Berglund, Sobotka, & a Season Preview

[Randall Flagg]

I’ve been collecting some low-quality video on Sobotka, Berglund, and little bits of Thompson over the past little bit, to try and learn what these players are about. I was going to post the results in the thread dudacek made about Berglund and Sobotka, because it flows nicely, but I ended up continuing on to write about broader topics than just that, so I figured I’d stick it in my own thread. It’s just my take on what we should expect from these two and what I’d like our mindset to be when building lines. 

Patrick Berglund
First, a general thought. The functional difference between good and bad hockey players is often not as stark as gets painted in discussions about them. Berglund on the power play makes bad plays, and he makes good plays too. The same goes with Tarasenko. The difference in value might look tiny if you kept these counts, how many times each player successfully gets the puck to the point or on goal, but there’s no question who you’d rather have out there, and there’s no question that the good teams, much better than the bad teams, simply have a few of these small upgrades in a few key spots. So in a video of highlights, lots of players can be made to look like the best of the best, and lots can be made to look terrible. This isn’t what I try to do. I’ll try to show what these guys can bring and describe the relative pros and cons.

Note: I apologize for the poor video quality. I don’t know what I’m doing and am living off of saltine crackers and peanut butter, so upgrading software is out of the question. And Berglund is #21.

Vladimir Sobotka

 

 
Bringing this all together
I feel that so much focus goes on what we think good teams all have, and who on our team best represents what that is, and then smashing those things together and letting it stick, but the reality is that teams are built quite differently by necessity and scarcity. Nashville certainly doesn’t have a franchise 1C but is able to win games. Ottawa was one game away from the SCF with a single  ridiculous defenseman, great wing depth, and nothing else of note.

I think you need to survey your organization, roughly “rank” the players you have in terms of positional importance+their individual skill, and then do some variational calculus to get the maximal performance out of your roster based on these characteristics. I think the consistently good teams and coaches are the ones that are the best "mathematicians" in this regard. 

An example of this could be the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Penguins buck all stereotypes for how to build a consistently winning team. They load up on an unfathomable and unrepeatable amount of HOF talent and have a defense corps often in the bottom-half of the league in raw hockey ability, in part because of the top-heaviness of their roster. The player usage and systems and luck haven’t always been there for them, though. Their most recent great seasons saw incredibly specific roles for players who were sought after for these niche skills/traits. The most famous example is Justin Schultz, who was dreadful in Edmonton and fit like a glove with what Pittsburgh was doing. 

 It is well known that Sid has a hard time playing with high-skill wingers. Every single skill winger they've brought in to play with him has wound up settling next to Malkin or lower. I can recall him trying to play with Iginla, with Neal, with Kessel, with no expectations being met. Who does he play with when they win cups? Sheary, Rust, Guentzel. Guys who aren’t fancy, but can keep up and find seams. They play a simple game and they mesh with him perfectly. Meanwhile, Geno absolutely demolishes whatever line is lucky enough to miss Crosby, but not lucky enough to miss him. And instead of 94 point Phil Kessel being “Duh, he’s our best winger, he goes with Crosby,” he winds up playing with Hagelin and Bonino when they win their first cup. Their 1W is on the 3rd line, because he doesn’t mesh with Crosby, is a huge liability defensively and a puck drain from Malkin. But he can drive a line with two very nice defensive players. In this way, the three most important forwards on the Penguins are simultaneously in their ideal situations. 

Sid:gets the grinders that complement his playstyle
Malkin:gets matchup advantages for days, with cleanup-snipers like Hornqvist and Neal
Kessel:controls the puck and has very little defensive responsibility

This all seems obvious and makes sense, but for a good 6 years there you could not say that the Pens’ best three forwards were being optimized, or that things that weren’t working were being tossed to search for things that did. 

