HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

How tiring was/is it to play ES, PP, PK?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2011, 07:55 AM
  #1
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
How tiring was/is it to play ES, PP, PK?

How tiring was/is it generally to play in different situations (PP, ES, SH), for defencemen and forwards?

We all know that Total TOI = PPTOI + ESTOI + SHTOI.
But how does the distribution of ice time in different situations (PP, ES, SH) affect the overall ice time? Are some situations more tiring than other? Does for example playing 2 extra mins of PK make the player so tired he has to play 3 minutes less at ES/PP to make up for it? Or will it just be playing, resting, playing, resting, and so on... where it doesn't really matter if the player played PK, ES or PP?

(Can one generally expect that a player who can play say 4+16+0 (PP+ES+SH) minutes, also could have played 0+16+4 minutes, or perhaps 1+18+1 minutes? Is tiredness a factor that should be considered?)

I'm mostly interested in the last decades, and not as much regarding pre WW2.

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:13 AM
  #2
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,249
vCash: 500
I'm not sure the answer to your question (to me it all seems equally tiring) but one might also consider the nuances of when the shifts are being taken. For example, a PK shift early in the period might be more likely to subtract ES/PP time than a PK shift to end the period.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:42 AM
  #3
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Tiring

PK is more tiring than ES and ES is more tiring than PP.

Playing a man or two short is more tiring because the workload is distributed over fewer players with greater responsibility in the defensive zone. The opposite is true for the power play.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:08 AM
  #4
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,112
vCash: 500
I wouldnt say 5-3 penalty kill is much more tiring than... well... even strength.
To play ES means you are flying into the offensive zone corner with your wing carrying puck and then you try fight for it in the corner. You lose your fight and you have to skate quickly to your defensive zone to cover your opponent.
5-3 PK? You stand in front of the crease and brandish with your stick here and there, if you are lucky you got the puck, shoot it far away and skate to the bench.

Now we can talk more about tiring your mental strenght on PK.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:13 AM
  #5
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
PK is more tiring than ES and ES is more tiring than PP.

Playing a man or two short is more tiring because the workload is distributed over fewer players with greater responsibility in the defensive zone. The opposite is true for the power play.
As a hockey player, I agree 100%. I would personally say that it doesn't get any "easier" than playing the point on the PP. I think playing forward on the PK is probably the hardest, too.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:35 AM
  #6
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
PK is more tiring than ES and ES is more tiring than PP.

Playing a man or two short is more tiring because the workload is distributed over fewer players with greater responsibility in the defensive zone. The opposite is true for the power play.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
As a hockey player, I agree 100%. I would personally say that it doesn't get any "easier" than playing the point on the PP. I think playing forward on the PK is probably the hardest, too.
And that.

Prime example is Lidstrom today at the age of 40 still excelling with less tiring roles. He plays defense on the penalty kill, the point on the powerplay, and a lot less even strength time compared to previous years.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:00 AM
  #7
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Thanks for the replies so far!

If you would attempt to quantify your thoughts, what would that result in?

I am thinking of a way of combining ES, PP and SH contributions into one stat. I have a plan for how to do it. I think/hope one can determine how much more difficult it is to outscore opponents in different situations, etc. But even if I would succeed with that, I came to think about the effect of tiring. It would have been nice if PP, ES and SH was about as tiring. If they're not, I suspect it might bias things. Ideally, I would like players' total ice times during games to not be biased.

Let's say SH is most tiring, while PP is least tiring. Do you think it will affect the total ice times? Or do players generally just rest for a shift or two and then become relatively restored?

Example... Player A played 20 minutes, distributed 0+16+4 (PP+ES+SH). Can one generally expect that the 4 minutes of SH had a negative (or for that matter positive) effect on his total ice time? (Would he have played say 4+18+0 if he had been used on the PP instead?)

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:38 AM
  #8
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Too Many Variables

Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
Thanks for the replies so far!

If you would attempt to quantify your thoughts, what would that result in?

I am thinking of a way of combining ES, PP and SH contributions into one stat. I have a plan for how to do it. I think/hope one can determine how much more difficult it is to outscore opponents in different situations, etc. But even if I would succeed with that, I came to think about the effect of tiring. It would have been nice if PP, ES and SH was about as tiring. If they're not, I suspect it might bias things. Ideally, I would like players' total ice times during games to not be biased.

Let's say SH is most tiring, while PP is least tiring. Do you think it will affect the total ice times? Or do players generally just rest for a shift or two and then become relatively restored?

