What role does Krebs fit into next season?

[tom webster]

22 hours ago, Xzy89c said:

Every coach in this league and any other league will disagree with you on faceoffs. Hockey today is about holding puck and creating offense. Free possession on a faceoff is gold.

You would think the last sentence would be obvious but it’s not. History has shown that there is less correlation than one would assume between winning face offs and maintaining possession. Colorado, Minnesota and Seattle are amongst the worst face off teams in the league yet easily made the playoffs. If all coaches put a premium on winning draws, faceoff specialists would be employed by every team.

[SabresBaltimore]

59 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

So when I see someone draft in the 1st round I'm always excited to get them as a prospect, so I was happy he came back in the Eichel trade. But after watching Krebs for a year and a 1/2, I just don't see it. Yes he is young, but I really don't see many signs of a top end player. I hope I'm wrong.

In my mind, being a first round draft pick doesn't mean "top end player" it just means you're expected to be an NHL level player.

 

The overall #1 or even Top 5 (and maybe Top 10 depending on how deep that draft class was) are a different story though. Those I'd expect a lot more from than players taken later in the first round. For reference, Krebs was taking 17th.

 

I think he's shown this season he can be a valuable NHL level player. To me the lingering questions are if we have room for him and what his ceiling will be. I don't think we really need to decide this offseason, unless a GM from another team really wants him back as part of a trade, in which case I'd be OK moving him depending on the return.

 

My guess is we have other prospects teams will be after instead, and so we have a year until he needs to be either re-signed, traded or cut (don't see this one happening). Right now I think they'd choose to bring him back on a cheap deal unless he does something to warrant getting paid more.

 

 

[tom webster]

8 minutes ago, SDS said:

https://theleafsnation.com/news/amp/how-important-are-faceoffs-in-hockey
 

The majority of the people in this world don’t take the time to update their priors. They just pass along the things the guy before them said.

Sure, throw some factual link out there while I try to compose a well thought response.😉

[GASabresIUFAN]

35 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Sure, throw some factual link out there while I try to compose a well thought response.😉

I give you one.  The article talks about face offs in general, but what about situational face offs.  I’d like to see if there is a correlation between Dzone faceoff % on the PK and the success of the PK. 

The problem also with the research is hockey has too many other factors that affect the outcome.  Take the PK for example.  The Sabres had bad faceoff guys, bad goaltending and mediocre D all on the PK.  Is it any wonder their Pk was only 73%?  My guess is goaltending was the biggest factor, but it would be interesting to know if winning a draw would have helped. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt. By the way the Sabres were 32nd in SH faceoff W % at 38%.

[Xzy89c]

49 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Sure, throw some factual link out there while I try to compose a well thought response.😉

i like it. 50 more won draws is equal to a point. Or not. 

There needs to be a third category for draws. Call it a push draw. No one wins the draw cleanly and it is battled for by rest of players. It would really show you who the best are and the results.

A draw won puts you in great position for rest of shift. For teams like sabres with a couple of elite d-man it is worth more.

[tom webster]

36 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I give you one.  The article talks about face offs in general, but what about situational face offs.  I’d like to see if there is a correlation between Dzone faceoff % on the PK and the success of the PK. 

The problem also with the research is hockey has too many other factors that affect the outcome.  Take the PK for example.  The Sabres had bad faceoff guys, bad goaltending and mediocre D all on the PK.  Is it any wonder their Pk was only 73%?  My guess is goaltending was the biggest factor, but it would be interesting to know if winning a draw would have helped. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt. By the way the Sabres were 32nd in SH faceoff W % at 38%.

There is no doubt winning a draw is better then losing a draw and like you intimated, all draws aren’t equal. Like most things, there are several factors involved and rarely does one factor define to, or lead to success.

[matter2003]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Krebs Is still a mystery for me. What I do know is that he improved as the season went on. My opinion however is that he improved from one of the worst forwards in the league to someone who was just serviceable.

I really have no idea when the NHL draft comes around who is going to be good and who isn't. So when I see someone draft in the 1st round I'm always excited to get them as a prospect, so I was happy he came back in the Eichel trade. But after watching Krebs for a year and a 1/2, I just don't see it. Yes he is young, but I really don't see many signs of a top end player. I hope I'm wrong.

The NHL is the only league where a 1st round pick can be a 3rd line player and teams will be thrilled with it. Imagine the Bills drafting a guy in the first round at 27 this year and they would be happy if he ended up being a decent backup and special teamer.

