The David Backes Appreciation Thread

[EastonBlues22]

For all of you who insisted that the Blues got the most out of Backes as a #1 center rather than a RW, do you still stand by your word? I think Stastny has done an excellent and more natural job as the #1 center this postseason, which takes the leash of defensive responsibility off of Backes, and that has allowed him to get loose on the forecheck that has been so integral in this team's playing style.

He's not being used that much differently defensively, especially off static zone starts. He had 18 faceoffs this past game, with many of those coming in the defensive zone, and was down low/around the net in coverage quite a bit as result.

When the Blues have the puck in the offensive zone, he's still doing what he always does around the net.

Biggest difference to me seems to be that they have unleashed him a bit more on the forecheck, and that they are using him less as the 3rd man high (when they switch to that setup). I see how that benefits the team, but I don't think it's the catalyst to his recent offensive surge.

As for the #1 center stuff (as you're describing it), Backes wasn't being used that way, and Stastny isn't being used that way now. The #1 center job isn't a defensive role at all. We'd get more out of Backes using him in a more offensive role regardless of what forward position he's playing.

Historically, Backes' best season came as a center. As a center, his offensive production never really dipped below his best season as a winger (a few less goals, but more assists). Centers are more valuable than wingers...especially to an organization that's been notoriously center poor over much of that span. I don't think there's much question at all that the Blues were getting more value out of Backes as a center than as a winger.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Backes is shooting 38.5% these playoffs. That's quite a bit higher than normal.

The trouble with playoff stats is that they're inherently small sample sizes. That's true even in the aggregate (the sum of a player's postseason experience), but fans usually single out individual years to talk about, or to compare to other years, which only compounds the problem.

Backes is a career 12.5% shooter over 727 regular season games. Before this year, he was a career 8.5% shooter over 29 postseason games. Including this year, he's now a 13.9% shooter over 39 postseason games. That's much closer to his established baseline, so you could easily argue that this postseason represents a regression to the mean for him even though it's an outlier when taken in isolation.

It's amusing how the narrative quickly changes too...choker before since his playoff numbers were below his regular season ones, but now his total body of work actually makes it look like he "elevates" his game in the postseason. Is he really playing *that* much better than the last couple of years, or are the numbers just finally catching up? I thought he played well that last few years, so I would argue the latter, but I'm digressing a bit.

The bottom line is that it's still not even half a season's worth of data. With something like this you would expect wild swings over isolated 5-10 game samples. They wouldn't even be unexpected over isolated 20 game samples. Great for narratives, but not much good for evaluation. The more data points he accumulates, the more you would expect it to fall in line with his regular season baseline that's been established over 18+ times as many games played.

This is why I usually hate when people evaluate players or justify proposed roster moves based on postseason numbers...especially when you have a relative mountain of regular season numbers telling you something different.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I don't think Backes has played poorly or choked in years past, but it sure feels like he's elevated his game this post season more so than in years past.

 

[Brian39]

I've liked Backes, but I thought he was likely to be allowed to walk after this season especially when transitioned to wing during the season.

But I'm more convinced that the Blues will bring him back after his playoff performance so far. He's come up big in big moments. Who cares if he declines and is overpaid toward the end of his next contract? He contributes NOW and almost every other playoff team would have liked to have him in their top 9 doing his net-front deflections and solid defense against offensively dangerous players. The fact that he can slide in and play center when needed is only bonus.

After this year he'll be a guy who still has a few good years left, and will have a more confident mentality for the post-season.

Take the thought experiment all the way:
The Blues win the Cup. What do you do with the roster? I think you try to keep the contributing pieces intact as much as possible, which includes Backes and Brouwer. I'm not sure they can manage both, but maybe they can and then have to trade a guy later. Sometimes the discussions on this board get too caught up in the contract value, etc. But the bottom line is that you have to ice the best TEAM, and if the Blues were a proven Cup winner you shouldn't squander pieces of that unless necessary.

Even if the end of the window is a collapse for a couple years, I'd happily trade that.

I hear what you are saying, but I think you are ignoring the argument of people saying you let him walk. If we let him walk, I think we are a worse team next season. However, the trade off for getting worse immediately is that the window of contention remains open much longer. Looking at the young core of this team, we could be able to be a top contender for the next 5-7 years. If we give Backes a bad contract in order to keep as much of the roster together now, that window is probably only 3-4 years.

I love Backes. He is one of my favorite players in the NHL and may be my favorite Blue. But if keeping him means having to move a Schwartz, Fabbri, or Parayko in 2 years, I let him walk every single time. I'm holding out hope that this playoff run fuels him to stay in St. Louis and we can meet in the middle. I'd love him at a decent discount, but his market value as a UFA is way more money than what he will be worth to this franchise over the next 5 years.

 

[EastonBlues22]

There ya go.
He'd have 1 or 2 goals maybe if he was shooting his normal percentage.

When you look at stats you have to look at things like shooting % and offensive, defensive zone starts. Those can truly play a role in a players offensive production.

Addressing the bolded: He has 72 career postseason SOG. Based on his regular season career shooting percentage, we would expect him to have 9 postseason goals. He now has 10.

Lucky now, unlucky before...it tends to even out as the numbers get bigger.

 

[Evocable Manager]

The trouble with playoff stats is that they're inherently small sample sizes. That's true even in the aggregate (the sum of a player's postseason experience), but fans usually single out individual years to talk about, or to compare to other years, which only compounds the problem.

Backes is a career 12.5% shooter over 727 regular season games. Before this year, he was a career 8.5% shooter over 29 postseason games. Including this year, he's now a 13.9% shooter over 39 postseason games. That's much closer to his established baseline, so you could easily argue that this postseason represents a regression to the mean for him even though it's an outlier when taken in isolation.

It's amusing how the narrative quickly changes too...choker before since his playoff numbers were below his regular season ones, but now his total body of work actually makes it look like he "elevates" his game in the postseason. Is he really playing *that* much better than the last couple of years, or are the numbers just finally catching up? I thought he played well that last few years, so I would argue the latter, but I'm digressing a bit.

The bottom line is that it's still not even half a season's worth of data. With something like this you would expect wild swings over isolated 5-10 game samples. They wouldn't even be unexpected over isolated 20 game samples. Great for narratives, but not much good for evaluation. The more data points he accumulates, the more you would expect it to fall in line with his regular season baseline that's been established over 18+ times as many games played.

This is why I usually hate when people evaluate players or justify proposed roster moves based on postseason numbers...especially when you have a relative mountain of regular season numbers telling you something different.

The point is however, despite how good Backes has been in the playoffs, his legs aren't as good and he is regressing. His production this year dipped and he wasn't worth $6 million that he is supposedly getting.

If we sign him based on the playoffs we may end with a Bryan Bickell situation. Obviously not to the same extent, but an overpaid guy who doesn't produce for his contract.

 

[Edgar Carrow]

Addressing the bolded: He has 72 career postseason SOG. Based on his regular season career shooting percentage, we would expect him to have 9 postseason goals. He now has 10.

Lucky now, unlucky before...it tends to even out as the numbers get bigger.

Do they tend to even out in large bursts separated by multiple years? I think making a determination on his next contract based on this post-season is a mistake, which I think is the point.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I don't think Backes has played poorly or choked in years past, but it sure feels like he's elevated his game this post season more so than in years past.

He's more visible on the forecheck, because the team has put him in a position to be more visible there. Defensively, he's playing just as well as in the last few seasons. On offense, he's getting some bounces that are finally going his way. When a lot of your offense comes off rebounds and tips, getting a few lucky bounces is no small thing, and he was due for a few.

I think the team looks better around him, and I think he's taking some small advantage of being put in a slightly better position to succeed, but I don't really think he's playing *that* much better than he has in recent memory. Just my opinion, but I probably thought more highly of what he's done the last few seasons than most here, so maybe it's just me.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Do they tend to even out in large bursts separated by multiple years?

Short answer: Yes, they do.

Slightly longer answer: Yes, assuming the baseline ability hasn't changed dramatically (due to health or age), and that the player's usage/role hasn't changed dramatically. The player's career averages are an amalgamation of all his individual seasons, so more subtle contextual changes will be accounted for somewhat because the impact they have will be reflected in how they affect the overall average.

It also might depend on what stat we're talking about. That's a bit of a hedge, but context can't be preemptively ignored. Propose a specific context and I could answer more thoroughly.

In Backes' case, his role and situation haven't really changed that much in recent memory. His offensive production has been fairly stable as well. He's been trending toward even heavier defensive zone starts the last few years, and his linemate quality has taken a bit of a hit recently. Those things might affect the number of shots his line generates per game, which would in turn affect his overall goal production, but we wouldn't expect them to drastically affect something like his shooting percentage.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Do they tend to even out in large bursts separated by multiple years? I think making a determination on his next contract based on this post-season is a mistake, which I think is the point.

