Blues Offense / Defense vs other teams

[simon IC]

Not sure I can agree with any winger other than one being elite, nor do I rate the centres very high...Staz is good as is Lehtera...Backes was good.
PMDs though...yes.
Puzzled as to how the Blues can be as poor as they are at scoring...yes.

Ultimately coming to the decision that Hitchcock needs to find other employment after this season: Most definitely.

Welcome back! It seems there are posters here that could coach better than Hitch! Unfortunately, I think it will take another 1st round exit before he leaves.

 

[Multimoodia]

But I would definitively put them both in the top-15 LWers in the NHL, and in my mind both in the top 10 (maybe this gets harder to argue with the emergence of Johnny Hockey and Panarin).

Shooting from the hip:

Top 10 LW:
Benn, Parise, Hall, MaxPac, Landeskog, Marleau, Nash and from there there is a lot of noise. Could see Schwartz in there...putting Steen there seems like a dying breath.
Could also see either or both of them with a number closer to 2 starting off their collective ranking.

our defense is as good as anyone's at chipping in, and our center depth is strong even if it's not elite, so we should be a lot higher than 24th in scoring.

Now there I cannot help but agree.

 

[ChuckLefley]

I hear these comments about Petro not being able to get his shot on net, does anyone have stats that back this up?

 

[medkit]

Shooting from the hip:

Top 10 LW:
Benn, Parise, Hall, MaxPac, Landeskog, Marleau, Nash and from there there is a lot of noise. Could see Schwartz in there...putting Steen there seems like a dying breath.

Don't really see at all how Landeskog/Marleau are better than Steen. Marleau probably isn't even top 20 at this point for me. I think you could argue a few of those others at times too.

 

[Oberyn]

Marleau is not better than Steen. Landeskog is probably even with Steen.

 

[Bluesfan54]

I still believe it's a system issue instead of a player issue.

I totally disagree. Every year that Hitch has been with the Blues, the team has been in the top 10 in scoring. What's different about this year? In one word: injuries. Injuries to the top players, not the bottom guys who don't score much anyway. If you add just 20 goals to the team's total (and Schwartz alone would account for most of that if he had played) the Blues would be #7 and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[ManyIdeas]

I totally disagree. Every year that Hitch has been with the Blues, the team has been in the top 10 in scoring. What's different about this year? In one word: injuries. Injuries to the top players, not the bottom guys who don't score much anyway. If you add just 20 goals to the team's total (and Schwartz alone would account for most of that if he had played) the Blues would be #7 and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's kinda the point though. However many years of top 10 scoring finishes for teams in the past however long. No goal scoring in the playoffs. Eye test shows you that other teams clamp down, give no room and push the envelope across the table, which the Blues just let fall. Blues forwards play even more on the perimeter in the playoffs, which is fine for 91 because he can rip a laser from the dots and beat a goalie clean, but who else scores goals in the playoffs for the Blues? Not a single person. Blues don't get into the paint, don't get good screens, get shots blocked at the point etc.

Which is exactly how they play in the regular season, but other teams change in the postseason, while the Blues hold on to what they do.

 

[medkit]

I totally disagree. Every year that Hitch has been with the Blues, the team has been in the top 10 in scoring. What's different about this year? In one word: injuries. Injuries to the top players, not the bottom guys who don't score much anyway. If you add just 20 goals to the team's total (and Schwartz alone would account for most of that if he had played) the Blues would be #7 and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Great point, didn't realize the difference was that slim

 

[HappyGilmore]

Marleau is not better than Steen. Landeskog is probably even with Steen.

Yeah, Steen and Landeskog are pretty even overall.

 

[HappyGilmore]

I hear these comments about Petro not being able to get his shot on net, does anyone have stats that back this up?

No, but that doesn't mean its not true though. I don't have specific numbers that measure how many times Tarasenko cuts into the middle, but I am fairly certain that he does it more than anyone else on the team.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I totally disagree. Every year that Hitch has been with the Blues, the team has been in the top 10 in scoring. What's different about this year? In one word: injuries. Injuries to the top players, not the bottom guys who don't score much anyway. If you add just 20 goals to the team's total (and Schwartz alone would account for most of that if he had played) the Blues would be #7 and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One of the hallmarks of good playoff teams is that they can score at ES. (Well, the usual discussion point is ES goal differential, but in this context we'll work with goals for as a proxy.)

