The System

[Randall Flagg]

Ottawa's turn, their shots for:

They hate the middle of the ice too! They love the Karlsson slapper, as well as the Hoffman left shot one-timer from the right boards. And Turris loves sniping from that left heat area. Also decent at jamming them in close to Lehner/Nilsson/whoever. So, they're pretty adept at taking shots from areas we're more inclined to give them up. And are quite capable of scoring three or four goals on us, unless Lehner is really in the zone. His best games as a Sabre have been against Ottawa, he goes full revenge-mode. I recall him having to face a lot of shots even in the games we win, he goes crazy, which could help explain why we still beat them a lot even when they shoot from where we give up a lot of shots. It helps us that those areas are less dangerous than the slot area.

 

Their shots against:

Same thing as what I just described but switch the teams. We love the point shots, and they give up the Eichel one-timer area (though his goal there was a peeper). They're very good at sealing off an area that we don't bother using, and pretty bad with the areas we like to use. 

  :huh:

There's a cold blue area on the left point, while the right point is red hot. It makes sense, Kulikov and Gorges regularly find shin pads and McCabe has a ton of Zhitnik in him.

Now, can these charts show us why we have trouble against certain teams? Maybe. Let's look at the Carolina Hurricanes.

Shots for:

They get a lot of them in close, and either Slavin/Hanifin/3LHD loooove shooting or Faulk goes on his off-side for the one-timer often. Probably both. This team doesn't score a lot,  but is average-to-above-average at getting shots away from the slot to the left boards, in the faceoff circle to below the goal line. There's a lot of white (average) and some blue in that area for us defensively. I'm not getting much from this one.

Defensively:

They just don't allow very many shots, even if they are a bit soft in close to Ward. A good, fast, slightly soft defense is exactly what I expect. So why do we have such a hard time with them? Nothing here jumps out. My take is that, like the graph below shows, they were the ones taking shots and possessing the puck, and were able to snuff us out with their mobile defensemen. We've all heard enough of the details about that.

[That Aud Smell]

There's a cold blue area on the left point, while the right point is red hot. It makes sense, Kulikov and Gorges regularly find shin pads and McCabe has a ton of Zhitnik in him.

 

My bad - I simply missed our Shots For chart.

[SwampD]

Really cool stuff.

[Randall Flagg]

The last team I'll post in here is Boston, who murdered us. 

Shots for:

This team rarely uses the immediate crease that we are good at keeping teams from. They literally shoot from everywhere else, though. Makes sense that they're the leading corsi and possession team. 19th in scoring, from these locations, may hint at the talent and depth problem they have at forward. They consistently scored 4 on us (in every game?) and lots of ES goals. Tough to stop from everywhere.

 

Boston shots against:

The only place they give too many shots up from is a place we do not utilize, so it makes sense that we've had tremendous offensive frustrations against Boston this season. Pretty well coached team they have (had) there.

 

Here's a link to Tronna's page: http://hockeyviz.com/team/TOR/1617

 

Haha, look at what Matthews does for their offense, that whole red area is in large part due to him. And their defensive zone is even funnier. Red everywhere! 

 

I'm done now. Pretty enjoyable, some value in it I think.

[Scottysabres]

3-0 in the third? I dont even want Alamo. I want those British soldiers in the Zulu movie,

Love that movie.

The Bylsma Riddle. That is what I call the current system.

Does he not trust the players to carry it in?

Is there real adjustments being made? And not just in game but structured by opponent ad well as by our own players strengths?

 

I don't see it. Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention. But that old saying comes to mind: "the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"............

[pi2000]

Flagg, what's the significance of "unblocked" shots vs all shot attempts?   Wouldn't total shot attempts give a better idea of where teams are attacking from?   Likewise with shot attempts against?   

[Weave]

This is a thread about Lindy, right?

[Randall Flagg]

Flagg, what's the significance of "unblocked" shots vs all shot attempts?   Wouldn't total shot attempts give a better idea of where teams are attacking from?   Likewise with shot attempts against?   

Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to answer this. I have an incredibly basic understanding of advanced stats and their evolution. I just like pretty charts.