Just saw the edit.

Personally, I would never use postseason production to justify a contract. I'd offer Backes a contract based upon what I think his regular season production (and role on the team) would be moving forward, and assume his playoff production moving forward would be a representative of that. It might not be any given individual postseason, but over the course of the contract it should even out (assuming the Blues play a decent number of postseason games).

 

[Evocable Manager]

Just saw the edit.

Personally, I would never use postseason production to justify a contract. I'd offer Backes a contract based upon what I think his regular season production (and role on the team) would be moving forward, and assume his playoff production moving forward would be a representative of that. It might not be any given individual postseason, but over the course of the contract it should even out (assuming the Blues play a decent number of postseason games).

Here's my problem with the contract. Backes is 32 and is a guy who relies on physical play and strength a lot. Like players who do [in the past] we've seen they tend to regress after a sooner time and/or have generally a worse regression then players who don't.
4-5 years may not seem extremely long term, however let's look at our young cote forwards in 4 years.
Petro -30
Parayko -26
Fabbri -24
Schwartz -28
Tarasenko -28

By these ages, these players will be fully established and want new, bigger contracts. The only 2 signed through this period of time are Petro and Tarasenko.

Signing Backes to 4 years is a short term solution (1-2 years) but a long term decision. Those aren't smart decisions. When's the last time a long term decision made for a short term solution worked?

 

[EastonBlues22]

The point is however, despite how good Backes has been in the playoffs, his legs aren't as good and he is regressing. His production this year dipped and he wasn't worth $6 million that he is supposedly getting.

If we sign him based on the playoffs we may end with a Bryan Bickell situation. Obviously not to the same extent, but an overpaid guy who doesn't produce for his contract.

I think the amount of "regression" that's been talked about is being overstated. His offensive zone start percentage this season was a career low 38.6% (which is ridiculous for a top 6 quality player), and he played much of this season without an offensive catalyst on his wing (top linemates were Brouwer and Berglund). Not sure how anyone could expect his production to not regress under those circumstances. He still looks plenty dangerous to me.

More to the point, UFA's are almost never "worth" what it takes to sign them. Okposo won't be worth what he gets, Stamkos won't be worth what he gets, etc. You sign the best ones that you can (and that you can afford), and hope for the best. Ignoring that talent pool for the sake of cost-efficiency is a great way to have a mediocre team.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Here's my problem with the contract. Backes is 32 and is a guy who relies on physical play and strength a lot. Like players who do [in the past] we've seen they tend to regress after a sooner time and/or have generally a worse regression then players who don't.
4-5 years may not seem extremely long term, however let's look at our young cote forwards in 4 years.
Petro -30
Parayko -26
Fabbri -24
Schwartz -28
Tarasenko -28

By these ages, these players will be fully established and want new, bigger contracts. The only 2 signed through this period of time are Petro and Tarasenko.

Signing Backes to 4 years is a short term solution (1-2 years) but a long term decision. Those aren't smart decisions. When's the last time a long term decision made for a short term solution worked?

That's a pretty simplistic way to view it.

The cap isn't static, for one. The Blues will have many other contracts coming off the books between now and then, and other youngsters that come up to fill a role on the cheap. There's no real reason to believe that re-signing Backes at that price will cost us a "core" forward down the road.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, winning now is important to this team. I'd wager they're probably a lot more worried about the next few years than they are about winning three or four years down the road...especially now that the team is finally blossoming into a honest-to-goodness contender.

Backes may regress, or he may not. I think the risk is being a bit overstated, personally. His offense isn't predicated on running around hitting people (nor is his defense for that matter). He stands in front of the net. Tkachuk produced well in that offensive role playing into his late 30s. There's no reason to believe that Backes can't be an effective player as long as his legs hold out, which doesn't seem imminent to me, and even then he could still be an effective niche player.

 

[The Grouch]

Few little interesting stats:
Ty Rattie had the best 5v5 production on the team. He produced 2.54 pts/60 however he did have a small sample size.
Robby Fabbri was 4th on the team in 5v5 production at 1.87 pts/60.
Jori Lehtera had 1.46 pts/60 and Troy Brouwer 1.42 pts/60.
Backes had a 1.35 pts/60.
Jaskin had 1.04 and Berglund 1.22 but they played a lot less minutes. In fact every player listed had less minutes then Backes.

