Jump to content

Around the NHL 2021-22


Doohickie

Recommended Posts

Rust vs Olofsson past three seasons.

<PRE>                                                                                                  
                                           Scor   Scor   Scor                           Goal      Goal      Goal      Assi     Assi  Assi    Shots    Shot      Shot      Ice         Ice
Season    Age    Tm    GP     G       A       PTS    +/-      PIM       EV         PP         SH       EV        PP      SH         S         S%       TSA      TOI       ATOI
2019-20    27     PIT    55    27      29      56      14        30        18           8            1         19         9         1         151       17.9       244     1087     19:46
2020-21    28     PIT    56    22      20      42       9         18        16           6            0         15        5         0         154      14.3       258     1105     19:43
2021-22    29     PIT    60    24      34      58       7         14        15           9            0         22       12        0         180      13.3       302     1126     18:46                                                          Total  170   73     83    156
2019-20    24   BUF    54    20      22      42      -1          6          9           11          0          16         6        0         127       15.7        228     993      18:23
2020-21    25   BUF    56     13      19      32     -23         6          6           7           0          11         8        0          129       10.1        228     974      17:24
2021-22    26   BUF    72     20      29     49     -16          6         13          7           0          23        5        1           164      12.2        293     1108    15:23
                         Total  182   53     70    123       

                                       GP    Goals    Assist   PTS

Difference for Victor    +12     -20       -13      -33

If Rust is being used as a comparison for a contract those are some striking differences not in Victor's favor. Rust started slow in his career and has improved steadily. Still believe Rust's contract is a slight over payment also. I'm not going into intangibles because I believe Rust's and Olofsson's game are similar enough that it is a mute point.

There have been a number of calls on here for a contract of 4 years @4.5 for Olofsson.  I still believe that is a slight over payment but it falls in line with the Rust's new contract.

 

 

Edited by woods-racer
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this an interesting read on analytics from Bruce Boudreau so I thought I'd share it. Pretty much agree with his view and the rather funny (and somewhat meaningless) summary statement:

“Sometimes too much analytics is not good for you,” Boudreau said to close out his answer. “But the proper analytics are really good.”

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-coach-boudreau-analytics-thoughts

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

 

So either very close to or at the veteran minimum for him. 

Very good deal for Toronto.  I don't know what the advanced stats say, but it was obvious to me he isn't the same player he was even a year or two ago.  BUT...limit his minutes to 17-18 per game, dont' play him on back-to-backs, and at least for this year you will probably get a player that is very very good in that role (especially penalty killing) for less than a replacement level player would cost.

I think Toronto gets a 'role player' who can excel at that role at a bargain basement price, as long as they don't push for too much more out of him.

The Leafs are pretty much set on the back end if they want to be without having to pay too much: Muzzin, Rielly, Brody, Giordano, and Holl signed (top 5), with Sandin and Lilijegren being the talented young guys who are restricted and likely to be resigned on affordable deals also. That is 7 right there.

Edited by mjd1001
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I found this an interesting read on analytics from Bruce Boudreau so I thought I'd share it. Pretty much agree with his view and the rather funny (and somewhat meaningless) summary statement:

“Sometimes too much analytics is not good for you,” Boudreau said to close out his answer. “But the proper analytics are really good.”

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-coach-boudreau-analytics-thoughts

 

Even we who are oriented towards numbers know enough to not slavishly follow the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I found this an interesting read on analytics from Bruce Boudreau so I thought I'd share it. Pretty much agree with his view and the rather funny (and somewhat meaningless) summary statement:

“Sometimes too much analytics is not good for you,” Boudreau said to close out his answer. “But the proper analytics are really good.”

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-coach-boudreau-analytics-thoughts

 

Did anyone else get the sense he was saying “if the analytics and my eye test don’t agree, I reject the analytics.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Did anyone else get the sense he was saying “if the analytics and my eye test don’t agree, I reject the analytics.”

Kind of. 

