2017-2018 Blues Discussion Thread Part 2
- Thread starter Oberyn
- Start date
- Status
I get that, I'm just worried about our PK. It was one of our strengths last season and post -season, and I would hate to see us take a step back in that department.
Sobotka will replace Upshall on the PK, but we are also losing Berglund and Perron, both of whom played PK time for us last year. We'll need a few of Sundqvist, Thorburn, Paajarvi, Bennett or Jaskin to step up this year.
Evocable Manager
Registered User
Penalty killing is the easiest thing in hockey. There's a reason we could trust Upshall and Brodziak to do it.
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
How do you explain the Blues being near the best in the league for the past few years?
(I'm not suggesting its purely personnel. But there is a level of intensity and willingness to sacrifice, and trust in your other members of the PK that are essential to reach those levels of effectiveness. The Blues have been good because they've had players willing to do what is necessary, and with the quick hockey sense to know where the attack is coming from. Not every team has enjoyed that, and I think your comment comes off as flippant when the accomplishments of Brodziak and Upshall in this area are anything but trivial.)
Memento
Future Authoress.
I did my work for free as well. I got brutally-harsh critique at an age younger than he is; I mean, every chapter I wrote - all twenty of them - had a harsh critique. I decided that I would work harder so that I'd never give people a reason to hate my work.
Tell me to grow up? You're the one living in a fantasy world, not me.
Evocable Manager
Registered User
I mean our coach has been Ken Hitchcock and we've had Shaw and Wilson as our assistant coaches. All of these guys are pretty smart hockey guys and have a mind for the defensive game. Upshall and Brodziak were nice on the PK but guys like Jaskin, Paajarvi, Sobotka have the same, if not better, abilities on the Pk. Killing a penalty is covering lanes, having an active stick and boxing players out. There isn't really constant movement and it doesn't take any high end skill which is why so many NHL teams have bottom six guys do it and why bottom six guys are capable of it. Looking at our roster all of Stastny, Schwartz, Steen, Sobotka, Berglund, Paajarvi, Jaskin, Brodziak, can play the PK just fine. Sobtoka, Berglund, Stastny and Brodziak can all take draws.
I see not reason to be worried.
Majorityof1
Registered User
You are looking at the bolded backwards. Effective PK does require a skill set. True, its a different skill set than being an effective top 6 forward requires, but it still takes skill. You think the fact that the PK is easy means that bottom 6 (less skilled players by your definition) can do it. That's not true. If it was true, only bottom 6 guys would play the PK. Why tire out your top 6 guys doing a job that could be done just as well by a bottom 6 scrub. Yet Bergeron, Kopitar, Kesler, Ryan O'Reiley, Trocheck all got significant SH TOI last year. Stastny is our 3rd leading PKer. Why play those guys at the PK, risk injury, tire them out, if anybody could do it just as effectively?
I argue the opposite is true. The fact that certain players are good at the PK gives them value and gives a reason to even have some of these less skilled PK specialists on the roster. Why did we not play Agostino over Upshall on a regular basis since Agostino had more scoring upside? Because he was not as good at several intangible things like the PK that Upshall excelled at. Upshall's intangibles allowed him to get playing time despite being an 18 point guy. We easily could have found someone who could put up more points, but he couldn't do the rest as well. We will miss those things. With Sobotka back on the roster, maybe we don't miss it so much and the benefits of another player outweight what we lose. But we will still lose something.
Edit: Also if we had these great hockey minds and Jaskin was better than Upshall/Brodziak on the P, why didn't we use Jaskin on the PK at all (0 pk minutes). Paajarvi was 9th on the blues in SHTOI/G behind several top 6 guys, and Upshall and Brodziak.
Last edited:
Evocable Manager
Registered User
1. I never said too six guys shouldn't or couldn't PK. I just said that there are a lot of bottom six guys who can PK. Some top six players are also really good on the PK that them being on the PK is the best option.
2. Yes bottom six players are less skilled, that's what separates top six from bottom six (mostly).
3. I never said Jaskin was better. I just said he was capable. Capable =/= better. Same applies to the top six players who play PK that you listed.
Didn't you just make a post stating that Jaskin was one of our best defensive forwards?
So are you saying our coaches have no idea what they're doing, or those advanced stats that show that actually don't know what they're talking about?
Majorityof1
Registered User
One, defense and PK are two completely different and take different skill sets. Jaskins defensive value is mainly on the forecheck and possession game. He might be ok on the penalty kill, but the reads are different and therefore I can't say for sure until I see how he makes them actually on the penalty kill. Two, I have always maintained Hitch had no idea what he was doing. Three, stats never know what they are talking about. They are not alive, and therefore completely non-cognizant.