Example... Player A played 20 minutes, distributed 0+16+4 (PP+ES+SH). Can one generally expect that the 4 minutes of SH had a negative (or for that matter positive) effect on his total ice time? (Would he have played say 4+18+0 if he had been used on the PP instead?)
Too many variables.

Some players never play SH, some never play PK. Then you have the question of shift length that comprise the total minutes. Finally you have the resulting line management and match-ups that are the result of a successful PK or PP or unsuccessful PK or PP.

Then you have the question of the actual game/schedule, how many penalties, their distribution during the game, is the team rested or playing their third game in four nights.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:40 AM
  #9
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
PK is more tiring than ES and ES is more tiring than PP.

Playing a man or two short is more tiring because the workload is distributed over fewer players with greater responsibility in the defensive zone. The opposite is true for the power play.
This is very true - especially for defensemen. The least tiring position on ice (other than goalie) is point man on the powerplay, where you are basically stationary when your team has the puck in the zone.

To add to your point - not all even strength shifts are the same either. A defenseman tasked with shutting down an opponent's top lines is playing more tiring shifts than a defenseman playing weaker competition.

This is why good offensive defenseman always have more overall TOI than good defensive defensemen.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:47 AM
  #10
redbull
springtime hockey!
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
Thanks for the replies so far!

If you would attempt to quantify your thoughts, what would that result in?

I am thinking of a way of combining ES, PP and SH contributions into one stat. I have a plan for how to do it. I think/hope one can determine how much more difficult it is to outscore opponents in different situations, etc. But even if I would succeed with that, I came to think about the effect of tiring. It would have been nice if PP, ES and SH was about as tiring. If they're not, I suspect it might bias things. Ideally, I would like players' total ice times during games to not be biased.

Let's say SH is most tiring, while PP is least tiring. Do you think it will affect the total ice times? Or do players generally just rest for a shift or two and then become relatively restored?

Example... Player A played 20 minutes, distributed 0+16+4 (PP+ES+SH). Can one generally expect that the 4 minutes of SH had a negative (or for that matter positive) effect on his total ice time? (Would he have played say 4+18+0 if he had been used on the PP instead?)
Nice attempt plusandminus - but it might be a bit futile, too general, wouldn't address all the situational play that is the biggest influencer of the TOI, the goals for each player during that time, etc.

First, I completely agree with C1958: PK > ES > PP in terms of difficulty. On the PK, the amount of start-stop, physical play in front, fwds dropping to block shots, fighting for pucks along the boards in grueling. But not all players kill penalties that way. I watched Nielsen-Grabner on the NYI and they are thinking open ice = goals while killing penalties. Not all minutes are equal and not all players play them the same way.

Ryan Smith in front on the PP, battling down low, cycling - much tougher minutes than Lidstrom on the point.

Ovechkin can play the full 2min of the PP and still be somewhat effective. Mario easily could play the full PP because he moved in slow motion as much as he wanted to but was always dangerous.

I understand you probably will have a generic approach and over enough data, the outliers might become less relevant but I believe it's significant.

Another point is the context of the game.

Playing ES when you're up two goals is FAR EASIER than when you're down two goals.

Top offensive forwards on bad teams always have really poor +/- (Kovalchuk, Tavares, last year) They're typically tasked with scoring goals on teams that seem to trail most of the game. They also play against EITHER the best checkers or the opponents top line (typically harder to play against)

A 4th line player, playing against another team's 4th line - they're just there to kill time and allow the better players to rest. Lot of neutral play, uneventful forechecking, etc.

For me, the BIGGEST piece missing from stats, adjusted or not, is the contextual play that drives the game. Coaches coach to win games, not just to outscore a team in every minute of play.

Watching the trap-version of the NJD play you can see a guy like Elias (a gifted offensive player) simply dump the puck in and not forecheck hard because all he had to do was help protect the lead. As long as Marty was in net, Stevens/Niedermayer/Daneyko and friends on defense and every player clogging up the middle, hooking/holding players on the rush - the game was easily in hand.

Those became easier minutes for a NJD player and incredibly difficult minutes for the opponents.

Love the direction you're going with this and certainly the numbers will be interesting. But I think you lose a lot of the insights without the proper assumptions and context.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:51 AM
  #11
ponder
Registered User
 
ponder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,064
vCash: 500
As a guy who plays a fair bit of hockey I disagree pretty strongly with the PK being more tiring than ES. ES hockey involves a tonne of full speed sprints up and down the ice, which is easily the most tiring thing you can do in hockey. Nothing is more tiring as a forward than a game with lots of turnovers/quick transitions up and down the ice. On the PK you have to be aggressive more in bursts, and only skate full out for small moments, a lot of penalty killing is more about positioning and stick work which is less tiring.