That is where I see the Sabres right now. The Sabres are stuck in a trap that spans several coaching staffs. “Good teams have a 1D that eats minutes. Risto can eat minutes. Ergo, Risto is our all-situations, top PP top PK, opposing top line player.” “We drafted a man who is going to be our franchise 1C. He is supposed to make players better. Ergo, Eichel will face no single player more often on his ELC than he faces Sidney Crosby, closely followed by Bergeron/Stamkos/etc. With variations of Pominville, Girgensons, Foligno, and Moulson on his wing.” “ROR is a great two-way player and can play center, so he will get a role that is most-often suited for other teams’ Jay Beagles and other 4Cs, breaking records for the amount of defensive zone starts per game among “top 9 players,” which take 200 of his ES minutes and throw them into a trashbag of no-upside offensive minutes for the second best offensive player on the team that can’t score goals.” See, chart (http://hockeyviz.com/fixedImg/zoneDeployment/1718/BUF/): 

 

It all makes SENSE on the surface, so we don’t really talk about it or focus on it, but if usage tweaks can improve Giroux’s point totals by 60 while he’s simultaneously a full step slower, or turn Ovechkin from the worst +/- in the league and a defensive nightmare into a fully-optimized machine that goes on to lead the league in goals by 10 over the next 3 seasons, they can get more out of a team with the pieces we have than we have seen to this point. 

Eichel hemorrhages goals-against, especially with Kane. When together, they were our first line, but should have been either split up or treated the way most of us would treat a Mittelstadt-Rodrigues-Nylander line. With so little top-end talent, we should have either given ALL of it to Eichel and had him with ROR on the wing and Reinhart on the other, or relentlessly searched stylistic fits (the best we found in three years was Zemgus) while chasing low quality opponents as often as possible (and it is possible - compare Matthews’ most-faced opponents to Jack’s, it isn’t even close, even though when the other team gets the choice they try to snuff him out with their big guns - see the Bergeron line in the playoffs in Boston when they had the last change). But Jack was our 1C who is supposed to make players better, so we watched him get shelled for over 150 games dragging one of 17-18 KO, Pominville, or Moulson around the whole time, changing nothing even though he obviously couldn’t flip the ice.

ROR is our Bergeron, so we should suppress ROR’s even strength productive potential as his PP points keep his overall point total at a rather remarkable 61 and every underlying metric suggesting that he had 10+more ES points to give.

Risto’s ES numbers, any you can count, advanced and otherwise, cannot be described by a nicer word than abominable, but we are fine with that performance taking up almost 50% of every single game, rather than treating him as a worse-offensively Tyson Barrie like he is. But who takes those minutes then? Well, it’s about 4-6 too many per game, and you have two other pairings. Give them 2-3 each. Sure, they suck, but their splits are actually better than Risto’s anyway because of what you’re doing to Risto. You can clearly get more out of Risto in 21 minutes, while not actually functionally downgrading the ones you take away from him, even though “conventional 1st pairing thought” tells you that OMG BOGO IS GETTING 1ST PAIRING MINUTES FROM RISTO. 

We don’t have a 1D or a franchise 1C (YET - keep those pitchforks down) just like Pittsburgh didn’t have a #2 or #3D with a rapidly declining #1D, and Nashville doesn’t have a 1C but still make things work because they don’t pretend they do. They understand what they have and do everything they can to get a whole greater than the sum of its parts. 

What we do have is an outrageous talent who can be groomed into a 1C role but is currently a high-event player struggling to stay afloat by himself, a glorious asset that can be turned into the 1D with care, and a decent PPQB. We have more too, and so let’s take a look piece by piece. 

Again, we’re abandoning the following framework: “Who is our 1C? X is our best C, he will be a 1C. Who is our best winger? He’ll go here right next. What is the rank of everyone else? That’s how they fill in.” 

What do we have? How do they play? What are their strengths, weaknesses, and how important are they to the success of our team relative to our team’s overall strengths and weaknesses?

Team Strengths: We have some very good individual talents, and our defensive depth in spots 5-9 is probably decent. Oh, and Jack.*
Our team’s problems:  They were obviously depth scoring (worst in the league), a missing top end piece or two, and probably 2 top four defensemen missing. And of course, goaltending.