I think it was more like I trust my eye test but if the analytics disagree I will take a closer look. 

I think the most interesting point is how you can be fooled by blanket analytics. There are nuances that matter and the eyes can give you that. That part about who took the shot mattering etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Kind of. 

I think it was more like I trust my eye test but if the analytics disagree I will take a closer look. 

I think the most interesting point is how you can be fooled by blanket analytics. There are nuances that matter and the eyes can give you that. That part about who took the shot mattering etc. 

That didn’t really make sense to me though.  Looking at high danger chances should be to analyze how your team did on defense and where the breakdowns occurred.

If a guy snuck back door and got a point blank high danger chance, does it matter whether it was Zemgus Girgensons or Jeff Skinner?  I get that Skinner is more likely to score, but if it was Girgensons, does that mean that the defensive breakdown was any less of a problem?  No, you were just lucky it wasn’t Skinner instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curt said:

That didn’t really make sense to me though.  Looking at high danger chances should be to analyze how your team did on defense and where the breakdowns occurred.

If a guy snuck back door and got a point blank high danger chance, does it matter whether it was Zemgus Girgensons or Jeff Skinner?  I get that Skinner is more likely to score, but if it was Girgensons, does that mean that the defensive breakdown was any less of a problem?  No, you were just lucky it wasn’t Skinner instead.

If Girgensons were on the ice w/ Eichel & O'Reilly & the D kept the puck away from either of those guys in the low slot, giving Z an opportunity backdoor, the other team would likely consider it a win.

Giving Skinner a clean back door look rather than an outside shot from Johansson or a slot shot from Sobotka is a big loss.

Context matters.

Every time Carrier got an opportunity for Vegas in THAT game, it was a win because somebody that might actually score DIDN'T have the opportunity.  😉

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

If Girgensons were on the ice w/ Eichel & O'Reilly & the D kept the puck away from either of those guys in the low slot, giving Z an opportunity backdoor, the other team would likely consider it a win.

Giving Skinner a clean back door look rather than an outside shot from Johansson or a slot shot from Sobotka is a big loss.

Context matters.

Every time Carrier got an opportunity for Vegas in THAT game, it was a win because somebody that might actually score DIDN'T have the opportunity.  😉

 

Your reasoning doesn’t really pass the sniff test for me.

Do you really think that if Eichel, O’Reilly, and Girgensons were out on the ice, and Eichel or O’Reilly made a pass to Girgensons for a great scoring chance, the defense would think that they did a good job there and got the result they wanted from that shift?

Do you think that in video review after that Vegas game the coaching staff was showing the team highlights of all Carrier’s high danger scoring chances and congratulating them on the good defense there because they purposely let Carrier take those chances instead of some other guy?

That’s not really how hockey works.  It’s not like basketball where pretty much every time down the floor the opposition is getting a shot off, and you can try to funnel the shots to a less dangerous player.  I don’t think NHL teams play defense like that.  The goal is to not allow shots on net at all or at least not high quality shots on net.  I don’t think any NHL team is trying to funnel the puck to the least dangerous forward and being ok with that guy taking high danger chances every time down the ice.

In the particular case that Boudreau was talking about, I don’t think that Tampa was purposely letting Lomberg get high danger chances I because they were desperate to keep the puck away from Luostarinen, Accari, or Hornqvist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

Your reasoning doesn’t really pass the sniff test for me.

Do you really think that if Eichel, O’Reilly, and Girgensons were out on the ice, and Eichel or O’Reilly made a pass to Girgensons for a great scoring chance, the defense would think that they did a good job there and got the result they wanted from that shift?

Do you think that in video review after that Vegas game the coaching staff was showing the team highlights of all Carrier’s high danger scoring chances and congratulating them on the good defense there because they purposely let Carrier take those chances instead of some other guy?

