Thomas Vanish

[LabattBlue]

It's at least worth a shot.

 

At this point in time in our horrific skid, what else do we have to lose?

 

Besides, your best players SHOULD be getting the most amount of ice time. I understand Lindy saying, "I'll play those who put forth the most effort". But let's be real: We're not going to win many games with Adam Mair and Ellis getting 20 minutes of ice time.

I'd try it for a few games. What is it going to hurt? This is similar to the suggestion I made that the 1st PP unit stay on the ice for the whole two minutes because the 2nd unit sucks so bad. Give it a try.

[Stoner]

When, exactly, did this occur?

Early 2008-2009. PK time. Shorthanded goals. 20 goals in 24 games or something. Ice time was up -- certainly not 25 minutes a game. But still. Yes, this mythical beast did exist. And for those who think the PK ice time being pulled was not an issue, in a phony Q&A ON HIS OWN WEB SITE after last season, Vanek basically answered a question about it posed to himself and said he didn't know why the ice time was pulled. Same "interview" -- he said what a good move the Penguins had made in changing coaches in midstream.

[nfreeman]

Early 2008-2009. PK time. Shorthanded goals. 20 goals in 24 games or something. Ice time was up -- certainly not 25 minutes a game. But still. Yes, this mythical beast did exist. And for those who think the PK ice time being pulled was not an issue, in a phony Q&A ON HIS OWN WEB SITE after last season, Vanek basically answered a question about it posed to himself and said he didn't know why the ice time was pulled. Same "interview" -- he said what a good move the Penguins had made in changing coaches in midstream.

I remember a couple of SHGs and a hot start last year, but I think we need some more numbers to give this theory some credibility.

[Stoner]

I remember a couple of SHGs and a hot start last year, but I think we need some more numbers to give this theory some credibility.

 

Yes, that's just what we need. Ice time breakdown for Vanek. That's never been done before. :censored:

[nfreeman]

Yes, that's just what we need. Ice time breakdown for Vanek. That's never been done before. :censored:

Have you done a detailed breakdown showing increased production correlated with more ice time? I remember a few detailed posts last summer about Vanek but not specifically on that topic. It's quite possible I'm forgetting though.

[VansTheMans]

It's been discussed.

 

There is almost a direct correlation between Vanek's hot start at the beginning of last season with his increased ice time (and placement on the team's PK). I believe he scored a SHG two games in a row, correct?

[LabattBlue]

It's been discussed.

 

There is almost a direct correlation between Vanek's hot start at the beginning of last season with his increased ice time (and placement on the team's PK). I believe he scored a SHG two games in a row, correct?

2nd and 3rd games last season...

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8470598&season=20082009&view=log

[Mbossy]

I ran some numbers on Vanek before. From what I can remember it wasn't ice time, it was shots on goal. If he was under three a game he sucked, over three he scored more.

 

Now maybe that's related to ice time, more ice = more shots, but nowadays I just don't see him shooting as much, always passing. And moving his feet. How many times does he reach for the puck with his stick and miss when he could have taken one or two small strides and got the puck?

 

Take a look at Vanek's game log. Browse the shot % column, except for a few occasions, he scores one when it's over 3 shots on net.

[jad1]

It was me and I believe that now more than ever. How many times last night did OV get the puck almost at the red line with only one Sabre back. There is nothing wrong with hangers if they are use correctly. Yet Vanek is forced to play defense at our own faceoff dots. It's Lindy.

 

There's no way I'm buying this. Vanek doesn't battle on the boards; he's easily knocked off the puck; he's barely 50-50 on break-aways, and all this is in the offensive zone. I find it hard to believe that his poor play in these areas is caused by Ruff's demand that he pick up a trailer in the defensive zone or that he occasionally covers for a pinching defenseman, which, by the way, are things he also sucks at.

 

Vanek has never been, and it looks like he never will be, an effort guy. He has no fight; he loses battles all over the ice. It seems that he has decided he's going to coast on his natural talent and cash paychecks.

 

This has nothing to do with the coach, it has everything to do with Vanek's approach to the game and his personal accountability. He'll never have the fire of a top level guy like Ovechkin, Crosby, or Kane. His attitude is more in line with Miro Satan's.

 

This guy is destined to be a jouneyman who will be traded around the league, spending time with teams who are initially intrigued by his talent before he wears out his welcome with his uninspired play.

[carpandean]

There is almost a direct correlation between Vanek's hot start at the beginning of last season with his increased ice time (and placement on the team's PK).

Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean cause. For example, and this is just playing Devil's advocate, if he came out the of the game with energy and enthusiasm, which led to increased production and Lindy giving him more ice time; then, the lazy shifts and lackluster effort started creeping back into his game, leading to a decrease in production and, subsequently, Lindy cutting his ice time. TOI and production would have a relationship, but the cause would be he effort, which factored into both. There has been almost no change in his TOI/G over the last 3-3/4 seasons (16 1/2 - 17 1/2 minutes), but his production has gone up and down wildly.

