David Desharnais - Conn Smythe Edition

[Andy]

Continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[Mathletic]

In the last 3 years, Desharnais is 195th out of 218 forwards who have played 2000 minutes in DFZO%. Of forwards who have played more 2500 minutes he's 99th out of 116 forwards.

That's pretty favorable situation for a guy who is average offensively.

When you look at Plekanec for example, he's 9th out of 116th forwards for highest DFZO% for players playing over 2500 minutes in the least three years. 25th out of 217 forwards who have played more than 2000 minutes.

In the last three years, Desharnais is 20th for players with most offensive zone draws for players playing over 2000 minutes and 20th again for players with over 2500 minutes.

All that for 45-55 points while playing with one of the best ES scorers in hockey

Beautiful post. Now what does it change about the zone adjusted starts stats? It takes all of what you said and puts it on equal ground with every other player. Shows there's very little difference in offensive output even for a player like DD who takes that many ozone starts.

 

[Unclewhalebone]

Beautiful post. Now what does it change about the zone adjusted starts stats? It takes all of what you said and puts it on equal ground with every other player. Shows there's very little difference in offensive output even for a player like DD who takes that many ozone starts.

If zone starts don't skew stats very much, why would some players get consistently weighted portions of them? Is it by accident or is it by coaching design. If it is by design, why do it if it has little effect?

EDIT: I'm also curious how zone start "adjustment" is done.

 

[Andy]

Beautiful post. Now what does it change about the zone adjusted starts stats? It takes all of what you said and puts it on equal ground with every other player. Shows there's very little difference in offensive output even for a player like DD who takes that many ozone starts.

If it doesn't mean anything then why play him so often in the offensive zone? If there is very little difference, than why not balance out the opportunities?

If it means nothing then start DD more in the d-zone, he'll still produce at a 2.82 clip because it means little.

 

[Kriss E]

Mathletic
mediocre: Ordinary, so-so
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

Mediocre synonym : average

https://www.google.ca/search?q=medi...l3.1457j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

[Mathletic]

If zone starts don't skew stats very much, why would some players get consistently weighted portions of them? Is it by accident or is it by coaching design. If it is by design, why do it if it has little effect?

EDIT: I'm also curious how zone start "adjustment" is done.

I would guess mostly coaching design. One can easily think it would lead to more offence, after all you start in the offensive zone. In a way, it does make a difference. It's just not that big on the whole.

You'd have to ask David Johnson about that (author of that website). Nice guy, exchanged emails with him in the past. My guess would be that you take all the players, compare their stats in the next 30 some seconds following a draw in the offensive zone, neutral and defensive zone separately and see how that affects each player's stats.

If it doesn't mean anything then why play him so often in the offensive zone? If there is very little difference, than why not balance out the opportunities?

If it means nothing then start DD more in the d-zone, he'll still produce at a 2.82 clip because it means little.

I wouldn't mind it to be honest. For me it changes next to nothing, so if Therrien's goal was to prove that DD is a good player despite the skewed ozone starts in his favour he could give more ozone starts to other players. My guess is that the staff thinks it's a good strategy to have him take more ozone starts.

The 2.82 clip is adjusted to be "neutral", so if you gave him more dzone starts you'd expect him to produce at less than 2.82. That being said, there's various ways to create scoring opportunities. It's not like starting in your own end prevents you from scoring at all. You can argue it might lead to more 2-on-1's and stuff like that. We could look further into it as to what kind of player might benefit more from ozone and dzone starts. Then again, probably splitting hairs more than anything else.

Mathletic
mediocre: Ordinary, so-so
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre

Mediocre synonym : average

https://www.google.ca/search?q=medi...l3.1457j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

From your webster link:

Full Definition of MEDIOCRE : of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance

...

fine if you meant he was average as gave the average performance he always gives or something of the sort but don't be surprised if someone interprets mediocre as below average.

 

[Brainiac]

This 'mediocre' talk pops up about once a year, if not more.

Could we agree on a definition? In French it's definitely below average. In English it seems to be either average or below average.

 

[Rapala]

This 'mediocre' talk pops up about once a year, if not more.

Could we agree on a definition? In French it's definitely below average. In English it seems to be either average or below average.

It is definitely below average in English as well.
Not a word you want to hear about any player on a playoff contender!

 

[Andy]

I would guess mostly coaching design. One can easily think it would lead to more offence, after all you start in the offensive zone. In a way, it does make a difference. It's just not that big on the whole.

So it does make a difference, but not really. Convenient.

I wouldn't mind it to be honest. For me it changes next to nothing, so if Therrien's goal was to prove that DD is a good player despite the skewed ozone starts in his favour he could give more ozone starts to other players. My guess is that the staff thinks it's a good strategy to have him take more ozone starts.

Why would they think it's a good strategy if not to produce MORE offense? If it has 0 benefit, then who cares who you play in the offensive zone no?