*Jack Eichel
Jack is goddamn good. More accurately, he's really goddamn good offensively and really goddamn bad defensively, I read an analysis that called him a bottom-10-percentile player in the league in this regard. Anyway, look at this: 

These are pretty damn obnoxious stats. But they actually aren't really "fancy stats." "Shot contributions" basically keeps track of how many times you or the person you pass the puck to takes a shot on goal. They normalize that number by how much ice time you have. It's saying how many shots on goal you generate for your team per amount of time you're on the ice. That's a pretty damn handy number. And Jack is in the 98th percentile of all NHL players with this. If you were in the 98th percentile of mcat scores, you're probably filthy rich and wildly successful right now. That's where Jack is at shot/chance generation. Now, his numbers don't show this, because the benefactors of those generations are largely Matt Moulson, Zemgus Girgensons, and Jason Pominville. Similarly, Jack is essentially in the top 3 transition players in the entire league, but we've seen that stat more often on television and twitter. We already know that very few people are better than he at getting the puck out of, and into, the respective zones with possession. 

What is the point of this? Jack is good at these. But remember, Jack is really bad defensively. It makes sense that numbers like these would project Jack to be on the ice for a lot of goals for, but he's so bad defensively that predictive/projecting stats STILL make him a "minus player." What does Phil do with this volatile tool? He plays him against no player more than he plays him against Sidney Crosby, that's what. To make Jack "grow up and be a franchise C" he put him out there with those "weapons" time and time again. I guarantee you that Lindy of the Dumont-Hecht-Briere days, or any coach worth his salt, employs a bit more nuance than this with Jack. This is not to say we shouldn't expect Jack to progress defensively and ultimately someday be on the ice what the epic centers around the league are for us, but I'm interested in winning hockey games right this second. 

Sam Reinhart
Sam Reinhart makes simple, heady plays, and his play appears to be relatively impervious to his opponents. Furthermore, he possesses a property that makes every single player he plays with score more and give up fewer goals. That being said, he's not a wizard of any one trait. His skating is average-to-slow, his shot is some degree of muffin, his passing is nice, smart, and crisp, but otherwise unremarkable, his defensive play leaves stuff to be desired, and yet good things happen when he's on the ice, and he can play with a lot of players. He'll be valuable in this discussion due to this. 

Conor Sheary
I don't know a huge amount about Sheary. I wanted to do video projects like above for him and Skinner but time is not our friend. I do know that he was the stylistic fit for Sid that they've been craving for years. He's streaky and isn't super physical, but scores ES goals and is more than quick enough for our fastest skaters. He skates in straight lines and does the simple thing. He won't wow you with defense or with physicality but probably won't be a black hole defensively or a soft piece of tissue paper. 

Jeff Skinner
Bad defensively, unreal skating ability, a bit of a tendency to do things by himself and not "use" his teammates which may go deeper than his linemates being mediocre. ES goals for days. Another volatile piece you have to handle carefully. 

Casey Mittelstadt
One of the guys that makes this interesting. Is he a physically intimidated rookie that struggles to get 35 points? Or is he Clayton Keller, ready to impose his will offensively? He will probably be a bit of a headache in his own zone but may well give us some fun times.

Patrik Berglund
I already talked about him a lot. Low event. Can score, has trouble finding teammates with meaningful passes. He will score his goals no matter who he's out there with, they're the tip-ins, dirty goals, things that aren't dependent on how skilled his linemates are. It is important to distinguish between a player like this and a player like Sheary, whose numbers plummeted without Crosby.

Evan Rodrigues
If Evan takes another step this offseason, he can legitimately be a 40-50 point guy. If he can put on some strength, you can start to see if he might be a stylistic fit for Eichel or offensive line 2. Right now, with what we know, he's a chance-creating water bug who plays with his hair on fire and sometimes is a little too ambitious for his skillset. He's, at worse, depth scoring for a team that sorely needs it. 

