All the Haag hate?

[deadhead]

As for Hagg's decreasing time on ice...He was still playing top 4 minutes in February. His minutes got cut only in March, when he just played in 7 games due to injury, and when he returned Hakstol didn't like him paired up with Gudas and the Sanheim/MacDonald pair had too much unsustainable goal luck to break them up or lower their usage (although once it did Sanheim played his usual 13 minutes).

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Hagg TOI
October 18:21
November 20:41 (Gudas suspended 2nd half of November, 1st week December, also left 2 games early in November))
December 17:36
January 18:08
February 17:07
March 15:59

1st pair play over 20 minutes a night, 2nd pair 19-20, 3rd pair 15-17 minutes
Since there are 2 playing at any time (except PP1), they'll average close to 20 minutes.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Wasn't it LegionOfDoom91 who posted Haggs monthly splits/stats in another thread? Once his "luck" started to normalize, his stats plummeted. But Hak kept playing him.

Hagg month-by-month

	xGF%rel	CF%rel	Games Played
OCT	-11.01	-6.65	12
NOV	0.27	-4.57	13
DEC	-1.74	-8.99	13
JAN	0.69	-6.30	12
FEB	-3.59	-2.93	13
MAR	-12.73	-9.53	7
TOTAL	-3.90	-6.11	70

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Where is the improvement? He was poor every single month.

To add on to this, here's Hagg's rolling combined 5v5 On Ice Shooting/Save Percentages, converted to percent over/under average since I know some don't want to see certain words or stats. April only had 4 Games.

Month	Luck
October	+12%
November	+6.9%
December	+5.3%
January	+3.4%
February	+2.7%
March	+1.8%
April	+1.8%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Betting on that to be sustainable is more than unwise.

 

[Magua]

ES/PK TOI/game by month for Ruprecht Hug relative to his defensive teammates:

Oct: 4th/4th
Nov: 4th/2nd
Dec: 3rd/4th
Jan: 4th/4th
Feb: 4th/4th
March (pre-injury): 4th/5th

Don't let facts get in the way of being top 4 in ES TOI/game literally every single month and a PK regular. Why is this so hard?

 

[FLYguy3911]

I said i watched him specifically and this is what i saw it does not mean that someone did not cover up for him or that Winnipeg capatlized on them at the time, actually i thought Winnipeg was not on thier game at the time . I have said i use to scout and these were problems he use to have so i went to see if he had corrected these particular problems but they still exhisted . Hagg's feet were very slow that game and Kony was really struggling with confidence at the time he was really frustrated and you could see it . I watched Patrick as well and he did ok at the time used his brain to make up for some short comings . I do not use alot of stats for judgements i like to go live and see for myself . Old school i guess
This was the game where Gudas had a brain fart

Sanheim has his faults, no doubt, I just don't think you being at one game gives any more validation to your opinion. You could have certainly picked other games when he wasn't particularly good to support your stance. If you left that specific game thinking he was going to be anything less than a stud, I'm not sure what you are really evaluating. I even went back to watch that game a few weeks ago doing a bit of a personal project and it was an even more impressive game than I remembered.

Here were his most common forward opponents in that game:

Laine
Scheifele
Ehlers
Wheeler
Connor
Little

And he saw Byfuglien most overall.

Finished the game with 77 CF% and 85 xGF% while playing a whole 2:01 with his usual partner- Gudas. Those numbers are ridiculous.

 

[Striiker]

Sanheim played soft until his recall. He was weak in puck battles. More than anything Hakstol wants his team to be strong in puck battles. He doesn’t always have the players who can do it, but that’s what he wants the team’s identity to be. Sanheim was soft, so he didn’t play. Hagg usually battled hard on the wall & played with more strength, so Hakstol rewarded him. If Sanheim ups his grit, he’ll play more. That simple. It’s not always a matter of talent (Edmonton) but getting your team to play a certain way. Hitchcock had many battles with Modano early in his career trying to get him to play a certain way, & it eventually made Modano a more effective, complete player & led Dallas to winning the Cup.

OK, so:

Battle hard + be strong + hit + turn the puck over as soon as you get it + be completely ineffective at your biggest job as a defensemen = good

Not as physical + get the puck + actually prevent goals by moving the puck = bad

Got it. Great coach we've got here.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

I didn't hate Robert Haag/Hagg at the beginning of last season. I was actively rooting for him to do well. But now? Now my hate for him grows exponentially with each misguided post defending him. Whole threads dedicated to him make me want to poop mushroom clouds.

 

[FLYguy3911]

OK, so:

Battle hard + be strong + hit + turn the puck over as soon as you get it + be completely ineffective at your biggest job as a defensemen = good

Not as physical + get the puck + actually prevent goals by moving the puck = bad

Got it. Great coach we've got here.

