Delayed penalty on the power play
Warren Hales
second penalty was being called not become the thing to do?
Isn't it better to have a 5 on 3 instead of a 6 on 4?
(Who cares ... they scored and just scored again!)
Scotty
Frustrating, ain't it?
Scott
Alan Baker
<8b762d8d-f481-436f...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Warren Hales <wha...@innovationmountain.com> wrote:
Yes: it's better...
...but I'm always astounded by how some things aren't done by players at
the NHL level.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Steven Fisher
<8b762d8d-f481-436f...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Warren Hales <wha...@innovationmountain.com> wrote:
When you're already on the power play, it makes sense to drag it out as
long as possible doesn't it? Gives you more time on the power play, even
if the numbers aren't as nice.
Steve
Scotty
I'd rather have a 2-man advantage.
Scott
TC---
>
> I'd rather have a 2-man advantage.
>
> Scott
You *do* have a 2-man advantage when you pull the goalie, it's just that
it's 6-4 versus 5-3. It's very clear that 5-3 is better than 6-4, but
it's not quite that simple. When there's a delayed penalty, by
definition you already have possession. So that's a faceoff you don't
have to win. And you have factors like the penalty killers being tired.
In the absence of any real data that's been done on the issue, it
seems hardly clear that it's a slam-dunk to give up possession to take
the 5-3 instead of the 6-4.
Alan Baker
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
No, it doesn't.
5 on 3 is much, *much* better than 6 on 4.
Steven Fisher
> Steven Fisher wrote:
>
> > When you're already on the power play, it makes sense to drag it out as
> > long as possible doesn't it? Gives you more time on the power play, even
> > if the numbers aren't as nice.
>
> I'd rather have a 2-man advantage.
Goalie goes to the bench, it's already a two man advantage.
In fact, continuing to play on a delayed call is the safest you can be
in a hockey game. The only way to get scored on is if you manage to
throw the puck all the way down the ice into your own net. Sure, it
happens, but it's rarely than a short-handed goal.
Unless you're desperately short on time and are going to pull your
goalie anyway, it definitely makes more sense to play as long as you can.
Steve
Papyrus Tandoori
news:sdfisher-E00CB2...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
The one thing that scares the crap outta me on those goalie-at-the-bench
delayed penalties is that something will happen like in that blowout loss to
Phoenix last year, when the Phoenix guy swings at it, makes shitty contact
(so the ref doesn't blow the whistle) and sends it straight towards the open
net, nonetheless. Granted in that situation SOB dove and ended up knocking
it in, but he should never have had to dive towards it in the first place.
No extra 20 seconds of PP time is worth a BS goal against like that.
foamy
Yep, normally I'm yelling at the guy to give up the puck. It just seems so
intuitive that a 5 on 3 with 2 fewer guys on the ice to clog things up is
better. I tried to find the scoring % of 5-3 PPs, but couldn't.
I can think of situations where it wouldn't be smart to hand it over. For
example, you're up 1 goal with 3 minutes left. It seems the smart thing to do
would be to kill as much time off the clock as you can on the first penalty
and try and run out the game on the PP. The worst which would happen
is you'd be 5 on 5 in the last minute looking at an empty net if they pulled
their goalie.
So I agree with you, it's not necessarily a slam dunk. Of course I know the
next time the situation arises I'll be on my feet screaming to hand it over.
:-)
Jim
Scotty
6 on 4 is just a plugged up zone. 5 on 3 is way better.
Scott