Rumor: Rumours and Proposals | Aston-Reese Signs with PIT

[A91]

We need a defensive C like Couturier and wings that work with Mcdavid and Draisaitl .

1C McD
2C Draisaitl
3) Couturier
4) Letestu

extras DD + Maybe RNH can transform his game to wing and be used as a C in a pinch

Sign me up for Couts. Is big, hard to play against, and plays some of the toughest defensive minutes for forwards. And hea lways puts up 0.5ppg (41 point pace), not to mention his 54% faceoffs this season. Would love to have him as a #3C longterm.

 

[Draiskull]

If they cost the same via trade I think I'd prefer MacKinnon over Tavares factoring in age and contact status. Also, a RH shot is needed much more than another lefty. It would be hard to find a spot for Tavares on PP#1 unless he bumped Drai out, whereas MacKinnon is a perfect Letestu replacement. On McDavid's wing Mac could be a 30-40 goal scorer and add 40-50 assists.

We probably don't need another big name forward anyways, just some middle 6 guys who compete and win battles at a higher rate than RNH and Eberle.

Same old Oiler thinking.. looking at DOB .. We dont need more young kids.. JT is a franchise C in his prime and would be far more valuable.. He would easily be an upgrade over Draisiatl on the PP.. Drai can take Lucics spot if needed... Puljujarvi the right shot instead of Letestu... Drai/Lucic-Tavares-Puljujarvi -McDavid-Klefbom would be a darn good PP unit.

 

[Draiskull]

Sign me up for Couts. Is big, hard to play against, and plays some of the toughest defensive minutes for forwards. And hea lways puts up 0.5ppg (41 point pace), not to mention his 54% faceoffs this season. Would love to have him as a #3C longterm.

Would swap him for Nuge in a hear beat... doubt PHI would do it.

 

[A91]

Would swap him for Nuge in a hear beat... doubt PHI would do it.

Yea i'm pretty sick of the player Nuge has become. Id swap him straight up as well.

 

[Jet Walters]

Same old Oiler thinking.. looking at DOB .. We dont need more young kids.. JT is a franchise C in his prime and would be far more valuable.. He would easily be an upgrade over Draisiatl on the PP.. Drai can take Lucics spot if needed... Puljujarvi the right shot instead of Letestu... Drai/Lucic-Tavares-Puljujarvi -McDavid-Klefbom would be a darn good PP unit.

It's not the DOB so much as the extra 3-4 million per year he'd cost. We really need RH shots up front too. MacKinnon's speed is also something I feel could mesh well with McDavid and he did look like a future superstar when utilized on the wing in his rookie year. I don't see how we could afford to pay Tavares the money he'll command.

 

[Faelko]

Yea i'm pretty sick of the player Nuge has become. Id swap him straight up as well.

I'd add, Couts would be perfect here. Not seeing any reason for Philly to do it though

 

[CaptainSexyPants]

Both are rookie'ish players and Benning for the most part of the season has been as good (and for a stretch better than/as) Nurse. If Benning takes another step next year and keeps up with Darnell then he would want more than just a 1Mil deal.

I like Benning as much as the next guy, but he's in Davidson and Marincin territory. Another good year = $1.2-1.4 mil or thereabouts...but he's just as likely to be at the league minimum as the #7. It's like Pitlick vs. Puljujarvi, really.

NMC of Sekera and Lucic would make it very difficult to add a player like Tavares without gutting the depth.

Difficult, yes, but certainly not impossible. Just have to be smart with our other contracts, and we're a little ahead of the game with Klefbom and Larsson.

 

[Draiskull]

After the last couple games its fairly evident that we need a big improvement on D if we want to become a powerhouse.

All this Tavares talk can take a back seat until we get another solid RHD that can play 20+ tough minutes.

Chia find us another Larsson please.

 

[A91]

I'd add, Couts would be perfect here. Not seeing any reason for Philly to do it though

Could be fooled by potential. Maybe they think with wingers like Schenn/Voracek/Simmonds RNH would be a better top6 fit than Couts.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Is there anything to this "faceoff teams suck now" thing?

Just earlier this year we were talking about how important faceoffs are.

Obviously key faceoffs are important but do you need a goos average?

 

[Diamondillium]

Is there anything to this "faceoff teams suck now" thing?

Just earlier this year we were talking about how important faceoffs are.

Obviously key faceoffs are important but do you need a goos average?

Personally, I've always been on the "Faceoffs aren't important" train. There is just statistically almost zero correlation between winning faceoffs and winning hockey games over big sample sizes. Too many other more important factors.