[3putt]

Unfortunately, I'm not the guy to answer this. I have an incredibly basic understanding of advanced stats and their evolution. I just like pretty charts.

I knew it.  I take back any nice things I said about you.   :beer: 

[inkman]

This is a thread about Lindy, right?

:lol:

[dudacek]

I mentioned in the other thread that the heat maps are fun....

 

aga

This chart of shots against shows that we are pretty good at clearing the crease and not allowing guys in there with control, which honestly surprises me a little bit, because I often picture Risto and McCabe and Bogosian being soft on guys there. Maybe they're actually better than average at it. There's a slight hole in the mid/high slot, but it isn't terrible, and the rest of the slot is largely clogged up. Teams take many point shots on us, perhaps because it's all they can do to generate consistent chances, perhaps because they know Lehner kicks out rebounds.

This is very cool stuff. All of it.

 

I wanted to highlight this one because it ties in very much to an article I read about the Terry Murray defence and how his coaching of it was key to Kings winning the cup after he left. The gist was that the majority of goals are scored inside a box with corners that roughly parallel the dark blue spots in the chart. Murray's philosophy was to make it a priority for his defenders to box out and protect that section of the ice.

 

The chart sure seems to reflect that strategy. It may also explain why the coaching staff tends to give weight to certain players. For all his many flaws, Josh Gorges could box out rather well. For all his positives, Mark Pysyk could not.

 

God, hockey needs some analysts who can break down the pluses and minuses of this kind of strategy as well as the types of players who should and should not thrive in certain systems. There are real skill set/usage reasons beyond the trite "effort" and "favouritism" why some players click with some coaches and not with others.

Edited February 11, 2017 by dudacek

[pi2000]

This is very cool stuff. All of it.

 

I wanted to highlight this one because it ties in very much to an article I read about the Terry Murray defence and how his coaching of it was key to Kings winning the cup after he left. The gist was that the majority of goals are scored inside a box with corners that roughly parallel the dark blue spots in the chart. Murray's philosophy was to make it a priority for his defenders to box out and protect that section of the ice.

 

The chart sure seems to reflect that strategy. It may also explain why the coaching staff tends to give weight to certain players. For all his many flaws, Josh Gorges could box out rather well. For all his positives, Mark Pysyk could not.

 

God, hockey needs some analysts who can break down the pluses and minuses of this kind of strategy as well as the types of players who should and should not thrive in certain systems. There are real skill set/usage reasons beyond the trite "effort" and "favouritism" why some players click with some coaches and not with others.

I agree, but those Kings teams also gave up very few shots in general. BUF gives up the most shots in the league.

[TrueBlueGED]

The chart sure seems to reflect that strategy. It may also explain why the coaching staff tends to give weight to certain players. For all his many flaws, Josh Gorges could box out rather well. For all his positives, Mark Pysyk could not.

 

God, hockey needs some analysts who can break down the pluses and minuses of this kind of strategy as well as the types of players who should and should not thrive in certain systems. There are real skill set/usage reasons beyond the trite "effort" and "favouritism" why some players click with some coaches and not with others.

 

I can't put into words what I would give for this. Unfortunately, it's way easier to just show up to a broadcast and scream "MOMENTUM" 50 different times and 35 different ways.

 

 

I agree, but those Kings teams also gave up very few shots in general. BUF gives up the most shots in the league.

 

*Insert grumbling about Bylsma's breakout/puck-movement and zone entry/forecheck strategies here*

Edited February 11, 2017 by TrueBlueGED

[Mig22]

I can't put into words what I would give for this. Unfortunately, it's way easier to just show up to a broadcast and scream "MOMENTUM" 50 different times and 35 different ways.

 

Yes, this.  And "Gotta Simplify".  

[Eleven]

This is a thread about Lindy, right?

 

It can be...

[JJFIVEOH]

At what point does strategy and analysis become so complicated for the player that they can no longer concentrate on their impact on the actual game? There is some level of criticism for almost every player out there, maybe they aren't excelling because they're too busy focused on doing the wrong thing. People sitting behind a computer can't decipher this stuff, what makes anybody think a player can make snap decisions based on countless advanced scenarios?