The 2.82 clip is adjusted to be "neutral", so if you gave him more dzone starts you'd expect him to produce at less than 2.82. That being said, there's various ways to create scoring opportunities. It's not like starting in your own end prevents you from scoring at all. You can argue it might lead to more 2-on-1's and stuff like that. We could look further into it as to what kind of player might benefit more from ozone and dzone starts. Then again, probably splitting hairs more than anything else.

No one said starting in the D zone stops you from scoring, they are saying it makes it harder to score. You gotta win possession of the puck and then travel three zones to start setting up a player. It's a little absurd to think that it has only a slight difference.

 

[Kriss E]

From your webster link:

Full Definition of MEDIOCRE : of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance

...

fine if you meant he was average as gave the average performance he always gives or something of the sort but don't be surprised if someone interprets mediocre as below average.

And when someone says he means it as average, he shouldn't be told it means something else.

I said he was mediocre, you claimed I said he was terrible. You were wrong. Case closed.

 

[Mathletic]

So it does make a difference, but not really. Convenient.

Is someone making $50,501 a year more rich than someone making $50,500? Yeah. Is he Richie Rich rich in comparison? No.

Why would they think it's a good strategy if not to produce MORE offense? If it has 0 benefit, then who cares who you play in the offensive zone no?

Without looking at the stats, would you be inclined to think starting in the offensive zone helps you scoring more goals? Yeah. Now look at the numbers and see if there's a difference.

No one said starting in the D zone stops you from scoring, they are saying it makes it harder to score. You gotta win possession of the puck and then travel three zones to start setting up a player. It's a little absurd to think that it has only a slight difference.

A lot happens during any sequence. Quite a bit of randomness.

 

[Andy]

Is someone making $50,501 a year more rich than someone making $50,500? Yeah. Is he Richie Rich rich in comparison? No.



Without looking at the stats, would you be inclined to think starting in the offensive zone helps you scoring more goals? Yeah. Now look at the numbers and see if there's a difference.



A lot happens during any sequence. Quite a bit of randomness.

So then why are the starts so disproportionate? If it's randomness and insignificance difference, why is he given so much?

So you don't think that Desharnais' offense will take a hit if I cut his offensive zone starts in half? If not, then why employ him in strictly offensive situations? It's not like he's some outstanding offensive player to begin with.

 

[Mathletic]

So then why are the starts so disproportionate? If it's randomness and insignificance difference, why is he given so much?

So you don't think that Desharnais' offense will take a hit if I cut his offensive zone starts in half?

How can I add anything more

Unless you think I'm Michel Therrien, all I can say is that the staff probably thinks it's a good idea. To some extent it is even though it makes a very tiny difference in the grand scheme of things.

His adjusted numbers would fluctuate. His raw numbers would likely decrease by a small fraction. That being said, it could go up just like it could go down since the expected difference is so small that it could go either way in reality. Besides, he could get the same amount of ozone starts and you should still expect his numbers to fluctuate like any other player.

 

[Andy]

How can I add anything more

Unless you think I'm Michel Therrien, all I can say is that the staff probably thinks it's a good idea. To some extent it is even though it makes a very tiny difference in the grand scheme of things.

His adjusted numbers would fluctuate. His raw numbers would likely decrease by a small fraction. That being said, it could go up just like it could go down since the expected difference is so small that it could go either way in reality. Besides, he could get the same amount of ozone starts and you should still expect his numbers to fluctuate like any other player.

Sorry man, I don't agree. Even if I remove the offensive-defensive zone stuff from the equation, Desharnais is such an incredible average offensive player. As such, I don't think he warrants the offensive opportunities he's given, at ES in terms of starts and linemates and on the PP. And if none of that made a difference, then who cares who you play a player with and in what situation. If it's all marginal difference and randomness, then play Desharnais with Prust in the defensive zone. That way you'll have offense on more than just one or two lines.

 

[Mathletic]

Sorry man, I don't agree. Even if I remove the offensive-defensive zone stuff from the equation, Desharnais is such an incredible average offensive player. As such, I don't think he warrants the offensive opportunities he's given, at ES in terms of starts and linemates and on the PP. And if none of that made a difference, then who cares who you play a player with and in what situation. If it's all marginal difference and randomness, then play Desharnais with Prust in the defensive zone. That way you'll have offense on more than just one or two lines.

I never said it was all randomness. It's quite evident that Pacioretty is a more productive player than Prust. If you count on randomness to have Prust being as productive as Pacioretty, your team will likely lose quite a few more games.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I never said it was all randomness. It's quite evident that Pacioretty is a more productive player than Prust. If you count on randomness to have Prust being as productive as Pacioretty, your team will likely lose quite a few more games.

no need to, as Andy said "DD with Prust / D zone starts", unless Patches and DD are attached to the hip... well, #67 will be used on the top 6 or something, with another C, you know...

 

[Mathletic]

no need to, as Andy said "DD with Prust / D zone starts", unless Patches and DD are attached to the hip... well, #67 will be used on the top 6 or something, with another C, you know...

I should have been more precise. Meaning say DD plays the same number minutes (100 minutes for example) with both players. Should you expect DD or the whole line to be as productive with DD playing with Max with 60% ozone starts than with Prust with 40% ozone starts? No. But that's because you replace Max with Prust. Not because of zone starts or that randomness can make Prust as productive as Max.

