Blues Offense / Defense vs other teams

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

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.

This is a great point that I had completely forgotten about. Unless we're getting blown away with a deal Matthews+Draisaitl-level, I wouldn't consider ever moving Petro. Luckily, I don't think management does either.

 

[KingBran]

This is a great point that I had completely forgotten about. Unless we're getting blown away with a deal Matthews+Draisaitl-level, I wouldn't consider ever moving Petro. Luckily, I don't think management does either.

Pie is seen as top talent around the league by just about everyone except a few disgruntled Blues fans that think he should be EK. This whole new way of thinking D-men are only valuable if they score a ton kind of bugs me. The NHL started giving the Norris to not the best D-men but the guys who were at least OK on D but scored tons of points. It's created this culture of "unless you score tons of points you are an expendable D-man"

It's a reason why I always liked Jax. He was hardly ever beat along the boards or in the D-zone. Yeah his breakout game wasn't stellar but he was hard-nosed D that got under your skin and could actually play D.

It's also a reason I don't see why people think EJ is good. He's almost the opposite of Jax. He is awful along the boards and not that great in his own zone (he's a turnover waiting to happen) but he has a good breakout game and will get some shots on net. People see that and think "Wow he's actually pretty good!" but when it comes to defense... he's nothing special at all.

I dunno. That's my rant.

 

[HappyGilmore]

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.

What those statistics don't account for is the quality of opportunities when Petro misses the net. It simply takes a total of the missed shots on goal, while Petro seems to miss the net on better scoring opportunities, which is likely why many posters on this forum have noticed him more than the other players you have listed.

 

[Brian39]

What those statistics don't account for is the quality of opportunities when Petro misses the net. It simply takes a total of the missed shots on goal, while Petro seems to miss the net on better scoring opportunities, which is likely why many posters on this forum have noticed him more than the other players you have listed.

Easton's follow up posts with the shot charts address this pretty well (probably as well as stats can without an advance in player tracking technology).

I'm not sure how anyone can read all of Easton's posts in this thread and still think Petro has a serious problem missing the net. Unless you diligently watch 50-60 games from every team in the NHL per year, I can't take the eye test seriously.

 

[HappyGilmore]

Easton's follow up posts with the shot charts address this pretty well (probably as well as stats can without an advance in player tracking technology).

I'm not sure how anyone can read all of Easton's posts in this thread and still think Petro has a serious problem missing the net. Unless you diligently watch 50-60 games from every team in the NHL per year, I can't take the eye test seriously.

I haven't seen his specific shot charts, but they normally still don't do that well of a job of illustrating the quality of scoring opportunities. For example, they don't account for shooting lanes and the positions of other players on the ice as well as how much time a player has to shoot. There are lots of variables outside of simply where a player is shooting from on the ice.

Also, I and many other posters on this forum who also complain about Petro's shot accuracy under pressure do watch almost every game of the season dilligently.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I haven't seen his specific shot charts, but they normally still don't do that well of a job of illustrating the quality of scoring opportunities. For example, they don't account for shooting lanes and the positions of other players on the ice as well as how much time a player has to shoot. There are lots of variables outside of simply where a player is shooting from on the ice.

Also, I and many other posters on this forum who also complain about Petro's shot accuracy under pressure do watch almost every game of the season dilligently.

You're basically asserting that Pietrangelo consistently has better scoring opportunities than league average from any given spot, based upon your own personal observations, thus making his average-ish shooting percentage from that spot a relative disappointment.

That premise intuitively seems like quite a stretch. For one thing, even if you observe every shot Pietrangelo takes perfectly, which is impossible given the limitations of human perception and of the imperfect nature of broadcast feeds, the best case scenario is that you can only compare the quality of his scoring chances relative to those of the other Blues. I say that because it's simply impossible for you to observe every shot taken by every player every game, thus having a perfect understanding of what represents an average quality scoring chance from every place a shot might be taken.

You can hang your hat on that if you want, but I've watched 95% of the Blues games over the time-frame in question myself and I prefer to trust the power of aggregated numbers and regression to the mean.

Basically, when you are talking big numbers of shots (i.e. multiple seasons' worth), shot quality tends to even out. A guy can take 10 shots from the dot and 7 of them might randomly be above average scoring conditions. If he takes 200 shots from that spot over 5 seasons, chances are pretty good the overall quality of his scoring chances will be fairly close to league average.

If he's an above average shooter from a given spot, he'll likely convert an above average number of those chances over the long haul. If he's not, he won't. That shows up in his shooting percentage from that particular spot relative to league average.

 

[Borderbluesfan]

[NHL][/NHL]

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.

