Daniel Sprong Containment Thread Part 3 | Mod Warning Post #1

[Pancakes]

Including Sprong's 16 games here while buried on the 4th line for 8:30 a night is at best disingenuous at best and at worst deliberately misrepresentative. He's scoring at a 30 goal pace with the Ducks and as I mentioned earlier, he's currently got the 6th best CF% on the Ducks.

It's just as disingenuous to ignore them. Guarantee if you put literally any of our other scoring wingers on the 4th line and gave them Sprong's deployments they'd still have metrics that far exceed what he did here. Which is not to say I'm in favor of how he was used, but him performing poorly wasn't all deployments. Good for him that he's finding it in Anaheim though.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Including Sprong's 16 games here while buried on the 4th line for 8:30 a night is at best disingenuous at best and at worst deliberately misrepresentative. He's scoring at a 30 goal pace with the Ducks and as I mentioned earlier, he's currently got the 6th best CF% on the Ducks.

I think it's worth factoring in. You can't ignore the fact that Sprong is completely unable to play in any less-than-ideal circumstances. His deployment here gets used as a defense of his play with the Pens, and I think that's ridiculous. That's a huge negative aspect of Sprong as a player. There's no doubt in my mind that Sheary would be able to produce better than Sprong if you played him with Cullen and Sheahan, the insurmountable black hole Sprong had to endure. So if they are comparable in scoring line roles but one of them completely relies on that role, give me the one who can play wherever you put him.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

It's just as disingenuous to ignore them. Guarantee if you put literally any of our other wingers on the 4th line and gave them Sprong's deployments they'd still have metrics that far exceed what he did here. Which is not to say I'm in favor of how he was used, but him performing poorly wasn't all deployments. Good for him that he's finding it in Anaheim though.

No player's going to be producing with 8:30 on the 4th line, as proven by the fact that nobody can provide a single counter-example in NHL history.

Sprong is a bad fit for any 4th line, but that was never disputed. He's a 21 year old sniper prospect, so that was a fool's errand from the start.

I'd have to think about it for long term, but if you made me pick Sheary or Sprong to play on Sid's RW to win a game tonight, I'd take Sheary without a doubt.

Sprong's the more productive player and has the exact same CF%, and Sheary had the worst production of any regular Crosby winger ever last season, so unlike Sprong he's proven how poorly he fares there and has continued that underwhelming production into this year. I take Sprong just as quickly.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I think it's worth factoring in. You can't ignore the fact that Sprong is completely unable to play in any less-than-ideal circumstances. His deployment here gets used as a defense of his play with the Pens, and I think that's ridiculous. That's a huge negative aspect of Sprong as a player. There's no doubt in my mind that Sheary would be able to produce better than Sprong if you played him with Cullen and Sheahan, the insurmountable black hole Sprong had to endure. So if they are comparable in scoring line roles but one of them completely relies on that role, give me the one who can play wherever you put him.

That's not true. He simply can't succeed buried in his own end for 8:30 a night, something Sheary can't do either.

 

[Empoleon8771]

That's not true. He simply can't succeed with 8:30 a night on the 4th line, something Sheary can't do either.

I feel like you just keep saying stuff that you know is false to try and convince yourself it's true

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I feel like you just keep saying stuff that you know is false to try and convince yourself it's true

I'd like to see you try to prove it false.

Look at his zone deployment and TOI in '15-'16. How did he score?

 

[Empoleon8771]

I'd like to see you try to prove it false.

Look at his zone deployment and TOI in '15-'16. How did he score?

I know what's going to happen here because we have had this discussion before. I'll point out that Sheary had 7 goals and 10 points at ES in half a season while playing 9:45 night, and you'll respond with "that's not exactly 8:30 a night" and somehow conclude that it doesn't prove you wrong. You'll ignore that Sheary produced at a very solid rate for a rookie 4th liner getting that little ice time, and instead focus on how the comparison isn't exactly perfect.

 

[Ogrezilla]

No player's going to be producing with 8:30 on the 4th line, as proven by the fact that nobody can provide a single counter-example in NHL history.

Sprong is a bad fit for any 4th line, but that was never disputed. He's a 21 year old sniper prospect, so that was a fool's errand from the start.



Sprong's the more productive player and has the exact same CF%, and Sheary had the worst production of any regular Crosby winger ever last season, so unlike Sprong he's proven how poorly he fares there and has continued that underwhelming production into this year. I take Sprong just as quickly.

He was also super productive with Sid a year before that. I'll roll those dice.

 

[Pancakes]

No player's going to be producing with 8:30 on the 4th line, as proven by the fact that nobody can provide a single counter-example in NHL history.

Sprong is a bad fit for any 4th line, but that was never disputed. He's a 21 year old sniper prospect, so that was a fool's errand from the start.

That's because usually any prospect that gets put into that situation either gets sent back down to the minors or does enough (like Sheary) to warrant a promotion up the lineup.

If Sprong potted a few goals, maybe he would have gotten moved up. Or maybe not. Sully didn't trust him at all, but he never did much to earn that trust either.

 

[Ogrezilla]

That's not true. He simply can't succeed buried in his own end for 8:30 a night, something Sheary can't do either.

The narrative to start the year was that he needed to play with a scoring line center. And If he wasn't so bad in the role he'd have had more minutes on the fourth line.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I know what's going to happen here because we have had this discussion before. I'll point out that Sheary had 7 goals and 10 points at ES in half a season while playing 9:45 night, and you'll respond with "that's not exactly 8:30 a night" and somehow conclude that it doesn't prove you wrong. You'll ignore that Sheary produced at a very solid rate for a rookie 4th liner getting that little ice time, and instead focus on how the comparison isn't exactly perfect.

Out of curiosity, how is Sheary's 1.40 P/60 producing at a very solid rate for a rookie 4th liner, but Sprong's 1.75 P/60 isn't?

Keep in mind that this was despite Sheary getting 61% OZ starts in '15-'16, and Sprong getting 45% OZ starts this year.

He was also super productive with Sid a year before that. I'll roll those dice.

I've seen enough in the 1.5 years since to call that a bad bet.

That's because usually any prospect that gets put into that situation either gets sent back down to the minors or does enough (like Sheary) to warrant a promotion up the lineup.

If Sprong potted a few goals, maybe he would have gotten moved up. Or maybe not. Sully didn't trust him at all, but he never did much to earn that trust either.

Prospects don't produce more than Sprong when they're used that way. You're holding Sprong to a standard that no other prospect has met.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

The narrative to start the year was that he needed to play with a scoring line center. And If he wasn't so bad in the role he'd have had more minutes on the fourth line.

If we want to come close to exploiting his skillset, absolutely.

But he was given worse deployment than any Pens prospect in living memory, despite clearly being the type of prospect that should be sheltered. In '15-'16, Sullivan did a much better job of not throwing Sheary to the wolves than he did with Sprong this year.

 

[Pancakes]

Prospects don't produce more than Sprong when they're used that way. You're holding Sprong to a standard that no other prospect has met.

Empoleon just pointed out how Sheary was used early on.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Empoleon just pointed out how Sheary was used early on.

And I rebutted.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Out of curiosity, how is Sheary's 1.40 P/60 producing at a very solid rate for a rookie 4th liner, but Sprong's 1.75 P/60 isn't?

Keep in mind that this was despite Sheary getting 61% OZ starts in '15-'16, and Sprong getting 45% OZ starts this year.

Why are you including PP points? Sheary and Sprong had virtually identical ES points/60 (1.52 for Sheary, 1.55 for Sprong), but Sheary actually scored goals (1.06 ES goals/60, 0 for Sprong) and Sheary wasn't a skating abortion defensively.

You said Sheary couldn't succeed in the same role that Sprong was used in. In reality, he scored at near a 13 ES goal, 19 ES point pace while not being an absolute mess defensively and having good possession numbers. That alone proves your statement false. He scored goals at a 3rd line rate while getting bottom of the barrel minutes, didn't hurt the team defensively and had good possession stats. To me, that is succeeding in that role. Had Sprong been able to do that, I would have been happy with his play on the 4th line.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I've seen enough in the 1.5 years since to call that a bad bet.

It's why I'm fine with him being gone. But I don't think sprong is a better bet.

 

[Ogrezilla]

If we want to come close to exploiting his skillset, absolutely.

But he was given worse deployment than any Pens prospect in living memory, despite clearly being the type of prospect that should be sheltered. In '15-'16, Sullivan did a much better job of not throwing Sheary to the wolves than he did with Sprong this year.