I'm sick of bolding names and wasting space, so I'll just list the rest in a paragraph. Kyle made everyone worse in literally every conceivable way this past season, and if things don't reverse, I have to think about him riding the bench for the balance of the season. But he showed some brief promise at the end with Casey and Evan. Sobotka is a drag who can still make some things happen. Zemgus was identical to Berglund in effect on teammates - he didn't make them better or worse, but made far fewer things happen overall. Wilson was the opposite - more things happened, good and bad, with whoever graced the ice with him. Pominville was the most bizarre player in the world. All kinds of stats tell you to play him more, but my god did he ruin everything the Eichel line ever tried to do, and my god it is sad to watch him struggle to cover his man, to get to a puck on the boards before the defender closes, or to do anything of use. He's simply not in my starting 12 no matter what. Unfortunately for Larsson, every single projection stat tells you he has the worst upside/least room for improvement, which is pretty bad considering how bad his numbers were on their own standing. Tage Thompson may be ready now, but he did not look like he should have been in the NHL in the videos I saw from him. He's a tall, lanky, lumbering skater - he's one of the least-aesthetically-pleasing hockey players I've ever seen. But someday he should be able to get things done at a middle-six level. I don't think that will be quite yet, but they're going to let him try. And finally, a bunch of kids we know nothing about. 

So how does this come together in the context of my pages of ranting? Well, it's clear that this team is going to live and die by Jack. it's clear that Sheary made a living with a high end center, and doesn't need the puck, and can position himself in a place to finish. I am fine with them giving Jack and Jeff the cursory look just in case utter magic happens, but I'm predicting that the players by nature will not mesh. So Sheary-Jack is how I start out the building process. The next most obvious thing is to build a line to try and limit the events of the other team's best players. The two players I mention that do this best are obviously Berglund and Girgensons. Both of these guys are used to hybrid center-LW roles and can form the backbone for the line that we should slant defensively and try to chase after Crosby/Marchand/Kucherov/Matthews(dammit Tavares)/Barkov etc. as best as Phil can. This is because these players are the ones that are going to do the most damage, the offensive ceiling of Zemgus and Berglund is low enough, especially fluid team-play-driven offense, that you're not hurting your team in that sense if you bury these guys, and they'll do a decent job of limiting the events of the most dangerous guys on the other team. 

Now, who are the MOST volatile offensive players that need the most protection? I WANT this to be Jack because his offensive ceiling is so high and his defensive floor so low, and you could really do some insane leveraging with this that can radically change this team's path of success with that as the sole variable, but the reality is that teams are going to try their best to get their own good players of all kind against him. It appears to me, then, that Skinner should be the guy we send out to chase after the 4th lines of the division. 75% ozone starts, and production independent of talent around him. We can do a few things here, so first I'll move onto the trio of E-Rod, Mitts, and Okposo. First thing I'd do is see if what we saw from these guys is real, and if it is, roll with it as an offensive line. Then you give Vlad to 28&Berglund(have these guys said their #s yet?), Reinhart to Skinner, a kid-fit or high-event-Wilson to each of the offensive lines, and bury Berglund's line like no tomorrow. If it doesn't work, you have a few more options. This might include giving Sam to Jack and Conor, where I think he'll be fine and help out, and building an offensive shelter line with Rodrigues, Skinner, and Mittelstadt, and having a trash line of Wilson - Sobotka - Okposo. It's the "trash line" but it is objectively better than trash-lines of the last three years, by several orders of magnitude. That is the good thing about Botterill's depth additions. The details may vary based on injuries, chemistry, and players surprising pleasantly (E-Rod being the player we'd always hoped we'd find for Jack) or unpleasantly (Sobotka, Kyle being beyond repair). But I would stick hard to

-Jack&Sheary
-Berglund&Zemgus
-Sheltered Skinner
-Casey having rigid placements which are dependent on what he shows
-Reinhart as the piece to put on a line that's a small piece away from being a Sabre staple
-Limiting Sobotka to 4th line role
-Avoiding Larsson and Pominville in any capacity when the team is healthy

With fluid pieces being Rodrigues, Wilson, and whichever kids show well in whichever roles, but keeping their usage in line with what we know they do well

