dudacek

An important factor missing in this is that a slimmed down, integrated (I think that describes the vision we heard better than automated) organization is what the Pegulas asked of Botterill in the wake of a lengthy review conducted by Adams. Doesn't necessarily change your conclusion, but it does argue against the suggestion that Adams might not buy into the concept.

Is there a single one of these scenarios that is not also true for Corsi, or for Expected Goals? (Hint: there's not) You are arguing old arguments as to how much validity +/- has as a true measure of how good a player is. That isn't the discussion here at all. Swamp and I are arguing it is the best indicator of how successful the team was when that player was on the ice. And it is. Your above arguments don't address that statement at all. To your point, one would be foolish to look at Brandon Montour's +13 and Jeff Skinner -24 and conclude Montour is a far better player without diving into how those results came about. One would also be foolish to look at those surface stats, see how one player was so successful and the other was not while playing on the same team, and not want to dig deeper and find out why. Surface stats measure results and those results are relevant.

It absolutely is. The object is to score more goals than the other team does. Your team scores more, you are more successful, Period. End of story. What Swamp said.

+/- might not be the best indicator of how “good” a player is, but it is absolutely the best indicator of how successful the team was when you were on the ice.

Is Skinner better at preventing goals than Rasmus Ristolainen?

You know who has drafted four centres with their first pick in the past six years....?

None of those things tell me he’s a good or bad defensive player. His giveaway total should be low, since he doesn’t pass much, and the ratio of shots taken versus times he has the puck is absurdly high. His Corsi should be positive given how often he shoots. The takeaways and expected goals confirm the eye test that he’s good at pickpocketing opponents and at getting himself into scoring position. What do the stats show about scoring chances given up to his man off the rush? What do they show about his zone exit carries and passes? How many of his takeaways happen In the defensive zone? How well does he take away shooting lanes? How diligent is he about circling up high to cover for a teammate in the offensive zone? How often does he break up rushes in the back check? How well does he get into shooting lanes protect against the point shot? Passing lanes? Does he cover up for the errors of his teammates? Can he be trusted to eliminate his man from getting a scoring chance?

Non-random question: what does it mean to be a defensive black hole? To me, it means a player who consistently fails to prevent or nullify the other team’s attack within the system, either through poor positioning and decision-making or lack of physical execution. But that is an exceedingly difficult thing to quantify because it is so reliant on situations, assignments and on the execution of those around you. Was Chris Tanev terrible defensively against Vegas because the team was outshot 14 to 4 while he was on the ice? Or was he great defensively because he cleared every rebound and let Demko have a clean look at every shot despite the fact that his teammates couldn’t clear the zone? Was Quinn Hughes terrible defensively because he was consistently overpowered in the corners and in front? Or was he outstanding defensively because he facilitated more zone exits than any three other Canuck defenseman combined? Who played better D? Ryan McDonough with a 47 per cent Corsi and a -1 on 61 per cent D-zone starts against Crosby and Guentzel? Or Zach Bogosian with a 53 per cent Corsi and a +1 on 45 per cent D-Zone starts against E-Rod and Conor Sheary? When a team that preaches “shoot from everywhere” plays a team that preaches “get the goalie to open up with lots of cross-ice passes” and outshoots them 37 to 26, did they have a better game “defensively”? Corsi tells me they did. High danger tells me they didn’t. Skinner looks bad defensively because he is so often the last man back. The most obvious reason is he started as the furthest one forward. Which is probably where his coach wanted him to be. So the eye test may be misleading. But no more misleading, I suspect, than his Corsi or many other fancy stats presented as gospel.

I’ve seen it posted on here a few times how we should’ve known Casey wasn’t all that because of his college production in his D1 year. Here are some comparables: Casey Mittelstadt 34 GP, 11/19/30 Alex Turcotte 29 9/17/26 Trevor Zegras 36 11/25/36 Matt Boldy 34 9/17/26 Cole Caufield 36 19/17/36 Oliver Wahlstrom 36 8/11/19 Joel Farabee 36 17/19/36 Josh Norris 37 8/15/23 Clayton Keller 31 21/24/45 Kyle Connor 35/36/71 Dylan Larkin 35 15/32/47 Alex Tuch 37 14/14/28 Nick Schmaltz 38 5/21/26 We’re looking at top 20 American picks drafted prior to their first year college. Casey looks pretty middle of the pack in a very good group of prospects. And my god, Kyle Connor!

Even if he is closer to what we saw this year than his average, that’s still better than this year. A lot of people on here said the analytics said he was still creating chances this year, they just weren’t going in. Why wouldn’t you think more will go in this year? They went in when his centres were Derek Ryan and Victor Rask. And yes, he needs a better centre.

There are obviously no sure things, but Jeff Skinner is only 28 Is healthy and can still skate. Very few players are done at that age, particularly talented wingers who can skate. It’s not wishful to think a guy who has averaged 32 goals a year over the previous 6 years is going to score more than 14 this year, it’s reasonable.

Personally, if the Sabres change nothing this year, I expect them to be better on the backs of Dahlin taking a big step forward and Skinner rebounding to his 30-goal self. But the Sabres will be changing plenty this year: Kahun was only with us for 2 weeks and is an upgrade on Sheary, no question in my mind; there will be 2 new D in place of Bogosian/Scandella/Pilut. And at least four players stepping in to the holes created by the likely departures of Sobotka/Frolik/Simmonds/Girgensons/Larsson/Vesey. Some of those spots will be filled by players already in the system but the mix is going to be a new one. It’s up to Adams to make sure that it’s a better one. And that’s happening even without any trades.

