlund VAN D 29 6 -23 1.7 0.3 -1.4
Mathieu Schneider MTL* D 26 2 -24 1.8 0.1 -1.7
Shane O’Brien VAN D 31 6 -25 2.2 0.4 -1.8
*Player was traded during the season. Current team is shown.
What is immediately obvious is that all of the worst players in Net Penalties are Defensemen. Defensemen are put in positions to take penalties significantly more than forwards, since their job is to hinder the opposition in whatever ways they can from scoring after all. Likewise, they are rarely leading the attack in a position where the opposition feels the need to pull them down to prevent a goal scoring opportunity.
-Some well known blueliners are on this list of infamy. As a consequence, the perceived contributions of the likes of Chris Pronger, Jay Bouwmeester and Rob Blake may need to be downgraded a notch.
-Mathieu Schneider is the salutatorian of this list through his time with the defensively challenged Thrashers. He can get a mulligan for the season.
-Two Vancouver defensemen, Mattias Ohlund and Shane O’Brien, round out the bottom three, which reflects a potentially fatal flaw with the Canucks.
Is it fair to equate Defensemen to Forwards regarding Net Penalties? Probably not, but we’ll need to take a look at the answer to that question another time.
To finish up, let’s return to the protagonist-antagonist pair from our opening example:
Player Team Pos Taken Drawn Net PTAKE/60 PDRAW/60 Net/60
Andrew Ladd CHI LW 10 16 +6 0.7 1.1 +0.4
M. Commodore CBJ D 25 5 -20 1.3 0.3 -1.0
We can conclude that Andrew Ladd is a complementary player on a good team, drawing a few more penalties than he takes to go along with decent scoring stats.
On the other hand, Mike Commodore is among the worst in the NHL in Net Penalties this year. In Friday’s Central Division clash, the Blue Jackets' Defenseman was lucky that his two minors did not tip the balance of the game. Odds are, that at some point during the course of the season, Mike Commodore may have cost his team a game or two in this fashion.
Timo Seppa is an author of Hockey Prospectus.
You can contact Timo by clicking here or click here to see Timo's other articles.
| 
0 comments have been left for this article. 
Conn Smythe Watch: Lundqvist Leads