Kruppstahl Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 1 hour ago, nucci said: shouldn't we move on from our 4th line players...he hasn't done much of anything past few seasons He gets a ton of defensive zone starts and is outstanding (statistically) at keeping opponents' shots down 5 on 5. He doesn't score a ton but that's not his thing and that's not what he's been asked to do. What he does do he does well, at least compared to most guys on the team. He'll be gone after this upcoming season, if he stays that long. I wonder if this signing isn't about Botterill keeping him around for a trade piece to be used this off-season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 Good for Zemgus. Very fair. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said: Some scoring and I want a million dollars 1 hour ago, klos1963 said: Compared to what? It's already been pointed out how the Z-Larry line compared to other playoff teams' 4th lines, and they compare quite well. Edited July 5, 2019 by erickompositör72 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 Good thing they keep hanging on to guys like Zemgus and Larry while launching the Kane's and O'Reilly's. There's a saying in Tennessee.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogre Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 24 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said: Wasn’t she really just tripping on ‘shrooms? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 33 minutes ago, pi2000 said: Good thing they keep hanging on to guys like Zemgus and Larry while launching the Kane's and O'Reilly's. There's a saying in Tennessee.... First, please explain your last sentence because I have no idea what you are talking about. (If it helps you any, my college experience is like the early episodes of "The Big Bang Theory". So everyone else might get it, but I sure as heck don't.) Kane and O'Reilly are already gone. Maybe they should have been kept instead of Zemgus and Larry, but it's too late now. The question should be what should be done with Zemgus and Larry. You correctly perceive that the Sabres became worse because of the Kane trade and especially the O'Reilly trade. (Aside: I would argue that moving Kane was better for the long-run, but we are years away from testing that hypothesis. Obviously, the fleecing from the O'Reilly trade pissed virtually all of us off.) However, I think that not holding on to Zemgus and Larry just compounds the offence. I don't see anyone (and I mean anyone) available in FA for their cost who could do their jobs half as well as they do. Like it or not, if you don't hold on to them now, we only know of 1 line capable of clearing the zone on the roster. And if you let these guys go, you look like you are guaranteeing spots to two of Remi Elie, Tage Thompson, and Vladimir Sobotka. Please explain to me why this is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 Any realistic replacement for Zemgus this year was either not going to be as good as him or was going to slide up and fill holes above a 4th line role, since we have a lot of bad hockey players littered all throughout the lineup. Zero reason not to keep him especially since it bugs pi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) They don't deserve roster spots just because they can get the puck out of our zone. That's setting the bar way way way too low. You need players who can play a 200ft game and chip in offensively. Girgensons and Larsson simply lack the skill required to be an effective contributor on an NHL roster. Package them together with picks or prospects or whatever and upgrade those bottom 6 positions.... It's not rocket science. Get creative, try something different for a change, there are still a lot of UFAs, and RFAs that might be available via trade. But to put those guys out there year after year after year and then complain that they contribute zero offensively and we're not scoring enough, is just stupid. Edited July 5, 2019 by pi2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 33 minutes ago, pi2000 said: They don't deserve roster spots just because they can get the puck out of our zone. That's setting the bar way way way too low. You need players who can play a 200ft game and chip in offensively. Girgensons and Larsson simply lack the skill required to be an effective contributor on an NHL roster. Package them together with picks or prospects or whatever and upgrade those bottom 6 positions.... It's not rocket science. Get creative, try something different for a change, there are still a lot of UFAs, and RFAs that might be available via trade. But to put those guys out there year after year after year and then complain that they contribute zero offensively and we're not scoring enough, is just stupid. When you find this guy he's going up to play with Jack and Jeff, not on our fourth line. When Botterill finds this guy, it'll be the first time in thirteen tries - the other players have all been worse than Zemgus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, pi2000 said: They don't deserve roster spots just because they can get the puck out of our zone. That's setting the bar way way way too low. You need players