GDT 2/26/20 Sabres at Colorado 8pm ET, NBCSN and WGR550

[dudacek]

Just now, Taro T said:

Are Frolik & Lazar actually getting more PK time than Larsson & Girgensons?  They are starting the PK due to Lazar's penchant at the dot, but not sure they're actually getting more time on the PK.

That I don't know. I think Ideally, they each get two 30 second bites in Ralph's world, but their success in clearing the zone and getting to the bench will have to play a huge role.

[Taro T]

Just now, dudacek said:

That I don't know. I think Ideally, they each get two 30 second bites in Ralph's world, but their success in clearing the zone and getting to the bench will have to play a huge role.

Lazar & Frolik seem to take those 30 turns at it, but it seems that Larsson & Girgensons take longer shifts on the PK and forego more opportunities to get off the ice.

Despise the NHL.com site navigation, so won't look it up.  Was hoping somebody else had those #'s.

[Randall Flagg]

11 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

It’s called grasping at straws and lipstick on a pig

It's really not, it's a fascinating way to try and quantify a borderline-unquantifiable sport. That people can be obnoxious and condescending when presenting the stats as something they aren't doesn't change that. When you stay in your lane, and use the stats as they would claim to be used best, you can do some neat things with them, like be correct about the 2013-14 Colorado avalanche, or the Nucks/Flames of the following season, or find diamond in the rough players a year early (they helped me (along with film) value Point as a 90 point center when others were betting me that Sam Reinhart was substantially better) or identify players you need to get away from or trick other teams with (Galchenyuk before he fell off the table)

[Randall Flagg]

I wonder how much the variability of when players come out to PK affects those numbers. I feel like Larry/Zemgus always start (could be dead wrong). If other teams' power plays are like ours, there is a billion times greater chance that we score a goal in the first minute than in the second. That could help guys who come on second, like Vesey (though it doesn't appear to) or Frolik. Or it could hurt them, because often PK shifts are shorter and they'll change like 3 or 4 times compared to the PP's one change.

That's a hidden variable in all of this that sort of makes it harder to just use straight up GA/ice time, because on the PP there's generally a bigger gap in scoring likelihood from a top unit than there would be in likelihood of different even strength opponents scoring on you in a comparable amount of ice time (just because it's far more rare for ES goals than PP goals in general)

Edited February 28, 2020 by Randall Flagg

[dudacek]

15 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I wonder how much the variability of when players come out to PK affects those numbers. I feel like Larry/Zemgus always start (could be dead wrong). If other teams' power plays are like ours, there is a billion times greater chance that we score a goal in the first minute than in the second. That could help guys who come on second, like Vesey (though it doesn't appear to) or Frolik. Or it could hurt them, because often PK shifts are shorter and they'll change like 3 or 4 times compared to the PP's one change.

That's a hidden variable in all of this that sort of makes it harder to just use straight up GA/ice time, because on the PP there's generally a bigger gap in scoring likelihood from a top unit than there would be in likelihood of different even strength opponents scoring on you in a comparable amount of ice time (just because it's far more rare for ES goals than PP goals in general)

Good observation.

Lazar and Frolik have been starting the PK for a while now.

[Randall Flagg]

Just now, dudacek said:

Good observation.

Lazar and Frolik have been starting the PK for a while now.

The other thing is, "bad" PKer Vesey was on the ice for 10 goals, and good PKer Lazar has been on for 6 (in more time). What percentage of the goals that separate these two guys have anything to do with their own breakdowns, versus those of other players, versus good plays for the PP like the one you break down? This is a problem that plagues any stat, a sample size issue, but at least other stats will have a lot more goals (and waaay more shots) to play with in that regard, to cut some of the noise. I'm sure Krueger has been told these numbers, but I bet his own eye for PKing is far more informative on who is PKing well than they are. 

