HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Penalty kill efficency on decline ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-18-2012, 11:49 AM
  #1
Veela
Registered User
 
Veela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Prague
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 438
vCash: 500
Penalty kill efficency on decline ?

Sharks penalty kill ranks currently at 28th spot with only 77.4%. Last year they were 24th. But years before they were perenial top 5 team.

Why is that? Some user and possibly Shark fan suggest me at other thread it is due 1-2-1 system that Sharks play right now in defensive zone.

What I found interested is despite atrocious PK this year, San Jose is pretty succesful avoiding sin bin. They were shorthanded only 124 times, least of all teams. Pretty telling how they are scary to play man down.

Veela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:08 PM
  #2
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veela View Post
Sharks penalty kill ranks currently at 28th spot with only 77.4%. Last year they were 24th. But years before they were perenial top 5 team.

Why is that? Some user and possibly Shark fan suggest me at other thread it is due 1-2-1 system that Sharks play right now in defensive zone.

What I found interested is despite atrocious PK this year, San Jose is pretty succesful avoiding sin bin. They were shorthanded only 124 times, least of all teams. Pretty telling how they are scary to play man down.
OMG, we suck on the PK? I assure you none of us noticed!

There are multiple threads regarding this, some even split i think. The issue is special teams coaching, plan and simple. Sharks are far too passive on the PK (and PP too).

That said, they are I believe at an 84% PK clip for the last 10-12 games (I dont feel like looking it up, they quoted it on the game last night). PP is the issue right now, PK is on the right track.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:14 PM
  #3
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Is there a stat, maybe an advanced stat, that tracks PP and PK in relation to number of penalties taken or drawn and weighs that number of penalties taken/drawn for or against them?

For example, compare two teams over a 5 game stretch:

Team A: Every game of the 5 games they go on the PK 20 times, give up one goal each. After five games, their PK % is 95% (killed 95 PP's).

Team B: Every game of the 5 games they go on the PK once, and give up a goal each time. After five games, their PK % is 0% (killed none).

In this situation, obviously the the straight PK % doesn't tell you the whole story. Sure team A is PK beast, but they are also a penalty-taking beast. Team B can't kill a penalty to save their life, but at least they rarely take penalties. On paper A pwns B in terms of PK, but when you put it relation to penalties taken, B pwns A because B never takes any penalties. In fact, in my example above, the actual damage done to the team (goal against) is the same, but Team A risks a lot more PK goals given up, while Team B only risks and gives up one. (To get even more advanced, probably too advanced, Team A also hurts its own team by spending so much time shorthanded vs. 5 on 5)

I'm thinking there HAS to be an advanced stat that takes this into account. It's relevant to the Sharks because while their PK % looks awful, they have taken the least penalties in the league. So yes their PK is bad, but it doesn't hurt the team as much as a team that has a bad PK % AND takes a ton of penalties.

Anyone know if there is such a stat (or analysis)? If not, there should be...


Last edited by ChompChomp: 01-18-2012 at 12:20 PM.
ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:27 PM
  #4
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
I think Nabokov was a goaltender that perhaps thrived on the PK? The Sharks changed their defensive style when Niemi came; maybe the style they had under Nabokov was better for the PK?

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:35 PM
  #5
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veela View Post
Sharks penalty kill ranks currently at 28th spot with only 77.4%. Last year they were 24th. But years before they were perenial top 5 team.

Why is that? Some user and possibly Shark fan suggest me at other thread it is due 1-2-1 system that Sharks play right now in defensive zone.

What I found interested is despite atrocious PK this year, San Jose is pretty succesful avoiding sin bin. They were shorthanded only 124 times, least of all teams. Pretty telling how they are scary to play man down.
1-2-1 is a diamond PK. The Sharks have rarely used it. They have used the 1-1-2 which was the beginning of the end. They are now using a traditional collapsing box. As noted by others, they have improved recently after moving around personnel. They are performing roughly at mid-tier (~15th) for the league, but they were so bad that even attaining 20th spot by season's end would signal a dramatic improvement. I agree that they are concentrating on not taking penalties because of their weak PK.

CC,
You can glean most of those stats from combining stats at NHL.com. The info is there between the game summaries (under stats), team PK, and team penalty info. I much prefer behindthenet to analyze PK info as they boil it down to GA/60 which is more precise. The GA/60 last year was dramatically telling and showed much worse before they even descended the team rankings.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:37 PM
  #6
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I think Nabokov was a goaltender that perhaps thrived on the PK? The Sharks changed their defensive style when Niemi came; maybe the style they had under Nabokov was better for the PK?
Tracking the puck and rebound control are the major goalie assets for PK.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:38 PM
  #7
SactoShork
The Youth Movement
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
OMG, we suck on the PK? I assure you none of us noticed!