 

I just spent about as much time looking at the beginning of last season as I can afford to right now (which isn't much), but with some quick analysis, I found almost zero correlation between ice time and production (not statistically significant and estimated to be on the order of 8/100 of a point per minute.) In fact, the negative relationship between ice time and +/- was roughly the same as the positive one with production. I'm not sure exactly when you consider the cutoff to be, because his ice time oscillated between 15 and 22 minutes over the first half of the season, but there were many cases where his best performances were low minute games (for example, in his first two three-point games - #4 and #18 on the season - he played less than 17 minutes) and many cases where his worst performances were high minute games (for example, 0 points and even/-1/-3 in three games where he played over 21 and the almost 19 twice; games #8, #9 and #19.) Also, in the 5th and 10th games, his only production was a PP goal each, but he was a -1 and -2 respectively, despite playing 24+ and 21+ minutes total. If I had to guess (i.e., based on a quick inspection; I also don't have the TOI broken down by type), while his PP production stayed high, his 5-on-5 play was getting worse with the increases ice time, especially defensively, so Lindy cut that.

[That Aud Smell]

When, exactly, did this occur?

beginning of the 08-09 season, i think -- he had a couple of shorties, IIRC.

[nfreeman]

Of course, correlation does not necessarily mean cause. For example, and this is just playing Devil's advocate, if he came out the of the game with energy and enthusiasm, which led to increased production and Lindy giving him more ice time; then, the lazy shifts and lackluster effort started creeping back into his game, leading to a decrease in production and, subsequently, Lindy cutting his ice time. TOI and production would have a relationship, but the cause would be he effort, which factored into both. There has been almost no change in his TOI/G over the last 3-3/4 seasons (16 1/2 - 17 1/2 minutes), but his production has gone up and down wildly.

 

I just spent about as much time looking at the beginning of last season as I can afford to right now (which isn't much), but with some quick analysis, I found almost zero correlation between ice time and production (not statistically significant and estimated to be on the order of 8/100 of a point per minute.) In fact, the negative relationship between ice time and +/- was roughly the same as the positive one with production. I'm not sure exactly when you consider the cutoff to be, because his ice time oscillated between 15 and 22 minutes over the first half of the season, but there were many cases where his best performances were low minute games (for example, in his first two three-point games - #4 and #18 on the season - he played less than 17 minutes) and many cases where his worst performances were high minute games (for example, 0 points and even/-1/-3 in three games where he played over 21 and the almost 19 twice; games #8, #9 and #19.) Also, in the 5th and 10th games, his only production was a PP goal each, but he was a -1 and -2 respectively, despite playing 24+ and 21+ minutes total. If I had to guess (i.e., based on a quick inspection; I also don't have the TOI broken down by type), while his PP production stayed high, his 5-on-5 play was getting worse with the increases ice time, especially defensively, so Lindy cut that.

 

Ah, yes. Muchas gracias.

 

...and PAFAn's and VantheMan's "theory" goes up in smoke.

[VansTheMans]

Not really. I don't know off hand who the Sabres were playing those nights, whether or not the team showed up, who his linemates were, etc. Those are all individual factors you must consider while looking at the OVERALL TREND.

 

More ice time = more confidence = better play (i.e. more shots, more goals). Speaking generally, as a trend.

 

Can that be argued against?

[jad1]

Not really. I don't know off hand who the Sabres were playing those nights, whether or not the team showed up, who his linemates were, etc. Those are all individual factors you must consider while looking at the OVERALL TREND.

 

More ice time = more confidence = better play (i.e. more shots, more goals). Speaking generally, as a trend.

 

Can that be argued against?

 

I would argue that ice time has to be earned. The team shouldn't be forced to suffer waiting for Vanek to float through shift after shift before he decides that he is confident enough to give more than a half-assed effort after his 18th or 19th minute of ice time.

[static70]

This season he has had hands of stone. I can't blame his line mates for Vanek's inability to finish. He's had chances to bury some shots this season. He's failed to do so.

 

It looks to me like Pomminstein's "couldn't hit the broadside of a barn" disease is spreading to the rest of the roster.

That and the fact this team couldn't keep a 5 on 5 forecheck going for the life of them is killing Vaneks numbers.

I mean, really, this team cannot muster any offensive zone forecheck thats even noticable game in and game out. Even with the great run the first half of the season I noticed this, Vanek gets out muscled an awful lote in the offensive zone, but then again, so does the rest of the roster.

 

The only line I see that can keep the puck in the zone for any length of time is line 4. Maybe we should make that line 1 and throw Vanek on the LW. Hell, it couldn't hurt any.

