View Single Post
09-27-2012, 10:46 PM
Registered User
Canadiens1958's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,351
vCash: 500

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
You'll probably be shocked to discover that for four of these five teams, the forwards ranked 1st-4th in PP goals also ranked 1st-4th in PP minutes by forwards on their teams. Philly's the sole exception, whose 1st-4th PP goal-scorers ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th in PP time by forwards.

So what you're saying is: the players who get the most PP time score the most PP goals. I think that's fairly self-evident.

But of course, this has nothing to do with my question. I didn't say "do you have any evidence that there's a dropoff in offence from the first unit to the second". I said "do you have any evidence that the negative effect of 'disrupting your lines' outweighs the positive effect of a longer man-advantage situation, when trailing by a goal?"
Not shocked at all since NHL hockey is a meritocracy. No advantage to having a team's least qualified performers on the ice at the most critical time in unfamiliar circumstances.

Your question has nothing to do with the situation being discussed.
Disrupting lines was a Fred Shero strategy with the pre 1976 Flyers. Other coaches had their own variations going back to the early O6 era. With off setting penalties the opposition had to play makeshift lines against the Flyers who were used to playing without their role players, thus gaining an advantage.

Same basic strategy applies to a 6 on 5 situations. Time-outs in hockey are a recent phenomena. A team pulling their goalie wants their elite offensive top 6 skaters to strike quickly before the defensive team can adjust their 5 skater defensive set(time-out) or replace tired skaters post icing.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote