Poll: Star Players on the Penalty Kill

[Auston'sWilly]

Very curious what the majority of folks think about this one. I'm strongly in the corner of "star players should not be penalty killers" but it's definitely not a slam dunk.

[Auston'sWilly]

2 big reasons for my vote of no:
1) Why risk getting them injured ? Surely there are 3rd and 4th line defensive pluggers, making a fraction of the star salaries, who can be taught to kill penalties if they don't already know how.
2) You should already be playing your stars a tonne, especially in offensive situations, - so why not give them well deserved rest during PKs so they are at their best when you really need them to produce ?

[Eskimo Brother]

If I was a coach, I'm playing my players in the way that gives me the best chance to win a game. If that means on the PK, then so be it.
Also I don't think there's any correlation between playing on the PK and being injured more.

[Auston'sWilly]

If you're killing penalties properly, you're supposed to (intentionally) try to block shots. Blocking shots puts players at greater risk of injury. If it didn't, you wouldn't see players get hurt as often as you do when they... get hit by the puck.
And, since you're short a player, much of the play is in your own end, so a PK player would certainly need to block more attempts than a player who only plays 5v5.
Look at Nugent-Hopkins in this clip. Makes me cringe. 1st overall pick blocking a shot on the PK...
Subban too.
I just think it's completely unnecessary.

[rataylor22]

FWIW, if you're killing penalties properly you're in good position and don't even need to block shots because you're not giving up shooting lanes. Blocking shots is a result of poor initial positioning, not good defense.

I have no opinion on this otherwise.

[LawMan]

I voted a mix of (A) and (C).

And agree 100% with this line "If I was a coach, I'm playing my players in the way that gives me the best chance to win a game."

As an Oiler fan I've had this debate a great deal with other fans regarding McDavid. The facts are this:
1. McDavid is there best player on the PP
2. McDavid is there best player 5v5
3. McDavid is there best player on the PK.

The problem is McDavid can only play consistently 20-21 minutes per night. So, everytime McDavid takes a shift of PK action he loses an offensive shift (5v5 or PP). As a general rule I don't want him out there on the PK because I think you can hammer a system into a PK specialist and use a guy who is 4th liner PK specialist who only gets 13 minutes a night. But, if late in the game the team is up 1 or tied, I think McDavid needs to be the first forward out on the PK because that shift now becomes more important than a standard 5v5 shift. Very similar to how closers were traditionally used in MLB. Not every PK is equally important.

Conversely, if the team is down-1 you may need to send out the specialists and hope they get the kill and same McDavid's limited minutes for a final push to tie the game.

[Eskimo Brother]

I voted a mix of (A) and (C).

And agree 100% with this line "If I was a coach, I'm playing my players in the way that gives me the best chance to win a game."

As an Oiler fan I've had this debate a great deal with other fans regarding McDavid. The facts are this:
1. McDavid is there best player on the PP
2. McDavid is there best player 5v5
3. McDavid is there best player on the PK.

The problem is McDavid can only play consistently 20-21 minutes per night. So, everytime McDavid takes a shift of PK action he loses an offensive shift (5v5 or PP). As a general rule I don't want him out there on the PK because I think you can hammer a system into a PK specialist and use a guy who is 4th liner PK specialist who only gets 13 minutes a night. But, if late in the game the team is up 1 or tied, I think McDavid needs to be the first forward out on the PK because that shift now becomes more important than a standard 5v5 shift. Very similar to how closers were traditionally used in MLB. Not every PK is equally important.

Conversely, if the team is down-1 you may need to send out the specialists and hope they get the kill and same McDavid's limited minutes for a final push to tie the game.

To expand on this, you want to go with where McDavid gives you the best chance as a differential over the guy he's replacing. He makes more of a difference at evens or on the PP because there's no skill depth in EDM. So my argument would be that he shouldn't play the PK.
Meanwhile, Marner should play the PK with that same reasoning, as the Leafs have the skill depth, but have very few good PK forwards. Best chance to win overall comes when Marner plays the PK.

[newfcollins]

Does this mean no Crosby, Toews, Bergeron on the PK? That seems absurd to me.

If you put out only third and fourth line guys, you are probably going to get scored on more often while killing penalties.

[Auston'sWilly]

Does this mean no Crosby, Toews, Bergeron on the PK? That seems absurd to me.

If you put out only third and fourth line guys, you are probably going to get scored on more often while killing penalties.

The bulk of the PK value those guys provide is their faceoff ability.
Some subscribe to the old school theory that faceoffs are hugely important, especially shorthanded, in which case I'd say - ok, let them take the faceoffs in the dzone, and then have them go off the ice when you clear it.
Some subscribe to the newer analytics theory that faceoffs aren't nearly as important as we once thought. Either way, Michael Grabner, for example, is a better penalty killer than either of those 3 guys, at a fraction of the cost. I'd rather have Sid resting during PKs. I think PK is better suited for specialty role players, like Grabner, to let the stars rest for when they're really needed - in the other zone.

[Auston'sWilly]

FWIW, if you're killing penalties properly you're in good position and don't even need to block shots because you're not giving up shooting lanes. Blocking shots is a result of poor initial positioning, not good defense.

A player can be perfectly in the shooting lane and the shooter may still try to hammer it through. The Nugent-Hopkins clip in the video above is a perfect example of this.
It happens all the time.

[rataylor22]

The bulk of the PK value those guys provide is their faceoff ability.
Some subscribe to the old school theory that faceoffs are hugely important, especially shorthanded, in which case I'd say - ok, let them take the faceoffs in the dzone, and then have them go off the ice when you clear it.
Some subscribe to the newer analytics theory that faceoffs aren't nearly as important as we once thought. Either way, Michael Grabner, for example, is a better penalty killer than either of those 3 guys, at a fraction of the cost. I'd rather have Sid resting during PKs. I think PK is better suited for specialty role players, like Grabner, to let the stars rest for when they're really needed - in the other zone.

Faceoffs - True.

A player can be perfectly in the shooting lane and the shooter may still try to hammer it through. The Nugent-Hopkins clip in the video above is a perfect example of this.
It happens all the time.

I'm not talking about being in shooting lanes. If you have to be in a shooting lane when a player tries to hammer it through, you've already been out of position and are trying to catch up.

[ericdaoust]

The really obvious answer to the poll is it's case by case.

[The Comish]

I would prefer my star players spend more time on the PP and at even strength. You should be able to coach a "normal" player with a good hockey sense how to be great on the PK. There is literally no right answer here.

[mounD]

In certain situations, star players definitely should be used on the PK. Late in the period or near the end of a game / regulation seems like an obvious time. I get the argument that it's generally not the best strategy since their minutes are best utilized in other situations / strengths, but like anything it's all relative and each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits.