Pick the Cherry-Picker: The Case for a 3-on-4 Penalty Kill Offense
Why NLL teams should have that fourth runner defending the opposing forward left back in his offensive zone during a penalty kill set
Photo Credit: Angela Burger/Calgary Roughnecks
In his first professional National Lacrosse League broadcast as a color commentator, Sean Tyrrell delivered possibly my favorite line of the entire season.
With 1:05 min. left in a Calgary Roughnecks’ power play in the first half, the home team kept four players in their defensive end, while the visiting Albany FireWolves had three players trying to kill clock during their shorthanded set. Each team had a player in the Roughnecks’ offensive zone.
The former NLL forward opined, “That’s kind of a new trend that you see in the NLL. All five guys used to change from offense, bring on five D guys. And now, they send a cherry-picker and make it a 4-on-3, hoping the opposition is a little lazy and doesn’t notice, hoping for a breakaway there.” Essentially, NLL teams on the power play are settling for a 4-on-4 or 4-on-3 set while on the defensive end of a power play, leaving a forward in their offensive end to maybe take advantage of an opponent’s breakdown on the other end of the floor.
I love this level of analysis, because (a) it’s just a phenomenal observation from a former NLL player who clearly has studied the game and its current iteration, and (b) I don’t think the intended outcome happens often enough for it to be a reliable strategy. But just because the optimal consequence isn’t happening doesn’t mean NLL teams shouldn’t do what Tyrrell was explaining.
So, let’s dive into it. Here’s why NLL teams aren’t seeing success in that intended outcome, but why they should continue picking cherries.
Photo Credit: Angela Burger/Calgary Roughnecks
Why It Isn’t Working
The optimal outcome for what Tyrrell presented is a power play fast break goal. But NLL teams are not scoring those often this season, as only 14 have been netted. Last season, the NLL averaged roughly 17 PPG:1 PPFBG; this season, that ratio’s 28.8:1.
Teams aren’t pushing the ball when they have the man-advantage in transition, which makes sense. PPFBE% this season is 16.3% compared to a traditional PPE% of 19.4%. You’re more likely to score a goal 5-on-4 than in a man-advantage fast break, although the latter has far fewer opportunities recorded; for every PPFBSet, there are over 24 PPSets, 11.6% of all shifts served in NLL games to 0.5%. We have way more data suggesting it’s better to go for a traditional 5-on-4 power play shift even if you have the clear advantage in transition, because that’s clearly what teams are aiming for.
Settle things 5-on-4; that’s the smart play.
Let’s look at typical fast break numbers. NLL teams have a 16.5 FBE%, which is effectively in line with PPFBE%. It’s 86 PPFBSets compared to 2,226 FBSets, so take that with a grain of salt, but at the end of the day, a transition opportunity while even or on the power play isn’t really that different. Either hammer it home or settle for the more advantageous shift, which is 5-on-4.
For fun, if you’re on the penalty kill, then take the SHFBSet. The NLL collectively has a 23.0 SHFBE% on 187 SHFBSets, 1.0% of all shifts. Teams have scored more traditional shorthanded goals this season compared to transition ones, but one is almost four times as effective as the other (we’ll touch on this idea more later).
Should teams take more transition shots while on the power play? No, I don’t think that’s optimal. Teams score more 5-on-4 and lose less possessions, 10.1% compared to 12.8%. That’s a power play shift here or there per game, but that adds up over a season. And while an NLL transition unit operates at a 16.5 FBE%, which is in line with last season’s numbers, it doesn’t mean that’s translating this season in special teams. In the 2022-23 NLL season, teams had a PPFBE% of 22.5%, and the total PPFBSets were 0.6% of all collective shifts played last season. Power play transition in 2023-24 is down for all NLL teams despite roughly the same percentage of those shifts transpiring.
But maybe there’s a reason for that, and it has to do with the best rule change of the offseason: coincidental minor penalties result in 4-on-4 play, meaning we have plenty of 4-on-4 shifts to look at.
Photo Credit: Jenn Pierce/Calgary Roughnecks
4-on-4 Causing a Philosophical Change
Brad Challoner of NLL TSN Game of the Week broadcasts and Coaches Calls fame (go listen, his podcast is excellent) opined during a TSN broadcast a few weeks back that offenses were benefiting from 4-on-4 play. We spoke postgame that that’s not the case; defenses are doing better in 8-all play than their opposing forwards are.
It doesn’t quite jive, right? You’d think offenses would be working well off the extra room on the floor, essentially two pairs of two-man games working off one another to bury the ball. But for whatever reason, that’s not been the case this season. A traditional 5-on-5 even strength set has an efficiency percentage of 12.1%. 4-on-4 shrinks that down to just 8.5%. That percentage differential was just under two percentage points when I messaged Challoner two months ago; it’s clearly gotten worse for 4-on-4 offenses as the season’s gone along.
In the situation that prompted this whole article, the FireWolves kept a player back on the Roughnecks cherry-picker, creating a 3-on-4 situation in their offensive end. At the end of the day, there’s not really a difference between that and a 4-on-5; they’re still at a disadvantage. NLL teams down 4-on-5 only score 6.5% of the time.
There have been 816 SHSets this season with a 6.5 SHE% compared to 305 4ESSets with an 8.5 4ESE%. If defenses have the floor tilted in their favor 4-on-4, then why would Calgary keep a fifth runner in the defensive end? There’s opportunity if they go 4-on-4 and leave a player in their offensive end.
The FireWolves could have opted for the 4-on-4, which clearly doesn’t have a significant advantage compared to a normal shorthand shift, and gotten burned with a breakaway the other way with the forward the Roughnecks left behind to pick cherries.
Albany made the right play. If it’s six one way, half a dozen the other, then why take the risk going 4-on-4 while on the penalty kill? You’re not guaranteed to score more, and the disadvantage the other way is apparent. Even if teams aren’t doing damage in PPFB this season, it seems to be more philosophical than a lack of results. Teams on the power play are likely stressing they pull back and go for a traditional 5-on-4 to optimize chances.
Don’t gift opponents a high-danger chance when the guiding philosophy is to kill as much clock as possible. Anything scored shorthanded is just icing on the cake. Albany played it right; kill some of the penalty clock while 3-on-4 and prevent a high-danger chance the other way.
It’s crazy how one rule change unintentionally gave the data for teams to start changing how they handle defensive shifts on power plays. NLL coaches and players are smart; whether on the floor or in the booth, they’re seeing the game evolve in real time and are able to affect change.