[nfreeman]

This is some high-quality hockey talk here boys.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

It could mean they are bad at blocking, and it could mean that teams funnel their offense so much more through the point against us than other times because of other factors, or a combination. Certainly needs some dedicated watchers and other stats to get a full picture, but I'm having fun.

 

I have to say that you are really bringing it lately.

 

I also have to say that those graphics remind me of an acid trip man.

[bob_sauve28]

They are not following the system

[Randall Flagg]

Buffalo Sabres at Arizona Coyotes, 2/26/17

Alright, so here are the results of my zone entry calculations. I may have missed 2 or 3 of them throughout the game, but this information is 95% accurate at least. I could not do Arizona's entries and maintain that accuracy, so I didn't. I define a pass play entry as one where the pass was received within about 5 feet of the blue line on either side. I didn't count plays that were clears of our zone into the NZ or plays that didn't come within 5 feet of their blue line. I didn't count PK or PP entries either. There were some interesting things to look at. 

As a team, the Sabres dumped or chipped the puck in 25 times. 9 of these times resulted in a successful retrieval, some of which were direct retrievals, some of which involved the other team getting the puck right away but the Sabres forcing a turnover and keeping the zone because of that. This is a 36% success rate. 

Of those 25 dump/chips, I counted two of them as done for the sole purpose of getting players changed. This happens more often, IMO, when we play teams that are good and hem us in, but the Coyotes aren't very good. 

8 of those dump/chips were done because of a squeeze out in the NZ, with no other option but to get rid of it. only 2 of those were recovered. Of the remaining 15 dump/chips, the ones done by choice, there were 7 successful recoveries. 3 of them came from the 4 times a defenseman chose to dump, interestingly enough. 

 

Now, to the carry-ins. The Sabres had a player carry the puck in the zone 31 times. Defining a successful entry as one that results in a play to maintain possession or take a shot on goal, they were successful 21 times (6 direct SOG, 15 plays to maintain possession). This is a 67% success rate. Both goals came off of an Eichel carry - one from a direct SOG, one from maintaining possession on that 4 on 2. 

 

And, the pass plays. The Sabres made a pass to enter the zone 24 times. Of these 24 entries, 16 were successful, or 67%. 

 

Now some breakdown by players/lines:
 

Eichel: Jack dumped the puck in ZERO times. He carried 10 times, took 4 shots, made 4 successful passes, for an 80% zone entry rate. One shot and one pass resulted in a goal. 
Reinhart: Sam dumped the puck in 2 times, both by choice with other options available, and was successful 1 of those times. He attempted 2 carry-ins, and lost the puck both times. 1/4*100 = 25% success rate. Good thing he had Jack to defer to. Also, this guy should be playing center.

Kane: Evander did not dump or chip the puck in at all. He carried 5 times and was successful 3 times with a pass and 1 time with a shot, for a success rate of 80%, with half of the attempts of Eichel. 
This line: The second line of 9-15-23 attempted 6 pass plays to enter the zone and was successful 4 times, for a 67% success rate. In total, they attempted to enter the zone 25 times and only had 8 failures, so they entered the zone with 68% success. They dumped 2 times, and carried or passed 23 times.

 

O'Reilly: Ryan dumped the puck in 4 times, 3 of them by choice. His only successful attempt was by choice, and so he was successful 25% of the time with this. He tried 1 carry in and made a successful possession play. 

Okposo: Kyle dumped the puck in 1 time, he was pressed with no support or options, and they did not recover the puck. He had 1 successful carry and 1 failed carry. 33% success rate.

Bailey: Justin dumped the puck in 4 times, all 4 attempts failed, though 3 of them were due to being squeezed out in the neutral zone with no options. He had 1 successful carry in and 1 failed carry in.

This line: The first line of 56-90-21 attempted 7 pass plays to enter the zone. They were only successful 2 of them. It was funny - the two successful pass entries didn't happen until about 3 minutes left in the game, every single line was doing well with them and then this one started out 0 for 5. In total they made 21 attempts to enter the zone and were successful 6 of them, for a success rate of only 29%. They were 1 for 9 dumping and chipping, 3 for 5 carrying.