Well yeah. Jori Lehtera would have been an All-Star if the puck never left the boards.

Btw if anyone has gone to a practice before, they do board battles for about half the time. Not sure if this is common elsewhere, but yeah...

 

[Ghosts Beer]

OK, so:

Battle hard + be strong + hit + turn the puck over as soon as you get it + be completely ineffective at your biggest job as a defensemen = good

Not as physical + get the puck + actually prevent goals by moving the puck = bad

Got it. Great coach we've got here.

If you think coaches don’t try to instill a certain work ethic & style of play in their teams, you’re wrong. If talent always beat a hard working identity, Edmonton wouldn’t be as unsuccessful as they’ve been. Maybe if they’d have been harder on their talented young players from the outset they wouldn’t have this problem. Maybe Hakstol’s tough love on Sanheim will make him a better player in the end. You are completely ignoring those things.

And considering Sanheim’s +/-, whatever he was doing sure wasn’t “actually prevent[ing] goals.”

 

[Striiker]

If you think coaches don’t try to instill a certain work ethic & style of play in their teams, you’re wrong. If talent always beat a hard working identity, Edmonton wouldn’t be as unsuccessful as they’ve been. Maybe if they’d have been harder on their talented young players from the outset they wouldn’t have this problem. Maybe Hakstol’s tough love on Sanheim will make him a better player in the end. You are completely ignoring those things.

And considering Sanheim’s +/-, whatever he was doing sure wasn’t “actually prevent[ing] goals.”

I'm sure they do, but the point is if Hagg fits Hakstol's style better then that proves that both of them are trash.

Saying Sanheim is better than Hagg has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with quality of play. Sanheim played better, Sanheim is better. Hagg played worse, Hagg is worse. Simple as that. As Flyguy said, if boardwork was all that mattered then a lot of trash players might be useful, but that's not the case. You have to do more than that and everywhere else Hagg fell flat on his face.

And again, you even mentioning +/- is raising a white flag in defeat. It means you have no real argument so you decided to give up.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

I would like to start by saying I have been following the Flyers for almost 40 years. I have watched almost every game in that time span within reason for someone who does not live in Philadelphia. I know it is in the "thousands" of games that I have followed the Orange and Black and their adventures. It has been sometimes comical, often frustrating but for the most part always entertaining. I often follow this forum and have enjoyed reading all the posts (for the most part). We have all lived through years of frustration but for the most part enjoyed a very competitive organization and team. This is not the cue for the endless responses and outrage over the merry-go-round that has been the ever revolving door of mediocre goaltenders.

I have been reading so much lately about 1 player in particular, Robert Haag, and I can't quite understand the negativity towards this player. I have seen my share of Flyers defenseman come and go over 40 years and he is nowhere near one of the worst I have seen wear the Orange and Black. I first of all would beg and plead to keep your analytical stats to yourself. I think they can be an indicator of tendencies but not an absolute when it comes to a players potential.

In my opinion, Robert Haag is developing on his way to becoming a solid player with the ability to contribute at both ends of the ice. I think unrealistic expectations are a problem that most on this board suffer from due to their thirst to find the next Mark Howe or Chris Pronger. I ask everyone on this board to watch one Flyers game and focus only on the opposing team. I know this can be difficult but I think you will find in invaluable in your understanding of the Flyers and give you excellent perspective of the team and it's players. Watch how many mistakes and turnovers the others teams players make during a course of the game. It is a game of inches my friends. We had 100 pints last year and made the playoffs but you would think we were the worst team in the league.

I want to make it clear that I love what Ron Hextall is doing and the direction he is taking this franchise. He is showing patience but at the same time not afraid to make some bold moves like signing JVR. It was Ed Sniders passion that build this great franchise but also was it's undoing in the long-term in regards to the cup. It was his love of his team and his fans that made him force the team to sign Ilya Bryzgalov. Let's be clear that I loved Ed Snider. He was a hockey fan that built and owned a hockey team. A real life fantasy hockey team.

Robert Haag is a microcosm of the Flyers misplaced passion a desire to win now. There is no one that wants to see a cup in Philadelphia Flyers win more than me. I can get you the signatures of hundreds of people who testify of my unhealthy love of the Philadelphia Flyers.
I was born in Boston and grew up a Flyers fan. I think that should be enough of a testimony. I'm sure Robert Haag would love nothing more to raise a cup in Philadelphia. Could their be a bigger thrill and moment than hoisting a cup in Broad Street?

Hockey to me is just a soap opera for men. These are the endless "Days of our Lives" that we all enjoy so much through the good and the bad. We all stood in horror as Eric Lindros laid on the ice helpless. It was as if a family member had been hurt. We feel their pain as fans of our hockey heroes. We at the same time jump into the air with fists clenched as we watch Flyers miracle comeback against Boston.

