Injury Report: Dave Bolland

[ColdSteel2]

What I don't understand is that Toews is probably the best in the league at face offs but none of the other centers on the team seem to be learning anything from him.

I see it the complete opposite.

Bolland, horrid before Toews got here, now just bad but definitely better
Kruger, again, bad when he first got here, better now though
Johnson, a good faceoff guy before he got here, no doubt but was really at the top of his game with the Hawks

I guess the thing to remember is it's something you can only get so much better at, especially when you start off well below average.

 

[Bubba88]

Next game, try watching carefully the key face-offs in our end. If the trend continues, you’ll be shocked at how many we lose cleanly.

somehow I thought it was funny that in the last Flames PK Krüger won a D draw and the Flames nearly scored after that FO Win.


and why does it matter if Krüger wins a draw? He is so weak that he will lose the puck within seconds

 

[Hawkaholic]

But it easily could, is the point. Some folks have such a superficial idea of what this game is all about. They like to kid MM about his “game within the game” comments but he is right. There is a lot more detail to any game than the highlights we see on the tube. It is very easy to miss the subtleties that often make the difference between a good shift and a bad shift, a successful team and a mediocre one. Winning face-offs, is not even in that category. It is a fundamental, and yet so many question it’s importance.

"Easily" isn't the right word.

"It could" is accurate, but that could be said of all kinds of little intangibles. A missed check, bad positioning of a defensmans stick, an ill advised shot on goal in the offensive end could all make or break a season. But it isn't something that is a #1 priority to fulfill.

 

[BobbyJet]

somehow I thought it was funny that in the last Flames PK Krüger won a D draw and the Flames nearly scored after that FO Win.


and why does it matter if Krüger wins a draw? He is so weak that he will lose the puck within seconds

Well that's another matter, and a good point.

But seriously. It's not just centers who need to win the draw. Clean wins usually don't happen - often enough, the entire line must execute properly to gain puck possession. One failed assignment can be the difference.

 

[BobbyJet]

"Easily" isn't the right word.

"It could" is accurate, but that could be said of all kinds of little intangibles. A missed check, bad positioning of a defensmans stick, an ill advised shot on goal in the offensive end could all make or break a season. But it isn't something that is a #1 priority to fulfill.

What is the priority then? If your team has any chance to do anything, all those intangibles should come automatically. And that comes by working on them to improve; that includes every practice and every game.

 

[Hawkaholic]

What is the priority then? If your team has any chance to do anything, all those intangibles should come automatically. And that comes by working on them to improve; that includes every practice and every game.

A C is the priority, but he doesn't have to excel at faceoffs. If he does, thats an added bonus.

What I'm saying is, you dont add a John Madden just because he is good on faceoffs, you add the better player and if he is as good as Madden on faceoffs, then great.

 

[BobbyJet]

A C is the priority, but he doesn't have to excel at faceoffs. If he does, thats an added bonus.

What I'm saying is, you dont add a John Madden just because he is good on faceoffs, you add the better player and if he is as good as Madden on faceoffs, then great.

Oh yeah, for sure, I agree, but it's Stan's priority not the players ... can't afford that luxury in the salary capped NHL.

I heard Bozak may be had, and his FO percentage is decent according to TSN announcer. He also had pretty good chemistry with Stalberg when they were both rookies in TO.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

"Easily" isn't the right word.

"It could" is accurate, but that could be said of all kinds of little intangibles. A missed check, bad positioning of a defensmans stick, an ill advised shot on goal in the offensive end could all make or break a season. But it isn't something that is a #1 priority to fulfill.

A missed check, bad positioning of stick etc. are not static plays. Face offs are the only set play opportunity, that's what makes them more important. Why do you think there are set plays off the draw?

 

[Kurtosis]

A missed check, bad positioning of stick etc. are not static plays. Face offs are the only set play opportunity, that's what makes them more important. Why do you think there are set plays off the draw?

Faceoffs are not static either. Draws are not always won cleanly and sometimes need support from the other forwards therefore the claim that they are static is faulty. If there is a play drawn up and the faceoff is won cleanly great, if not that play really doesn't mean much.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Faceoffs are not static either. Draws are not always won cleanly and sometimes need support from the other forwards therefore the claim that they are static is faulty. If there is a play drawn up and the faceoff is won cleanly great, if not that play really doesn't mean much.

Faceoffs are absolutely static, when they start. Positioning is placed in the calm between whistles. Once the puck drops the wheels go in motion of course. But give me another example in a game where it starts from static and has a specific plan of action.

There are always 2 plans in place, if you when the draw we do X and if you lose the draw we do Y. Sometimes if the opponent has very prominent tendencies, you let him "win" the draw, anticipating where he will put the puck.

 

[pvr]

Missed watching the first period on tv, but was listening on the radio. Foley mentioned that it was a direct result of a lost faceoff (by Kruger), with Sharks puck possession and a few passes leading to the shot and rebound goal.