From 2012-13 through 2014-15 (excluding Hitchcock's first partial year, and this partial/injury riddled year), the Blues ranked 11th in the league in 5 on 5 goals for with 426. That's right between the Islanders (433) and Minnesota (425).

I'd argue that the Blues generally under-performed in that area relative to their collective talent level, as I don't think there were 10 teams that were more talented than them over that span. I suppose that's up for debate, though.

For those who were curious, here is the top 7 and their collective playoff records for the years in question:

CHI (578): 43-22 (2 Cups)
NYR (508): 30-27 (1 Cup Final)
ANA (507): 21-15
TBL (482): 14-16 (1 Cup Final)
BOS (471): 21-13 (1 Cup Final)
PIT (467): 16-17
LAK (453): 25-19 (1 Cup)

Just some food for thought.

 

[EastonBlues22]

No, but that doesn't mean its not true though. I don't have specific numbers that measure how many times Tarasenko cuts into the middle, but I am fairly certain that he does it more than anyone else on the team.

War-on-Ice tracks missed shots HERE.

For those who don't want to follow the link, I'll list the top 7 Blues missed shot leaders. I'll add the ratio of SOG:MS in parentheses behind their total.

Tarasenko - 80 (2.95:1)
Parayko - 62 (2.19:1)
Shattenkirk - 53 (2.60:1)
Steen - 51 (3.14:1)
Backes - 47 (2.87:1)
Pietrangelo - 44 (3.34:1)
Bouwmeester - 43 (2.02:1)

Not only is Pietrangelo not even close to leading the team in missed shots, he hits the net more often per unblocked attempt than any other player on this list.

 

[carter333167]

I hear these comments about Petro not being able to get his shot on net, does anyone have stats that back this up?

Apart from the eye test and some of the gaffers that even Panger has mentioned, these stats aren't a perfect measure but take a look:

Petro's shooting percentage from 2010-present:

2010-2011 6.8
2011-2012 5.9
2012-2013 5.4
2013-2014 4.9
2014-2015 3.6
2015-2016 2.7

More appropriate stats from EB above though the conversion rate is still a concern. I believe that some of Petro's issues are related to Hitch.

 

[ChuckLefley]

Apart from the eye test and some of the gaffers that even Panger has mentioned, these stats aren't a perfect measure but take a look:

Petro's shooting percentage from 2010-present:

2010-2011 6.8
2011-2012 5.9
2012-2013 5.4
2013-2014 4.9
2014-2015 3.6
2015-2016 2.7

More appropriate stats from EB above though the conversion rate is still a concern. I believe that some of Petro's issues are related to Hitch.

The problem I have is that the comments aren't that he can't score, but that he does not get his shots on net. Your stat is about scoring, not getting shots on net.

No, but that doesn't mean its not true though. I don't have specific numbers that measure how many times Tarasenko cuts into the middle, but I am fairly certain that he does it more than anyone else on the team.

Ah, the old, I have no way to prove it, but I know it's true.

According to Hockey Reference Petro has 147 shots on goal from 258 shot attempts. That would be 56.9%. Some comparisons for reference:
Karlsson 45.7%
Doughty 45.4%
Subban 46.6%
Keith 44.6%
Ovechkin 54.4%
Tarasenko 53.8%

Sure seems like the idea that he can't get his shot on net is a myth.

 

[Borderbluesfan]

According to Hockey Reference Petro has 147 shots on goal from 258 shot attempts. That would be 56.9%. Some comparisons for reference:
Karlsson 45.7%
Doughty 45.4%
Subban 46.6%
Keith 44.6%
Ovechkin 54.4%
Tarasenko 53.8%

Sure seems like the idea that he can't get his shot on net is a myth.

Great stat, now explain why his shots don't result in goals near as much as the players that you listed above. 4 of them are defensemen and score a lot of more goals. So, Petro shoots it on net for a good average, but his shots aren't effective.

 

[Celtic Note]

Great stat, now explain why his shots don't result in goals near as much as the players that you listed above. 4 of them are defensemen and score a lot of more goals. So, Petro shoots it on net for a good average, but his shots aren't effective.