 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

The other thing is, "bad" PKer Vesey was on the ice for 10 goals, and good PKer Lazar has been on for 6 (in more time). What percentage of the goals that separate these two guys have anything to do with their own breakdowns, versus those of other players, versus good plays for the PP like the one you break down? This is a problem that plagues any stat, a sample size issue, but at least other stats will have a lot more goals (and waaay more shots) to play with in that regard, to cut some of the noise. I'm sure Krueger has been told these numbers, but I bet his own eye for PKing is far more informative on who is PKing well than they are. 

 

Yep. Same issue with just about all hockey stats.

Even goals and assists come with a 'yeah, but.' (Yeah, but he plays with Eichel; yeah, but he plays with ERod,; yeah, but Hutton was in goal.)

I admire the efforts being made with analytics — your post a few up is dead on — but hockey remains more art than science.

(Still waiting for someone to explain to me the Strange Case of Jimmy Vesey.)

[Randall Flagg]

Just now, dudacek said:

Yep. Same issue with just about all hockey stats.

Even goals and assists come with a 'yeah, but.' (Yeah, but he plays with Eichel; yeah, but he plays with ERod,; yeah, but Hutton was in goal.)

I admire the efforts being made with analytics — your post a few up is dead on — but hockey remains more art than science.

(Still waiting for someone to explain to me the Strange Case of Jimmy Vesey.)

I would try! But I haven't had any desire to look at stats this year, and my top two sites from them are either now taken down or now charge money to look at anything. 

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I would try! But I haven't had any desire to look at stats this year, and my top two sites from them are either now taken down or now charge money to look at anything. 

Or Marco Scandella, or how any stat can show Evan Rodrigues is 'good'...?

Edited February 28, 2020 by dudacek

[Randall Flagg]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Or Marco Scandella, or how any stat can show Evan Rodrigues is 'good'...?

On Scandella, were there not whispers that he had off-ice issues, and maybe some vertigo or something, last season? It would make sense that that stuff got squared away, because he was playing like 17/18 Scandy all year for us this year.

[triumph_communes]

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

It's really not, it's a fascinating way to try and quantify a borderline-unquantifiable sport. That people can be obnoxious and condescending when presenting the stats as something they aren't doesn't change that. When you stay in your lane, and use the stats as they would claim to be used best, you can do some neat things with them, like be correct about the 2013-14 Colorado avalanche, or the Nucks/Flames of the following season, or find diamond in the rough players a year early (they helped me (along with film) value Point as a 90 point center when others were betting me that Sam Reinhart was substantially better) or identify players you need to get away from or trick other teams with (Galchenyuk before he fell off the table)

This is the thing. You are NOT presenting the stats. You are presenting the graphical representations of the models. Give me a Rsq and a p value OF THE MODELS WITH WINNING and I might give your little tirades more thought than they currently deserve. 

Edited February 28, 2020 by triumph_communes

[PerreaultForever]

11 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

They aren't. We have the worst PK in the league. So clearly Risto and McCabe aren't that good. Considering they aren't good at defender 5v5, this shouldn't really surprise us that it carries over. 

Literally anyone else. Pilut, Dahlin, Joker, Miller, anyone else. We are last in the league. We literally cannot get worse. 

It is certainly not as important as you are trying to portray it as. It is like when other posters keep saying the big thing we need from a 2c is that they can win a draw. No it is not. That's like saying Risto is good because he had 7 hits. 

Well, you actually can get worse. You'd still be last in the league, but you can still do worse in terms of allowing even more goals in.

As for the faceoffs, you are dead wrong. I think as you're a stats guy you need to dig much much deeper in terms of impact. maybe winning a draw at center ice isn't all that impactful, but when there's 30 seconds left on the clock and you pull your goalie down one in their zone, it is the most crucial play you can have, They are, as was mentioned earlier by someone, situational. Again, winning draws on the PK cuts their PP time down drastically and allows you to change your forwards. It matters a lot, but let's leave it at that.

11 hours ago, Eleven said:

It's clear to me that you've never read his scouting posts/threads if you think he knows nothing about hockey.