For a forward I'd say ES is the most tiring, followed by PKing, followed by playing the PP. Not sure about defense, as I'm purely a forward, but I'd guess it'd be similar.

ponder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 12:08 PM
  #12
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,035
vCash: 500
Puck Moving Defencemen

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is very true - especially for defensemen. The least tiring position on ice (other than goalie) is point man on the powerplay, where you are basically stationary when your team has the puck in the zone.

To add to your point - not all even strength shifts are the same either. A defenseman tasked with shutting down an opponent's top lines is playing more tiring shifts than a defenseman playing weaker competition.

This is why good offensive defenseman always have more overall TOI than good defensive defensemen.
The offensive/defensive diachotomy does not adequately describe the situation.

The good puck moving defenceman, good "first pass" out of the defensive zone gets more ice time. Some of the offensive defencemen, especially the young ones are not strong at getting the puck out of the defensive zone, likewise some of the Hal Gill types are weak at moving the puck and have to be supported in this regard with a puck moving defenceman or a forward who can do the job in the defensive zone.

Also such defencemen are a liability in the offensive zone since they may mishandle the puck and some of the forwards assigned to them will cheat to help defend others. Effectively a team would be playing app 4 1/2 vs 5 in the offensive zone. So when the puck is moving on ice they are replaced.

Which brings us to the main point about ES time. Should be fine tuned to describe time in each zone - offensive, neutral and defensive with defensive being the most tiring.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 01:49 PM
  #13
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
For me, the BIGGEST piece missing from stats, adjusted or not, is the contextual play that drives the game. Coaches coach to win games, not just to outscore a team in every minute of play.
This is where I would be most concerned about attempting to objectify ice time. Ultimately, it's up to the coach how ice time is distributed. And coaches vary wildly in their philosophies.

As a current example close to home, Paul Maurice will basically run Eric Staal into the ground late in games. There was a game last year where he double-shifted the final five minutes and then played an entire OT period. Toward the end of that OT he was visibly so sandbagged that he could barely move the puck. I guess Maurice's theory was that a dead-tired Staal was better than a fresh Brandon Sutter.

Seeing as there are 30 different coaches working 30 different rosters against 30 different opponents, it's really really hard to overcome the number of variables that go into the choice of players on each shift.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:01 PM
  #14
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
PK is more tiring than ES and ES is more tiring than PP.

Playing a man or two short is more tiring because the workload is distributed over fewer players with greater responsibility in the defensive zone. The opposite is true for the power play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
As a hockey player, I agree 100%. I would personally say that it doesn't get any "easier" than playing the point on the PP. I think playing forward on the PK is probably the hardest, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Trigger View Post
This.



And that.

Prime example is Lidstrom today at the age of 40 still excelling with less tiring roles. He plays defense on the penalty kill, the point on the powerplay, and a lot less even strength time compared to previous years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Too many variables.

Some players never play SH, some never play PK. Then you have the question of shift length that comprise the total minutes. Finally you have the resulting line management and match-ups that are the result of a successful PK or PP or unsuccessful PK or PP.

Then you have the question of the actual game/schedule, how many penalties, their distribution during the game, is the team rested or playing their third game in four nights.
Agree with all the above here and it's really different for different players depending on their roles and the amount of push back from the other team as well. Some players roles and bread and butter are about playing more physical so it might not really matter if it's on the PK or PP.

Also I have noticed that generally speaking that teams are far more aggressive and active on the PK overall than they were in the early 70's and even the 80's. Part of this is due to coaching and equipment changes I would think.

In my experience, any physical contact greatly increases the effort required by a player than any non contact hockey movements.

Lastly, I'm not sure if we could quantify how taxing a PP,PK or ES shift is as there are too many variables to account for as C1958 mentions.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 10:23 PM
  #15
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,676
vCash: 500
The PK in general would be the most tiring. It's the most likely time where you will have prolonged shifts/trapped in your zone. I know as a goalie that for me this was by far the most tiring time and if I'm getting tired in my little area, I guarantee you that the players in front of me moving many times that distance are getting tired.
This can happen at ES of course but not being down a man makes a huge difference.
The PP is the least tiring quite simply because it is mostly you in control, you're going where you want to go and not reacting to someone else's movements as much.

Anyone who has done skating drills knows that it's more tiring to do stops and starts for 30 seconds than to skate the rink hard for 30 seconds.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.