[French Collection]

4 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

The NHL is the only league where a 1st round pick can be a 3rd line player and teams will be thrilled with it. Imagine the Bills drafting a guy in the first round at 27 this year and they would be happy if he ended up being a decent backup and special teamer.

You can thank Ken Linseman and the WHA for bringing in the 18 year old draft.

When they were drafted at 20 the players were more ready for pro hockey. The scouting wasn’t as good so there were a lot of misses.

Imagine having two more years to assess junior talent with today’s analytics and video breakdown.

[Carmel Corn]

Keeping it simple....next season Krebs is our 4C who can move up to a 3C if needed (ex injuries).  Another season to develop and get stronger.  I like his enthusiasm and feel he is a great fit with the new culture in the locker room.

[dudacek]

38 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

The NHL is the only league where a 1st round pick can be a 3rd line player and teams will be thrilled with it. Imagine the Bills drafting a guy in the first round at 27 this year and they would be happy if he ended up being a decent backup and special teamer.

That's hardly apples to apples and largely a question of math.

Both the NHL and the NFL draft about 230 players. The NFL has about 1700 roster spots available for what, a dozen different player types? The NHL has about 700 for 3. A much larger percentage of NFL draftees are going to make it and many more will become starters because there are 22 openings, compared to 6.

Also, about 60 players picked in any NHL draft actually go on to become NHL regulars. Assuming a general curve of talent, it would make sense that many players picked in the mid to late 1st become mid-roster players or worse.

Edited April 18, 2023 by dudacek

[Doohickie]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

You would think the last sentence would be obvious but it’s not. History has shown that there is less correlation than one would assume between winning face offs and maintaining possession. Colorado, Minnesota and Seattle are amongst the worst face off teams in the league yet easily made the playoffs. If all coaches put a premium on winning draws, faceoff specialists would be employed by every team.

Faceoffs become critical in regular season OT games.  You either have to win the faceoff or have an Alex Tuch that that disrupt the other team and cause a turnover... or both.  But in the 3-on-3 OT, extended possession frequently leads to OT victory.

[Doohickie]

18 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

Keeping it simple....next season Krebs is our 4C who can move up to a 3C if needed (ex injuries).  Another season to develop and get stronger.  I like his enthusiasm and feel he is a great fit with the new culture in the locker room.

When Curtis Lazar was traded I think most people on the forum felt he was a very serviceable bottom 6 guy.  You need some of those, especially if they can win faceoffs.  If Krebs improves is FO% a bit he will have become Curtis Lazar, and that's not a bad thing.

[DarthEbriate]

58 minutes ago, French Collection said:

You can thank Ken Linseman and the WHA for bringing in the 18 year old draft.

When they were drafted at 20 the players were more ready for pro hockey. The scouting wasn’t as good so there were a lot of misses.

Imagine having two more years to assess junior talent with today’s analytics and video breakdown.

A potential downside of a later-age draft is teams would completely overvalue their picks and be even less willing to trade them.

[MattPie]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

The NHL is the only league where a 1st round pick can be a 3rd line player and teams will be thrilled with it. Imagine the Bills drafting a guy in the first round at 27 this year and they would be happy if he ended up being a decent backup and special teamer.

 

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

That's hardly apples to apples and largely a question of math.

Both the NHL and the NFL draft about 230 players. The NFL has about 1700 roster spots available for what, a dozen different player types? The NHL has about 700 for 3. A much larger percentage of NFL draftees are going to make it and many more will become starters because there are 22 openings, compared to 6.

Also, about 60 players picked in any NHL draft actually go on to become NHL regulars. Assuming a general curve of talent, it would make sense that many players picked in the mid to late 1st become mid-roster players or worse.

The math is even worse when you start thinking about position nuance. Outside, Inside, Middle LB, 3-4 or 4-3 players, Slot receivers, Pass-defense end, etc. Depending on how you slice it, you may be picking in the second round and get the consensus best run-blocking Left Guard (or whatever) in the draft. Outside of maybe goaltenders in the NHL, you're probably not getting the consensus best of anything outside of first 6-7 picks.

I used to wonder why place kicking in college is such an adventure, but if you think about it, there are maybe 3-4 kickers per year from all of college that end up being NFL players. If you're a good place kicker, you're probably going to play at least 10 years if not 15, so the league as a whole is only replacing a handful each year as they retire.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

There is no doubt winning a draw is better then losing a draw and like you intimated, all draws aren’t equal. Like most things, there are several factors involved and rarely does one factor define to, or lead to success.