He spends a lot of time with stats. Some of them are interesting and useful. Doesn't mean he really understands the game on the ice.It's an old argument. Who understands something better, the academic who has studied it, or the guy who has played or lived it? You can be on whatever side of that fence you want to be, but I think he's a grown adult and doesn't really need your defense so let me ask you, in your opinion, are faceoffs important and does being really bad at them hurt our PK? That's really the point of argument.

[Eleven]

25 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

He spends a lot of time with stats. Some of them are interesting and useful. Doesn't mean he really understands the game on the ice.It's an old argument. Who understands something better, the academic who has studied it, or the guy who has played or lived it? You can be on whatever side of that fence you want to be, but I think he's a grown adult and doesn't really need your defense so let me ask you, in your opinion, are faceoffs important and does being really bad at them hurt our PK? That's really the point of argument.

I don't think "Okay, now it's clear to me you know absolutely nothing about hockey" is necessary whether face-offs are important or not, but yes, I do think winning face-offs is a component of a good penalty kill.  "Important" is relative.  What a team does with the puck after winning a face-off is considerably more important.  What a team does without the puck is also considerably more important.

And Hutton's inability to control rebounds is a huge issue both on and off the PK.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by Eleven

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well, you actually can get worse. You'd still be last in the league, but you can still do worse in terms of allowing even more goals in.

As for the faceoffs, you are dead wrong. I think as you're a stats guy you need to dig much much deeper in terms of impact. maybe winning a draw at center ice isn't all that impactful, but when there's 30 seconds left on the clock and you pull your goalie down one in their zone, it is the most crucial play you can have, They are, as was mentioned earlier by someone, situational. Again, winning draws on the PK cuts their PP time down drastically and allows you to change your forwards. It matters a lot, but let's leave it at that.

He spends a lot of time with stats. Some of them are interesting and useful. Doesn't mean he really understands the game on the ice.It's an old argument. Who understands something better, the academic who has studied it, or the guy who has played or lived it? You can be on whatever side of that fence you want to be, but I think he's a grown adult and doesn't really need your defense so let me ask you, in your opinion, are faceoffs important and does being really bad at them hurt our PK? That's really the point of argument.

Pretty sure that they've been winning most of the PK faceoffs since Lazar started taking the bulk of the draws.  In that time they've gone from ~24th in the league down to 30th as their success rate has plummeted and they now give up a goal nearly every other kill dropping their overall percentage down to a horrific 75%. (There are lax teams that are more successful than that.  They're really good, but still ... )

So, are faceoffs a key metric on PK efficiency?

[PerreaultForever]

38 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I don't think "Okay, now it's clear to me you know absolutely nothing about hockey" is necessary whether face-offs are important or not, but yes, I do think winning face-offs is a component of a good penalty kill.  "Important" is relative.  What a team does with the puck after winning a face-off is considerably more important.  What a team does without the puck is also considerably more important.

And Hutton's inability to control rebounds is a huge issue both on and off the PK.

 

Well. in fairness, my retort about not knowing anything about hockey was a response to the dismissive tone of his snark so let's be fair about these things. SwampD also said this in response to his comment "I’m convinced that you have no idea what it means to be a defender in the NHL."  but you feel the need to critique me so have at it.

The Hutton comment is true, we agree on that, but if we were better in front it would be less of an issue. I played D and I remember back in the day coaches always said "first stop's on the goalie, the rebound's on you guys" (meaning the D). That's a generalization, but it's not wrong. Hutton was a better looking goalie in St. Louis, when he had a team that was better in front clearing many of those rebounds. He didn't change. So you can argue he was a bad signing by JBot, but he's not really all that different than he was.  

•  

[PerreaultForever]

48 minutes ago, Taro T said:

So, are faceoffs a key metric on PK efficiency?

It's obviously a combination of things and that is only one part of it. but it is not insignificant.  

[Eleven]

49 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well. in fairness, my retort about not knowing anything about hockey was a response to the dismissive tone of his snark so let's be fair about these things. SwampD also said this in response to his comment "I’m convinced that you have no idea what it means to be a defender in the NHL."  but you feel the need to critique me so have at it.