That’s not really how hockey works.  It’s not like basketball where pretty much every time down the floor the opposition is getting a shot off, and you can try to funnel the shots to a less dangerous player.  I don’t think NHL teams play defense like that.  The goal is to not allow shots on net at all or at least not high quality shots on net.  I don’t think any NHL team is trying to funnel the puck to the least dangerous forward and being ok with that guy taking high danger chances every time down the ice.

In the particular case that Boudreau was talking about, I don’t think that Tampa was purposely letting Lomberg get high danger chances I because they were desperate to keep the puck away from Luostarinen, Accari, or Hornqvist.

1st, to the Boudreau thing: clearly the Bolts aren't intentionally giving up high danger chances to anyone.  But they sure as heck are going to be more concerned about giving up a high danger chance to Barkov than giving one up to Lomberg in similar conditions.  And because their best defenders are going to be working against Barkov, Lomberg isn't going to be facing those defenders & truth be told, they aren't sweating him getting a chance nearly like they are about 12 other guys on their team.  Nobody's saying they want to give him a great scoring chance, but it's probably not as big a deal & on the whole there'll be a ton fewer goals against given up per each time they lose him relative to losing Barkov.  And, if your team gave up 5 high danger chances in the 1st and 4 were to Lomberg, you're likely only looking at having given up 1-2 goals.  If you gave up 5 high danger chances, 4 of which went to Barkov & the other Verhage, you've probably given up at least 3 and likely 4.

In the Girgensons example, why are you assuming the pass to Z is coming from Eichel or ROR?  No, there are 2 additional skaters on the ice for the Sabres, either of which if the cycle works back to the point have options & again, nobody's saying the other team is TRYING to give up shots, but if the man that's uncovered is Girgensons at the backdoor there's a heck of a lot better chance that he'll be beat by the goalie than there is Eichel will be stopped from the slot.

Really not seeing what Boudreau is saying is so controversial.  Seems like common sense.  All things equal, giving up a high danger chance to Thompson is far more likely to result in a goal than giving up the exact same chance to Eakin.

And the comparison is between a Girgensons high danger chance & a Skinner one.  OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANT ANY HIGH DANGER CHANCES.  But, given the 2 scenarios, which one is the coach showing his D-man something he might have done better and which one is the coach screaming at his player for the massive breakdown?

And lastly, on Carrier, do you not understand the meaning of emoji's?  It's a joke you ______.  (Fill in your own mad-lib in the blank.   If you're too young to know what a mad-lib is, wake up PA, he should be able to help you out.  😉 )

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

1st, to the Boudreau thing: clearly the Bolts aren't intentionally giving up high danger chances to anyone.  But they sure as heck are going to be more concerned about giving up a high danger chance to Barkov than giving one up to Lomberg in similar conditions.  And because their best defenders are going to be working against Barkov, Lomberg isn't going to be facing those defenders & truth be told, they aren't sweating him getting a chance nearly like they are about 12 other guys on their team.  Nobody's saying they want to give him a great scoring chance, but it's probably not as big a deal & on the whole there'll be a ton fewer goals against given up per each time they lose him relative to losing Barkov.  And, if your team gave up 5 high danger chances in the 1st and 4 were to Lomberg, you're likely only looking at having given up 1-2 goals.  If you gave up 5 high danger chances, 4 of which went to Barkov & the other Verhage, you've probably given up at least 3 and likely 4.

In the Girgensons example, why are you assuming the pass to Z is coming from Eichel or ROR?  No, there are 2 additional skaters on the ice for the Sabres, either of which if the cycle works back to the point have options & again, nobody's saying the other team is TRYING to give up shots, but if the man that's uncovered is Girgensons at the backdoor there's a heck of a lot better chance that he'll be beat by the goalie than there is Eichel will be stopped from the slot.

Really not seeing what Boudreau is saying is so controversial.  Seems like common sense.  All things equal, giving up a high danger chance to Thompson is far more likely to result in a goal than giving up the exact same chance to Eakin.