who can play a 200ft game and chip in offensively. Girgensons and Larsson simply lack the skill required to be an effective contributor on an NHL roster. Package them together with picks or prospects or whatever and upgrade those bottom 6 positions.... It's not rocket science. Would they have that low scoring if they didn't have 85% DZS? Let's see what others in this exact role with other teams have: https://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/ppbp_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2008&year_max=2019&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=99&pos=F&situation_id=ev&c1stat=zs_defense_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=75&c2stat=games_played&c2comp=gt&c2val=40&order_by=zs_defense_pct Here is the complete list of people who scored more than Zemgus or Larry in this role with comparable defence: Marcel Kruger (Chi 2013-4 [8 + 19 = 27, 79.1% DZS]) Brandon Sutter (Van 2017-8 [11 + 11 = 22, 77.4% DZS]) Manny Malhotra (Van 2010-1 [7 + 15 = 22, 75.7% DZS]) Maxim Lapierre (Van 2011-2 [9 + 10 = 19, 77.7% DZS]) Zemgus Girgensons (Buf 2018-9 [5 + 14 = 19, 84.9% DZS]) Manny Malhotra (Van 2011-2 [7 + 11 = 18, 87.1% DZS]) Marcus Kruger (Chi 2014-5 [6 + 10 = 16, 75.9% DZS]) Matt Cullen (Pit 2018-9 [5 + 11 = 16, 80.7% DZS]) Scottie Upshall (StL 2016-7 [7 + 8 = 15, 76.7% DZS]) Boyd Gordon (Edm 2013-4 [6 + 9 = 15, 80.4% DZS]) Dominic Moore (NYR 2013-4 [5 + 10 = 15, 75.5% DZS]) Matt Hendricks (Edm 2013-4 [7 + 7 = 14, 76.0% DZS]) Brandon Bollig (Chi 2013-4 [7 + 7 = 14, 81.8% DZS]) Brian Boyle (NYR 2013-4 [5 + 9 = 14, 77.0% DZS]) Paul Gaustad (Nsh 2014-5 [4 + 10 = 14, 88.3% DZS]) Johan Larsson (Buf 2018-9 [5 + 8 = 13, 84.4% DZS]) I have arranged the players in decreasing order of points to maximally be unfair to Zemgus and Larry. Almost all of the top scorers were from playoff teams; the only exceptions are Matt Hendricks and Boyd Gordon in 2013-4 for Edmonton and Brandon Sutter for Vancouver in 2017-8. Most of these guys are no longer in the NHL. Only two editions of Paul Gaustad and one of Manny Malhotra had a higher DZS percentage than Zemgus and Larry. NONE of them had better Corsi or Fenwick, raw or relative. Now, I am sure there are better scoring 4th liners, and I do wish they could score more. But how many of their peers are even in this ballpark of defencive zone play? The total number of players in this ballpark from 2007-present (12 seasons) is 37. That is not a typo - thirty-seven. You need guys like this to kill penalties, turn momentum, finish checks, and defend leads. Conclusion: based on these numbers and numerous other metrics (like, how horrible Sobotka, Thompson, and Mittlestadt were for much of the year), Zemgus and Larry may be the best 4th liners in the NHL. Indeed, if I were GM and they asked me for 5 years @ $2M AAV, I would give them a contract so fast it would make your head spin. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Youth Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 My gosh this fanbase is angry... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 6 hours ago, E4 ... Ke2 said: As we had 2 lines worse than his all last year, I need to see the Sabres have 4 functioning lines before I get this nonchalant about Zemgus. (And Larry, for that matter.) Besides, his presence is a roster spot that does not go to Sobotka. I want to like this with a thousand Stanley Cups 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, inkman said: I want to like this with a thousand Stanley Cups I feel like the Zemgus hate is fueled more by familiarity breeds contempt than by actual game performance. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 36 minutes ago, Weave said: I feel like the Zemgus hate is fueled more by familiarity breeds contempt than by actual game performance. I think he and Larsson are superb 4th liners. No problem with either of them. Their careers have actually followed a nice trajectory. Second rounders often become 4th liners and Z was just drafted too high for his talent level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skibum Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 (edited) He's paid his dues and it's not breaking the bank. He's competent in just about any situation; obviously the scoring isn't what we all hoped it would be, but Zemgus has earned a spot on the team and a healthy veteran paycheck. Edited July 6, 2019 by Skibum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 Zemgus will be fine. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Weave said: I feel like the Zemgus hate is fueled more by familiarity breeds contempt than by actual game performance. That, and the unrealistic expectations stemming from his second season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Cascade Youth said: My gosh this fanbase is angry... No. A select few vocal minority are angry. It just looks like more. I assure you, it’s not. Edited July 6, 2019 by Zamboni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 3 hours ago, E4 ... Ke2 said: Would they have that low scoring if they didn't have 85% DZS? Let's see what others in this exact role with other teams have: https://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/ppbp_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2008&year_max=2019&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=99&pos=F&situation_id=ev&c1stat=zs_defense_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=75&c2stat=games_played&c2comp=gt&c2val=40&order_by=zs_defense_pct Here is the complete list of people who scored more than Zemgus or Larry in this role with comparable defence: Marcel Kruger (Chi 2013-4 [8 + 19 = 27, 79.1% DZS]) Brandon Sutter (Van 2017-8 [11 + 11 = 22, 77.4% DZS]) Manny Malhotra (Van 2010-1 [7 + 15 = 22, 75.7% DZS]) Maxim Lapierre (Van 2011-2 [9 + 10 = 19, 77.7% DZS]) Zemgus Girgensons (Buf 2018-9 [5 + 14 = 19, 84.9% DZS]) Manny Malhotra (Van 2011-2 [7 + 11 = 18, 87.1% DZS]) Marcus Kruger (Chi 2014-5 [6 + 10 = 16, 75.9% DZS]) Matt Cullen (Pit 2018-9 [5 + 11 = 16, 80.7% DZS]) Scottie Upshall (StL 2016-7 [7 + 8 = 15, 76.7% DZS]) Boyd Gordon (Edm 2013-4 [6 + 9 = 15, 80.4% DZS]) Dominic Moore (NYR 2013-4 [5 + 10 = 15, 75.5% DZS]) Matt Hendricks (Edm 2013-4 [7 + 7 = 14, 76.0% DZS]) Brandon Bollig (Chi 2013-4 [7 + 7 = 14, 81.8% DZS]) Brian Boyle (NYR 2013-4 [5 + 9 = 14, 77.0% DZS]) Paul Gaustad (Nsh 2014-5 [4 + 10 = 14, 88.3% DZS]) Johan Larsson (Buf 2018-9 [5 + 8 = 13, 84.4% DZS]) I have arranged the players in decreasing order of points to maximally be unfair to Zemgus and Larry. Almost all of the top scorers were from playoff teams; the only exceptions are Matt Hendricks and Boyd Gordon in 2013-4 for Edmonton and Brandon Sutter for Vancouver in 2017-8. Most of these guys are no longer in the NHL. Only two editions of Paul Gaustad and one of Manny Malhotra had a higher DZS percentage than Zemgus and Larry. NONE of them had better Corsi or Fenwick, raw or relative. Now, I am sure there are better scoring 4th liners, and I do wish they could score more. But how many of their peers are even in this ballpark of defencive zone play? The total number of players in this ballpark from 2007-present (12 seasons) is 37. That is not a typo - thirty-seven. You need guys like this to kill penalties, turn momentum, finish checks, and defend leads. Conclusion: based on these numbers and numerous other metrics (like, how horrible Sobotka, Thompson, and Mittlestadt were for much of the year), Zemgus and Larry may be the best 4th liners in the NHL. Indeed, if I were GM and they asked me for 5 years @ $2M AAV, I would give them a contract so fast it would make your head spin. Again, hockey is controlled chaos, you cannot simply focus on a single statistic (DZS%/points), unless it's TRpm ?, to quantify their worth to the team. There are thousands of unquantifiable plays during a game that only a trained eye can measure. We've seen the lack of awareness in all zones, lack of skill, making poor decisions with the puck, out of position, failure to execute a simple pass, missing wide open nets, etc... It's been a recurring theme for these two since day one, and frankly I've seen enough. These two combined for 10 goals last season. 10. That's simply not good enough. Their TRpms IIRC are around 0, which, on a bad team, means they're part of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 (edited) @pi2000 Among other things, I have been using adjust plus-minus since 1989 as a start for analysing skaters. I have been doing adjustments to its output with zone starts, game situation, situational quality of opponents and teammates, crucial situations, and the like. I used this along with some operations research and what we now call predictive analytics to derive raw statistics and adjustments based on my initial data mining and revision in 1992. These are easily quantifiable and have rigourous definitions that allow us to verify their accuracy. I did this enough from 1992-2002 that I largely trust the typical numbers. Example: in 2001, the Buffalo Sabres were the only non-Cup winner to correlate strongly positively against every statistic that is predictive of a Cup winner for collection of statistically similar years over the entire history of the franchise. However, in each era, they had a glaring defect that would correlate to being a disappointment. (1970's - goaltending; early 1990's - injuries; late 1990's - scoring balance.) As you noted, from a raw statistical perspective, Dahlin,Girgensons, Larsson, Eichel, and Reinhart all had raw adjusted plus-minus in the neighbourhood of 0. In theory, if we had exchanged their total ice time with better raw performers, such as Bogosian, Pominville, and Elie, the team would have improved. (I am looking at the raw stats. This is 100% accurate.) The problem is that these 5 players were used to perform one of the highest leverage, highest difficulty tasks: flipping the ice at even strength; i.e., getting the puck away from the opposition in the defencive zone and transitioning to have possession in the offensive zone. After we adjust for this factor, all 5 player shoot from about team-average raw to about 0.5 to 1.0 standard deviations above average adjusted. (As a contrast, Skinner starts at the top and these guys close the gap a LOT.) Hands down, they also tended to face the toughest opposition because Housley rightly did not trust the middle 6. (Of course, he was the lunatic