Majorityof1
Registered User
1) You said PK is easy and implied that anyone could do it. You said that is why we could trust Brodziak and Upshall there, implying that we could only trust them with easy jobs. If that is the case, wouldn't the further implication be that it is a waste to put the more taltented players (top 6 quality) on the super easy pk? When the PK involves shot blocking, why risk injury to your best players if it is super easy? Your argument is not internally consistent based on the implications you make since many teams do use more talented players on the pk.
Why are you talking about players being really good at all, if it is so easy. If "it doesn't take any high-end skill", why are you talking about who is best at it? It doesn't take any skill, so anybody should be able to do it. Again, your arguments are not internally consistent.
2) Less skilled at scoring. That doesn't necessarily mean less skilled. Reaves is the most skilled fighter and hitter. Jaskin and Berglund are very skilled at puck possession. Different skill sets, but still skills. You sound like a white collar guy who says blue collar workers don't need skill, until you hand him a MIG welder and tell him to get to work. Different skills, but still a skilled trade.
3) "but guys like Jaskin, Paajarvi, Sobotka have the same, if not better, abilities on the Pk" Same or Better. Better was your word. Even if Jaskin was the same, he would probably get some PK time, right?
No, your best defensive players penalty kill. Defensive play is primarily measured in the defensive zone, obviously. Jaskin being able to cycle in the other team's end is why his advanced stats look good but it really has nothing to do with his defensive presence. He really has none, thus why he doesn't PK either because still a lot of similar skills are required. Your other points aren't that great either which tells me about all I need to know.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Did my other points tell you how seriously I take discussing this with you. Because I hope that was coming through loud and clear.
Sigh....Defense is also pressuring defenders as they start the rush, and defense 5v5 involves solid board work in your own zone. Those are 2 of Jaskins 3 best skills (cycling as you said being the third). PK, you tend to stay in your zone (read no forecheck), in the middle of the ice (no board work) and you need to make reads to cover for having one less guy. That doesn't play to Jaskin's defensive strengths. His IQ is ok but he will make some mistakes. His size and tenacity on the puck are his best attributes. They don't help much on the pk which takes patience and defending the lanes, not attacking the puck/puck carrier. Could he be decent on the PK? <shrug> I haven't seen him try to know. He'd probably be ok, but Upshall was really good because of his ability to read the play and interrupt the lanes. That is something Jaskin doesn't have the quickness for.
Regardless, whatever you want to call it, good at possession, cycling, whatever. The bottom line is that more good things happen than bad when Jaskin is on the ice, despite him being pretty poor offensively. Most often nothing happens except giving other players a rest. But its still a net positive. For $1M as a depth player, that has value. I am really sick of making that argument over and over again. Hence why I gave a somewhat flippant answer the first time.
Robb_K
Registered User
Sobotka has proven to be an excellent penalty killer, who can more than replace Upshall. And he's very valuable for winning key defensive zone faceoffs, which are crucial to killing penalties.
Kinda outside of the Bennett conversation. But, the one thing that seems to be forgetten is that we would not have moved on in the post season if it wasn't for Sobotka. Sobi was a difference maker. His work along the boards was tinatious and inspirational. He won a majority of the key 50/50 puck battles. He set-up some key goals. He came through when we needed him most.
I'm not a Sobi 4th liner believer. Sure he can play a great two way game that some mistakenly believe makes him a solid 4th liner. He's got enough talent to float between the top three lines as needed. At the very least he's a great extra C to have in our toolbox. Frankly, he should be a center and not a winger but...
I'm not a Sobi 4th liner believer. Sure he can play a great two way game that some mistakenly believe makes him a solid 4th liner. He's got enough talent to float between the top three lines as needed. At the very least he's a great extra C to have in our toolbox. Frankly, he should be a center and not a winger but...
bluesfan94
Registered User
Only responding to these points
2) I think you're removing the word skilled from its connotation within hockey discussions. If I'm describing a player to you and I say that he's a skills player, you aren't thinking hitting or fighting or whatever else. You're probably thinking hands, skating, passing, shot. At least that's what most people would be thinking.
3) Better could apply to some and not all of the players on that list in a sentence construction like that, plus he didn't definitively say they were better just that they could be. If not makes it a possibility. Sobotka, for example, I would say has better PK skills than Upshall, if only because of his faceoff ability.
Majorityof1
Registered User
2) Yes. I agree. There seems to be a misconception that because being more successful on the PK does not correlate directly with traditional hockey skills, that it doesn't take any skill at all. I am arguing that we need to expand on the word, because there are skills that are useful in the world of hockey that don't relate to the core skill-set we normally talk about. Those skills still have value to a roster.