And the comparison is between a Girgensons high danger chance & a Skinner one.  OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANT ANY HIGH DANGER CHANCES.  But, given the 2 scenarios, which one is the coach showing his D-man something he might have done better and which one is the coach screaming at his player for the massive breakdown?

And lastly, on Carrier, do you not understand the meaning of emoji's?  It's a joke you ______.  (Fill in your own mad-lib in the blank.   If you're too young to know what a mad-lib is, wake up PA, he should be able to help you out.  😉 )

Yes, I understand the concept that a better offensive player is more likely to score than a worse offensive player.  It’s less likely to result in a goal against, but it doesn’t mean that the process was any better.

Do you think that high danger scoring chances should only be recorded as such if the player who go the chance is “good”? Because that’s kind of what Boudreau is saying.

This whole idea that an NHL team (coaching staff) is going to be more ok with a defensive breakdown if the player who got the chance is a 4th liner, or if your 3rd pair was out on the ice when it happened just doesn’t make sense to me.  Coaches are going to try to correct/address a defensive breakdown that they witnessed regardless of who the opposition was or which player on your own team made the mistake.

It’s process versus result.  There was a breakdown in the process and it’s mostly just lucky that it wasn’t a good player who got the chance.  Yeah, they will be glad that it was Lomberg instead of Barkov but should address the underlying issue that led to the chance in the same way.

Boudreau as a coach should see the value in analyzing high danger chances that his team is giving up, even if the player who the scoring chance wasn’t very good.  I’m sure he does, but it’s not reflected in that particular quote.  I don’t think it’s controversial.  I think Boudreau runs his mouth a lot and some of the things that come out don’t make 100% sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yes, I understand the concept that a better offensive player is more likely to score than a worse offensive player.  It’s less likely to result in a goal against, but it doesn’t mean that the process was any better.

Do you think that high danger scoring chances should only be recorded as such if the player who go the chance is “good”? Because that’s kind of what Boudreau is saying.

This whole idea that an NHL team (coaching staff) is going to be more ok with a defensive breakdown if the player who got the chance is a 4th liner, or if your 3rd pair was out on the ice when it happened just doesn’t make sense to me.  Coaches are going to try to correct/address a defensive breakdown that they witnessed regardless of who the opposition was or which player on your own team made the mistake.

It’s process versus result.  There was a breakdown in the process and it’s mostly just lucky that it wasn’t a good player who got the chance.  Yeah, they will be glad that it was Lomberg instead of Barkov but should address the underlying issue that led to the chance in the same way.

Boudreau as a coach should see the value in analyzing high danger chances that his team is giving up, even if the player who the scoring chance wasn’t very good.  I’m sure he does, but it’s not reflected in that particular quote.  I don’t think it’s controversial.  I think Boudreau runs his mouth a lot and some of the things that come out don’t make 100% sense.

 

To the bolded, no, and actually expect Boudreau is saying the exact opposite of that.   Track all of them, but actually rate them to see how you're really doing.  Lomberg having the puck passed to him is a high danger chance whether he fumbles it or gets it directly onto his tape and then gets a quality shot off.  Same w/ those pucks getting passed to Barkov.

But also, did Huberdeau have to float a perfect saucer over 2 D's sticks to get that scoring chance, or was there a clear passing lane to that scoring chance?

If the offense makes a sweet enough play, they may still end up w/ a scoring chance even though the D played it nearly perfectly.  It's still a scoring chance but 1 is on the O, the other on the D.  Most of what ends up in analytics doesn't look at things that closely because sample sizes get small.

And, without actually analyzing the details of the analytics, you don't know if that breakdown going to the lesser player was merely lucky for their opponent than unlucky for the Swamp Cats.  And by breaking down the analytics, you may find that if certain scrubs do manage to get that high danger chance, they're as good, or better than the star at finishing it, but they never get to that point.