I agree with you that he is hitting the net more than most fans realize, my question was how come it doesn't lead to more goals? Doesn't matter how many times you get shots on goal, if it doesn't result in more goals. Problem might not be with his shot, but maybe with team play in front of the net.

 

[Overkamp]

I agree with you that he is hitting the net more than most fans realize, my question was how come it doesn't lead to more goals? Doesn't matter how many times you get shots on goal, if it doesn't result in more goals. Problem might not be with his shot, but maybe with team play in front of the net.

His shot is very, very weak. Rarely would I even say he shoots a slap shot, but more of a wrist shot or snap shot.

I think the accuracy thing is really pertaining to his slap shot..which lacks any and all presence.

 

[Thallis]

I agree with you that he is hitting the net more than most fans realize, my question was how come it doesn't lead to more goals? Doesn't matter how many times you get shots on goal, if it doesn't result in more goals. Problem might not be with his shot, but maybe with team play in front of the net.

He's taking the vast majority of shots from low percentage areas. That was what the area graphs were meant to show.

 

[ChuckLefley]

It's astonishing how people will ignore the obvious to keep pushing a myth that has been debunked.

 

[Brian39]

I haven't seen his specific shot charts, but they normally still don't do that well of a job of illustrating the quality of scoring opportunities. For example, they don't account for shooting lanes and the positions of other players on the ice as well as how much time a player has to shoot. There are lots of variables outside of simply where a player is shooting from on the ice.

Also, I and many other posters on this forum who also complain about Petro's shot accuracy under pressure do watch almost every game of the season dilligently.

I have a very hard time believing that you watch almost every game of the season diligently. There are 1,230 NHL games per year.

Watching every Blues game does not inform you about the players you are comparing Petro to. The shot charts, while imperfect, provide tangible evidence that Petro is about as good as other elite level defensemen at getting shots on net. To refute these based on the eye test, you need to have watched a large sample size of every team in the NHL.

 

[SteenMachine]

[NHL][/NHL]

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.

So is missing the point of the complaint. We can pay anyone to hit the goalies pads with the puck all season long. No one is afraid of his shot, least of all on the power play.

 

[EastonBlues22]

So is missing the point of the complaint. We can pay anyone to hit the goalies pads with the puck all season long. No one is afraid of his shot, least of all on the power play.

Yes, Pietrangelo's shot isn't one that strikes fear into the hearts of opponents, but it's been shown pretty conclusively that he gets it on net at a better than acceptable rate, and on top of that, it goes in at a very comparable rate to his peers when you account for where the shots are being taken. It's simply not the liability that it is (routinely, by a sub-section of fans here) made out to be.

Also, I'd argue that anyone who that thinks a defenseman "earns his pay" by scoring goals himself is the one that's ultimately missing the point here.

 

[Ranksu]

I think Backes should put 110% focus on ice-hockey and stop saving those dogs. We need his offense.

 

[Ranksu]

Could Pietro do after like Keith?

 

[ChuckLefley]

So is missing the point of the complaint. We can pay anyone to hit the goalies pads with the puck all season long. No one is afraid of his shot, least of all on the power play.

I love it when people move the goalposts when facts prove them wrong. The complaint that started this was that he can't get his shot on goal, that's been proven to be a myth. Admit you're wrong and move on.

 

[SteenMachine]

I love it when people move the goalposts when facts prove them wrong. The complaint that started this was that he can't get his shot on goal, that's been proven to be a myth. Admit you're wrong and move on.

No the exact argument is that his 2 min on the powerplay are ****. Wasted time and effort. Stop using lame ass platitudes because you have nothing to contribute and waned to ride Easton's coat tails as someone who googled "shooting percentages."

 

[2 Minute Minor]

No the exact argument is that his 2 min on the powerplay are ****. Wasted time and effort. Stop using lame ass platitudes because you have nothing to contribute and waned to ride Easton's coat tails as someone who googled "shooting percentages."

I don't know why Easton is willing to spend so much time crafting such a thoughtful, detailed and fact-oriented response in this debate, when this is the level of appreciation engendered.

This thread has illuminated posters who will cling to an opinion in the face of all evidence. The higher the abusiveness of the response, the less logical and defensible the opinion.

But if I were Easton I wouldn't bother.

 

[ChuckLefley]

No the exact argument is that his 2 min on the powerplay are ****. Wasted time and effort. Stop using lame ass platitudes because you have nothing to contribute and waned to ride Easton's coat tails as someone who googled "shooting percentages."

Post #13 talks about Petro's "inability to get shots on net." That's the type of comments I responded to,so yes you did move the goalposts. Now THAT is a "lame ass" thing to do.

I'll also mention that I made the comment about the myth of Petro not being able to get shots on net before Easton ever posted. You see I've researched it already and asked the question because I know people like you think you know more then what the facts prove.

Run along.