who gave hours of ice time to Vladimir Sobotka.) This is balanced out by their quality of teammate for this task. As such, I am quite confident in the usage adjustments and my evaluations of them as maybe the best 4th-liners in the NHL. Aside: because of my background, I strongly disagree that only measurements based upon or derived from adjusted plus-minus mean anything. Other numbers can be and are both well-defined (in a mathematical sense) and properly posed; they then make a very good raw stat like adjusted plus-minus even better for both past analysis and future performance. These kinds of adjustments are used all the time in situations of controlled chaos; they allow the number cruncher to be able to perform useful analyses and make statistically accurate predictions. Edited July 6, 2019 by E4 ... Ke2 Needed to address pi properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 Can you define adjusted plus minus? TRpm's... Reinhart +5 Eichel +4 Dahlin +3 Larsson +2 Girgensons -2 You mentioned shooting percentage... Do you know their high danger shooting%? I'm curious because, yes they work hard, but my eyes tell me they see quite a few high danger chances but rarely convert... missing the net entirely on a many shots in tight. I'd like to see what % of their attempts hit the net vs other 4th liners around the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 20 minutes ago, pi2000 said: Can you define adjusted plus minus? TRpm's... Reinhart +5 Eichel +4 Dahlin +3 Larsson +2 Girgensons -2 You mentioned shooting percentage... Do you know their high danger shooting%? I'm curious because, yes they work hard, but my eyes tell me they see quite a few high danger chances but rarely convert... missing the net entirely on a many shots in tight. I'd like to see what % of their attempts hit the net vs other 4th liners around the league. Adjusted +/- = player's +/- minus team average +/-. I used the estimate of the aggregate +/- of -259 and divided it by 18 skaters per game to get an estimate of -14. That makes Reinhart +4, Eichel +3, Larsson +6, Girgensons +3, and Dahlin +1. I start from here. You and I have everyone hovering around 0, so we seem to be talking the same language family, albeit maybe not the same language and certainly not the same dialect. As such, I suspect that TRpm is probably a solid overall measure of 2-way play. I should mention that I agree with you that Larsson and Girgensons don't cash in enough on glorious chances. They are pretty typical, but definitely a bit more frustrating than the rest of the Mike Ryans and Jiri Novotnys of the league. But I see enough of other 3rd and 4th liners to say that they do more than well enough. IMHO, If Okposo is with them all year, I can see the line hitting 30 ES goals, even with 80+% DZS. I found that the zone face-off stat is a decent, but non-linear proxy for zone starts. The biggest thing that these 5 have that is much tougher than the rest of the team is that the other lines were often terrible. The must get the puck from the opposition, clear the zone, get to the offensive zone, and have possession there. The 4th line usually has to deal with the top line of the opposition while the top line has to deal with the best checkers and top D pair. The hardest part is determining their defencive worth concretely. I have a calculation where I measured the opposition players' seconds between goal against the defenders versus their norms and then correcting for zone starts, game situations, etc. Girgensons-Larsson-Okposo very well here. The one thing you probably won't like is that I adjust for go-ahead and tying goals more heavily (depending on game situation, up to 10%) and I slightly devalue empty-netters. This gives a huge extra plus for the protectors of the lead and those who tie or win games late. There are other weights to game situations that I won't trouble you with. I also like using a lot of different measure to tease out the nuances of a player's effectiveness. Oh, I should mention that, like math contests, chess tournament analyses, and music structure, I do this for fun and have put an inordinate amount of thought and time into it since I first saw the column, "For Arguments' Sake" in _The Hockey News_ back in the 1980s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 12 hours ago, Kruppstahl said: He gets a ton of defensive zone starts and is outstanding (statistically) at keeping opponents' shots down 5 on 5. He doesn't score a ton but that's not his thing and that's not what he's been asked to do. What he does do he does well, at least compared to most guys on the team. He'll be gone after this upcoming season, if he stays that long. I wonder if this signing isn't about Botterill keeping him around for a trade piece to be used this off-season. good points but he'll get nothing back in a trade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos1963 Posted July 6, 2019 Report Share Posted July 6, 2019 19 hours ago, erickompositör72 said: and I want a million dollars It's already been pointed out how the Z-Larry line compared to other playoff teams' 4th lines, and they compare quite well. pointed out where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.