The Hutton comment is true, we agree on that, but if we were better in front it would be less of an issue. I played D and I remember back in the day coaches always said "first stop's on the goalie, the rebound's on you guys" (meaning the D). That's a generalization, but it's not wrong. Hutton was a better looking goalie in St. Louis, when he had a team that was better in front clearing many of those rebounds. He didn't change. So you can argue he was a bad signing by JBot, but he's not really all that different than he was.  

•  

I didn't see what swampy said and look, I really don't want to get into who was snarky first or whatever.

At the NHL level, I'm not sure "first stop is on the goalie, etc." works.  He's the worst I've seen in a long time with rebounds.  

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

I didn't see what swampy said and look, I really don't want to get into who was snarky first or whatever.

At the NHL level, I'm not sure "first stop is on the goalie, etc." works.  He's the worst I've seen in a long time with rebounds.  

I did say that. It was obnoxious. I think I'm fine with it, though. It's LGR after all. We're cool.

[darksabre]

Just now, Eleven said:

I didn't see what swampy said and look, I really don't want to get into who was snarky first or whatever.

At the NHL level, I'm not sure "first stop is on the goalie, etc." works.  He's the worst I've seen in a long time with rebounds.  

Part of the "first stop" thing is definitely rebound control. You want your goalie to make that initial save and either swallow the puck up or control the rebound in a manner that is predictable for his defensemen. If you have soft pads that let the puck stop in front of you then as a goalie you need to be covering that puck up. If you prefer pads that kick the puck back out then you have to use that to kick the puck to open ice or direct it to the corners. 

[Eleven]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Part of the "first stop" thing is definitely rebound control. You want your goalie to make that initial save and either swallow the puck up or control the rebound in a manner that is predictable for his defensemen. If you have soft pads that let the puck stop in front of you then as a goalie you need to be covering that puck up. If you prefer pads that kick the puck back out then you have to use that to kick the puck to open ice or direct it to the corners. 

You mean not right to the circle where the enemy is waiting?

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

You mean not right to the circle where the enemy is waiting?

It's funny, watch the goalies tonight. The flat face Brians that Lehner is wearing are the bouncy pads meant to kick pucks out in a controlled manner, whereas Hutton is wearing soft pads (CCM E-Flex, what I wear) that are meant to deaden rebounds and keep the puck close to you. Keep an eye on Hutton kicking rebounds out wildly compared to Lehner. 

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

You mean not right to the circle where the enemy is waiting?

Pretty much.  When the D has the extra passing lane of the bounce pass off the goalie's pads in addition to the traditional passing lanes to cover, they're effectively playing 2 men down rather than just 1.

It isn't surprising that the PK has been significantly worse than the not good version it was when Ullmark was between the pipes now that Hutton is getting a ton of time.  He's cleaned up his game to the point that he can make nearly all the 1st saves again, but he's doing it at the expense of any rebound control at all.  5v5, the D and F's can cheat low to swat that stuff away.  Not much they can do when they're outmanned unless they get real lucky.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Taro T

[SwampD]

4 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's funny, watch the goalies tonight. The flat face Brians that Lehner is wearing are the bouncy pads meant to kick pucks out in a controlled manner, whereas Hutton is wearing soft pads (CCM E-Flex, what I wear) that are meant to deaden rebounds and keep the puck close to you. Keep an eye on Hutton kicking rebounds out wildly compared to Lehner. 

That's really cool. I love how much there is that I don't know.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by SwampD

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

That's really cool. I love how much there is that I don't know.

Yes!!!!

Goalie gear is chaos. It's a cult. There are people out there scouring every piece of in game and post game locker room footage to try to catch glimpses of what each goalie is doing, especially custom mods. 

Goalie Gear Nerd actually just launched their site today. 

 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

Goalie gear is chaos. It's a cult. There are people out there scouring every piece of in game and post game locker room footage to try to catch glimpses of what each goalie is doing, especially custom mods. 

Goalie Gear Nerd actually just launched their site today. 

 

I'm going to spend way too much time on this site and come away with more questions than answers.