 

Foligno: Marcus carried the puck in once and was successful. No dumps.

Girgensons: Zemgus dumped it in once to change, it wasn't picked up by us (bc we were changing). He had 3 carry attempts and all were successful, 1 with a direct SOG and 2 with successful passes. 
Gionta: Brian dumped the puck in 3 times, twice by choice. 1 of those were successful, 33% success rate. He carried the puck in 1 time and lost it. 25% success rate overall.
This line: The third line passed the puck into the zone a total of 6 times and were successful 5 of them. In total, the line entered the zone 15 times, and were successful 10 of them, 67% success rate. They were 1 for 4 on dumps.

 

Rodrigues: Evan dumped the puck in 2 times, both by choice, and was successful 1 of them. He also had a successful carry-in. 66% success rate.

Ennis: Tyler dumped the puck in 2 times, failed once (the time he wasn't pressed) and successful when he had no other choice. He had 1 failed zone entry via carry-in.
Moulson: Matt did nothing to enter the zone on his own.

This line: The fourth line entered the zone via pass 5 times and were successful all 5 times. Their total success rate was thus 8/11*100 = 73%.

 

The team as a whole made 4 stretch pass attempts that went for an icing. The defense group had 6 dump-ins, 4 were successful. Rasmus had a successful carry-in, Kulikov had a failed carry-in. The defense as a whole was thus 5/8 for 63% at entering the zone. 

 

This confirms my eye-test that we were pretty good at getting in the zone, though line 1 needs to be shaken up, eh? Bad teams can't handle us. I can't wait to do these numbers when we play a team that's really good. 

 

[Randall Flagg]

Nashville Predators at Buffalo Sabres, 2/28/17

As a team, the Buffalo Sabres attempted to enter the offensive zone via a dump/chip 30 times. Of these 30 attempts, 23 were by choice with other options available. 10 of these 23 were successful, and the 7 dumps that were to change or because of no support were all unsuccessful, so as a whole they succeeded 10/30 times, for 30%. Last game the defensemen dumped 4 times and were successful 3 of them, this time they dumped 9 times and were only successful 1 time.

 

As a team, the Buffalo Sabres carried the puck into the zone 21 times. This is down 10 attempts from Arizona (and the dump ins were up 5 attempts). They were successful 16 of these 21 attempts, a 76% success rate. 

 

The Sabres attempted 15 pass plays to enter the zone, and were successful 10 of them, for a 67% success rate. 

Last game they attempted 4 stretch passes and 3 of them were broken up or iced. This game, they attempted 13 of them and were only successful 1 time, the other 12 either broken up immediately or called back on icing. 

 

The Sabres made 84 total plays to enter the zone against Arizona counting those stretch passes, and that number decreased to 79 against Nashville, while D&C and stretch passes increased, meaning they attempted controlled entries much fewer times (46% of all attempts versus 65% of all attempts versus Arizona). 

 

Now some breakdown by players/lines:
 

Eichel: Jack dumped the puck in ZERO times, again. He carried 6 times, making 5 successful passes, for an 83% zone entry success rate. 
Kane: Evander did not dump or chip the puck in against Arizona, but last night he did 5 times, 3 with no other option and 2 by choice. Only one of his dump-ins was successful. Nashville ain't scared of Evander. He carried only 1 time and lost the puck. 17% success.

Gionta: Brian dumped the puck in 2 times,once by choice. 1 of those was successful. He carried the puck in 3 times and lost it twice, though his success is what led to a goal (that 2 on 1 with Kane). 
This line: The second line of 9-15-12 attempted 5 pass plays to enter the zone and was successful 3 times, for a 60% success rate. In total, they attempted to enter the zone 21 times and were successful 11 times, 52%. 

 

O'Reilly: Ryan dumped the puck in 2 times, 1 of them by choice. His only successful attempt was by choice, and it led to a goal. He did not carry the puck in.