And I would avoid like the plague:
-Using Wilson on a defensive line
-Using Jack as an all-situations 1C. Slant him offensively like Chicago would Kane, like Seguin was 4-5 years ago (Seguin is the perfect example of a C to be handled with care, who will eventually learn the defense you'd like him to naturally, so get the offense out that you can now if you want to win). 
-Being suckered by Berglund's goal scoring and putting him with Jack, Sam, Casey. You don’t want Berglund in your top six for two reasons. The first is that you want your top six scoring goals, especially when it’s been the thing youre the worst in the league at over the last five years. He is a drag on all events, goals included, for reasons outlined in the video. The other reason is that your depth was the worst in the league last year, and he’s a legitimate depth piece. Use him where he is meant to be an improvement. If you use him as a top six piece, he will not only be disappointing relative to other top six pieces in the league, but your depth won’t be improved. He is an upgrade to our 3C/LW and we should use him there even if we have a hole up top we might need to put ERod in. This decision point is the one that cripples the Sabres, because they just HAVE to put a Berglund/Pominville/Kyle there, that a great coach won't fall for. Evan is the offensive event player you want in that role if you're forced into that decision. You can tweak its usage to minimize the goals against and that will be better for your team than thinking Berglund fits and will "help" the defense. 
- Thinking Sobotka is going to be a defensive or offensive help to any line you want being the defensive or offensive focal point. He is a clear upgrade to the trash line wing, Nolan, Des, Griffith, Pommers, you name it. Put him in this role and thank god for the upgrade.
- Using Zemgus on an offensive line

These lists are subject to change when we see what the unknowns can bring. Note: The ROR role is gone and doesn't need to be here, and never needed to be there.

We have a lot of the "handle with care" players. These are exactly the players that can thrive in the perfect conditions and bring us a NewJersey type year this season, but can make your team finish dead last if they're looked at as any old "4D" or "2C" or what tradition tells you.

I'm less good at analyzing defense, so I'll keep this part brief. We have way too many "handle with care" defensemen. Bogosian, Nelson, Risto, McCabe, basically everyone is. Everything basically hinges on what Dahlin can bring right away, but no matter what, you have to focus on HIM. Doing what is best for his development before assuming he'll fix everything right now. Because that's what'll be best for the team both now and in the future. Do not play him with Risto 27 minutes a night because he's DAHLIN. Start him on the third pair. If he struggles, reduce his minutes. If he excels, slowly graduate his responsibilities. Let him grow into whatever role he settles into organically. 

Stop feeding Risto 27 minutes per night. Make him an offensive-specialist. We'll be fine without the "minute eater" giving us 30 minutes, half the game, of verifiable trash. We can easily get verifiable trash to take 10 of those minutes and make Risto better for it, resulting in a net upgrade. 21-22 minutes, most of them ES or PP, slanted towards the offensive zone, with whatever defenseman has offensive potential but is also dubious defensively. Find a fit for Dahlin, also unload a tiny bit of Scandella's responsibilities. Dahlin needs to be sheltered, but he can handle a few challenges to make Scandella's life 45 seconds easier each nice. Just like with ROR, we don't need Risto playing Suter minutes. What defenseman gave the Avalanche 30 minutes of verified trash each night, that we MUST find someone to do for us? The answer is, they did what we all want to happen with Risto to Barrie, and became much better for it. The rest of the D is a giant question mark, we just need to see what Guhle, McCabe, Pilut, etc. can bring before we get more answers. 

Goalies: Be better than Lehner-Johnson, preferably by a lot. Kthx. 

This wasn't supposed to be this long, but the words kept spilling out. I'm almost positive I've violated some sort of community guidelines with the length of this post. Feel free to ignore it, report me, ban me, I understand. Let's go buff a lo. I'm pretty excited for the season now that the bulk of the offseason moves have been made. Yes, I gave this post to my adviser to see if it could be my thesis. 
 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[dudacek]

Lots of good stuff to chew on. I’m going to start with this:

“His play appears to be relatively impervious to his opponents. Furthermore, he possesses a property that makes every single player he plays with score more and give up fewer goals.” (It’s in the opening post, trust me)

Sounds to me like a guy you build around.

If we are maximizing Jack’ offensive mismatches on one line and Berglund’s low-event hockey on another, shouldn’t this player be anchoring your two-way line?

Edited August 13, 2018 by dudacek

[thewookie1]

Very interesting, will give me things to think about. 

I still see Risto's potential being that of a prime Brett Seabrook; a 2/3 dman with average defensive play, good offensive numbers, physical, and someone who can fill in as a #1 in the event of injuries. He also has some pest-like qualities to him which doesn't hurt. That being said he is in desperate need of playing, at minimum, 3 fewer minutes a game. The poor guy has been literally thrown to the wolves for nearly his entire career, played like Suter where as his style of play really doesn't suit that as of this time; and then slowly grinds down as the season progresses. I honestly wish someone could teach him positioning because he'd at least play better in his own zone if he could use his size for both physicality and cutting down on lanes. 

