Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Using Malhotra on the PP?


Ugli Fruit

Recommended Posts

Before you flip over your computer or frantically go searching on google images for a suitable image, I am NOT suggesting we use Malhotra as a permanent PP member. I'm saying this:

We use him only to win the draw.

Seems cheesy? Unnecessary? Well let me elaborate a little further.

The team really struggled last year on the PP, and losing the draws didn't help. Even if they can't get the goals, getting possession of the puck is a boost for obvious reasons. Now, while Hank and Kesler are both good faceoff men, neither can best Manny under normal circumstances. We can maximize the PP's potentional if we just have Manny take the draw and quickly retreat to the bench to be replaced by a Kesler or a Burrows while the rest of the PP unit stalls for a couple seconds (the Sedins can easily do this).

It's not going to be a foolproof way to fix possible PP issues if at all but it's a strategy we can use, and what's the harm in doing so? It's the same idea as on the PK but for offense.

Thoughts? I apologize if this has been discussed already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so we win the draw - set up - then what? Manny skates to the bench making it 4 on 4 for a handful of seconds?

Its a good strategy on the surface but there is a reason you dont see the best faceoff guys in the league on the powerplay - to gain an advantage like that you lose it in another area, thats how this game works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so we win the draw - set up - then what? Manny skates to the bench making it 4 on 4 for a handful of seconds?

Its a good strategy on the surface but there is a reason you dont see the best faceoff guys in the league on the powerplay - to gain an advantage like that you lose it in another area, thats how this game works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year Malhotra had a winning percentage of 58.5%. Kesler was 53.6. This means Malhotra won about 5 more faceoffs out of every 100 -- about 1 out of 20.

On the PP the gain from winning a faceoff is about 20 seconds. So Manny would be expected to save the team about 20 seconds 1 time out of 20.

The downside is that it takes time to make a change, and it can damage a team's flow. The average cost per faceoff must be at least 2 or 3 seconds. And this would happen on every faceoff, not just 1 out of 20. In 20 faceoffs the cost would be about 60 to 80 seconds.

Bottom line: the costs far outweight the benefits.

This is why teams rarely not use this particular strategy on the PP.

It is, on the other hand, a good strategy for the PK and for playing shutdown 5-on-5, because leaving a defensive specialist like Malhotra on the ice for the PK or for shutdown duty for a few extra seconds after a faceoff does not hurt the team. Having Malhotra on the ice instead of Kesler for the PP does hurt the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you flip over your computer or frantically go searching on google images for a suitable image, I am NOT suggesting we use Malhotra as a permanent PP member. I'm saying this:

We use him only to win the draw.

Seems cheesy? Unnecessary? Well let me elaborate a little further.

The team really struggled last year on the PP, and losing the draws didn't help. Even if they can't get the goals, getting possession of the puck is a boost for obvious reasons. Now, while Hank and Kesler are both good faceoff men, neither can best Manny under normal circumstances. We can maximize the PP's potentional if we just have Manny take the draw and quickly retreat to the bench to be replaced by a Kesler or a Burrows while the rest of the PP unit stalls for a couple seconds (the Sedins can easily do this).

It's not going to be a foolproof way to fix possible PP issues if at all but it's a strategy we can use, and what's the harm in doing so? It's the same idea as on the PK but for offense.

Thoughts? I apologize if this has been discussed already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point would be valid if our other centres sucked at faceoffs, but they're actually pretty good, therefore it seems like to much of an extreme measure to take if it's just to change a 55% faceoff guy for a 60% faceoff guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...