Sure, it is a bonus, and doesn't hurt to have if all else is equal, but it will almost never be a significant factor IMO.

 

[PumpkinBombX]

Is there anything to this "faceoff teams suck now" thing?

Just earlier this year we were talking about how important faceoffs are.

Obviously key faceoffs are important but do you need a goos average?

Faceoffs were never important. situationally they are, but the stats over a season, best to worst is like 1 faceoff per game. Coaches like them because they want to run their set play. The reality is that to win faceoffs you need a stiffer flex stick which will take 5-10 goals off that center for the year. (This is the reason crosby's goals are up and faceoffs down this year)The best to worst faceoff team in the league translates to about 1 goal over the whole season. So you're better off sacrificing faceoff wins for a whippier stick.

 

[oXo Cube]

I would be interested in an analysis of how much impact faceoff wins have on special teams situations.

5 on 5 there are way too many faceoffs taken(a large percentage of which have effectively 0 impact on the outcome of the game) for the stat to be all that meaningful, IMO.

 

[Homesick]

Is there anything to this "faceoff teams suck now" thing?

Just earlier this year we were talking about how important faceoffs are.

Obviously key faceoffs are important but do you need a goos average?

Last years playoffs finished with PIT having the 7th best FO% and SJ had the 16th(dead last) FO%. Also, someone on the main boards found the stats before the final and PIT was 11th in FO% before being boosted up by SJ in the SCF)

 

[Mr Positive]

Personally, I've always been on the "Faceoffs aren't important" train. There is just statistically almost zero correlation between winning faceoffs and winning hockey games over big sample sizes. Too many other more important factors.

Sure, it is a bonus, and doesn't hurt to have if all else is equal, but it will almost never be a significant factor IMO.

Faceoffs are important, but for sure if there is a pecking order it is towards the bottom. It's true value is probably unknown though, since it's not a variable that's been isolated. A winning team could be bad at faceoffs, but we don't know how much better they could have been if they were good at faceoffs. Same goes the other way with bad teams who are good at faceoffs.

However, it's not about compromise. Contenders are just great in all areas. Being bad in faceoffs is a deficit, and a team with faceoff superiority can leverage that into wins. It can often be hidden in the regular season, but in the small sample size that is the SCF, you want to have good faceoff ability.

To me, what you need to have to be a true contender is all-in-one players. When Chicago won cups with Toews, he was their best center but also great at faceoffs. For us, if our coach sometimes puts out Letestu instead of McDavid only because of the faceoff, then we've got a problem. It shows that until McDavid becomes great at faceoffs, that's a deficit we will have.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Faceoffs were never important. situationally they are, but the stats over a season, best to worst is like 1 faceoff per game. Coaches like them because they want to run their set play. The reality is that to win faceoffs you need a stiffer flex stick which will take 5-10 goals off that center for the year. (This is the reason crosby's goals are up and faceoffs down this year)The best to worst faceoff team in the league translates to about 1 goal over the whole season. So you're better off sacrificing faceoff wins for a whippier stick.

Wow.

Neato.

I was wondering if anything has changed coaching-wise this year. Is there any chance a lot of players have gone the way of Crosby and abandoned stiffer sticks....or that there is so much skill now that the Kesler style match-up faceoff machine is becoming a thing of the past.

Maybe coaches are better equipped to manage a lost faceoff then they were before? Gap control, head tracking etc. Especially since there's so many picks and interference nowadays.

I mean it was always like that.....but is it...more like that ....nowadays....?

 

[Fourier]

I would be interested in an analysis of how much impact faceoff wins have on special teams situations.

5 on 5 there are way too many faceoffs taken(a large percentage of which have effectively 0 impact on the outcome of the game) for the stat to be all that meaningful, IMO.

Here you go. This isi just one of several studies that while slightly different arise at roughly the same conclusions.

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

 

[Fourier]

Faceoffs are important, but for sure if there is a pecking order it is towards the bottom. It's true value is probably unknown though, since it's not a variable that's been isolated. A winning team could be bad at faceoffs, but we don't know how much better they could have been if they were good at faceoffs. Same goes the other way with bad teams who are good at faceoffs.

However, it's not about compromise. Contenders are just great in all areas. Being bad in faceoffs is a deficit, and a team with faceoff superiority can leverage that into wins. It can often be hidden in the regular season, but in the small sample size that is the SCF, you want to have good faceoff ability.