3) Same or better. So at the minimum, all 3 of those guys have the same PK ability as Upshall according to Ivan. Some might be better. If they have the same ability, why is their such a discrepancy in PK time? I think Sobotka is a good PKer, but he provides something different. Brodz and Upshall worked well. Brodz was more of a shot blocker, while Upshall would jump the passing lanes. Upshall provided us with our only short-handed opportunities all year. you need that threat on your PK to keep defenders somewhat honest. I disagree that Jaskin and Paajarvi can even be seen as near as good at the PK (not defense) because Paajarvi hasn't been that impressive and we have no idea what Jaskin can do.
bluesfan94
Registered User
2) If skilled applies to everything in hockey, then it applies to nothing in hockey. It makes much more sense for it to retain its current usage than to apply it to everything.
3) From what I remember of Sobotka, he was a shorthanded offensive catalyst way back when, but that's a long time ago. I'm not fighting BD's fight for him beyond saying that "better" was conditional and, further, not universal.
Majorityof1
Registered User
The skill discussion is semantics. I don't care what word you use. Bottom 6 guys are not just the 2nd tier of players in terms of traditional hockey skills. Yes, they are less skilled in the traditional hockey-sense of the word (offensive ability) than most top 6 guys. But they often bring things to the table that many top-6 guys can't, and that has value. A guy like Rattie or Agostino, or any number of other AHL-NHL tweeners are more skilled in the traditional hockey sense than a lot of full-time NHL players. They don't bring the non-traditional skills, let's call them intangibles for lack of a better word, that many bottom-6 guys bring, and hence are not full-time NHL players. Ryan Reaves is one of the least skilled (traditional hockey sense of the word) full-time NHL players in the league. Yet he provided a VERY good return due to his intangibles, much better than guys who are much more hockey-skilled. That is all I am saying. I don't give a <bleep> what you call it.
My argument is that just because PK ability does not correlate directly with traditional hockey skills, does not mean it is easy. Because guys who are considered inferior players in other situations are able to be successful at it, does not make it easy. It just means it requires a different set of skills, the intangibles, discussed. My only contention in this whole thing is that the PK is not easy, and we aren't throwing our scrubs out there because we can trust them with the job because any moron could do it. They are on the PK because they are good at the PK, and that has value. That doesn't mean Sobotka doesn't have those skills, or we should keep Upshall or he is irreplaceable. Just that the PK is not easy.
Last edited:
There's also evidence that suggests that the best bottom-6 players are former first rounders that failed to hack it as scoring forwards. Scottie Upshall and Austin Watson being obvious examples, Brett Connolly and Tom Wilson too.
There's also evidence that suggests that the more 1st rounders you have on the roster, the more success you have. Maybe that isn't all that surprising, but it's important.
The skills that caused a guy like Beau Bennett to be drafted in the 1st round from a non-traditional league are probably not good for a top-6 scoring role. I don't think anybody expects him to explode for 20-30 goals all of a sudden. What will be interesting is how he continues to adapt his game to stay in the league. If he accepts that bottom-6 Brett Connolly role, I think he'll end up being a great catch for us. If he can learn to kill penalties, even better.
But killing penalties is no easy task. You can't just throw out your 4 weakest players and hope it works. Just being good defensively 5v5 is not a direct correlate of being good at the PK. We'll just have to see how it pans out. Yeo had the #1 PK unit in the league a few years back, but has been middle of the road or worse outside of that. The PK was, on the other hand, a primary focus of Hitchcock's system: you can be aggressive and go be physical and make risky plays because you have the insurance policy of the PK to back you up.
There's also evidence that suggests that the more 1st rounders you have on the roster, the more success you have. Maybe that isn't all that surprising, but it's important.
The skills that caused a guy like Beau Bennett to be drafted in the 1st round from a non-traditional league are probably not good for a top-6 scoring role. I don't think anybody expects him to explode for 20-30 goals all of a sudden. What will be interesting is how he continues to adapt his game to stay in the league. If he accepts that bottom-6 Brett Connolly role, I think he'll end up being a great catch for us. If he can learn to kill penalties, even better.
But killing penalties is no easy task. You can't just throw out your 4 weakest players and hope it works. Just being good defensively 5v5 is not a direct correlate of being good at the PK. We'll just have to see how it pans out. Yeo had the #1 PK unit in the league a few years back, but has been middle of the road or worse outside of that. The PK was, on the other hand, a primary focus of Hitchcock's system: you can be aggressive and go be physical and make risky plays because you have the insurance policy of the PK to back you up.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 7 - North Bay Battalion @ Oshawa Generals - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 2Staked: $850.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Florida Panthers vs Boston BruinsWagers: 10Staked: $102,319.00Event closes- Updated:
-