Backes' size and physical element would be missed but if we play Jaskin with players he can succeed with (skilled players) maybe Fabbri-Stastny-Jaskin he can actually produce.
As for Rattie he should be given a chance to play. His offensive production would drop but 2.54 ranked 6th in the league.

On a side note, Kevin Shattenkirk produced less 5v5 then Brodziak, Ott, Edmundson, Bouwmeester, Upshall, Paajarvi. He ranked 20th on the team with 0.51 pts/60.

There ya go.
He'd have 1 or 2 goals maybe if he was shooting his normal percentage.


When you look at stats you have to look at things like shooting % and offensive, defensive zone starts. Those can truly play a role in a players offensive production.

The two quoted posts are borderline contradictory. You cobbled some statistics together without the benefit of context. Strictly looking at pts/60 obviously doesn't tell the whole story. Ty Rattie, for instance, had extraordinary luck with his production, even beyond the admitted small sample size.

Even if Rattie or Jaskin could produce to Backes' level throughout an entire season, I'm sure you would agree Backes' play without the puck is much more valuable than Rattie or Jaskin could ever hope to contribute. You quoted 2MM's post, but he's absolutely right, if Backes leaves, his net front presence is going to irreplaceable. There are many elements to Backes' play that would be difficult to replace, especially for the assumed 6 million dollar aav that Backes would collect.

 

[LGB51]

I just love how he has mellowed, playing at a even keel and not letting his temper & emotions get the better of him has been such a welcome almost need change. If this is the new David Backes I would love to see Army retain the captain.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

He's heart and soul of this team and have really stepped out at this post-season for good, but looking for the future the contract what he'd want at next summer (+5.5mill.$ AAV) I'd personally buy a ticket for him to fly Africa to help homeless dogs.

Why? And what would be your plan to replace him?

 

[Evocable Manager]

The two quoted posts are borderline contradictory. You cobbled some statistics together without the benefit of context. Strictly looking at pts/60 obviously doesn't tell the whole story. Ty Rattie, for instance, had extraordinary luck with his production, even beyond the admitted small sample size.

Even if Rattie or Jaskin could produce to Backes' level throughout an entire season, I'm sure you would agree Backes' play without the puck is much more valuable than Rattie or Jaskin could ever hope to contribute. You quoted 2MM's post, but he's absolutely right, if Backes leaves, his net front presence is going to irreplaceable. There are many elements to Backes' play that would be difficult to replace, especially for the assumed 6 million dollar aav that Backes would collect.

Nobody who knows anything about hockey can deny that. I did make a mistake of forgetting his defensive value. I do agree that is valued and honestly I like Backes in a 3rd line role. I think Berglund-Sobotka-Backes is a great shutdown line, that could help chip a few goals. Berglund is a consistent 15-20 goal man, Backes could rack up 40-45 points and Sobotka is a little more diverse probably around 35 points. I forget who suggested this, but koodos to that person.

Here's a question for all of you, do we bring back Brouwer? Seeing as we have Jaskin and Rattie [less proven] maybe they fill his spot. I don't see anyone on UFA who we could bring in that 1. We can actually afford 2. Is proven to be reliable in a top 6 role.
Brouwer may be looking for term as well. Maybe 3.5-5 around 4 years.

I think well want an upgrade on Lehtera so I won't ask.

 

[The Grouch]

I just love how he has mellowed, playing at a even keel and not letting his temper & emotions get the better of him has been such a welcome almost need change. If this is the new David Backes I would love to see Army retain the captain.

Interesting Statistic: Backes has not taken a penalty in 12 consecutive games. He has only one other streak greater than that in his NHL career.

 

[Borderbluesfan]

Backes is still a good power forward. Tough to find someone to replace him. I think that we are slowly moving him to the 2nd line and maybe even the third line. Lots of good young players offensively coming up, but Backes is still solid playing both ways. If the Blues can sign him without breaking the budget, then I think we have to make him a decent contract.

 

[HappyGilmore]

He's not being used that much differently defensively, especially off static zone starts. He had 18 faceoffs this past game, with many of those coming in the defensive zone, and was down low/around the net in coverage quite a bit as result.

When the Blues have the puck in the offensive zone, he's still doing what he always does around the net.

Biggest difference to me seems to be that they have unleashed him a bit more on the forecheck, and that they are using him less as the 3rd man high (when they switch to that setup). I see how that benefits the team, but I don't think it's the catalyst to his recent offensive surge.