 

[Weave]

Heh.  Scott Arniel was a half joke last week, but maybe that's not too far off afterall.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Risto's overplay has been a result of having no one else to play.  Hopefully that changes this season.

As to the forwards, your stats illustrate what we mostly already knew.  Jack to a force on offense terrible on D.  He also can't win a draw.  Sid wins draws and plays 2 way hockey.  I'm not sure Jack ever will.  Skinner is a non-physical Kane, and we have no one at forward who can or is willing to play 2 way hockey.  Yeah!  Doesn't seem like a lineup for success.  At least Erod passes the eye and stats test.

Thanks for depressing me.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Randall,

Just plain awesome, as always.

I say that reading the first few paragraphs and skimmng the rest of your Masters Thesis.

(insert winkie thingie here)

[shrader]

Wow, that's quite the write up.  Before I get the chance to read it all, I just want to say that we need to ban anyone who quotes it in full.

[TrueBlueGED]

18 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Risto's overplay has been a result of having no one else to play.  Hopefully that changes this season.

As to the forwards, your stats illustrate what we mostly already knew.  Jack to a force on offense terrible on D.  He also can't win a draw.  Sid wins draws and plays 2 way hockey.  I'm not sure Jack ever will.  Skinner is a non-physical Kane, and we have no one at forward who can or is willing to play 2 way hockey.  Yeah!  Doesn't seem like a lineup for success.  At least Erod passes the eye and stats test.

Thanks for depressing me.

You're right that Jack might never be good defensively, but Crosby didn't develop that part of his game by year 3 of his career either. And it's true that Kane is obviously more physical than Skinner, but that doesn't mean he played any defense. 

[Bknotz]

 I have been a chronic lurker here for more then 5 years. But I just wanted to show some appreciation, @Randall Flagg this is an awesome quality write up. Its post like these that keeps Sabrespace a step above other Sabre social media outlets (reddit, etc..) and keeps me coming back day after day. 

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

19 minutes ago, Bknotz said:

 I have been a chronic lurker here for more then 5 years. But I just wanted to show some appreciation, @Randall Flagg this is an awesome quality write up. Its post like these that keeps Sabrespace a step above other Sabre social media outlets (reddit, etc..) and keeps me coming back day after day. 

 

Welcome!!

Don't be afraid now that you have taken the plunge.  We don't bite, unless you ask nicely and buy us dinner first.

[LTS]

@Randall Flagg this is the best post I think you've ever made.  It's certainly one of the best posts I recall reading overall on this board.  It really doesn't even matter how much or little I agree with it.  The amount of care, thought, reasoning, and effort that went into making it are commendable.

I'm not going to try and break parts of it down.  But perhaps you are seeing Jason Botterill attempt to build the Sabres using the same Penguins logic you pointed out and hopefully have a few more tools to use.  I don't see Eichel at the level of Crosby, or Reinhart at the level of Malkin.  I see them different.  But the Penguins also never had a D like what Dahlin is supposed to become.

I am giving a usage pass to the past season.  First, there is only so much you can do with the roster. Second, I'm convinced the point of some of it was to give themselves a shot at the #1 pick.

This season is where I think we need to pay far more attention to those things.  It'll be interesting.

Again, incredible post... absolutely incredible (and yes, I read the whole thing).

[nfreeman]

I fell asleep halfway through it last night but just polished the rest of it off.  Awesome.  

[Eleven]

Good stuff Flagg.  The most interesting to me is your suggestion on Ristolainen.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

You're right that Jack might never be good defensively, but Crosby didn't develop that part of his game by year 3 of his career either. And it's true that Kane is obviously more physical than Skinner, but that doesn't mean he played any defense. 

Crosby was at 51.4% in the face off circle in year 3 and his Ozone starts were only 50%.  I never said Kane played defense.  I just said he was more physical.  

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

And it's true that Kane is obviously more physical than Skinner, but that doesn't mean he played any defense. 