I look at the skeleton of the lineup like this Top 6: Olofsson, Eichel, Reinhart and Skinner Middle 6: Johansson, Kahun Bottom 6: Okposo, Lazar RD: Risto, Montour, Jokiharju, Miller LD: Dahlin, McCabe G: Ullmark, Hutton Obvious needs: 2C, 3C, M6W, 2LD Trying to earn a spot: Thompson, Mittelstadt, Cozens, Asplund, Ruotsalainen, Borgen, Samuelsson, Bryson

That’s an interesting discussion. Players whose track record indicates we should expect similar results from: Eichel, Reinhart, Johansson, McCabe, Ristolainen, Lazar, Okposo Players who may or may not have played above their heads last year: Olofsson, Jokiharju Players who had a down year based their track record: Skinner, Montour, Miller, Hutton Players who are inexperienced enough to be better next year: Olofsson, Mittelstadt, Asplund, Thompson, Cozens, Kahun, Dahlin,Jokiharju, Ullmark Free agents who may be difficult to replace Larsson, Scandella Free agents who should be fairly easy to replace or upgrade: Sobotka, Sheary, Vesey, Girgensons, Simmonds, Frolik, Bogosian

That’s a who the ***** knows with goalies? Matt Murray and Brayden Holtby are recent Stanley Cup winners in their prime and are being kicked to the curb. Binnington isn’t good but he was good enough. Carey Price and Henrik Lundqvist are the last of the franchise goalies.

Darcy Kuemper is the poster boy for the WTF? Development path of goalies. He spent a year as an overager in juniors, then three more splitting time as an AHL backup and in the ECHL. He was never a minor league starter, graduating directly to the backup spot in Minnesota, spending four years as mediocre backup for the Wild, and one more splitting time as a backup between LA and Arizona. Then, at 28, after 7 years of pro hockey where he had never been a starter anywhere, where he had never played more than 43 games in a season, and played more than 30 games in a season only twice, he suddenly becomes a starter in Arizona. And puts up back-to-back years of better than .925 S%.

This is one reason why I'm not buying into the idea of Ralph being locked in to certain roles and ways of deploying players, when everything I've heard he and Adams say since June is about having good players, but not the right mix of players. It is very possible Ralph was deploying players in ways he'd rather not in an ideal world simply because he thought it was best with the players he had at hand. For all we know he doesn't like using Larsson the way he did, he just felt he had to given his other choices. I am encouraged by the lip service to Ralph and Kevyn building the roster together based on a shared vision. I much prefer that to the traditional NHL top-down heirarchy. We'll see how that plays out in practice.

Nope. Just that we shouldn't adhere to handedness when looking at a defenceman, we should look at his track record of being able to play that side. TJ Brodie is one the comes to mind as leftie who has always played right. Montour as a rightie who looked less than stellar on the left. I think so, in terms of generalities. Like Swamp, I'm trying to learn things. I think there may be more lefties than righties in the player pool and there is decent chance your fourth-best leftie is better than your 3rd-best rightie, even on the offhand chance he is playing on his off-hand.

Those things are fun. I think the value is there in the Jets trade, but I agree there is no way Winnipeg makes it, unless they are flipping Mittelstadt and the first for a 2C. And if that's the case, I'd keep Risto and trade Casey and the pick for that 2C myself.

I think I would have phrased it better as " Larsson is part of the problem as a 2/3C" As a 3/4C he's great, but he is only a stopper. The difference between a Danault and a Larsson is Danault can provide offence while being used in Larsson's role. If I could put numbers on it purely for sake of the discussion, Larry is in 90th percentile of D and the 10th percentile of O, while Danault is in the 80th and the 60th and Domi is in the 40th and the 75th. Full agreement on your main point. If Larsson brought his junkyard dog act to the Leafs, he would be the toast of Sportsnet, just like if Risto was the 2RD on Tampa in the bubble right now, HFBoards would be drooling all over him. Players need to be put into the position to succeed.

But the skill set of a particular player also comes in to play. Justin Falk is big and slow. One would think the preferred move against him would be a speed move to the outside as opposed to a power move to the inside. Playing his proper hand extends his range against the outside move and provides insurance against his limitations. Quinn Hughes is the opposite. You aren't going to fly by him to the outside, but you might be able to overpower him to the middle. Having his stick to middle might be to his advantage when defending. There have to be as many variations as there are players.

I think you are on the right track with this. That's where a Copp or a Cirelli is so valuable and why I'd prefer Danault to Domi. They are complete players. But I also think Larsson is part of the problem as well, because he is completely one-dimensional; You can't blind yourself to how bad he is offensively. He's like a run-stuffing linebacker who can't cover, useful as hell and you love the warrior mentality, but he's strictly a specialist. Monahan is meh against the run, but good enough to leave in there all three downs, and he is strong against the pass. (Mittelstadt is strictly a nickel back who is utterly useless in zone and can only cover man-to-man against small speedy receivers, but I digress.)

For sure. Playing the proper side allows you to protect the puck better when you are on the wing too. But the flip side is also true, playing on your off wing gives you more options and better angles when shooting and making plays. One way favours offence the other defence. Adherence to handedness is simply a coach wanting to lean to the conservative side.

He’s so good, definitely a better player right now than Dahlin. If Rasmus can get to that level, it sure would hide a lot of other issues.