4 FORWARD PP
BENEFITS OF 4 FORWARD PP
While this analysis doesn’t look at whether or not the 4 forward approach generates more or less offensive chances, given the number of shots we’re looking at it should give us a decent sense of whether the 4 forward approach is generating higher quality chances and/or chances taken by higher percentage shooters.
The results do point towards the 4 forward approach providing a statistically-significant advantage.
But what about the defensive side of things? The obvious counter-argument to the 4 forwards approach is that it decreases the defensive ability of the unit and puts the team at risk of giving up a short-handed goal. And if we look at the data presented in the table below, we see that that does seem to be true: short-handed teams shoot better when they’re playing 4 forwards rather than 3 .
The question that we have to ask then is whether the offensive benefit provided by using the 4 forward approach outweighs the defensive cost.
We can put together an estimate of how many additional goals a 4 forward approach is worth to an average team by looking at the average Shots For/Against of a team on the power-play and comparing whether the increase in expected shooting percentage outweighs the decrease in expected save percentage.
The benefit of playing with 4 forwards clearly exceeds the risk: teams that played an all 4F approach would be expected to score an additional 3.3 PP goals over the course of an 82 game season, which works out to roughly half a win.
This, of course, also ignores any effect on the shot rate that the 4F approach would have. It’s entirely possible that 4 forwards produce more shots per powerplay minute than the standard approach further increasing the value of this approach.
In either case it does seem like one of those cases where the aggressive approach should payoff: regardless of the defensive risk that teams are taken by putting a forward on the point, the offensive benefit appears to outweigh it, and
in the long run, teams that take this approach should see a non-negligible bump in their powerplay percentage.
WHY TEAMS SHOULD USE 4 FORWARDS ON PP
In general, the teams who used 4 forwards more frequently also converted on their powerplay chances at a higher rate than those who stuck to more traditional approaches.
So where does the upside of the 4F-1D setup actually come from?
There are two offensive areas that we could see an increase in if the 4-forward powerplay is actually beneficial:
1. Teams may be generating more shot attempts (higher Corsi For per 60),
2. Or they may be more likely to convert on the shots that they do get (higher shooting percentage).
In the ideal case, of course, both numbers should increase and when we look at the data over the past 6 years,
we see that’s actually what happens: teams see a distinct jump in both shot generation and shot conversion when they play with 4 forwards on the powerplay.
The advantage to the 4-forward approach here is pretty clear – the increase in Corsi For works out to more than 10 extra shot attempts per 60 minutes of powerplay time, or about an extra shot attempt every 3 powerplays, and on top of that each shot on goal goes in at a significantly higher rate.
Neither of these facts should be shocking to us – forwards generate the majority of shot attempts at even strength, and tend to be better shooters at 5v5, so it’s not surprising that playing with an additional forward would have clear offensive benefits.
What we really need to check though is the effect on shorthanded opportunities against, and whether teams with 4-forwards are exposing themselves defensively by playing with one less defenceman when they’re up a man.
When we look at the defensive numbers, it becomes quite clear that there are risks to the 4 forward approach.
While the increase in shot attempts against is modest, the decrease in save percentage is actually fairly substantial. Goaltenders playing behind 4 forwards on the powerplay stop shots on goal at about the same rate as goaltenders killing a penalty, which is obviously not a good thing.
Teams that play with 4 forwards are definitely exposing themselves to higher percentage opportunities defensively, whether they be odd-man chances or offensive rushes against a winger not used to playing the point, and these plays result in more shorthanded goals than we’d otherwise expect a team to see.
The benefit of the 4-forward approach is quite clear – when teams play with 4 forwards on the powerplay, they score more than an extra goal on roughly every 30 or so powerplays they receive, which works out to nearly 8 extra goals over the course of a season, or 1.25 wins. That’s a fairly large benefit for a simple tactical change which almost every team can use.
4-1 IS BETTER THAN 3-2
The argument in favour of using four forwards and one defenceman (4F1D) is simple:
You score more goals in a 4F1D than you will in a 3F2D. You’ll give up a few extra shorthanded goals, but the benefit more than outweighs the cost. Year after year, a 4F1D produces better goal difference.
There are three obvious reasons for better outcomes with a 4F1D:
· A 3F2D generally means a more conservative setup – with two players near the blueline – that will generally produce less dangerous shots.
· The fourth forward you might stick on a power play is probably a better offensive player and shooter than the second defenceman available to you.
· There’s probably some bias as far as first units being more likely to be 4F1D
While you generate more goal difference with a 4F1D than a 3F2D and teams with better goal difference win more hockey games, there are times when a goal against reduces the amount of points you can expect to take from a game much more than a goal for enhances it. Those are times when a traditional 3F2D PP makes more sense to use.
Unsurprisingly, the 4F1D results in a higher percentage of the shots being taken by forwards and a greater number of shots overall: The puck is spending less time at the blueline because there are fewer people there.
Forwards are better puck handlers than defensemen, and should be better suited to generating controlled entries. Forwards tend to get more opportunities to attempt zone entries at 5-on-5, and we’d expect this experience to produce players who are stronger at carrying the puck in.
The effect of all these changes in formation and shot selection shows up in the average shot distance for Babcock’s teams over the past three years. His teams now tend to shoot from closer to the net. They're also generating more rebound shot attempts per shot on goal .
4F-1D SECOND UNIT
A team’s second power play unit often has a much more difficult task than their first unit does. Second units tend to start their shifts on-the-fly more often, requiring them to carry the puck down the ice and enter their opponent’s zone before they’re able to generate any offensive opportunities.
In theory, forwards are better puck handlers than defensemen, and should be better suited to generating controlled entries. Forwards tend to get more opportunities to attempt zone entries at 5-on-5, and we’d expect this experience to produce players who are stronger at carrying the puck in.
4 forward units were more likely to execute a controlled entry at 5-on-4 than 3 forward units.
If a team that had been using 3 forwards on their second unit exclusively were to switch to a 4 forward setup, on average they’d earn an additional 35 entries.
Given the differences in scoring rates between 4 forward carry-in entries and 3 forward dump-in entries, that works out to 1.1 goals over the course of a full season.
To put it another way, Michael Schuckers, Tom Pasquali, and Jim Curro estimated that a faceoff win on the power play was worth about 0.028 goals. At that rate, you’d need 39.6 extra faceoff wins on the power play to have the same impact as switching your second unit to 4F-1D.
Given the amount that teams tend to obsess over ensuring they have a faceoff specialist on the PK, this seems like a much simpler way to give your team a small boost.
So if there’s a clear case for playing 4 forwards on your second unit, why are so many teams hesitant to change over? One reason may be a desire to finish an unsuccessful power play with 2 defencemen on the ice, but that fact alone is likely not enough to produce a difference this large.
Another factor may be that using two units with 4 forwards requires teams to have 8 forwards who are more talented than their third most offensively gifted defencemen. While for most clubs this probably isn’t an issue, teams who lack offensive depth or who have their bottom 2 lines setup as checking lines may lack the personnel to use 4 forwards on their second unit.
In either case, the argument for using 4 forwards on your second power play unit remains fairly strong. With teams fighting hard for even the most marginal advantages, going all-in on the 4 forward setup is one way teams can give themselves an extra boost when scoring rates are already high.
Comments