Penalty Shots, what can be improved?

[kinot-2]

Now, we all seen what happened with Lehkonen taking the penalty shot last night, and didn't score. I wondered at the time if there was a "decline the PS, and go with a 2 min. penalty"  to the opposing team option, would that help the team? A PS is a 1 and done chance, whereas a 2 min. penalty, can change the game, especially if a team is already killing an penalty, or already having a man advantage (to make it a 5 on 3). Another option I thought of was that if you get a penalty shot, the coach can then choose to send out their best player to take it. Think of it this way,,, if a 3rd-4th liner got the PS, wouldn't you rather have a Druoin, Domi, or Gally, take the shot? 

 

[jennifer_rocket]

Does anyone know what the success rate is for penalty shots is versus the league-wide PP success rate? If taking the penalty shot typically results in a significantly better chance to score... I'd take the penalty shot every time!

And yes, allowing the best player on the team to take a penalty shot would certainly help any team out.

[maas_art]

I remember a few years ago there was a discussion about this & I believe - at the time anyway - that the rate of conversion on penalty shots was considerably higher than any PP in the league.

 

The highest PP percentage of all time was the late 70s Habs at just under 32% IIRC  - and most teams average well below that (the best each year is usually in the mid  20%) 

Penalty shots, meanwhile are somewhat harder to track because of the smaller sample size (most years theres only like 50-100 of them total) so some years are low (like 30%) but most are well into the 40%.   

 

 

Personally, I would take a penalty shot every time because of the higher chance of scoring.  Having said that, if you were allowed to chose the person who shoots - that would make a huge difference (and why shootout percentages are generally higher than Penalty shot conversion rates).

 

 

[kinot-2]

37 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Does anyone know what the success rate is for penalty shots is versus the league-wide PP success rate? If taking the penalty shot typically results in a significantly better chance to score... I'd take the penalty shot every time!

And yes, allowing the best player on the team to take a penalty shot would certainly help any team out.

The PS was introduced prior to the 34-35 season but at that time rules were different. 

From what I can find : "Back then, players made the shot 38 feet out from the net while staying within a circle that was ten feet in diameter. You could either take the shot from a stationary position, or skate with the puck, like Bowman, provided you did not leave the designated area. Under these regulations, goaltenders had a significant advantage. But it was during the Second World War when the NHL made a huge change to the penalty shot rule. Players could now skate up to the goaltender in a one-on-one situation like we see now. Since then, the NHL has seen 1,601 regular-season penalty shots through the 2014-15 season, with 530 them finding twine, good enough for an average success rate of 33 percent. On one side were goaltenders like Rogie Vachon, who turned aside all six penalty shot attempts he faced throughout his career. And the other end were shooters like Pavel Bure who converted seven times and is the NHL's all-time leader in penalty shot goals."

I couldn't find any info on PPs throughout the years, but, usually the top PP teams have a success rate of around 25%. 

 

[H_T_L]

I think they should award the 2 minute minor on top of the PS IF they don't score. Maybe they should consider a PS for all offensive zone penalties by the defending team. I'll bet that cuts down on penalties.

I also like the idea of the team choosing who to send out on the PS as opposed to the guy who drew the call.

[CaptWelly]

The only change I would agree with is to accept or decline and take the pp. It's hockey which is a team sport. I don't want someone even if it's the best player on your team taking away the shot from the individual that originally had the opportunity to score. I hate that in international play they can use the same guy over and over. I also think that the 3 on 3 takes away from the game and is more of a gimmick because it's a team game and gives an advantage to a team with a roster of higher end players. I actually would rather see the team have to use their bench more during 3 on 3. After each players initial shift they can't come back on until the whole bench has been used.  It would add "coaching" to the  3on 3. 

[habs1952]

Take the shot but any player on the team can take it. You may not get such a prime chance on the PP.

[campabee82]

Leave well enough alone the penalty shot has been a part of the game since the 34-35 season. If teams want to have guys play like Alzner and Deslauriers than they will have to deal with it if they ever have to take a penalty shot. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the Stars 4th liner had to take a shot on Price. There is not supposed to be a clear advantage for the penalty shot it's giving the player who had the breakaway the second chance to see if he could have scored. If you start getting into the debate of should we have penalty shots or if we do should we get to choose who takes it then you have to look at other areas as well. Like should a team be allowed to pull their goalie for an extra attacker and if they are allowed should they be allowed to cross centre ice, cause the rules say a goalie can't cross the red line so why should the extra player be allowed to? Just cause some of our players suck on the penalty shot doesn't mean anyone should be allowed to take it. If you really want to change it the only way that makes sense is to allow anyone who was on the ice at the time of the penalty to take the shot like anyone who was on the ice when a bench minor was called can serve the penalty. I say just leave it alone and get better more skilled players on the team if you think that the maybe 2 shots your going to get a year will make that much of a difference in the outcome of the season. Personally I don't see why this is even an issue, as we probably won't even see another one this season.

