The Magic Power Play

Jonathan Willis
March 21 2012 09:41AM

When it comes to scoring on the power play, two teams in the NHL are doing it like no others. Those two teams met last night in Nashville – both the Predators and the Oilers make the most of the shots they take on the power play, with Nashville scoring on 16.4% of its power play shots, and the Oilers scoring on 16.2% of theirs. No other team in the league is over 15%. With such lethal shooting, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the Predators ranks first in the NHL with 21.6% power play efficiency, or that the Oilers are third overall at 21.4%.

Is shooting percentage a reliable foundation for a successful power play? Can teams, through strategic choices and superior talent, consistently take higher percentage shots? The answer to that question is important, since it will tell us whether Nashville and Edmonton should be able to sustain their excellent power plays, or if instead they’ll come crashing down.

Before I answer, I should point out that all of the above data is from 5-on-4 situations (in other words, what we’re seeing isn’t a result of a given team getting more 5-on-3 opportunities) and comes from behindthenet.ca.

Now, to answer the above question, I looked at all the teams over the last three seasons to have a shooting percentage of 15.0% or higher in 5-on-4 situations. There were six clubs in total – roughly two clubs per year manage the feat. Then I looked at how they managed the year after. Here’s what I found:

Team Season Season+1 Difference
2008-09 Philadelphia 18.1 13.4 -25.97%
2010-11 Vancouver 16.6 12.8 -22.89%
2008-09 Washington 16.5 16.2 -1.82%
2010-11 Chicago 16.4 10.7 -34.76%
2009-10 Washington 16.2 9.5 -41.36%
2008-09 San Jose 15.0 13.1 -12.67%
Average 16.5 12.6 -23.38%

The league-average shooting percentage on the power play over the last three seasons is 12.3%. In other words, these teams on average went from being the most successful shooters in the league one year to being perfectly middle of the pack the year after. The lone exception – the 2008-09 to 2009-10 Washington Capitals – had two good seasons by this count and then finished 27th in the NHL.

In other words, it’s quite difficult to attribute these awesome shooting percentages to skill and tactics, since they don’t seem to be sustainable. Some years, pucks go in on the power play. Some years, they don’t.

The Oilers have made progress in other areas – they’re 23rd overall in terms of shots/60 in 5-on-4 situations after three consecutive seasons of being dead-last in the NHL, and that does represent (modest) improvement. But if I had to bet, I’d bet against them being nearly this efficient on the power play next season.

Recently At Oilers Nation

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is Managing Editor of the Nation Network. He also currently writes for the Edmonton Journal's Cult of Hockey, Grantland, and Hockey Prospectus. His work has appeared at theScore, ESPN and Puck Daddy. He was previously founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue. Contact him at jonathan (dot) willis (at) live (dot) ca.
Avatar
#2 rickfoon
March 21 2012, 10:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Thanks Buzz Killington

Avatar
#3 The Beaker
March 21 2012, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Greetings from work. I'd be happy if Edmonton could stay in the top 10-15, hopefully get to around 15th on PK but ideally see big improvements 5x5.

Maybe that is where size comes in?

Avatar
#5 The Farmer
March 21 2012, 10:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I would agree that first overall could be a bit of an anomaly, but we do have quite possibly the best power play quarterback in the league now setting up some gimme goals. Funny how before RNH was drafted the knock on him was " he's only good on the power play" Now that he's good on the power play everyone wants to just write the PP off as a fluke. I say let him be good on the power play. It's fun to watch.

Avatar
#7 OILERSORDEATH
March 21 2012, 10:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

" But if I had to bet, I’d bet against them being nearly this efficient on the power play next season "

why?? With the kids getting stronger, faster and better and with the chance of landing that #1 d-man in the off season? Starting with the negative all ready uh? to bad

Avatar
#9 Zed
March 21 2012, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jonathan Willis

+1 props.

This is why I read your articles. If I feel like squeeeing I pull up a Wanye article.

I don't think you are capable of being subjective

Avatar
#10 Oilfan69
March 21 2012, 12:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

speaking of wayne and his articles he hasn't posted a new one since last friday's Epic game day post.

Avatar
#11 Eddie Shore
March 21 2012, 01:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Jonathan

What type of personnel turnover did those teams you listed have? Could that be a reason for the drop-off?

Avatar
#12 Dan the Man
March 21 2012, 01:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Eddie Shore

I was just thinking the same thing, personnel will effect your PP a great deal. The other thing that occurred to me was coaching but off the top of my head I don't think any of those team changed coaches in the years listed.

Avatar
#13 Dan the Man
March 21 2012, 01:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Mike Green of the Caps missed 33 games in 2010-11 so that would have a negative impact on their PP for sure. Probably not enough to account for a 41% drop but it would hurt them for sure.

Avatar
#14 Rickfoon
March 21 2012, 02:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jonathan Willis

I hear that. I do really enjoy the view points brought forward by you and your colleagues as well as your work over at coh keep up the good work!

Avatar
#15 blakthecaveman
March 21 2012, 03:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

OOOHHHH NOOOOO blak missed fist again!

Avatar
#16 Wäx Män Riley
March 21 2012, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
blakthecaveman wrote:

OOOHHHH NOOOOO blak missed fist again!

hi blak

Avatar
#17 GLoKz0r
March 21 2012, 10:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Jonathan Willis

Sigh, you know what Willis? I hate you. I hate you because you're usually right. I'm not trying to pump your tires, I honestly always walk away from your posts thinking you're a huge bummer. That said, I've learned to stop doubting you, even if you do always kill my buzz.

This is why math sucks; it crushes dreams. Not to say I was the wide eyed idealist expecting this to carry on with the same fervor, but I had (apparently misguided) hopes that the inevitable decline wouldn't be so severe.

Keep at it.*

*die

Comments are closed for this article.