I'll start by again mentioning that this is a somewhat simplistic way of evaluating entry success, and as you see above the samples for some of these teams are small. The small samples though can also be indicative of the fact that for teams like the Capitals, these entries are clearly less rehearsed and polished, which can contribute to their lackluster results. For the Leafs on the other hand, I'm not sure what to say there. The scheme seems decently crafted, but for whatever reason other entries have generated more shots. It seems like something they will have to look into in more depth.

For the Flyers, the drop pass entry seems to be working, although I might contest that for a team with as much skill as they have, a well polished regular zone entry scheme would lessen this differential. In other words, their drop pass plays give the puck to their stars in areas where they have a decent shot at entering the zone with control. But their regular entries tend to be highly improvised and as a result not very successful. Using this drop play with a consistent regular crossing pattern could lead to their first unit truly becoming the game's elite, which I feel it is now only when they are set up in the offensive zone.

Overall, it doesn't seem like there's much of a difference in success between regular and drop entries. When accounting for the time they each take to execute, the payoff is only slightly worse for drop entries. So the takeaway should probably be go with what works on an individual team level, and what suits the skill sets of the players. If it were my team, I would have a polished regular AND drop pass scheme, and go to the drop pass in situations when my primary scheme was in a slump. That way, dump-ins would become a third option rather than a second one, and at least in theory more power play success would follow.