Okposo: Kyle dumped the puck in 4 times, all by choice, and was successful once.. He had 2 successful carries.

Bailey: Justin dumped the puck in 2 times and both led to a successful recovery.

This line: The first line of 56-90-21 attempted 4 pass plays to enter the zone. They were successful for 3 of them. In total this line attempted to enter the zone 14 times, down 7 from last game, though their success rate went up this game to 64%.

 

Foligno: Marcus dumped the puck in twice by choice, one of them was recovered. He made no carries.

Rodrigues: I counted no zone entries for Rodrigues, because Sam was on his line probably. I don't think they got a huge amount of ES ice time.

Reinhart: Sam dumped the puck in 2 times, and was successful 1 of those times, the one he did by choice. He attempted 4 carry-ins, and was successful all 4 times this game, twice taking a direct SOG and twice making a successful pass. His total zone entry success rate was also 83%.

This line: The third line passed the puck into the zone a total of 3 times and were successful 1 of them. In total, the line entered the zone 11 times, and were successful 7 of them, 64% success rate. 

 

Girgensons: Zemgus did not dump the puck. He had 2 carry attempts and both were successful.

Ennis: Tyler dumped the puck in 2 times, failed once. He had 1 failed zone entry via carry-in.
Moulson: Matt did nothing to enter the zone on his own, again.

This line: The fourth line entered the zone via pass 3 times and were successful all 3 times. Their total success rate was 75%.

 

The forwards weren't terrible at entering the zone...the team's failures came from their abysmal stretch pass record (again, 1 successful stretch pass out of 13 attempts). The defensemen weren't good either - like I mentioned they were 1 for 9 dumping, though Risto and McCabe each had a successful carry. 

 

You can tell we played a team that is better than the Coyotes last night.

[WildCard]

That Moulson line though :lol:

[Randall Flagg]

Philadelphia Flyers at Buffalo Sabres, 2/28/17

As a team, the Buffalo Sabres attempted to enter the offensive zone via a dump/chip 30 times. Of these 30 attempts, 24 were by choice with other options available. 9 of these 24 were successful, and 3 of the 6 dumps that were to change or because of no support were successful, so as a whole they succeeded 12/30 times, for 40%. The defensemen dumped 15 of these times, much higher than the previous two games, they were successful 6 of them. This game was particularly infuriating early on. In the first period we had 7 failed dumps and 1 successful one, 4 failed stretches and 1 successful one, and were 7 for 7 entering the zone with a carry or with a pass play. They weren't skating, they weren't giving each other support, just doing what they do, not carrying/passing nearly enough even though it was clearly the best thing to do.

 

As a team, the Buffalo Sabres carried the puck into the zone 14 times, down 17 times from Arizona and 7 times from Nashville. They were successful 12 of these 14 attempts, an 86% success rate. Most of these carries had more of the same lack of puck support and wingers just staring from oblivion waiting for a chip like we've seen 140 times the past two years and it was STILL incredibly effective. 

 

The Sabres attempted 20 pass plays to enter the zone, and were successful 17 of them, for an 85% success rate. 

 

In Arizona they attempted 4 stretch passes and 3 of them were broken up or iced. Against Nashville, they attempted 13 of them and were only successful 1 time, the other 12 either broken up immediately or called back on icing. Tonight they attempted 15 stretch passes and were successful 2 times, 13% success rate.

 

PUCK SUPPORT AND POSSESSION FOR 'S SAKE YOU LOSER

 

The Sabres attempted to enter the zone at even strength 79 times. 34 of these entries were possession entries, or 43%. These were successful 29/34*100=85% of the time. Of the 57% of the time they chipped and stretched, they were successful 14 times, 31%. Go teeeeeeeeeeam. They still don't give any support to any player. If you freeze frame when we have the puck, there are almost never any options! and when you do the same for other teams you see them making decisions that haven't even entered the realm of possibility for our players over the past two seasons! They're playing a game on a different planet from everyone else! 