[SwampD]

I would argue that ice time has to be earned. The team shouldn't be forced to suffer waiting for Vanek to float through shift after shift before he decides that he is confident enough to give more than a half-assed effort after his 18th or 19th minute of ice time.

The fans shouldn't be forced to suffer watching Adam Mair trying to get a game tying goal with a minute left just because he looked like he was trying harder the rest of the game. He should look like he is trying harder, because he has to. He's not as good as Vanek.

[Buffano DeBoom]

I've never had the sense that he's passionate about hockey or likes Buffalo. He always wears angst on his face and more disturbingly, his repeated mea culpa's describing his poor play delve into therapy speak. If you know you have a problem - fix it. I don't need to know that you didn't finish on a given play - I saw it.

 

I wonder if he would have had any impact with Edmonton or if he would be happier in Minnesota.

[Stoner]

Ah, yes. Muchas gracias.

 

...and PAFAn's and VantheMan's "theory" goes up in smoke.

 

Ah yes. Made perfect sense to you eh?

[nfreeman]

Ah yes. Made perfect sense to you eh?

What does this mean? Are you saying that your theory, for which you refused to provide supporting facts, still holds water, even in the face of contradictory facts?

[SwampD]

What does this mean? Are you saying that your theory, for which you refused to provide supporting facts, still holds water, even in the face of contradictory facts?

Theories and facts aside, at the end of a game, if the Sabres need a big goal, I want him on the ice. At certain times this year he wasn't. I don't care about his effort the rest of the game. He has a better chance of scoring (or assisting) there than someone else.

[nobody]

Theories and facts aside, at the end of a game, if the Sabres need a big goal, I want him on the ice. At certain times this year he wasn't. I don't care about his effort the rest of the game. He has a better chance of scoring (or assisting) there than someone else.

 

 

And if you want him on the ice at the end then his head needs to be in the game which means he needs to play during the game and given the confidence by his coach by giving him some PK time.

[Iron Crotch]

If you take average ice time and multiply it by games played to get a figure for total minutes on the ice this season, then divide goals by this figure... Thomas Vanek has the best "goals per time on ice" ratio on the team (excluding Ennis & Gerbe). #2 is Kaleta and #3 is/was MacArthur.

 

The highest "points per time on ice" is Connolly, with Vanek #2 and Roy #3.

 

But, this (and carpandean's analysis) doesn't take into account power play time vs. even strength time vs. shorthanded time, which is important. I think a better way to look at it is to break it down by category...

 

On another note, you cannot correlate +/- ratio with ice time without parsing out specialty situations where +/- is not applicable.

[Stoner]

If you take average ice time and multiply it by games played to get a figure for total minutes on the ice this season, then divide goals by this figure... Thomas Vanek has the best "goals per time on ice" ratio on the team (excluding Ennis & Gerbe). #2 is Kaleta and #3 is/was MacArthur.

 

The highest "points per time on ice" is Connolly, with Vanek #2 and Roy #3.

 

But, this (and carpandean's analysis) doesn't take into account power play time vs. even strength time vs. shorthanded time, which is important. I think a better way to look at it is to break it down by category...

 

On another note, you cannot correlate +/- ratio with ice time without parsing out specialty situations where +/- is not applicable.

Good stat. As I've posted before, Vanek Out-Ovechkined Ovechkin in goals/minute of ice time last season.

[Stoner]

What does this mean? Are you saying that your theory, for which you refused to provide supporting facts, still holds water, even in the face of contradictory facts?

 

Been there, supported that. This board doesn't go into reruns until summertime.

[Iron Crotch]

If you take average ice time and multiply it by games played to get a figure for total minutes on the ice this season, then divide goals by this figure... Thomas Vanek has the best "goals per time on ice" ratio on the team (excluding Ennis & Gerbe). #2 is Kaleta and #3 is/was MacArthur.

 

The highest "points per time on ice" is Connolly, with Vanek #2 and Roy #3.

 

But, this (and carpandean's analysis) doesn't take into account power play time vs. even strength time vs. shorthanded time, which is important. I think a better way to look at it is to break it down by category...

 

On another note, you cannot correlate +/- ratio with ice time without parsing out specialty situations where +/- is not applicable.

 

Since I apparently have way too much time on my hands today...

 

Taking into account even strength situations only, the highest "even strength goals per even strength minute of ice time" ratio on the team is Hecht, with Kaleta #2, the late Clark MacArthur #3, and Vanek #4. Incidentally, the bottom 3 forwards are Ellis, Mair, and Kennedy (not a surprise since they're checking line guys).

 

Vanek is only 5th among forwards in even strength ice time.

 

So, maybe we need a line of Vanek, Hecht, and Kaleta. :D