We had holes in 15-16 that simply don't exist this year. It happens.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Including the above, reasons Sheary succeeded more on a 4th line role than Sprong did in the same usage:

1. Sheary scored goals at a 3rd line rate, Sprong didn't score goals at all. Their individual shots/60 rates were about the same (7.56 for Sheary, 7.63 for Sprong), but Sheary was way better at getting high danger shot attempts (4.48 iHDCF/60, 1.02 iHDCF/60). That just shows me that Sprong threw anything on the net, while Sheary was actually generating and getting great chances. That probably explains why the guy with the clearly better shot scored 0 goals.
2. The Penguins didn't hemorrhage goals against with Sheary on the 4th line. Sheary was on the ice for 12 goals against in 44 games with a GA/60Rel 0f -0.12 (negative means less than team average). Sprong was on the ice for 9 goals against in 16 games with a GA/60Rel of +1.56.
3. The Penguins generated much more chances/60 with Sheary on the ice than Sprong on the ice. CF/60 (59.27 to 51.88), SF/60 (33.49 to 31.53), SCF/60 (28.71 to 23.91) and HDCF/60 (11.73 to 9.16) were all advantage Sheary. Along with this, Sheary has all of those stats as a net positive, all of his for stats are greater than his against stats. Sprong has a net negative for all of those stats.
4. This matters too because you can't ignore it, but there were expectations for Sprong to perform that weren't there with Sheary. People expected Sprong to be effective, people were just happy Sheary was anything in the NHL. Expectations completely play a role in this.

 

[Gurglesons]

Sheary primarily played RW here when he was with Sid, because Guentzel was on LW.

And I have no idea why you'd take him over Sprong now.



I said that Sheary's production would be the floor for what Sprong would do if used in similar situations, and that's shown to be true. I can bring up the exact conditions of my bet with mpp9 from the time of the trade if that helps.



Unless I'm reading this wrong, Sheary's CF% in Buffalo is not 58%, it's 49%...exactly the same as Sprong's:

Conor Sheary Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Further, Sprong's PP pace on the 2nd unit blows Sheary's out of the water. PP goals count the same as ES goals. The distinction should be if one player is doing it with 1PP opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be available, but that clearly isn't the case here. Sprong is killing it with 2PP chances that he could have seen here...2PP chances that Sheary sees and doesn't produce nearly as much with.

While Sprong was here you regularly criticized his lack of shots and goals and insinuated that his shot was nothing special, despite explanations about how poor usage affects these things. Now that those have been corrected, everyone can see how well he shoots and scores: 2nd on the Ducks in shots-per-game and goals-per-60, and on pace for 30 goals as a 21 year old.

Yeah I added a 5 instead of a 4 on his CF sorry.

Sprong is used on the first powerplay though if you watch the Ducks. He’s also averaging more powerplay time than Sheary.

Point is that the argument was Sprong would produce more on Sid’s wing than Sheary. Sheary is still producing a better point clip than Sprong being used with a way lesser center than Sprong has in Anaheim.

Sheary in Buffalo is producing at a 1.52 P per 60 rate. In Pittsburgh last year at ES he was producing at a 1.65 p per 60 rate throughout the year. With Sid on ice it was a 2.72 G per 60 rate when Sheary and his line mates were out. Without Sid on iceit was a 2.52 G per 60 rate when Sheary and his line mates were out.

Every number of production in terms of per 60 rate is in Sheary’s favor this year and last aside from individual g per 60 where Sprong is producing well.

The issue with powerplay time is it isn’t even strength. It isn’t playing with typical line mates. It isn’t outscoring Sheary at ES.

Expectation is you score when the other team is down. Do you think Sprong should’ve been used as a PP specialist here? Seems very foolish.

As I said above nearly every metric is in Sheary’s favor as being a better offensive producer than Sprong and that is with a much larger sample size and you are using Sprong’s specific sample size of being gifted major minutes with top six forwards which Sheary both in Buffalo and Pittsburgh was not given.

 

[Gurglesons]

sheary played his rookie, sophomore, and junior years on one the hottest teams in decades with the best player in the world, and is now a vet on a talented team that's in a wildcard spot. sprong is a rookie on one of the worst teams in the league. this doesn't make sheary look good

Sheary is still better than Sprong and Sprong is not a rookie. He’s played nearly 60 games in the NHL.

I’m also only examining Sprong’s last 16 games versus two years of Sheary. Adding in Sprong’s other games would make him look terrible.

