|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 12:36:27
In last night's game between Calgary and Chicago, Bouwmeester took a penalty with just under two minutes left to play.
Interestingly, Patrick Sharp (who was hauled down) lobbyed for a penalty shot, but why would you want a penalty shot when you're up a goal with less than two minutes to play.
With a penalty shot, you could easily miss scoring, and then the Flames would have an odd-man opportunity to score (by pulling the goalie) and tie the game at 3-3.
Thankfully (for the Hawks), the referee gave Bouwmeester a 2-minute minor penalty, and not surprisingly, the Hawks scored an empty netter, which is not too hard to do when you're playing 5-on-5 (with the Flames net empty).
What was Sharp thinking? Was it just a lapse in common sense? Or was he being selfish on the play?
Sure – it's quite unlikely that his appeal for a penalty shot would go beyond deaf ears, but as a hockey fan (and seeing this play at the same time), my immediate reaction was that you don't want a penalty shot in that situation. (Unless of course, you're not thinking, or perhaps you're only thinking about your own stats?)
|15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 12/14/2010 : 11:50:51
I would agree that I would always lobby for Penalty Shot in every case. Guest makes some great points, but for an offensive team like the Hawks, they need to focus on scoring.
||Posted - 12/08/2010 : 14:53:21
I would want the penalty shot. At a glance taking the powerplay seems like the safe thing to do: You don't need the extra goal to win, and the odds of the other team potting a comeback goal are quite slim when down a man. *BUT* their odds of tying the game at even strength are not *that* good to begin with. The penalty shot gives you something like a 30-40% chance to lock-up the win with the extra goal - I don't have numbers (does anybody? out of curiosity) but two goals in the last two minutes to tie is statistically VERY unlikely - And even if you don't score on the penalty shot, the odds of the other team getting the comeback goal remain slim.
You remember those last second comebacks when they happen (and I'm a Leaf fan, they blow it more often than most!) but they still aren't that common. I can see the other side of the argument, but I'd still say the penalty shot is a free chance to end the game in a flash, and I'd take it every time.
"If at first you don't succeed, you fail"
||Posted - 12/08/2010 : 13:42:59
I still say i'd prefer the PP. With that little time left, i wouldn't be quite as concerned with scoring as i would be hanging onto the lead and killing the clock with the PP. To each their own....
||Posted - 12/08/2010 : 09:37:20
I see your points made, guest, and well argued. But under the exact situation you put forth, I lobby for Patrick Sharp to get his penalty shot. Reasons:
1) Sharp is a sniper who is a good chance to score on the penalty shot, as pointed out, a higher percentage of scoring than the pp.
2) A bird in the hand is better then two in the bush. One penalty shot is way better then a two minute chance at getting any kind of remotely similar chance at scoring on the power play. Especially a power play against a team late in the game which is down a goal . . . they will be taking chances, pressing hard, and your own team will defer to keeping them off the scoresheet, instead of scoring further. The chance of a late power play goal when up by a goal probably decreases the percentage even further!
3) The Hawks are more of an offensive team I would say this year, as opposed to a defensive one. Which means, one should play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. If the Hawks were a great shutdown team like Boston, I would agree with you, but such has not been the case this year at least.
4) Calgary has an anemic offense, and for them to score 5-5 with a pulled goalie is a very slim chance.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
||Posted - 12/07/2010 : 11:05:45
Cool response Beans!
I too grew up during the 80's in Edmonton, so we have that in common. If I agree with you in future postings, do we have to split the "sage and brilliant" moniker? If so, can I take "brilliant?" And you can have "sage!" :)
||Posted - 12/07/2010 : 10:40:04
Only the most sage and brilliant hockey minds can agree with me.
It comes down to the age old defense vs offense school. As a guy who grew up during the 80's in Edmonton, I vote offense almost every time. Although killing the clock on the PP is a reasonably easy thing to do, it is easier to play with a 2 goal lead. Not only does the other team have to score 2 goals now rather than one, but they are also deflated by the goal on the penalty shot.
I would always take the penalty shot over the PP in any situations. Goals kill.
But I do see the point the other way and would not argue too hard about which is right and wrong. It don't think there is a right or wrong in this case.
||Posted - 12/07/2010 : 06:54:25
If I were the coach on the bench in this situation I would not mind a penalty shot with Sharp taking it. If it were a 3rd line guy that really doesn’t have a nice touch around the net I would rather have a PP. The only reason I would take a PP would be I don’t want to give the other team a momentum boost if they’re goalie can make a big save.
If I had Sharp, Toews, Hossa, Kane etc. etc. yah I want the penalty shot especially toews as he is incredible in penalty shoots. You have the opportunity to ice the game right there.
At the end of the day you always have to remember even the best PP don’t have good shifts every time and the worst PK's have good shifts so you could still get scored on.
If it were a situation like Irvine suggested and you got a choice (also a choice on shooter) 90% of the time the coach would take the penalty shot.