He has a weak shot, so that's a big factor. He also just seems to try and hit the net. He doesn't pick his spots.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Great stat, now explain why his shots don't result in goals near as much as the players that you listed above. 4 of them are defensemen and score a lot of more goals. So, Petro shoots it on net for a good average, but his shots aren't effective.

Aren't we kind of shifting the goalposts here? He wanted to debunk a myth that Pietrangelo doesn't hit the net. Now you're trying to turn it into a defense of why Pietrangelo doesn't score goals as much as some of the higher scoring defensemen in the game.

Putting him on the spot aside, it's a question that's worthy of discussion. I have two points to make: The first is that a point shot on net is the (standard) definition of an effective shot for a defenseman. A shot from the point is simply a low percentage shot. The real hope is that there is a rebound, tip, or effective screen that prevents the goalie from seeing the puck. The defenseman scoring is the unexpected outcome. In that sense, bagging on Pietrangelo because he's getting shots on net but they aren't going in is kind of a backwards criticism.

You might be saying to yourself right now that not all shots are point shots. Quite so, and that bleeds into my second point, for which I'll turn to the ever-trusty War-on-Ice.com for help.

Here's a few images comparing the shooting percentage hot-spots for Pietrangelo, Doughty, Karlsson, and Keith, both in absolute terms and relative to league average. I selected all ES minutes from 2012-13 through the present (the Hitchcock years), both regular season and playoffs, as the best representation of "normal" shot quality and usage.

You'll notice right away that Pietrangelo's shooting percentages are right there with these other three guys when you account for where the shot is taken. A major difference in their absolute (sum-total) shooting percentages is that most of Pietrangelo's shot volume comes from the low percentage point area, while these other three guys have the green light to roam quite a bit more. This is especially true low in the zone in that high percentage scoring area near the net.

We all know that Pietrangelo isn't afraid to leave his point and go low in the zone when he has the green light, so convince Hitchcock to loosen the reins if you want Pietrangelo to score more goals (or simply jump on the "Fire Hitchcock" bandwagon).

Here's the PP graphs for the same time frame:

Same basic story. These other guys aren't displaying significantly more effective shots than Pietrangelo (to explain goal discrepancy as evidenced by shooting percentage), but they are being used much more in the middle of the ice and low in the zone around the net. Again, you can chalk that up to Pietrangelo not being willing to go low in the zone, or to him being told to stay high in the zone by his coaches. Personally, I think one is a lot more likely than the other.

In this case, there's also a fairly significant disparity in PP TOI/G which affects overall shot quantity as Pietrangelo has basically been a 2nd pairing PP guy behind Shattenkirk for the duration of the covered time-frame. Here's the PP TOI/G averages for the individuals above for the time-frame in question per NHL.com: Karlsson 4:33, Doughty 3:26, Keith 3:03, Pietrangelo 2:35. Giving up 30 seconds to 2 minutes of PP time every game to these guys is going to significantly affect bottom line numbers.

Individual shot characteristics aside (shot velocity, etc.), it seems pretty clear that Pietrangelo's shots are, at the very least, not significantly less effective at generating goals per shot on goal attempt than these other three guys when you account for where the shots are coming from. You can blame him for where the shots are coming from, or you can blame the coaching, but I hope we can stop just blaming the shot.

There you have it. Question asked and answered.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Might as well add that the league average shooting percentage over that time-frame from where Pietrangelo takes most of his shots (the box above the left circle in the graphic that's bordered by the blueline on top, the wall on the left, the top of the circle at the bottom, and an imaginary line on the right that's approximately formed by the right side of the left circle if you extend it vertically to the blueline) is a miniscule 1.57% (1200 goals on 76044 shots).

If someone consistently pops in an additional 2% more shots (3.57% total) from that area of the ice than someone else (a fairly significant increase at it represents outperforming league average by 127%), it's worth a whopping 3 extra goals for every 150 shots on goal generated from that area. Obviously, that's not where defensemen who score a lot of goals are separating themselves from the pack.

If you want a defenseman to score a lot of goals himself, you have to consistently put him in (or let him go to) the areas where goals are actually scored.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Excellent posts by Easton - I am convinced.

 

[Ranksu]

If you want a defenseman that scores a lot himself, you have to consistently put him in (or let him go to) the areas where goals are actually scored.

So how you release Pietro?