 

[The Old Master]

I don't know if sprong will be a bust or a good player. but I do know on paper he was the best fit for geno. and for those that don't read I said "fit" not best player. what sprong does best is just what geno is looking for in a winger. phil doesn't, horny doesn't, rust doesn't and we are left one unhappy geno. I do like the kid we got for him though so I can't get to upset at the trade. it's still the fact we didn't play sprong with geno, that I don't like.
edit; if he's doing good for the ducks just think how much better he would of done with geno.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't know if sprong will be a bust or a good player. but I do know on paper he was the best fit for geno. and for those that don't read I said "fit" not best player. what sprong does best is just what geno is looking for in a winger. phil doesn't, horny doesn't, rust doesn't and we are left one unhappy geno. I do like the kid we got for him though so I can't get to upset at the trade. it's still the fact we didn't play sprong with geno, that I don't like.

Why is Sprong the best fit for Geno? You're kinda just saying that without providing any justification for why, and implying that not playing Sprong with Malkin is making Malkin unhappy is just crazy dumb. No, the center that Sprong fit the best with on paper is Malkin, it's not the other way around.

Personally, the best wingers on the roster for Malkin are Rust followed by Pearson. From what I've seen, Malkin does his best when playing with linemates who can get him the puck and let Malkin carry the puck. That is Rust and Pearson more than it is Sprong.

 

[Gurglesons]

Why is Sprong the best fit for Geno? You're kinda just saying that without providing any justification for why, and implying that not playing Sprong with Malkin is making Malkin unhappy is just crazy dumb. No, the center that Sprong fit the best with on paper is Malkin, it's not the other way around.

Personally, the best wingers on the roster for Malkin are Rust followed by Pearson. From what I've seen, Malkin does his best when playing with linemates who can get him the puck and let Malkin carry the puck. That is Rust and Pearson more than it is Sprong.

If Daniel Sprong was James Neal the same people saying he was the perfect fit would say you can’t win with Neal on Malkin’s wing.

The funny part is Simon out of our prospects to start the year was easily who I felt would succeed with Malkin and since being put there consistently has looked great.

It is also the typical deflection that happens with Sprong. There is always an excuse for his mediocre numbers. He’s not really on the 1st powerplay. He’s only with Henrique. Sheary was 25 and Sprong is 21. Etc.

Sheary was also undrafted and worked his way through the A putting up some crazy numbers as well, but actually could handle an NHL role on a successful team no matter where he was placed.

As the Spronger’s have admitted he needs to be played in favorable situations. That ain’t happening here. It’s happening in Anaheim and while he’s been decent. He certainly is not producing at an “elite” level.

I’ve never seen such a manipulation of data and usage to make a talented yet flawed prospect look as if he is a top line winger.

 

[The Old Master]

Why is Sprong the best fit for Geno? You're kinda just saying that without providing any justification for why, and implying that not playing Sprong with Malkin is making Malkin unhappy is just crazy dumb. No, the center that Sprong fit the best with on paper is Malkin, it's not the other way around.

Personally, the best wingers on the roster for Malkin are Rust followed by Pearson. From what I've seen, Malkin does his best when playing with linemates who can get him the puck and let Malkin carry the puck.

yes, and sprong has shown he's able to make good passes doesn't have the tunnel vision of rust. person is on the other side and doesn't have the shot sprong has. geno is looking for a shooter that can one time a rocket and hit the corners. he wants his winger to set up between the circles and rip it when he passes it to them. when he plays with phil, you see phil has trouble with the one timer and want's to carry the puck instead of feeding it to geno…..geno doesn't what horny to set up in front of the net (and that's horny's strong point) and horny has trouble getting passes to geno between the bluelines.

 

[Empoleon8771]

yes, and sprong has shown he's able to make good passes doesn't have the tunnel vision of rust. person is on the other side and doesn't have the shot sprong has. geno is looking for a shooter that can one time a rocket and hit the corners. he wants his winger to set up between the circles and rip it when he passes it to them. when he plays with phil, you see phil has trouble with the one timer and want's to carry the puck instead of feeding it to geno…..geno doesn't what horny to set up in front of the net (and that's horny's strong point) and horny has trouble getting passes to geno between the bluelines.

Are you joking me? Are you serious with this? Of all things to post about Pearson, you legitimately bring up his shot not being on par with Sprong's?

And the idea that Malkin wants to play with a shooter to just stand around and shoot off of his feeds is completely baseless. And I'm not even going to touch on saying Sprong has shown he's "able to make good passes" while Rust has tunnel vision. This just sounds like Sprong fanboy BS.