 

I don't have the energy to do individual player breakdowns tonight. There was nothing out of the ordinary. Just the defensemen dumping a lot more than usual, always by choice with other options (that I wouldn't call puck support because the options were always the wingers standing still at the blue line, defenders having skated from their own zone because they didn't feel like those garbage stretch passes anymore) 

[WildCard]

I can't tell you how much I enjoy these breakdowns Flagg, it's so nice to have statistical vindication for my hatred of Bylsma

[Randall Flagg]

I'm going to do one final massive post that sums up everything that I've complained about during the past 5 months. I hope to pull everything together nicely.

 

I was sitting in the dining hall of the school that is now in my past, watching my friend's mouth drop as they looked over my shoulder at the television in the corner. A joke concerning Carey Price's absence from practice because of the flu (it was totally jock itch) had just left my lips. I turned around to see what was up, expecting a new fun exciting Trump comment or something, and almost got sick, because I was watching Jack Eichel writhe around on the ice at FNC, unable to put any weight on his ankle. Every bit of excitement I felt for the upcoming season was drained. People I barely knew were offering condolences. (I was known there as the ridiculously intense Sabres fan.)

 

Our team played the next night, and looked as shell-shocked as we all felt. I wasn't about to blame them for it, though some posters were pretty upset at Dan for allowing the pessimism to seep into their play. Things were looking alright again after we got Okposo and ROR back in time for game #2, a thorough beatdown of the Oilers. The four weeks after that, however, were as miserable a time as a Sabres fan I've ever had.

 

I learned what the 1-2-2 forecheck was, because I watched us pull forecheckers to sit back into it as soon as we gained a lead. It didn't matter how much time was left. Analysts, posters, and the coach himself explained that without our star, we were going to have to be a cautious, conservative team if we had any chance of winning. The skill simply wasn't there to play a risk-oriented game. I was put off by this - we had just added a winger who had recorded more points last season than Jack himself, and he was playing. We upgraded the left side of our defense with a puck mover advertised as having incredibly smooth skating and a good first pass. He's been injured on and off, but he's still playing games. Well, let's see where this goes.

 

We won four of our next fifteen games, scoring fifteen or so even strength goals during that stretch. Six wins in nineteen before Jack comes back. Our even strength goal scoring rate was worse than both tank teams for almost all of the 21 games without Jack Eichel, and it finished sandwiched between the tank teams when he came back for Ottawa. It was the only way we could win. It got us 7 wins in 21 games. It was the driest hockey I've ever seen in my life. Dan said himself how important drawing penalties and scoring on the power play was going to be for us during that time. What a brilliant strategy - in an era where scoring is down and holding/interference are creeping back into the game, let's make the power play the only possible way to win unless Lehner stops 40 and allows only one goal. A lot of people have forgotten how much of a drag the start of the season was. A lot of the people joining me in my criticism of our conservative play now say that Jack's injury was the main cause. It wasn't. At the time we had seven players that had either scored 20 goals the season before or were pacing for it this year (that addendum is for Brian Gionta, who spent much of this season as our leading even strength producer, not only in raw numbers but in points per sixty minutes). The tank seasons had somewhere between zero and two of those players. I'm not looking up the details. I've done far more comparisons between now and then than I ever should have had to. For the information I will be presenting later on in this post, I went back and re-watched condensed 7 minute highlight videos of every single game this season. It routinely felt like we were never, ever going to score a goal. We never had the puck in high danger areas, we never had the puck at all.

 

I was ready to fire Bylsma for how he handled the stretch without Jack by itself. 33% winning percentage was unacceptable to me, and nowhere close to what I believe they should have been able to accomplish. When I heard him say that we can finally get to the way we are supposed to play, with bum-ankle Jack back in the fold, I wanted to pull my hair out.

 

The system didn't change all that much. We added a center that does what he wants with the puck because he can, and so 1 in every 4 shifts saw some change. We didn't pull forecheckers and drop into the 1-2-2 until we were a.) up by 2 goals or b.) in the third with any sort of lead.