There are multiple threads regarding this, some even split i think. The issue is special teams coaching, plan and simple. Sharks are far too passive on the PK (and PP too).

That said, they are I believe at an 84% PK clip for the last 10-12 games (I dont feel like looking it up, they quoted it on the game last night). PP is the issue right now, PK is on the right track.
The OP is doing research for an article. They were asking on the main boards for any unusual potential stories. Obviously it's been a major topic and concern here, so I made mention of it.

And to answer: It was clearly the 1-2-1 that collapsed the fort. The coaches basically tore apart a passive box PK that ranked in the top 5, and implemented that horrific and ineffective diamond. They immediately sank to the bottom of the league in PK% and refused to change or adjust the system until the first round of the playoffs, in which it nearly cost the series against LA.

PK coach, Trent Yawney walked from the team in the offseason. They dropped the 1-2-1 this season and started out in complete disarray, as the players obviously had no clear direction on what they were hoping to do. The last 10+ games have seen them play a consistent and focused passive box as they did last in 2010. Subsequently, the PK has been very effective and the PK% is on the rise.

Edit: Refer to SJEasy on the PK formation (1-2-1 vs. 1-1-2). I guess I remembered incorrectly. Sure looked like a sloppy diamond at times though.

SactoShork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:39 PM
  #8
Inub0i
I will Q
 
Inub0i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UC Irvine, Irvine
Country: United States
Posts: 8,613
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Inub0i Send a message via MSN to Inub0i Send a message via Skype™ to Inub0i
Last 10 games, the PK has been better. Not convinced that all of our PKing woes are gone, but it's still better than the PK in the first half of the season.

Now our real issue is the PP.

Inub0i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 12:55 PM
  #9
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post

Edit: Refer to SJEasy on the PK formation (1-2-1 vs. 1-1-2). I guess I remembered incorrectly. Sure looked like a sloppy diamond at times though.
Not a sloppy diamond. Diamonds can collapse to the middle, but it only looked like it when the 4 defenders would line up down the middle. In a true diamond, one forward and one defender will pressure the boards; they almost never did. The only pressure in their 1-1-2 was having the top forward skate long distance and try to pressure both points (never works).

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 01:20 PM
  #10
SFtoBoston
Left-Heart-In-SF
 
SFtoBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Francisco/Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I think Nabokov was a goaltender that perhaps thrived on the PK? The Sharks changed their defensive style when Niemi came; maybe the style they had under Nabokov was better for the PK?
The difference between Nabby and Niemi, as far as I can tell, is that Nabby has a glove hand, and Niemi doesn't.

*Edit: The 'save of the year' glove save by Niemi the other night should not fool you into thinking he has a glove hand. Too many soft goals in the past 10 games state otherwise.*

SFtoBoston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 01:38 PM
  #11
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,287
vCash: 500
There are so many differences between Nabby and Niemi's game that it's really pointless to try to dissect it.

The PK has actually been very good over the past 14 games. Since December 15th (where they gave up 2 goals to Colorado on 3 PP) they've given up 4 goals while being shorthanded 35 times.

As Easy mentioned, considering the first 1/3 of the season there's no way the Sharks PK will end up in the top 15 (or 20) but if they continue on the trend they've been on recently I don't really care what spot they end the season in.

stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 01:40 PM
  #12
McLovin25
Eberle=Clutch
 
McLovin25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,223
vCash: 500
ya, nabokov was the reason for our good pk. he made stops and guarnteed few rebounds. niemi, gives up rebounds on any shot it seems

McLovin25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 01:49 PM
  #13
SactoShork
The Youth Movement
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 50
I think the bigger issue here is that the moment the Sharks returned to their 2010 strategy, they improved their PK efficiency by over 10%.

That's a huge jump... If separated, it would have taken them from 30th to 8th in the league.

SactoShork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 01:56 PM
  #14
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloweForbidzYou View Post
ya, nabokov was the reason for our good pk. he made stops and guarnteed few rebounds. niemi, gives up rebounds on any shot it seems
The problem with this is relying on the goalie too much meant come playoff time our PK usually went into the toilet as reffing became more lax and goalie interference and net front presence were more common. having a great goalie is fine, but you need to have a fundamentally sound system for the skaters in front of him first. Plus Nabakov's insistence on not blocking shots was a really terrible habit to break post Nabby.

