That passivity on defense, I believe, is systemic. We seem, as a team, to be allowing more shots in an effort to minimize the high danger chances. Under Hitch, we would always be one of the leaders in least shots against., but mistakes would lead to easy chances. Under Yeo, I am not seeing as many mistakes, but we are in the top half of the league in shots against. Maybe that is just coincidental, but to me, it seems the marching orders are to not get beat but keep your guy out of high danger areas. The stats, and eye-test, bear out that Barbashev is doing that. Maybe that is not what Yeo wants, as he obviously has a problem with Barby's play, but it is effective. His offensive play needs work, but he brings more than Paajarvi, who gets a minute more a night over every game. I didn't have the opportunity to watch him much in Chicago. I respect what you and Celtic saw there. Is it possible, however, that you are seeing what you expected to see from him? Other people are seeing it, so maybe I am the crazy one. But I think he has done enough to deserve to see more.
Why? Player A is expected to bring a usefulness of +60 goals (not +/- but some hypothetical value over replacement)over the course of a season, but only actually performs at a level of +45. Now player B is only expected to be a +10 player, and is actually a +30. Player B killed the value over expectations being 3 times as useful as expected. Player A struggled being only 75% as effective as expected, yet was still the more effective player by +50%. If you reward player B by benching player A, you are only hurting your team by 15 goals.
If you are talking performance vs salary, I'd be on board, as that is important in a cap world. However, if you are talking two players who make the same amount, I'd rather have the one with untapped potential that is still out producing the low-skilled over-acheiver
Why what?
In my model, each individual player is compared to their self, not to others.
What is the expectation of Player A relative to expectations placed upon Player A?
Think of an individual player as a group. The measurement occurs within the group, not across groups.
About seven or eight years ago, a former moderator of this board, Irish Blues, argued against my assertion that we (fans, management etc) demonstrate an "expectation bias" toward an individual player relative to the round in which they were drafted.
He argued that it doesn't matter after the fact (the draft) and I argued that the round in which a player was drafted does matter in terms of relative expectations of that player, with the acknowledgment that late-round draftees can enjoy a high degree of success (Datsyuk and Zetterberg come to mind).
I just think it would be cool if there was a mechanism by which to measure a player's production relative to their perceived expectations, whether those expectations are valid or not. After all, what expectations are actually realistic?
The entire NHLdom expected Patrik Stefan to be awesome because he was the #1 overall draft pick in his draft year.
Did we actually expect 7th-rounder, Henrik Zetterberg, to be a near ppg player?
No.
Measuring production/success/whatever relative to salary cap hit is pretty cool and is in line with the sentiment of my idea expressed above. Player A's production is being measured relative to his own salary, not Player B's. It is a within-group measurement.
To take that point further, the highly-paid Player A is highly paid because he has produced at a level to warrant and justify his high salary relative to the cap.
If he fails to produce at the higher cap hit (Ville Leino), then we can say that this player has not performed at a level commensurate to his cap hit.
But the player is measured against himself, his cap hit, his skating ability, his shot accuracy, his draft status, his vision, his passing ability etc etc.....
Fun discussion.