 

The system. I started trying my best to analyze it early on this thread. I have posts about it in a few of the GDTs, too. What does Dan Bylsma like? In his own words - fast, grinding hockey. The puck goes from our zone to theirs in the blink of an eye, faster than they can handle. The toughest play for an opposing defenseman? To have to turn around and get the puck, especially with the roaring forecheck we were going to employ. (This forecheck was largely absent during our 1-2-2 days pre-Eichel, aside from some Kane after he came back. chip 'n chase with no real forecheck, you may as well just be killing penalties. Give the puck back and wait for the onslaught. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now.) The results of this desire - a tendency for the forwards to evacuate the defensive zone when we regained clear control, and for the stretch pass to catch them mid-flight. Either it was caught and we attack with speed, or it was chipped in and we grind 'em down. This failed my eye test in practice. We don't have the roster built for doing this. We have Sam Reinhart, Tyler Ennis, slower guys like Okposo and Moulson, little guys like Gionta, up and down the wings of this roster. Those guys aren't winning races and board battles at the same time. Furthermore - we started encountering teams like Tampa, Carolina (who you will see a lot more of soon) and Boston. Teams with young, quick-thinking defensemen. They were on our pucks and had their teams transitioning the other way before we got to the faceoff dots. We did not beat these teams a single time this year. The stylistic clash was as obvious as anything in this sport I've ever seen. I'll never forget that for 6 straight minutes of even strength hockey in the second period at home against Carolina, the Buffalo Sabres did not possess the puck in the offensive zone one single time. That really, really happened.

 

We also saw teams like Ottawa and NYR. Teams that are pacing for almost (if not over) 100 points this year. Teams classified by their ability to break games open in transition. Mediocre in each zone, devastating on the rush. They were the first two teams we faced with Jack back. We popped in 9 goals. When the Rags opened up on us and took a 2-1 lead, I remember watching the back and forth action with legitimate fear accompanying the excitement in my gut. It reminded me of the first time I went snowmobiling in Canada - the whole time, I was electrified by adrenaline and simultaneously convinced I was going to die because I wasn't ready for that and didn't belong there. We can't be doing this, can we? We aren't good enough for this! Marcus fed it to Gio and the game was tied, capping off the most dizzying 2 minutes of hockey I've seen this team play since Briere and Drury. I wasn't scared of the Rangers. Eichel took over the 3rd and we won, and this board was alive and sensing that our playoff hopes might be too.

 

You've all read this a million times. You've all followed this season. You know what came next. Months of inconsistency. Our corsi and other possession stats never climbing out of the bottom 2 spots in the NHL, even though there are TWO goddamn tank teams this year. Constant arguing - it's the talent. It's the defense. It's the coach. It's the PK. The lines suck. ROR and Risto, ground to dust. We sit here in March, team in a horrendous regression, feeling exactly opposite the way we felt last March. This team is going in the wrong direction. Word is there are rifts between the coach and players, several of the latter ignoring the former. Jack's scoring on himself. We're close to the cap and fielding aesthetic garbage that doesn't win.

 

You all know that I place a lot of this at the feet of Dan Bylsma. I haven't backed off from that. I don't often like his lines, I don't see him as a motivator, he's killing ROR and Risto. But I expect variations of these things with any NHL coach. I might gripe from time to time, but these are not the reasons I want Dan fired. It all goes back to his system. It's not even the D&C so much anymore. It's the lack of puck support in all areas of the ice. Especially in transition.

 

The premise is simple: When transitioning, you want your players to be able to create and use space to enter the zone. When you provide puck support to the puck carrier, you create an odd man rush between the red line and either blue line, depending on what's going on. You can read what the defender does, and make the pass or keep the puck as needed. If you're constantly creating these little plays, you have a tremendous chance of getting into the zone and creating scoring chances. When you stretch the forwards out, far from the D, creating a low percentage play just to get the puck up for them to chip in the zone, for another low percentage puck recovery, you are not going to be as successful. It's very easy for the other team to hone in on whoever receives the pass, and to snuff him out at the line if by chance he does corral the pass.