What I’d like to see is research on PK faceoffs, not if they lead to goals, but whether a PK faceoff win leads to a clear within 15 seconds of a puck drop.  If more PK wins leads to more clears, then it should probably follow that the PK has a higher success rate, unless of course you have the Sabres goaltenders.

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

You would think the last sentence would be obvious but it’s not. History has shown that there is less correlation than one would assume between winning face offs and maintaining possession. Colorado, Minnesota and Seattle are amongst the worst face off teams in the league yet easily made the playoffs. If all coaches put a premium on winning draws, faceoff specialists would be employed by every team.

I see three things: 

1 - the face off itself 

2 - gaining control of the puck after a faceoff  (therefore getting credit for winning it) 

3 - maintaining puck control

We are bad at #1, that is in the face off data and cannot be disputed.  This is really important in the defensive zone.  

We appear to also be bad at #2, which is the actual battling for possession after face-offs that are contested with no clear winner.  I have seen this team lose possession on faceoffs they won, or face-offs with no clear winner, way too often - I think a lot of the problem is experience and compete level in our D zone.  

We are good at #3.  We are a good puck possession team, once we have it.  

I will never subscribe to the notion that faceoffs are not important but I think that being at or near 50% is good enough.  We lost a number of games because we blew third period leads.  D-zone faceoffs and our inability to get possession in our D zone is a contributor to this team falling 2 points short.  

Neutral zone faceoffs tend to blur the data.  I would like to see data on goals given up after a lost D-zone faceoff, and goals scored after a won O-zone faceoff.   

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

What I’d like to see is research on PK faceoffs, not if they lead to goals, but whether a PK faceoff win leads to a clear within 15 seconds of a puck drop.  If more PK wins leads to more clears, then it should probably follow that the PK has a higher success rate, unless of course you have the Sabres goaltenders.

It would make sense that winning a faceoff (cleanly) on the PK leads to a clear more often than not.  But even that stat will be tempered by the rest of the variables.  A clear against the Sabres will result in far fewer goals against over the course of the PK than it would against a team like Edmonton that is very good at zone entry on the PK.  Because that one single clear won't necessarily only result in 15 seconds of non-zone time for the PP but could result in the full 2 minutes being shot.

Personally, expect the teams do have their stats broken down to a microevent level (understanding that for some it makes the sample size too small to be meaningful) whereas the people doing this for random websites don't have nearly the resources to do that kind of analysis.  (Also, wouldn't necessarily trust a website to be analyzing the data consistently enough to have the results be meaningful.  One volunteer stat tracker could have a much different view on whether a face off was won or was won cleanly than another one would.)

But, it would absolutely be cool if that research is being done by a source that is available to the fans (even though the data collection biases may leave it unreliable).  Would be something else to talk about over the long off-season.

[French Collection]

8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

What I’d like to see is research on PK faceoffs, not if they lead to goals, but whether a PK faceoff win leads to a clear within 15 seconds of a puck drop.  If more PK wins leads to more clears, then it should probably follow that the PK has a higher success rate, unless of course you have the Sabres goaltenders.

Think of it this way. Do you have a better chance to clear it if you win the draw?

Faceoffs matter at certain times/places and it is nice to have someone that gives your team a chance to win possession.

Bergeron can beat Thompson all day in the neutral zone, it probably won’t lead to many scoring chances. But if Bergeron is beating Girgs/KO/Jost/Krebs 60+ % of the time on offensive zone PP opportunities, the Bruins PP should have more zone time which should lead to more scoring chances.

There is no way I am studying this in detail but raw faceoff numbers don’t mean too much, it’s where and when that matter.

[Pimlach]

38 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

When Curtis Lazar was traded I think most people on the forum felt he was a very serviceable bottom 6 guy.  You need some of those, especially if they can win faceoffs.  If Krebs improves is FO% a bit he will have become Curtis Lazar, and that's not a bad thing.

Interestingly enough, both were drafted 17th overall.   In one full NHL season Krebs has already passed Lazar's most productive seasons for goals and points. Krebs will likely score even more next season.  He has far better playmaking ability and on ice vision.  