To me, what you need to have to be a true contender is all-in-one players. When Chicago won cups with Toews, he was their best center but also great at faceoffs. For us, if our coach sometimes puts out Letestu instead of McDavid only because of the faceoff, then we've got a problem. It shows that until McDavid becomes great at faceoffs, that's a deficit we will have.

In fact, faceoffs can be isolated a lot easier than many other aspects of the game. People have looked at thousands of events and have come up with compelling information on the impact of winning vs losing a faceoff on both possession and in terms of goals for/against.

You are correct though that what a player can do after the puck drops is far more impactful than winning or losing a draw. Now if you are one up or one down with 7 seconds left, winning a draw may have greater importance. But those situations are rare, and still the event itself is like a modestly weighted coin.

Going back to 2010-2011 here are the playoff face off numbers for the final four: *=Champ **=Runner up

2010-2011:
Tampa 49.5% (8) Boston 52.0% (3) *
Vancouver 49.9% (6)** San Jose 53.1% (1)

2011-2012

NYR 48.4% (15) NJD 47.2% (16)**
LA 49.7% (10)* Phoenix 51.4% (6)

2012-2013
Pittsburgh 49.7% (8) Boston 55.3% (2) **
Chicago 46.8% (14)* LA 48.2 (11)

2013-2014
Montreal 48.3% (11) NYR 47.3% (12)**
Chicago 49.6% (10) LA 52.9% (2)*

2014-2015
Tampa 48.0% (10)** NYR 46.5% (12)
Chicago 53.1% (3)* Anaheim 52.7% (5)

2015-2016
Tampa 47.9% (15) Pittsburgh 50.5% (7)*
St. Louis 51.1% (6) San Jose 47.1% (16)

 

[Aceboogie]

Is there anything to this "faceoff teams suck now" thing?

Just earlier this year we were talking about how important faceoffs are.

Obviously key faceoffs are important but do you need a goos average?

They are important but I dont think they are as important as many people make them out to be. I think valuing someone largely on faceoff ability is a bit foolish

Neutral zone faceoffs have almost no impact on the game. OZ and DZ do have an impact, but the advantage of a win in OZ or disadvantage from a loss in DZ typically only last 9 seconds after a faceoff and then it evens out

Not enough time to find the study, but one had it that it takes 50 faceoff losses in DZ to cause a goal against vice versa for 50 wins in OZ to create a goal simply from winning that face off. So even a below average faceoff player only costs a team around 5/10 goals a year when compared to top faceoff players in the league. Edit: NVM work was done for me. 60 for OZ/DZ 163 for NZ

PP faceoffs and PK faceoffs are a bit more important as you retain possession in OZ for alot longer with a PP vs even strength. 35 is the number for OZ PP or DZ PK

 

[Fourier]

They are important but I dont think they are as important as many people make them out to be. I think valuing someone largely on faceoff ability is a bit foolish

Neutral zone faceoffs have almost no impact on the game. OZ and DZ do have an impact, but the advantage of a win in OZ or disadvantage from a loss in DZ typically only last 9 seconds after a faceoff and then it evens out

Not enough time to find the study, but one had it that it takes 50 faceoff losses in DZ to cause a goal against vice versa for 50 wins in OZ to create a goal simply from winning that face off. So even a below average faceoff player only costs a team around 5/10 goals a year when compared to top faceoff players in the league. Edit: NVM work was done for me. 60 for OZ/DZ 163 for NZ

PP faceoffs and PK faceoffs are a bit more important as you retain possession in OZ for alot longer with a PP vs even strength. 35 is the number for OZ PP or DZ PK

It's not 5/10 goals that a poor faceoff guy might cost you. It is more like 1-2 if the difference is say 10%. At 15% it might be 3.

 

[voxel]

PP faceoffs and PK faceoffs are a bit more important as you retain possession in OZ for alot longer with a PP vs even strength. 35 is the number for OZ PP or DZ PK

Which partially explains our poor PK numbers. We often lose the draw and are hemmed in for a while. Guys like Testtube and Hendo aren't great cycle breakers.

 

[Hugo McStiglitz]

This would be cool. A buddy of mine from school knows him.

 

[Draiskull]

This would be cool. A buddy of mine from school knows him.

I pity ....

 

[BarDownBobo]

This would be cool. A buddy of mine from school knows him.

It's been speculated that he'll go back for his senior year as his younger brother is slated to atttend Union College starting next season as well.

 

[McAsuno]

This would be cool. A buddy of mine from school knows him.

I attended elementary with him.