 

I posed this as a solution to our transition problems and was met with some blow-back regarding our talent level. My response was to reference the Carolina Hurricanes, who had fewer players on a 20 goal pace than we did while Jack was hurt, and are still a top 7 or 8 possession team with a real talent problem which gives them bottom-3 PDO. I watched the Carolina Hurricanes closely, every chance I could find a stream. I was almost mesmerized by what a team of Victor Rasks, Joacim Nordstroms and Lee Stempniaks could do with a puck. And then I remembered that NHL players can indeed complete 5 foot passes when faced with 3 open players to choose from. Especially given 2 years of practice. Ours have spent 2 years chasing Risto stretch passes and banging into the corners as hard as possible.

 

I decided to count Sabres transition plays when I had a chance to watch the games in peace. Aside from a fluke game against the second-worst team in the league, we attempted these stretch passes 14-20 times per game, and regained/maintained control of them 0-4 times per game. Our carry - ins and team transition pass plays, even with less support than I see other teams used, maintained success rates between 60-85% on a game by game basis. Our dump-ins were an expected 30-45% success. The more I've watched for this stuff, the more I believe that the abandoned puck support in search of flipping the ice with speed is what really takes precedence, not dumping. The dumping just achieves that goal the most often. There are plenty of situations where the dump play is the right play, and where it works to our advantage. But when it gets combined with no puck support and leaned on for more than half of our transition attempts, we see a bottom tier possession team.

 

When you add talent to a good system, you are going to see an explosion. Toronto established a system with tank players like Brooks Laich leading the way, had them playing positive possession hockey, added 3 60 point players, and are one of the highest scoring teams in the league one year later. If they weren't playing 3 legitimate AHL defensemen every night, they'd win a playoff series. Carolina has established this same base. It almost has them playing too well to get that real high end talent, but keeping Peters around and adding young talent will develop that team into a contender. Putting defensemen like Slavin and Hanifin and Pesce in that environment is a wet dream for fans that love puck movers. They are incredible right now and will get even better. I wonder how they'd do with Guhle coming up in the next couple years.

 

These are all just words, though.

Pictures would be pretty helpful, because not everyone is watching the Canes. I decided to go through game highlights. My hope was to find instances of both the Sabres and the Hurricanes exhibiting these tactics. The Hurricanes were easy - I got bored after about 8 videos, finding more than enough of what I need, because these plays were leading to the goals they scored, and these highlight videos only put the goals and maybe 1 or 2 big saves or good chances otherwise. Because of this, I wasn't sure how successful I would be with the Sabres. Luckily (hah) we stretch pass a lot, and it leads to opposing chances almost immediately after a lot (they start the goal highlights 3-5 seconds before it's scored often, you can see why I was worried - most of our stretches were never going to see the light of day). 

Let's take a look! Pardon the words and arrows, they were to help me later remember what was going on in the video.

 

 

 

Carolina comes in as a team. Four players, sticks down, looking for the pass. 42 dumps to the wing at the line, and drives through to open space, and the guy on the wing has two players filling that space, ready for a pass, going to their positions. Scoring chance created.

 

Next up:

D-man at the top brings it with his team into the early neutral zone, and Teravainen executes a swoop behind Skinner to become an option on Skinner's other side when he receives the pass, but again, there are three options. Only one winger went to the blue line, in case there was a change/seam for a breakaway. 

 

Here, Slavin brings the puck up EXACTLY how Kulikov would in Florida. Zaitsev steps up to force him, and he quickly turns to see 3 open sticks that have found space. He gives it to Teravainen, who then swoops behind the guy on the right wing, who came over for that exact reason. The swoop backed the D that you can't see in the first picture off so hard that he disappears in all that space in the left picture, he didn't know how to handle. It's a simple cross. I see our forwards cross to enter the zone once a month. 

 

Look here where Hanifin's forwards are on the breakout. Colorado is hesitant to push into the zone, because the support would leave any individual forward outnumbered, and they opt to sit and try to gum up the NZ. Note how everything Carolina is doing is with the intent to have an option, to create the mini 2 on 1. 

Carolina comes in as a team. Four players, sticks down, looking for the pass. 42 dumps to the wing at the line, and drives through to open space, and the guy on the wing has two players filling that space, ready for a pass, going to their positions. Scoring chance created.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Randall Flagg