Lazar is a good faceoff guy and a stout player on his skates.   His hands are below average.  Lazar is a minus player his entire career, even when he was on the mighty Boston Bruins.   

If Krebs improves his shot (will take work) and gets stronger (will most certainly happen), he will become a good NHL player somewhere in this league, and not a fringe 4th liner like Lazar is.  

[matter2003]

1 hour ago, MattPie said:

 

The math is even worse when you start thinking about position nuance. Outside, Inside, Middle LB, 3-4 or 4-3 players, Slot receivers, Pass-defense end, etc. Depending on how you slice it, you may be picking in the second round and get the consensus best run-blocking Left Guard (or whatever) in the draft. Outside of maybe goaltenders in the NHL, you're probably not getting the consensus best of anything outside of first 6-7 picks.

I used to wonder why place kicking in college is such an adventure, but if you think about it, there are maybe 3-4 kickers per year from all of college that end up being NFL players. If you're a good place kicker, you're probably going to play at least 10 years if not 15, so the league as a whole is only replacing a handful each year as they retire.

That's not true at all with kickers...they are one of the most replaced positions in the NFL. Even with relatively established players. Miss a few game winning kicks in a row or have a few bad games and there is a good chance they replace you. Some teams are going through 3-4 kickers a year because they just keep not performing well. The standard of kicking is so high nowadays that you almost have to be at your best every game. 55 yard kicks that were an expected 10% or less chance of making it 10-15 years ago are now considered routine kicks and they are looked at strangely when they miss. 

 

Best position for a long career with little competition is long snapper. Unique skill set that takes a long time to practice to do well at and hone, and not much competition. Those dudes can play 15 years easy, especially with all the protections they have gotten over the last several years with the rule changes.

Edited April 18, 2023 by matter2003

[tom webster]

4 hours ago, matter2003 said:

The NHL is the only league where a 1st round pick can be a 3rd line player and teams will be thrilled with it. Imagine the Bills drafting a guy in the first round at 27 this year and they would be happy if he ended up being a decent backup and special teamer.

Actually, football is the only draft where you expect a player at the 27th pick to be a starter. 

[matter2003]

27 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Actually, football is the only draft where you expect a player at the 27th pick to be a starter. 

Pretty sad and says something about the other drafts then. Ie, if you are drafting the supposed 27th best player that year, you should be pretty certain he is a starter. Other than that, it's a pretty epic failure in your leagues draft process.

[tom webster]

9 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Pretty sad and says something about the other drafts then. Ie, if you are drafting the supposed 27th best player that year, you should be pretty certain he is a starter. Other than that, it's a pretty epic failure in your leagues draft process.

Why is it sad? It’s just a function of the sport. There are 22/23 spots on an NHL team. 12/15 NBA. A third liner in hockey would be a top 18 player. A starter in the NFL could be the 22nd player.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, French Collection said:

Think of it this way. Do you have a better chance to clear it if you win the draw?

Faceoffs matter at certain times/places and it is nice to have someone that gives your team a chance to win possession.

Bergeron can beat Thompson all day in the neutral zone, it probably won’t lead to many scoring chances. But if Bergeron is beating Girgs/KO/Jost/Krebs 60+ % of the time on offensive zone PP opportunities, the Bruins PP should have more zone time which should lead to more scoring chances.

There is no way I am studying this in detail but raw faceoff numbers don’t mean too much, it’s where and when that matter.

You would think, but on the PK does the extra skater on the PP team may wipe out that advantage?  It seems like it.  On D Zone draws the Sabres were 41.6% last year, but that number drops to 37.96% on the PK.

The same holds true on the PP.  Our regular Ozone faceoff % was 45.97, but on the PP it increased to 49.46%  Clearly the extra skater makes a huge difference in the faceoff stats.

  

[French Collection]

6 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You would think, but on the PK does the extra skater on the PP team may wipe out that advantage?  It seems like it.  On D Zone draws the Sabres were 41.6% last year, but that number drops to 37.96% on the PK.

The same holds true on the PP.  Our regular Ozone faceoff % was 45.97, but on the PP it increased to 49.46%  Clearly the extra skater makes a huge difference in the faceoff stats.

  

Both numbers are around 3.5% higher, interesting.

Having an extra man definitely makes a difference in winning a battle on a non clean faceoff win.

You have to think 37.96% faceoff wins on the PK is a contributing factor to a terrible PK. We know the goaltending numbers are bad but increasing other teams’  O zone time hurts.