Maybe some truth hold for coaching system (Hitch, not Shaw), but mostly that his pair is holding him down, pointing out with clearly mediocre dmen Pietro is taking more responsibilty then playing same type Dmen like himself?

I think there could be some 'stats' about how Jbo and Pietro performe 'better' when they are seperated? So saying this isn't any new, but like Jbo look totally different player when he play on the edge with pair like Shattery or Parayko.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I just noticed that I forgot to put in Subban. Here are his charts, along with Weber's as a bonus so you can see what a truly dominating shot looks like.

It's interesting to note that Weber's shots from the right point at ES go in at a league average rate even though his shot is decidedly not league average. From that distance, it simply doesn't matter how hard you shoot. Goalies are going to stop it the vast majority of the time if they aren't screened and it isn't tipped.

ES:

PP:

 

[EastonBlues22]

So how you release Pietro?

Maybe some truth hold for coaching system (Hitch, not Shaw), but mostly that his pair is holding him down, pointing out with clearly mediocre dmen Pietro is taking more responsibilty then playing same type Dmen like himself?

I think there could be some 'stats' about how Jbo and Pietro performe 'better' when they are seperated? So saying this isn't any new, but like Jbo look totally different player when he play on the edge with pair like Shattery or Parayko.

I don't think who you are partnered with affects goal scoring for a defenseman all that much. Maybe if they are choosing to play ultra-conservatively because their partner is a weak link, but usually you're not putting blatant defensive liabilities out there with your #1 D. I think it's much more likely a product of the coaching staff's desired structure.

 

[ChuckLefley]

[NHL][/NHL]

Great stat, now explain why his shots don't result in goals near as much as the players that you listed above. 4 of them are defensemen and score a lot of more goals. So, Petro shoots it on net for a good average, but his shots aren't effective.

We were discussing people claiming he can't get his shot on net. I used stats to prove that's a myth...so you move the goalposts. That seems to be a pretty typical when it comes to this myth.

 

[carter333167]

Thanks Easton...that's really amazing stuff.

It would be interesting to see Shatty's charts as he plays in the same system as Petro.

Regarding the key issue: what is keeping Petro from getting all of the close-in shots of a D-Man like Doughty---I think it's a bit of both--Petro himself and Hitch's system.

On Petro vs a Doughty: One of Doughty's hallmarks is his skating, offensive instincts and penetration. I can't necessarily fault Petro for not being Doughty--Doughty is simply on another level in this area...he is a better skater with more aggressive instincts than Petro...pretty much the best in the business..Keith isn't far behind and also is an incredible skater.

Notwithstanding the first point, I have feared for some time that some of Petro's issues offensively probably are related to Hitch and his assistants. My guess is that Hitch has not delivered a consistent system to the players and that they are doubting him as well as themselves at this point. I see doubt in Petro's game in the the offensive zone at times. While I don't think he can be a carbon copy of Doughty or Keith, I think he should be more effective than he is and I am very concerned that Hitch is actually holding certain players back at this point. I like Hitch but I am full on ready to see a new coach. I don't think we are seeing the limits of this roster's capabilities with Hitch.

Thanks again for posting all of the info.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I haven't looked at Shattenkirk's charts, but my guess is that they would be slightly different. Hitchcock generally tries to get him out there with Tarasenko against the most favorable match-ups he can manage. Tarasenko seems to be given some leeway to freelance a bit when he's out there, or he just does it, and I think Shattenkirk gets the same treatment.

Pietrangelo is typically out there against the best players Hitchcock can manage to get him out there against, and he's tasked with a much more defensive role. Hitchcock generally doesn't want open play when the other team's dangerous players are on the ice (or perhaps ever, but sometimes he recognizes the need to take some chances when goals are needed). Not sure measuring his chart against Shattenkirks would really be an apples-to-apples comparison, in spite of them playing in the same system. Parayko's chart would probably be a better comparison since his role is more similar to Pietrangelo's, but there's not nearly as much shot data since this is his first year.

As far as Hitch vs Pietrangelo goes, Pietrangelo took a whole lot of chances to create offense in juniors. He was basically a 4th forward out there, and he played all over the ice (especially in Niagra). After witnessing that, I have a lot of trouble believing that he's evolved into someone whose natural instincts are now to play a much more reserved positional game.