Now, should you expect Max and DD to produce about as much with 60% ozone starts then with 40%? Yes. However, there might be nuances to add. As I pointed out several times, players also generate ozone starts for themselves. So, should a lower number of ozone starts be the consequence of a line playing more poorly and ending up getting outshot most of the time, then the production should go down because the line is playing more poorly and that is reflected in their ozone starts. Not the other way around.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I should have been more precise. Meaning say DD plays the same number minutes (100 minutes for example) with both players. Should you expect DD or the whole line to be as productive with DD playing with Max with 60% ozone starts than with with 40% ozone starts? No. But that's because you replace Max with Prust. Not because of zone starts or that randomness can make Prust as productive as Max.

Now, should you expect Max and DD to produce about as much with 60% ozone starts then with 40%? Yes. However, there might be nuances to add. As I pointed out several times, players also generate ozone starts for themselves. So, should a lower number of ozone starts be the consequence of a line playing more poorly and ending up getting outshot most of the time, then the production should go down because the line is playing more poorly and that is reflected in their ozone starts. Not the other way around.

So, in essence, MT is an idiot for giving DD so many ozone starts ? I mean, they would produce roughly the same anyway...

 

[Mathletic]

So, in essence, MT is an idiot for giving DD so many ozone starts ? I mean, they would produce roughly the same anyway...

Is someone an idiot for calling heads instead of tails?

 

[Unclewhalebone]

Sorry man, I don't agree. Even if I remove the offensive-defensive zone stuff from the equation, Desharnais is such an incredible average offensive player. As such, I don't think he warrants the offensive opportunities he's given, at ES in terms of starts and linemates and on the PP. And if none of that made a difference, then who cares who you play a player with and in what situation. If it's all marginal difference and randomness, then play Desharnais with Prust in the defensive zone. That way you'll have offense on more than just one or two lines.

The more I think about it the more I think that Therrien is actually more concerned with the DZ faceoffs anyway. He puts Eller or Plek out for those when he can (generally). You kind of get DD in the OZ by process of elimination. Then Pac goes with him because he has a scoring shot. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that might be the rational. For me, I don't even mind the OZ start stuff per se. I just find that we have a better option to play the kind of minutes DD does. Specifically the PP but at evens as well.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Is someone an idiot for calling heads instead of tails?

well, since you're trying to convince everyone that ozone starts mean next to nothing, coaches bothering with something that meaningless must be idiots to you... no ???

 

[Andy]

The more I think about it the more I think that Therrien is actually more concerned with the DZ faceoffs anyway. He puts Eller or Plek out for those when he can (generally). You kind of get DD in the OZ by process of elimination. Then Pac goes with him because he has a scoring shot. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that might be the rational. For me, I don't even mind the OZ start stuff per se. I just find that we have a better option to play the kind of minutes DD does. Specifically the PP but at evens as well.

Sure, but that doesn't explain why he gets most of them. For instance, off an icing, why revert automatically to DD's line, the exception being when they are tired? When the Habs get an offensive zone whistle, why revert again to the DD line? If offensive-zone starts don't matter in terms of offense, why not spread them out? It's not like the Habs are always playing in their own end. You can compensate by giving DD more Neutral zone starts if you don't want him in the D end. But that isn't the case. Offensive zone starts matter.

 

[Mathletic]

well, since you're trying to convince everyone that ozone starts mean next to nothing, coaches bothering with something that meaningless must be idiots to you... no ???

I don't know how that makes him an idiot. For all we know, he might not be aware of the numbers. The strategy itself probably bears little to no impact, so he's not causing harm to his club anyhow. Also, like I mentionned, if we were employed by an NHL club and worked for their analytics department, we could make further analyses to figure out if some players are more affected by zone starts than others. Or if rest is more important than getting an ozone start. Until then, from what we know the strategy has little to no impact on the game. The coach/staff has been in the game since forever and I'll differ to them when it comes to making decisions in that department as I have nothing to add one way or another, meaning showing it's a good or bad strategy.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I don't know how that makes him an idiot. For all we know, he might not be aware of the numbers. The strategy itself probably bears little to no impact, so he's not causing harm to his club anyhow. Also, like I mentionned, if we were employed by an NHL club and worked for their analytics department, we could make further analyses to figure out if some players are more affected by zone starts than others. Or if rest is more important than getting an ozone start. Until then, from what we know the strategy has little to no impact on the game. The coach/staff has been in the game since forever and I'll differ to them when it comes to making decisions in that department as I have nothing to add one way or another, meaning showing it's a good or bad strategy.

not aware of the numbers ?? like the guy doesnt know what he's doing or something ??

come on man...

 

[TheBlindFan]

This 'mediocre' talk pops up about once a year, if not more.

Could we agree on a definition? In French it's definitely below average. In English it seems to be either average or below average.

Mediocre in French is... Médiocre...

Pourris, mauvaise, terrible... etc...

DD is so far of been mediocre (which a lot claim here), and so fare from a star player (which nobody have say anywhere)...