[kinot-2]

1 hour ago, campabee82 said:

Leave well enough alone the penalty shot has been a part of the game since the 34-35 season. If teams want to have guys play like Alzner and Deslauriers than they will have to deal with it if they ever have to take a penalty shot. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the Stars 4th liner had to take a shot on Price. There is not supposed to be a clear advantage for the penalty shot it's giving the player who had the breakaway the second chance to see if he could have scored. If you start getting into the debate of should we have penalty shots or if we do should we get to choose who takes it then you have to look at other areas as well. Like should a team be allowed to pull their goalie for an extra attacker and if they are allowed should they be allowed to cross centre ice, cause the rules say a goalie can't cross the red line so why should the extra player be allowed to? Just cause some of our players suck on the penalty shot doesn't mean anyone should be allowed to take it. If you really want to change it the only way that makes sense is to allow anyone who was on the ice at the time of the penalty to take the shot like anyone who was on the ice when a bench minor was called can serve the penalty. I say just leave it alone and get better more skilled players on the team if you think that the maybe 2 shots your going to get a year will make that much of a difference in the outcome of the season. Personally I don't see why this is even an issue, as we probably won't even see another one this season.

I'm not sure where to start   .

As to your 1st statement re the "who' should take the PS? The offending team (defense), hooks, holds, or trips the player in the clear, who has a very good chance to have a SOG. Now you "could" have 3-4 liners being hauled down and have them take the PS, but, because it's a "one shot only" why not have the best player (on the ice or on the bench) take the shot?

A good 2 min. PP can say, produce 2-5 SOG, whereas with a PS, it's a one time thing. Say for instance that Byron was 15 secs. into a PK, and got taken down, if you had a coaches choice, then the coach would, IMO, take the 2 min. penalty on the other team to negate the penalty that his team has.

The "pulling the goalie" began in 39-40 or 40-41, and it usually used only late in the 3rd period, (except for one instance in OT, on the last game of the season, where the team needed the win to get into the POs.). When they pull the goalie, it's always late in the 3rd period where the goalies bench is on his side of the red line, therefore, he doesn't cross the red line. 

If you allow a player on the ice to take the PS, that makes sense too. BTW,,,, why only a bench minor, and not a regular penalty to the offending team? 

It's not an issue as I see it, I only posted the because I felt that it would encourage discussion, controversy, thought, and it has. 

 

 

[campabee82]

9 hours ago, kinot-2 said:

I'm not sure where to start   .

As to your 1st statement re the "who' should take the PS? The offending team (defense), hooks, holds, or trips the player in the clear, who has a very good chance to have a SOG. Now you "could" have 3-4 liners being hauled down and have them take the PS, but, because it's a "one shot only" why not have the best player (on the ice or on the bench) take the shot?

A good 2 min. PP can say, produce 2-5 SOG, whereas with a PS, it's a one time thing. Say for instance that Byron was 15 secs. into a PK, and got taken down, if you had a coaches choice, then the coach would, IMO, take the 2 min. penalty on the other team to negate the penalty that his team has.

The "pulling the goalie" began in 39-40 or 40-41, and it usually used only late in the 3rd period, (except for one instance in OT, on the last game of the season, where the team needed the win to get into the POs.). When they pull the goalie, it's always late in the 3rd period where the goalies bench is on his side of the red line, therefore, he doesn't cross the red line. 

If you allow a player on the ice to take the PS, that makes sense too. BTW,,,, why only a bench minor, and not a regular penalty to the offending team? 

It's not an issue as I see it, I only posted the because I felt that it would encourage discussion, controversy, thought, and it has. 

 

 

I  think you misunderstood my reference to pulling the goalie. It's not that I am against it, it was just to be used for a comparison. I was just saying by choosing which player on your bench takes the shot it gives a clear advantage to the offensive team. The penalty shot is supposed to make a team whole by basically giving the player who was hauled down on a breakaway a second shot at the breakaway to give him back his scoring chance. The reference to pulling the goalie was only meant to say if we are going to change aspects of the game that have been around since the early part of the games conception, then maybe we should consider the pulling a goalie rule, cause the goalie cannot cross the centerline so why should the player replacing him be allowed to. I would hate that rule change too by the way, I like that the team has options to tie the game and send it into overtime.

 

And to your last point, I understand that you were looking to encourage discussions and controversy. And feel like those are good ways to encourage innovations and changes. ??