As for the #1 center stuff (as you're describing it), Backes wasn't being used that way, and Stastny isn't being used that way now. The #1 center job isn't a defensive role at all. We'd get more out of Backes using him in a more offensive role regardless of what forward position he's playing.

Historically, Backes' best season came as a center. As a center, his offensive production never really dipped below his best season as a winger (a few less goals, but more assists). Centers are more valuable than wingers...especially to an organization that's been notoriously center poor over much of that span. I don't think there's much question at all that the Blues were getting more value out of Backes as a center than as a winger.

Backes not having to the be 3rd man high is the difference. He is able to stick around the net more and focus on tip ins, rebounds, and plays down low. He has 2 tip in goals, 1 goal driving the net, 1 rebound goal on the powerplay, and 1 goal attempting to make a pass across the crease.

Last year, Hitch used Steen-Backes-Oshie against other team's top lines. This year, Stastny has been getting most of that responsibility.

Also, it's hard to make a production argument between winger and center, when Backes was converted to a center while he was entering the prime of his career. There simply isn't an alternative reality that you could compare his production to as a winger.

As a hockey player myself, I can tell you that I hate having to play center because you have to be responsible for what happens all over the ice, whereas when I'm playing wing, I'm only really focused on 75% of the ice unless there is a lapse in coverage. My offensive production takes a significant decline when I'm playing center compared to my natural position on the wing. A lot of that is due to the tendency to be the 3rd man high when I'm playing center because I'm responsible for coming back with the defenseman when the puck is coming back toward my own team's end, whereas when I'm a winger, I can float back with the defenseman that I'm responsible for, which leads to a tendency to stick around the net in the offensive zone. That's just how my experience reinforces my perspectives of center and wing.

 

[Twisted Blue]

I just love how he has mellowed, playing at a even keel and not letting his temper & emotions get the better of him has been such a welcome almost need change. If this is the new David Backes I would love to see Army retain the captain.

I don't think he has mellowed, he just has gone to a deeper... darker place

 

[shpongle falls]

 

[cherrytwist]

My Backes jersey lacks a "C" because it was bought before he was named captain. He's still my favorite Blues player and only Blues jersey I own with a current player nameplate.

Point is, I've been a fan since he came here and will remain a fan when/if he leaves.

One of the better two-way players in the game IMO.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Backes not having to the be 3rd man high is the difference. He is able to stick around the net more and focus on tip ins, rebounds, and plays down low. He has 2 tip in goals, 1 goal driving the net, 1 rebound goal on the powerplay, and 1 goal attempting to make a pass across the crease.

Last year, Hitch used Steen-Backes-Oshie against other team's top lines. This year, Stastny has been getting most of that responsibility.

Also, it's hard to make a production argument between winger and center, when Backes was converted to a center while he was entering the prime of his career. There simply isn't an alternative reality that you could compare his production to as a winger.

As a hockey player myself, I can tell you that I hate having to play center because you have to be responsible for what happens all over the ice, whereas when I'm playing wing, I'm only really focused on 75% of the ice unless there is a lapse in coverage. My offensive production takes a significant decline when I'm playing center compared to my natural position on the wing. A lot of that is due to the tendency to be the 3rd man high when I'm playing center because I'm responsible for coming back with the defenseman when the puck is coming back toward my own team's end, whereas when I'm a winger, I can float back with the defenseman that I'm responsible for, which leads to a tendency to stick around the net in the offensive zone. That's just how my experience reinforces my perspectives of center and wing.

Blues haven't been doing a lot of 3rd man high in the playoffs, so I'm not sure that can be seen as the critical difference in his production now vs previous years. I agree, though, that Backes has been down low in the zone more. Part of that is how he's being used on the forecheck, and part of it is that the Blues simply have a more aggressive philosophy in the offensive zone.

As far as Stastny and Backes goes, all I meant was that neither are being used how #1 centers are traditionally used (in favorable offensive situations, usually with at least one of the team's best wingers). Backes is still being given very heavy defensive minutes this postseason, even with the Stastny line being tasked to help carry that load.

 

[Bluesguru]

I thought it was absolutely perfect when he scored the game winning goal against the Hawks in the opening game of playoffs in Overtime. You need to get your Captain engaged and playing his best in the playoffs if you want to win the Cup. You have to get him going and it's all happening and you get the feeling it's going to continue on and ultimately happen in June - Here's hoping we can all say...........St. Louis Blues Stanley Cup Champions 2015-2016