In the end it's just a game but a beautiful game indeed. I love the pleasure of taking someone to see hockey for the first time. I love to watch the look in their eyes as they see how amazing this sport is and how they can't wait to go again. I want to say thank you to the Flyers and their fans for making this such an enjoyable ride.

Let's root for the home team boys and girls. Robert Haag is one of our guys and let's hope for the best. It takes all kinds to make up a team. There are no perfect teams or perfect players. 40 years later I still bleed Orange and Black. Let's go Flyers...Let's go...

I agree with you and I'd also like to add: I could kiss you.

I've also never seen a legit prospect written off so quickly in my life for this team. He's overused for sure, but that doesn't make him a non-NHL player today/someday (which is all the OP is saying).

I think it's silly and premature, but there's a real mob mentality around here so what can ya do.

 

[deadhead]

Hagg month-by-month

	xGF%rel	CF%rel	Games Played
OCT	-11.01	-6.65	12
NOV	0.27	-4.57	13
DEC	-1.74	-8.99	13
JAN	0.69	-6.30	12
FEB	-3.59	-2.93	13
MAR	-12.73	-9.53	7
TOTAL	-3.90	-6.11	70

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Where is the improvement? He was poor every single month.

He was a solid 3rd pair defenseman from November to February.
He had a bad first month, gee, he's a rookie, and a bad last month when he was injured.

A defensive defenseman like Hagg isn't going to have good Corsi, you basically want him to be consistent on goal suppression. So xGF is a better gauge, and you expect your 3rd pair defenseman to be slightly negative. since overall the league is going to average around 0.0, the bottom 1/3 of defensemen around the league are going to tend to put up negative xGF.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I agree with you and I'd also like to add: I could kiss you.

I've also never seen a legit prospect written off so quickly in my life for this team. He's overused for sure, but that doesn't make him a non-NHL player today/someday (which is all the OP is saying).

I think it's silly and premature, but there's a real mob mentality around here so what can ya do.

Serious question. How do you define legit prospect?

 

[BernieParent]

I agree with you and I'd also like to add: I could kiss you.

I've also never seen a legit prospect written off so quickly in my life for this team. He's overused for sure, but that doesn't make him a non-NHL player today/someday (which is all the OP is saying).

I think it's silly and premature, but there's a real mob mentality around here so what can ya do.

As a self-professed moderate on The Great Häägg Debate, I am curious what your criteria are for a "legit" prospect. Honestly curious in understanding.

 

[BernieParent]

Serious question. How do you define legit prospect?

Jinx.

 

[deadhead]

Depends on the role.
Sanheim is a legitimate prospect for a top four defenseman, but right now he's a 3rd pair defenseman.
Hagg is a legitimate prospect for a third pair defenseman, right now he's a limited 3rd pair defenseman.

It's also roles, I don't want to see Sanheim on the PK until he adds 10-20 lbs and develops a snarl, because right now he's far too easy to bump off the puck, and on the PK you're always handling the puck in traffic, not open ice.

I'd never want to see Hagg on the PP in my lifetime.

 

[Magua]

I have a wonderful idea: let’s all abandon this thread and have a Haag(en-dazs) ice cream party. Cone, bowl, carton, bar.....we won’t discriminate.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I'm sure they do, but the point is if Hagg fits Hakstol's style better then that proves that both of them are trash.

Saying Sanheim is better than Hagg has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with quality of play. Sanheim played better, Sanheim is better. Hagg played worse, Hagg is worse. Simple as that. As Flyguy said, if boardwork was all that mattered then a lot of trash players might be useful, but that's not the case. You have to do more than that and everywhere else Hagg fell flat on his face.

And again, you even mentioning +/- is raising a white flag in defeat. It means you have no real argument so you decided to give up.

In basketball you have so-called “better players” who sit behind less talented ones all the time because they don’t play the team system.
Hakstol wants players to play his way, & there’s value to every player being on the same page whether you want to believe it or not.
There’s value in setting an example that if you don’t play a certain way, you won’t get playing time (see Hoosiers — “my team is on the floor.”)
There’s more to coaching than simply playing talent.
Again, you ignore the Edmonton example. Again, you ignore that maybe Hakstol is giving Sanheim tough love now & that it will pay off down the road.
And the +/- example is relevant, because you said Sanheim was “actually prevent[ing] goals.” Well, that’s not true. I guess you can blame it on bad luck if you want, but he didn’t prevent goals when he was on the ice. That’s simply a wrong statement.

Sanheim was 31st among NHL defensemen (with 700+ minutes) in turnovers per 60 min. 149th in takeaways per 60. He was soft. Weak on the boards (which is opposite of Hakstol’s #1 team mantra). But did play better by the end of the season. I know in your world there’s no possible excuse for him not being the Flyers’ clear #3 the entire season, but I bet some Edmonton fans would beg to differ.

