Expected by whom: Sam Ventura

[steveoath]

Ventura guests on the EBW podcast. Interesting if you’re into analytics. Talks about building up sabres analytics side as well as a lot of data and process stuff. 
 

also interesting is the chat about the Champions Hockey League (euro top teams from diff countries play each other). They are trying out 3 new rules:

Scoring on PP does not end PP.

Short handed goal ends PP. 

Goal on delayed penalty does not cancel the ensuing PP. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I'm not into analytics atoll, but thanks for posting this.

[SDS]

49 minutes ago, steveoath said:

Ventura guests on the EBW podcast. Interesting if you’re into analytics. Talks about building up sabres analytics side as well as a lot of data and process stuff. 
 

also interesting is the chat about the Champions Hockey League (euro top teams from diff countries play each other). They are trying out 3 new rules:

Scoring on PP does not end PP.

Short handed goal ends PP. 

Goal on delayed penalty does not cancel the ensuing PP. 

1. That sounds fine. I’m guessing the number of power-play goals that would be scored onto minute penalties would increase by no more than 10 to 15%.

2. Again, that sounds fine. That’s almost inconsequential.

3. Another one that increases hope, but probably has a little outcome on goals overall.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I have long believed that a missed penalty shot should still result in at least a 1 minute PP.

I don't understand why a SH goal would end a PP.  I do like the idea that certain dangerous infractions, like boarding, could result in a two-minute PP regardless of how many goals are scored.  Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd change the regular PP rules.  I agree with the delayed penalty idea.

[SDS]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I have long believed that a missed penalty shot should still result in at least a 1 minute PP.

I don't understand why a SH goal would end a PP.  I do like the idea that certain dangerous infractions, like boarding, could result in a two-minute PP regardless of how many goals are scored.  Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd change the regular PP rules.  I agree with the delayed penalty idea.

I’m guessing you could probably easily extract what the difference would be by looking at the number of goals scored in the first two minutes during five minute power plays. My guess is that it’s not many more than one.

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m guessing you could probably easily extract what the difference would be by looking at the number of goals scored in the first two minutes during five minute power plays. My guess is that it’s not many more than one.

Maybe the new rule would create more urgency to score quickly?

[SDS]

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

Maybe the new rule would create more urgency to score quickly?

I would be surprised if some sense of urgency mattered.

[msw2112]

30 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I have long believed that a missed penalty shot should still result in at least a 1 minute PP.

I don't understand why a SH goal would end a PP.  I do like the idea that certain dangerous infractions, like boarding, could result in a two-minute PP regardless of how many goals are scored.  Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd change the regular PP rules.  I agree with the delayed penalty idea.

In other words, a major minor?

[Doohickie]

21 hours ago, msw2112 said:

In other words, a major minor?

Or a minor miner?

[GASabresIUFAN]

22 hours ago, msw2112 said:

In other words, a major minor?

Actually, I think it would be a minor major.

[Doohickie]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Actually, I think it would be a minor major.

[PerreaultForever]

On 9/14/2023 at 1:45 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

I have long believed that a missed penalty shot should still result in at least a 1 minute PP.

I don't understand why a SH goal would end a PP.  I do like the idea that certain dangerous infractions, like boarding, could result in a two-minute PP regardless of how many goals are scored.  Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd change the regular PP rules.  I agree with the delayed penalty idea.

If it's a dangerous infraction it gets 5 minutes. If you're doing this for 2 minute infractions you're basically taking hitting out of the game. 

As for the 1 min PP I don't agree, but I have thought the team should get a choice whether they want the penalty shot or the 2 min PP. 

[Taro T]

21 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

If it's a dangerous infraction it gets 5 minutes. If you're doing this for 2 minute infractions you're basically taking hitting out of the game. 

As for the 1 min PP I don't agree, but I have thought the team should get a choice whether they want the penalty shot or the 2 min PP. 

Along those lines, still believe teams should be able to turn down the 2 minute PP for an opportunity to have the puck at the far D-man's stick (the one nearer to the boards) on the next 3 offensive zone faceoffs.  For a team with a lousy PP being able to force the team in the defensive zone to scramble to keep the other D-man from getting a clear point shot off after 1 easy pass and the ensuing chaos that should happen with a good low shot on net is going to result in a lot more goals than just working the puck around the boards and getting 2 attempts (if even that) off on net over 2 minutes.

[SwampD]

On 9/15/2023 at 2:39 PM, Doohickie said:

Or a minor miner?

 

[Two or less]

On 9/14/2023 at 3:19 PM, steveoath said:

Ventura guests on the EBW podcast. Interesting if you’re into analytics. Talks about building up sabres analytics side as well as a lot of data and process stuff. 
 

also interesting is the chat about the Champions Hockey League (euro top teams from diff countries play each other). They are trying out 3 new rules:

Scoring on PP does not end PP.

Short handed goal ends PP. 

Goal on delayed penalty does not cancel the ensuing PP. 

Very cool interview. Thanks for sharing. Was fun listening and getting that perspective. None of the local shows ever get that kind of view into the operations like this.