If we had a little quicker team Niemi's rebounds are not all that bad. He generally kicks off to the side walls pretty consistently and if our guys could beat their guys to the puck once in awhile we'd be halfway out of the zone already, that's how Chicago did it and it worked great. Also allowed for a lot of break-aways.

Overall I think the Sharks have a regular season work ethic issue. It shows in all aspects of the game, especially the special team. They tend to wait until the very last minute to put out the effort they should. If the Sharks could play like that every game, all game, they'd be almost unbeatable.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 02:02 PM
  #15
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
The problem with this is relying on the goalie too much meant come playoff time our PK usually went into the toilet as reffing became more lax and goalie interference and net front presence were more common. having a great goalie is fine, but you need to have a fundamentally sound system for the skaters in front of him first. Plus Nabakov's insistence on not blocking shots was a really terrible habit to break post Nabby.

If we had a little quicker team Niemi's rebounds are not all that bad. He generally kicks off to the side walls pretty consistently and if our guys could beat their guys to the puck once in awhile we'd be halfway out of the zone already, that's how Chicago did it and it worked great. Also allowed for a lot of break-aways.

Overall I think the Sharks have a regular season work ethic issue. It shows in all aspects of the game, especially the special team. They tend to wait until the very last minute to put out the effort they should. If the Sharks could play like that every game, all game, they'd be almost unbeatable.
The two biggest problems with Niemi's rebounds are the slot rebounds and not finding/freezing the puck when it is in the crease. He is not that good at getting the puck to the sideboards (neither is Greiss). Good rebound control means almost no slot rebounds. Just a few per game is enough to make a difference.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 02:41 PM
  #16
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Is there a stat, maybe an advanced stat, that tracks PP and PK in relation to number of penalties taken or drawn and weighs that number of penalties taken/drawn for or against them?

For example, compare two teams over a 5 game stretch:

Team A: Every game of the 5 games they go on the PK 20 times, give up one goal each. After five games, their PK % is 95% (killed 95 PP's).

Team B: Every game of the 5 games they go on the PK once, and give up a goal each time. After five games, their PK % is 0% (killed none).

In this situation, obviously the the straight PK % doesn't tell you the whole story. Sure team A is PK beast, but they are also a penalty-taking beast. Team B can't kill a penalty to save their life, but at least they rarely take penalties. On paper A pwns B in terms of PK, but when you put it relation to penalties taken, B pwns A because B never takes any penalties. In fact, in my example above, the actual damage done to the team (goal against) is the same, but Team A risks a lot more PK goals given up, while Team B only risks and gives up one. (To get even more advanced, probably too advanced, Team A also hurts its own team by spending so much time shorthanded vs. 5 on 5)

I'm thinking there HAS to be an advanced stat that takes this into account. It's relevant to the Sharks because while their PK % looks awful, they have taken the least penalties in the league. So yes their PK is bad, but it doesn't hurt the team as much as a team that has a bad PK % AND takes a ton of penalties.

Anyone know if there is such a stat (or analysis)? If not, there should be...
I don't know of any advanced stat, but couldn't you just look at PPGA per game? It takes into account number of penalties taken and kill percentage. In your example, both teams would have a PPGA/G of 1

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 02:46 PM
  #17
CBJenga
Registered User
 
CBJenga's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
I don't know of any advanced stat, but couldn't you just look at PPGA per game? It takes into account number of penalties taken and kill percentage. In your example, both teams would have a PPGA/G of 1
Not quite, A would have a 1 (5 goals / 5 games) and B would have .2 (1 goal / 5 games). The point is that over a 5 game period, team A gives up 5 total goals, and Team B gives up 1.

CBJenga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 03:18 PM
  #18
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,502
vCash: 2283
I hope the Sharks don't make it to 20th in the league in PK. That would require a lot of penalties to be taken and killed between now and the end of the year. They've only allowed 124 power plays. If they maintain their pace of taking penalties, they'll end up with 236 opportunities against. They'd have to kill around 193 to get to 81.8 or 20th in the league. They'd have to kill 97 of the next 112 to hit that mark at their current penalty-taking pace. They'd actually have to kill penalties at a slightly higher clip than what they've been doing since their streak started against Edmonton on December 17th. They're currently killing at an 86.1% clip and at their current pace, they'd need to bump up another half percent to reach an estimated 20th place figure of 81.8%.

