Short-handed goals against and power play efficiency
The Tampa Bay Lightning had one of the stronger power play units in the National Hockey League during the 2010-11 season, and best overall in the Eastern Conference to boot. People feared Steven Stamkos and his booming snap shot. 11 players on the roster all had goals with the man advantage. When the unit was doing as it should, it was outright menacing.
And when it turned the puck over during a power play, it could be an inept monstrosity.
The Bolts power play allowed 16 short-handed goals to opponents last season, the most in the NHL. Part of the blame might be attributed to lackluster goaltending for the first half of the season, but any time you repeatedly hang a goalie out to dry in that situation - be it Mike Smith, Dan Ellis, Dwayne Roloson, or even a Tim Thomas, Ryan Miller, Pekka Rinne or other noteworthy netminders from around the league -- they're not always going to stop a breakaway or an odd-man rush. It's just the law of averages.
Yet, with these 16 goals allowed on the power play, the Bolts were still ranked sixth in the NHL, and #1 overall in their Conference, with a 20.5% power play conversion rate.
Does that seem odd to anyone else? The fact the Lightning went 69 for 336 - and yet they allowed 16 goals-against on that otherwise potent unit? There's an unfairness to the fact that rankings were not effected by such a grand inefficiency of allowing so many short-handed goals against (SHGA). In comparison, the Montreal Canadiens - the #2 power play in the East last season - went 57-for-290 on the power play (a 19.7% conversion rate). They allowed 6 short-handed goals, however. If you subtract SHGA from both teams total power play goals, the Canadiens unit trumps Tampa with a 17.6% efficiency to 15.8%.
That's just one team to compare to. Here's how all 30 NHL teams would stack up if SHGA were factored against the base power play conversion rate. Note, it'd be possible to factor in shots-allowed during the power play, but I opted to keep it simple in adjusting power-play percentage by just subtracting power play goals for every SHGA allowed:
PP% | ADJ PPG | ADJ PP% | ADJ RANK | POS CHANGE | ||||||||||||||||||
1-30 of 30 results. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Vancouver | 82 | 296 | 72 | 24.3 | 2 | 70 | 23.6 | 1 | 0 | ||||||||||||
2 | San Jose | 82 | 289 | 68 | 23.5 | 7 | 61 | 21.8 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||||||
3 | Anaheim | 82 | 285 | 67 | 23.5 | 7 | 60 | 21.1 | 4 | -1 | ||||||||||||
4 | Chicago | 82 | 277 | 64 | 23.1 | 4 | 60 | 21.7 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||
5 | Detroit | 82 | 301 | 67 | 22.3 | 7 | 60 | 19.9 | 5 | 0 | ||||||||||||
6 | Tampa Bay | 82 | 336 | 69 | 20.5 | 16 | 53 | 15.8 | 9 | -3 | ||||||||||||
7 | Montreal | 82 | 290 | 57 | 19.7 | 6 | 51 | 17.6 | 7 | 0 | ||||||||||||
8 | Calgary | 82 | 318 | 62 | 19.5 | 9 | 53 | 16.6 | 8 | 0 | ||||||||||||
9 | Buffalo | 82 | 279 | 54 | 19.4 | 13 | 41 | 14.7 | 16 | -7 | ||||||||||||
10 | St. Louis | 82 | 279 | 52 | 18.6 | 1 | 51 | 18.3 | 6 | 4 | ||||||||||||
11 | Colorado | 82 | 265 | 49 | 18.5 | 11 | 38 | 14.3 | 18 | -7 | ||||||||||||
12 | Atlanta* | 82 | 289 | 53 | 18.3 | 10 | 43 | 14.9 | 13 | -1 | ||||||||||||
13 | Minnesota | 82 | 292 | 53 | 18.2 | 7 | 46 | 15.8 | 10 | 3 | ||||||||||||
14 | Dallas | 82 | 306 | 55 | 18 | 15 | 40 | 13.1 | 27 | -13 | ||||||||||||
15 | Ottawa | 82 | 257 | 45 | 17.5 | 4 | 41 | 16 | 9 | 6 | ||||||||||||
16 | Washington | 82 | 263 | 46 | 17.5 | 5 | 41 | 15.6 | 11 | 5 | ||||||||||||
17 | NY Islanders | 82 | 302 | 52 | 17.2 | 7 | 45 | 14.9 | 14 | 3 | ||||||||||||
18 | NY Rangers | 82 | 290 | 49 | 16.9 | 5 | 44 | 15.2 | 12 | 7 | ||||||||||||
19 | Philadelphia | 82 | 295 | 49 | 16.6 | 5 | 44 | 14.9 | 15 | 4 | ||||||||||||
20 | Boston | 82 | 265 | 43 | 16.2 | 5 | 38 | 14.3 | 19 | -1 | ||||||||||||
21 | Los Angeles | 82 | 292 | 47 | 16.1 | 6 | 41 | 14 | 21 | 0 | ||||||||||||
22 | Toronto | 82 | 326 | 52 | 16 | 8 | 44 | 13.5 | 26 | -4 | ||||||||||||
23 | Phoenix | 82 | 289 | 46 | 15.9 | 6 | 40 | 13.8 | 22 | -1 | ||||||||||||
24 | Carolina | 82 | 346 | 55 | 15.9 | 6 | 49 | 14.2 | 20 | 4 | ||||||||||||
25 | Pittsburgh | 82 | 311 | 49 | 15.8 | 6 | 43 | 13.8 | 23 | 2 | ||||||||||||
26 | Nashville | 82 | 269 | 41 | 15.2 | 2 | 39 | 14.5 | 17 | 9 | ||||||||||||
27 | Edmonton | 82 | 304 | 44 | 14.5 | 2 | 42 | 13.8 | 24 | 3 | ||||||||||||
28 | New Jersey | 82 | 237 | 34 | 14.4 | 8 | 26 | 11 | 29 | -1 | ||||||||||||
29 | Columbus | 82 | 301 | 42 | 14 | 11 | 31 | 10.1 | 30 | -1 | ||||||||||||
30 | Florida | 82 | 267 | 35 | 13.1 | 5 | 30 | 11.2 | 28 | 2 |
For the most part, the league rankings stayed rather similar with some noteworthy exceptions. Vancouver's efficient power play remained #1 overall, and while the Florida Panthers improved it's ranking, it wasn't so much that you'd change perception of their underwhelming man advantage play.
There were a few big swings. Dallas, which gave up the second most short-handed goals last season, with 15, suffered most in these adjusted rankings. They fell 13 spots. The Nashville Predators, with an underwhelming power play but an effective and efficient defense, moved up 9 spots to 17th in the league.
With their SHGA subtracted from their conversion rate, the Lightning still were in a tie for 9th in the league. That is a testament of the potency the team had while playing a man-up last season. It also makes one wonder if Guy Boucher and company can find a cure for defensive woes while playing with the man advantage, and turn a rather good power play into something fantastic.
Comments ()