As a coach I know I would I got 3 guys on my bench that score 90% of their breakaways why wouldn’t I want to give them a chance to end it?
||Posted - 12/07/2010 : 00:19:38
Originally posted by irvine
Also, as for "Is it okay to agree with Beans on this site?"
Wasn't all that long ago i got accused of not having my own opinion and just agreeing with Beans on everything? Go figure?
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 21:21:42
Also, as for "Is it okay to agree with Beans on this site?"
I suppose you can, but, I don't recommend it. It may make things dull. Haha. Only kidding.
I often find my self agreeing with Beans on certain things my self, so, I can't say much.
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 21:20:13
I'm unsure on the percentages.
But, I will say that the NHL should consider allowing teams to have the option, on certain penalties.
The team, should be able to choose if they want the Penalty Shot or, the two-minute Power Play.
Perhaps, only on penalties that warrant a Penalty Shot to begin with. Such as hooking/tripping on a breakaway.
This would bring a new element to the game, and one that, I believe adds a little more excitement to it.
In this situation, as it were, I would have wanted the 2-minute man advantage over the Penalty Shot.
My reasons, are the same as what you stated Guest.
Being up a goal, with 2 minutes left to play, I want my team having the extra player on the ice. You limit your opponents chances of scoring, and tying the game up right there.
You also know, the goaltender will be pulled eventually. Even with it now 5-on-5, your chances increase with no goaltender in the net.
It's a lot easier keeping a lead with an extra player on the ice, and it's a lot easier gaining a 2-goal lead, with no netminder at the other end.
If you miss on the penalty shot, you have 2-minutes or so of even hockey. Not what you prefer, with the game on the line.
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 21:10:15
Jeez – thanks for the kind words! Funny thing – I gave some further thought to this completely hypothetical situation, and it caused me side with Beans on one point though. (Is it okay to agree with Beans on this forum?)
I agree that a hockey player should want a penalty shot in almost any situation. The NHL's top shooters actually believe they will score when given the opportunity of a breakaway or penalty shot, and Sharp is in this category. So no criticism should be levied at Sharp for wanting a penalty shot in that situation.
By the way, does anyone know what the percentage rates for teams who pull their goalie creating a 6-on-5 situation? Surely, it can't be the same as 5-on-4. (And definitely not the same as 4-on-3.) If I had to guess, I think teams probably score 5-8% of the time when they pull the goalie, and 25-30% of the time, a goal is scored the other way. (Into an empty net.) Does anyone know?
Thanks again for the invite to join as a member (and regular poster) with PUH. I really like this forum – most of the postings and opinions are well-thought and respectful too! My only concern is that I would be more compelled to spend time on this site, distracting from other mundane responsibilities. :)
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 20:05:16
Excellent points made, and excellent job backing up your opinion.
Perhaps, you should create an account and become a member of PUH. We could use some more members who actually take the time to explain their opinions.
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 15:44:12
Guest....i see what you're saying and i agree with you. I think your odds are better having the pp and running the clock at that point with a lead! It's prob an automatic reaction though for a player to appeal for a penalty shot. If given a choice, he'd likely realize it and choose the pp.
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 15:25:46
I was aware about the difference between PP percentages and shoot-out percentages. As a player (or a coach), I would still rather have the 2 minute power play in that situation. (Albeit, you don't really get to choose.)
Chicago didn't need to score. Sure – it would seal the deal, but they needed to make sure Calgary didn't score.
Based on a 65% likelihood that Sharp wouldn't score, that gives Calgary a 65% chance they will have a power play, and even at Calgary's anemic 14.5% power play percentage rate, this means Calgary would have a 1-in-10 chance of scoring in that situation.
In a normal 5-on-5 situation (which it would be with the 2-minute minor, and with Calgary's goalie pulled), the chance of scoring in any given two minutes of a hockey game is considerably less. I would speculate that an average team scores two even strength goals a game, but even if it's three, you're looking at a much safer situation for Chicago to hold onto its lead and win the game. Which is kinda what they did (inadvertently of course, because you don't get to choose your calls) – because it's very hard to score playing 5-on-5 with your goalie pulled, and it's not surprising to see an empty-net goal scored against you in this situation.
Once again, you don't get to choose your calls, but if I had to choose, I would go with the 2-minute powerplay in the very same situation. It was just instinctual when I watched the game (my instincts being different than Sharps), but as I access it statistically, I come up with the same conclusion.
||Posted - 12/06/2010 : 14:55:05
He was doing what Mr Burns would have called "Playing the percentages."
The best PP in the NHL is normally around 20%.
The percentage of players who score on the shoot out is about 35%.
Specifically looking at Chicago, they have a PP% of 24.5% while they have a shoot out % of 45.4%.
Hence, Sharp wanting the penalty shot. I don't think many NHL teams or players would turn down a penalty shot, regardless of how much time is left in the game.