The only way to really make up that difference is to take more penalties than they currently do and I would not be a proponent for that.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 03:36 PM
  #19
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,316
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJenga View Post
Not quite, A would have a 1 (5 goals / 5 games) and B would have .2 (1 goal / 5 games). The point is that over a 5 game period, team A gives up 5 total goals, and Team B gives up 1.
His example for team B was going 0/1 on the PK in each of the 5 games, which would be 5 goals in 5 games.

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 03:37 PM
  #20
SactoShork
The Youth Movement
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,559
vCash: 50
It really makes no sense to bring up Nabokov or Niemi in regards to this subject.

Through the first 30 games they were at 73%.

Now for the past 10 or so, they're going at 84% - 86%?!

That's is such a ridiculous difference with the exact same goaltender playing the exact same way he always has. And not coincidentally at all, the PK system change would put them back in the same efficiency as they were with Nabby in goal.

SactoShork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 03:41 PM
  #21
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post
It really makes no sense to bring up Nabokov or Niemi in regards to this subject.

Through the first 30 games they were at 73%.

Now for the past 10 or so, they're going at 84% - 86%?!

That's is such a ridiculous difference with the exact same goaltender playing the exact same way he always has. And not coincidentally at all, the PK system change would put them back in the same efficiency as they were with Nabby in goal.
Not really. It is still lesser efficiency by the rankings (not good to use raw numbers here for a variety of reasons).

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 04:11 PM
  #22
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
His example for team B was going 0/1 on the PK in each of the 5 games, which would be 5 goals in 5 games.
That's true, in my hypo, both teams gave up 5 PP goals in 5 games. Only difference is that Team A does it in 100 PP's (they kill off 95 PP's), and Team B does it 5 PP's (they kill off 0 PP's).

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 04:16 PM
  #23
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I hope the Sharks don't make it to 20th in the league in PK. That would require a lot of penalties to be taken and killed between now and the end of the year. They've only allowed 124 power plays. If they maintain their pace of taking penalties, they'll end up with 236 opportunities against. They'd have to kill around 193 to get to 81.8 or 20th in the league. They'd have to kill 97 of the next 112 to hit that mark at their current penalty-taking pace. They'd actually have to kill penalties at a slightly higher clip than what they've been doing since their streak started against Edmonton on December 17th. They're currently killing at an 86.1% clip and at their current pace, they'd need to bump up another half percent to reach an estimated 20th place figure of 81.8%.

The only way to really make up that difference is to take more penalties than they currently do and I would not be a proponent for that.
Exactly why the PK stat, or more precisely chasing the PK % and rank in league, can be deceiving.

Similarly, I want the Sharks to draw more penalties and convert a good number of them, even if that means the PP % drops because they end up drawing a ton of penalties.

PP question: Anyone keeping track of number of penalties (or actually, power plays) they draw per game this season compared to other post-lockout seasons? Sure feels like it is MUCH lower than years past. Just roughly on eye and my (perhaps revisionist?) history, it seems like in years past in the Thornton era they drew 5-6 PP's per game, but this season it feels like the average is 2-3.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 04:25 PM
  #24
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post
It really makes no sense to bring up Nabokov or Niemi in regards to this subject.

Through the first 30 games they were at 73%.

Now for the past 10 or so, they're going at 84% - 86%?!

That's is such a ridiculous difference with the exact same goaltender playing the exact same way he always has. And not coincidentally at all, the PK system change would put them back in the same efficiency as they were with Nabby in goal.
First, your problem is that you are using a 10-game sample size!

Secondly, what if the system is changing to accomodate Niemi, or Niemi is on one of his hot streaks?

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 05:02 PM
  #25
Solmors
Registered User
 
Solmors's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Exactly why the PK stat, or more precisely chasing the PK % and rank in league, can be deceiving.

Similarly, I want the Sharks to draw more penalties and convert a good number of them, even if that means the PP % drops because they end up drawing a ton of penalties.

PP question: Anyone keeping track of number of penalties (or actually, power plays) they draw per game this season compared to other post-lockout seasons? Sure feels like it is MUCH lower than years past. Just roughly on eye and my (perhaps revisionist?) history, it seems like in years past in the Thornton era they drew 5-6 PP's per game, but this season it feels like the average is 2-3.
5v4 TOI totals per season:
11-12: 245 (82 game pace of 467) - 5.7/game
10-11: 434 - 5.3/g
09-10: 472 - 5.8/g
08-09: 530 - 6.5/g
07-08: 578 - 7/g

That is far back as I can find stats for. Sharks are getting 1.3 minutes per game less than we did in the 07-08 season, but it seems to be how the league is going.

Solmors is offline   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 09:20 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.