Unrelated to this, it's a severe shortcoming of faceoff evaluation in not looking at true "clean" faceoff wins versus regular old wins.  A clean win can be game altering and does actually matter.  The vast majority of faceoff wins don't matter because there's still significant pressure on the player that receives it.

And don't misunderstand.  Analytics can be a very useful tool, absolutely believe that & don't mean for this to come across otherwise.

Maybe this guy is reading too much into it all, but again, don't see where saying all high danger chances are not created equal isn't correct.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Curt said:

That didn’t really make sense to me though.  Looking at high danger chances should be to analyze how your team did on defense and where the breakdowns occurred.

If a guy snuck back door and got a point blank high danger chance, does it matter whether it was Zemgus Girgensons or Jeff Skinner?  I get that Skinner is more likely to score, but if it was Girgensons, does that mean that the defensive breakdown was any less of a problem?  No, you were just lucky it wasn’t Skinner instead.

It does matter who it is though in the sense that you are going to try to eliminate the more dangerous player and that might allow shots from the lesser threat. For example if you're defending the Washington PP you want to eliminate Ovi more than another player. Boston you focus on Pasternak. Not every shot and shooter can be treated equally. 

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

It does matter who it is though in the sense that you are going to try to eliminate the more dangerous player and that might allow shots from the lesser threat. For example if you're defending the Washington PP you want to eliminate Ovi more than another player. Boston you focus on Pasternak. Not every shot and shooter can be treated equally. 

This is true.  It’s a lot more relevant on the PP.  A more structured type of situation.  I was thinking more about chances given up in the general flow of ES play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

This is true.  It’s a lot more relevant on the PP.  A more structured type of situation.  I was thinking more about chances given up in the general flow of ES play.

Definitely more relevant on the PP but holds in all situations. 

It will be interesting next year to see how teams try to defend Thompson now that they should realize that he's a true scoring threat. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

It will be interesting next year to see how teams try to defend Thompson now that they should realize that he's a true scoring threat. 

This will inevitably be trotted out next year during his first slump, even though it makes little sense to me.

One would think they realized that by Christmas, or at least by the all-star break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This will inevitably be trotted out next year during his first slump, even though it makes little sense to me.

One would think they realized that by Christmas, or at least by the all-star break.

Agree to a degree.

The thing we haven't seen yet is we haven't seen teams recognize what the (a) effective strategy to shut Thompson down is.  Yes, teams realized he was a threat, but this is a copy cat world, and IMHO while he was shut down on occasion, the "book" on how to do so hasn't yet been written.   It likely will be this season & how Tage adjusts to THAT adjustment is what we need to see next.  

He seems to have a pretty good "hockey IQ" (never thought that'd be the case watching him tear up his shoulder, but hey, things change) so he should be able to do so.  And reality is, hockey is such a fast chaotic game that even if the book comes out on Tage that he still will be able to find his spaces, just he'll have to work harder to get them (or his linemates need to take advantage and force teams to not be able to focus on him; they did a good job of it last season & should be able to continue to do so).

And, let's face it, while teams by the end weren't taking the Sabres lightly, they weren't putting the same resources into studying their tendencies that they were doing to take on the Bolts or the Canes.  This year, they'll likely put in a bit more effort in preparation.   Will that matter?  Who knows, but it'll be interesting to see if it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

This will inevitably be trotted out next year during his first slump, even though it makes little sense to me.

One would think they realized that by Christmas, or at least by the all-star break.

idk, I'm not convinced teams were taking us seriously at the end. We were the trap game for many teams and the good teams still schooled us. Lots of back up goalies, loose wide open play. If we start next year winning we might get looked at differently, then we will really know for sure. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

idk, I'm not convinced teams were taking us seriously at the end. We were the trap game for many teams and the good teams still schooled us. Lots of back up goalies, loose wide open play. If we start next year winning we might get looked at differently, then we will really know for sure. 

 

This is not a take I have any problem with.

it's the idea that coaches weren't preparing for Thompson, or putting their best defenders out against him I'm skeptical of.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...