Highlights don't show the beginning of the play. Anyone record the game or remember the play?

 

[Illinihockey]

Missed watching the first period on tv, but was listening on the radio. Foley mentioned that it was a direct result of a lost faceoff (by Kruger), with Sharks puck possession and a few passes leading to the shot and rebound goal.

Highlights don't show the beginning of the play. Anyone record the game or remember the play?

It was the Pavelsky goal. Right before the faceoff I said, watch them win this draw and score....and it happened. To be fair, the Hawks had a chance to clear and the defenseman didn't get the puck, the Crawford gave up a bad rebound. But San Jose won the draw and the Hawks never got the puck.

 

[Hawkaholic]

A missed check, bad positioning of stick etc. are not static plays. Face offs are the only set play opportunity, that's what makes them more important. Why do you think there are set plays off the draw?

Set plays rarely workout the exact way they are intended. They have set plays for face-off losses too, so as long as they are positioning themselves properly, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Also, there were a couple faceoffs that we lost that we had immediate scoring chances and actually scored on one too, I belive it was the Kruger goal.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

For those seeking more information:

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

 

[Illinihockey]

For those seeking more information:

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

So that article basically says a 10% difference in faceoff wins for a team accounts for about 2 wins. That means the difference between the 2nd best team (San Jose 56%) and the 2nd worst team (Edmonton 45%) counts for about 4 points in the standings over an 82 game schedule.. Goes to show that faceoffs really don't make that much of a difference when looking at aggregate numbers.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

So that article basically says a 10% difference in faceoff wins for a team accounts for about 2 wins. That means the difference between the 2nd best team (San Jose 56%) and the 2nd worst team (Edmonton 45%) counts for about 4 points in the standings over an 82 game schedule.. Goes to show that faceoffs really don't make that much of a difference when looking at aggregate numbers.

I knew someone would bite on that!

The study ONLY measures goal scored it does not account for increased penalties, increased fatigue or any other factor caused by lost face offs.

Face offs absolutely make a big difference, do you think the coaches that fixate on it are smarter than you or...?

 

[Illinihockey]

I knew someone would bite on that!

The study ONLY measures goal scored it does not account for increased penalties, increased fatigue or any other factor caused by lost face offs.

Face offs absolutely make a big difference, do you think the coaches that fixate on it are smarter than you or...?

Coaches don't fixate it. If they did, teams would rush in free agency to sign the best faceoff guys. Look at the top 10 face off teams last year.

Boston and Vancouver were 1 and 3. but then you have

2. San Jose - 7 seed
4. Toronto - missed playoffs
5. Colorado - missed playoffs
6. Detroit - 5 seed
7. LA - 8 seed
8. Minnesota - missed playoffs
9. Columbus - missed playoffs
10. Carolina - missed playoffs

Winning faceoffs is preferable, but Bolland is bad at faceoffs yet Q puts him out there in big defensive spots because he knows having his defense out there is way more important than the fact he'll lose 56 out of 100 faceoffs.

 

[Nothingman*]

I have something not stat related. Bolland has played like crap most of the season. He is not cut out for 2nd line duty.

 

[Illinihockey]

I have something not stat related. Bolland has played like crap most of the season. He is not cut out for 2nd line duty.

Agreed, but Shaw is doing well on the 3rd line. Move Stalberg and a prospect and get a center. Can move Bolland down

 

[Nothingman*]

Agreed, but Shaw is doing well on the 3rd line. Move Stalberg and a prospect and get a center. Can move Bolland down

Yes. He needs to go down to 3rd line C. And Stalberg looks lost down there. Put Sharp at C because maybe he can win a faceoff or something since he isn't doing much else. And move Stal up to 2nd W.

 

[Bubba88]

why not just keep the team together for now?

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Coaches don't fixate it. If they did, teams would rush in free agency to sign the best faceoff guys. Look at the top 10 face off teams last year.

Boston and Vancouver were 1 and 3. but then you have

2. San Jose - 7 seed
4. Toronto - missed playoffs
5. Colorado - missed playoffs
6. Detroit - 5 seed
7. LA - 8 seed
8. Minnesota - missed playoffs
9. Columbus - missed playoffs
10. Carolina - missed playoffs

Winning faceoffs is preferable, but Bolland is bad at faceoffs yet Q puts him out there in big defensive spots because he knows having his defense out there is way more important than the fact he'll lose 56 out of 100 faceoffs.

I give up trying to teach.

Bolland is taking draws because Q doesn't have many options.

 

[Illinihockey]

I give up trying to teach.

Bolland is taking draws because Q doesn't have many options.

He had Ryan Johnson and Jon Madden and Bolland still took the lions share of the draws. Mayers and Sharp both are better are the dot and still out goes Bolland.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

He had Ryan Johnson and Jon Madden and Bolland still took the lions share of the draws. Mayers and Sharp both are better are the dot and still out goes Bolland.

John Madden was the go to guy and took more F/O than Bolland when both were here, sorry.