But he did.  He at least tried.  Carolina describes Skinner as a defensive black hole.

Kane also played PK.

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Doohickie

[TrueBlueGED]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Crosby was at 51.4% in the face off circle in year 3 and his Ozone starts were only 50%.  I never said Kane played defense.  I just said he was more physical.  

I didn't contend the faceoff point, just the defensive play. That said, I never expect Jack to be playing Selle-caliber defense, but I do think he'll get to "okay." 

Re Kane playing defense, fair enough. The way you wrote it I definitely thought you were connecting the physicality and defense points. 

[Mustache of God]

Great post, flagg! This will be a good post to look back on in 2 months when HCPH starts rolling out lines. For some reason I can see him implementing 3-5 elements of your "avoid like the plague" section.

I'm also curious to see how the glut of Okposo, EROD, Pomminstein, Baily, Baptiste, Thompson, Girgensons, Larsson, Wilson shakes out. There ain't enough room in town for everybody and I'm really hoping we're not watching Pommers or Larsson at all this year. I suppose that's what training camp will be for.

 

[Derrico]

This is the Randall Flagg I know and love.  I get how much time this took.  I really do and I really appreciate it.  I think this is 'The Athletic' quality without a doubt.  I much prefer this to reading a Blues message board and hearing their takes after trading a player away.  Myself included, sometimes you diminish the value of some of these guys after they're out the door.  First hand info analysis and forming your opinion is what is paramount.  Phenomenal read.

 

Edit - What I also learned is HCPH is on thin ice.  It's a big time make or break year for him.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Derrico

[erickompositör72]

I'll take this as an apology to the forum from Flagg, after his ad nauseam doomsday foretelling, immediately following the ROR trade. Apology accepted ?

 

 

j/k- this is really great. We all appreciate the amount of time and thought that goes into these posts

[nfreeman]

BTW:  I had to hit "page down" EIGHT times to get from the top of Flagg's post to the bottom.

I pity the fools who make him defend his PhD dissertation!

[dudacek]

What makes this stuff so interesting to me is that it is all based on a very specific set of factors: how the players were deployed last year and how they responded. Before we can move forward into next year, what are the variables?

1) is there a standard progression young players follow, and, if so, what is it? Offensively, we know young players tend to show growth over their first few years, peak around age 24 and start to decline around 29. Are there similar paths tied to some of the analytics numbers above? Do the trends show us that Risto might get better at shot suppression? When? How?

2) Do player’s analytics tend to fluctuate a lot from season to season? If and when they do change significantly, how often is that tied to changes in coaching strategies and deployment? Can you develop players into something other than what they are? Should you? Again, are there patterns?

3] How much can players change? Reaching way back here, but Serge Savard was an offensive dynamo who reinvented himself into a shutdown guy as his career progressed. Is it possible for Jeff Skinner to ever become respectable defensively from an analytics point of view?

4) Related to the above, how much do nurture and nature play a role? You read all the time about a player adjusting to a coach’s system, or finding themselves under a new coach. How much of no-event Patrik Berglund comes from a lack of passing skills and a predilection for defence and how much is him being exactly the safe automaton Ken Hitchcock demanded of him? Can Jack grow into the traditional #1 centre role by Housley repeatedly playing him against Crosby until he learns how to beat him, or are we better off finding him mismatches? Under what scenarios can the help Girgensons gives defensively more than compensate for the drag he creates offensively? Do you use Reinhart to prop up a flawed line, give an extra jolt to a strong line, or anchor a line on his own?

And how should deployment shift from opponent to opponent, or even game situation to game situation?

Complicated stuff, this coaching.

Edited August 13, 2018 by dudacek

[North Buffalo]

Great Post Randall, and I am not going to try your dissertation style... for the D.  And I love your analysis of Risto and agree.  Dahlin probably gets Scandella to shelter him.  

