from Amazon
Monday, April 11, 2011
How to reduce penalties (and increase scoring) in the NHL
This is based on 2006-2007 data, focusing on the first 58 minutes of a game.
The total number of goals scored when each side had 6 players on the ice was 4.82.
The total number of goals scored when each side had 5 players on the ice was 5.46.
Note that the total number of time of 5 on 5 was 97564 seconds across the league, or the equivalent of 27 60-minute games. While not a large number, it is at least showing us some indication. And certainly, getting 13% more goals scored when you have 17% fewer players on the ice is not unexpected.
Now, how about penalties? With 6 skaters on each side, there are 12.3 non-fighting penalties, with 1.0 fighting majors (that is 0.5 fights per game). However, with 5 skaters on each side, that drops down to 10.4 non-fighting penalties, with 0.4 fighting majors (0.2 fights per game).
Again, the trend is clear, and not unexpected: with 12 players on the ice, you have 12 non-fighting penalties. With 10 players on the ice, you have 10 non-fighting penalties. Fighting majors drop down substantially: 64% fewer fighting majors when you have 10 instead of 12 players on the ice. Clearly, teams can’t afford to put in slow-skating fighters when you have so few players on the ice.
***
In the playoffs that year with either 11 or 12 players on the ice, as well as in power play situations in the regular season, there were only 0.2 fighting majors (0.1 fights) per 60-minutes of play. You just don’t see fights in the playoffs, and they happen just as often as you see them in the regular season on the power play.
However, non-fighting penalties go up in the playoffs. There were 13.6 penalties with 12 players on the ice (contrasted to the 12.3 in the regular season). This may indicate what is feared, that if you reduce fighting, then other fouls will go up. Indeed, ALL of the gains in penalties were of the physical kind of penalties, essentially trading physical fighting majors for physical minors.
There were only 9.2 penalties with 10 players (5 on 5) on the ice in the playoffs. So, one way to combat the increase in penalties due to decrease in fighting is to reduce the number of players on the ice.
***
So, why would we object to making the game a full-time 5 players on the ice per side? You reduce penalties, you increase scoring, and, presumably, the style of play would be more exciting. The NHL already has 10 players on the ice in overtime, and that works out well enough.
Let me ask it another way: suppose we ALWAYS had 10 players on the ice. Would there be a movement to INCREASE the number of players to 12? No, of course not.
So, is it logic or inertia that is stopping the move from 12 to 10?
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date