 

[Striiker]

It's no coincidence that the people defending Hagg are the same people who try to defend Hakstol.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

It's no coincidence that the people defending Hagg are the same people who try to defend Hakstol.

It's also no coincidence that the only defense of him has nothing to do with him, but is rather "Yada yada yada groupthink."

 

[Striiker]

In basketball you have so-called “better players” who sit behind less talented ones all the time because they don’t play the team system.
Hakstol wants players to play his way, & there’s value to every player being on the same page whether you want to believe it or not.
There’s value in setting an example that if you don’t play a certain way, you won’t get playing time (see Hoosiers — “my team is on the floor.”)
There’s more to coaching than simply playing talent.
Again, you ignore the Edmonton example. Again, you ignore that maybe Hakstol is giving Sanheim tough love now & that it will pay off down the road.
And the +/- example is relevant, because you said Sanheim was “actually prevent[ing] goals.” Well, that’s not true. I guess you can blame it on bad luck if you want, but he didn’t prevent goals when he was on the ice. That’s simply a wrong statement.

Sanheim was 31st among NHL defensemen (with 700+ minutes) in turnovers per 60 min. 149th in takeaways per 60. He was soft. Weak on the boards (which is opposite of Hakstol’s #1 team mantra). But did play better by the end of the season. I know in your world there’s no possible excuse for him not being the Flyers’ clear #3 the entire season, but I bet some Edmonton fans would beg to differ.

I'll just go ahead and re-post these since we're going in circles. No point in typing something a third time.

Not true at all.

And if Hakstol is demanding that the team play a way, where Sanheim was wrong but Hagg was right, then that just proves Hakstol is clueless.

Hagg was no better in the defensive zone and Sanheim was miles and miles and miles better at moving the puck and helping create offense.

There is a correct answer here, Sanheim easily and indisputably outplayed Hagg. Just like he did everyone outside of Provorov and Ghost.

I'm sure they do, but the point is if Hagg fits Hakstol's style better then that proves that both of them are trash.

Saying Sanheim is better than Hagg has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with quality of play. Sanheim played better, Sanheim is better. Hagg played worse, Hagg is worse. Simple as that. As Flyguy said, if boardwork was all that mattered then a lot of trash players might be useful, but that's not the case. You have to do more than that and everywhere else Hagg fell flat on his face.

And again, you even mentioning +/- is raising a white flag in defeat. It means you have no real argument so you decided to give up.

 

[Striiker]

It's also no coincidence that the only defense of him has nothing to do with him, but is rather "Yada yada yada groupthink."

Yep.

I don't know if it's that they don't realize how transparent they are or if they just don't care. Either way, they're failing miserably and it's just pathetic at this point.

 

[deadhead]

Sanheim is this:

He needs to become this:

Case closed.
It's not about Hagg, it's about

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I'll just go ahead and re-post these since we're going in circles. No point in typing something a third time.

Your point seems to be that any coach who plays a less talented player over a more talented one is clueless. Or any coach who is extra hard on a talented young player to try to get him to play a complete game that will make him better in the long run is clueless.
Well, your premise has been proven wrong time & time again in all sports.

 

[Striiker]

Your point seems to be that any coach who plays a less talented player over a more talented one is clueless. Or any coach who is extra hard on a talented young player to try to get him to play a complete game that will make him better in the long run is clueless.
Well, your premise has been proven wrong time & time again in all sports.

And again..

I'm sure they do, but the point is if Hagg fits Hakstol's style better then that proves that both of them are trash.

Saying Sanheim is better than Hagg has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with quality of play. Sanheim played better, Sanheim is better. Hagg played worse, Hagg is worse. Simple as that. As Flyguy said, if boardwork was all that mattered then a lot of trash players might be useful, but that's not the case. You have to do more than that and everywhere else Hagg fell flat on his face.

And again, you even mentioning +/- is raising a white flag in defeat. It means you have no real argument so you decided to give up.

 

[deadhead]

Forget it, they confuse a number of different issues:
1) Hagg didn't play b/c he was a favorite, he played b/c Gudas was an idiot and Sanheim was brain dead and Morin a cripple
2) Sanheim wasn't benched for Hagg or Manning, he was benched because he was a brain dead marshmallow
3) Nothing happens without Ron's approval (you think this guy is a mellow, I'll just delegate type?)
4) It's all part of the plan, including tough love of prospects who'd rather just play in the O-zone and skip the hard work - and it's Ron's plan and philosophy, Hakstol just executes what his boss wants. And the next guy will be similar, Lavi need not apply.

I can't wait until Hakstol is fired and the next guy is a clone, benching entitled kids and playing the hard working, high IQ guys.
Someone who runs a 2-2-1 and expects all his forwards to forecheck, you know, like Gallant?
However, the odds are is that this team gets 105 points, wins the first PO round and Hakstol gets an extension.