The comments from the Clips offer a good chance at dialogue, and Monday's was no different as the Washington Capitals PP was discussed. Is there a rhyme or reason to it's recent effectiveness?

Two comments in particular got me thinking:

Some dude named J.P.:

the Caps’ PP conversion rate within games, figuring that more practice within a given game (i.e. adjustments to a specific kill, worn down defenders, etc.) might reveal something.

I offered to take a look at total chances to see if they had any bearing on effectiveness. The more chances on the PP, the more likely a goal should be scored, no?

Effectiveness is simply power play goals divided by power play opportunities, not to be confused with chances. An opportunity is when the Caps go on the PP. A scoring chance is a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area – loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots. When the Caps' PP generates two chances it has a 21.16% effectiveness while nine chances get it a Coke and a smile. Not much of a pattern or significance in these numbers.

Berube Doobie Doo:

Perhaps when they get more than 4 PP opportunities, it tires out the big guns to the point where they become a little bit less effective.

Instead of opportunities, I decided to look at total team PP time on ice per game. More ice time would mean more tired players, especially any of them that play the entire two minute shift. I don't want to mention any names, but it rhymes with Movechkin.

Now we are getting somewhere. The old hockey adage applies: "A good PP is one that strikes fast."

Here is the effectiveness expressed as TOI per opportunity:

So when the PP is clicking we should see goals earlier during the man advantage rather than later.