The question for me is who best fits Risto.  McCabe could skate with Risto and might work to start and allow him to do what he does, but I am not sure JMacC is good enough defensively to help Risto.  The other option is pair him with a skater such as Pilut to push the pace.  Pair them in an offensive zone push.  I dont trust Bogo to stay healthy, but he would be an obvious choice to pair with Risto.  I would love the option of choosing between a McCabe and Pilut or Bogo and Pilut on the third pairing but crap I keep forgetting about Ghule.  If Ghule can develope physically enough along with Pilut to be able to dump one of Bogo and McCabe then I think you really have some speed on the back end. Imagine the six D having Dhalin, Scandella, Risto, Ghule, Pilut and Bogo or McCabe and Nelson being the eighth guy.

On offense,  I like the idea of Jack with Erod and Sheary... line 2 of Mitts, Sam and Skinner and then a third line of Berglund and Big Z with either Vodka or Wilson.  4th line grinders not sure of and some of depends on what KO shows??? Can he rebound then put him with Berglund and drop Wilson to the fourth line.  I love Larry in the pest role but he has lost his moxy since the previous year’s injury but maybe on a fourth line with Sobodka.  That leaves out Thompson, Bailey and Baptiste and if Nylander starts showing more.  

Finally some competition for spots and I am hoping the young guys can push the older one’s to step up or retire.

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by North Buffalo

[The Spotless Mind]

9 hours ago, Bknotz said:

 I have been a chronic lurker here for more then 5 years. But I just wanted to show some appreciation, @Randall Flagg this is an awesome quality write up. Its post like these that keeps Sabrespace a step above other Sabre social media outlets (reddit, etc..) and keeps me coming back day after day. 

 

I'd like to echo this statement. Not to disparage all of the other quality posts that should have dragged me from the shadows in years past.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

What makes this stuff so interesting to me is that it is all based on a very specific set of factors: how the players were deployed last year and how they responded. Before we can move forward into next year, what are the variables?

1) is there a standard progression young players follow, and, if so, what is it? Offensively, we know young players tend to show growth over their first few years, peak around age 24 and start to decline around 29. Are there similar paths tied to some of the analytics numbers above? Do the trends show us that Risto might get better at shot suppression? When? How?

2) Do player’s analytics tend to fluctuate a lot from season to season? If and when they do change significantly, how often is that tied to changes in coaching strategies and deployment? Can you develop players into something other than what they are? Should you? Again, are there patterns?

3] How much can players change? Reaching way back here, but Serge Savard was an offensive dynamo who reinvented himself into a shutdown guy as his career progressed. Is it possible for Jeff Skinner to ever become respectable defensively from an analytics point of view?

4) Related to the above, how much do nurture and nature play a role? You read all the time about a player adjusting to a coach’s system, or finding themselves under a new coach. How much of no-event Patrik Berglund comes from a lack of passing skills and a predilection for defence and how much is him being exactly the safe automaton Ken Hitchcock demanded of him? Can Jack grow into the traditional #1 centre role by Housley repeatedly playing him against Crosby until he learns how to beat him, or are we better off finding him mismatches? Under what scenarios can the help Girgensons gives defensively more than compensate for the drag he creates offensively? Do you use Reinhart to prop up a flawed line, give an extra jolt to a strong line, or anchor a line on his own?

And how should deployment shift from opponent to opponent, or even game situation to game situation?

Complicated stuff, this coaching.

You may be able to boil it down ever further on the forwards

1) Who are our most responsible defensive forwards?  I'd rank them by position.  I'd almost build a 3rd line with the most responsible LW, C and RW.  This is the line I'm putting out against the other teams top line as often as possible.   

2) Who works best with Jack?  I'm giving this line 55-60 O starts.  I don't care if it's Skinner, Sheary or Erod on Jack LW.  I also don't care if it's Reinhart, Okposo or Thompson on the RW.  I want whomever allows Jack to maximize his offensive potential.  I'd even look at Mittelstadt.  

3) Lastly how best to deploy Mittelstadt?  I'm going to assume he plays C, but with so many guys who can play center (Reinhart, Berglund, Z, Larry, O'Regan, Sobotka, Erod and even Thompson, we have flexibility to deploy Casey where he has the best chance to succeed.

After that you make the best of the rest line.  

[North Buffalo]

28 minutes ago, The Spotless Mind said:

I'd like to echo this statement. Not to disparage all of the other quality posts that should have dragged me from the shadows in years past.

Welcome aboard....