Devils 2020-21 team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - part XIX

[billingtons ghost]

Sharangovich-Hughes- 53.25% CF, 49.63% xGF, 52.5% SCF, 40% HDCF. Relative #s- 1.11% CF, -1.79% xGF, 1.99% SCF, -5.88% HDCF

Johnsson-Hughes- 57.54% CF, 58.88% xGF, 60% SCF, 58.06% HDCF. Relative #s- 7.3% CF, 10.85% xGF, 11.98% SCF, 13.77% HDCF

aS gOoD wItH sHaRaNgOvIcH

Your inability to look at stats as just another tool and assess their value within context is just plain amazing. Your reliance upon Corsi as God is truly hilarious.

 

[Blackjack]

aS gOoD wItH sHaRaNgOvIcH

Is that necessary? Shara is four years younger and playing in his first NHL season, I'm fine with giving him more chances considering what he showed in the KHL.

 

[Darkauron]

So many stats much wow. Anyway

 

[billingtons ghost]

There are no numbers at all that support this. Sharangovich with Hughes was even in shots and appeared to struggle playing with Hughes - he recognized implicitly that when you play with someone this good, you constantly try to find him with passes, but he took this to an extreme.

I don't care what you call Johnsson, whether you call him a top 6 winger or not, the guy has looked excellent with Hughes and should stay there. If in a few games it's not working, fine, but to me it's working, and while Ruff is messing around with the lines, it's often because other lines are not working, not that this one wasn't.

The line was working great with Bratt - but lacked size - but even then, it was Bratt and Hughes that looked dynamic, and Johnsson who looked out of place with pucks jumping over his stick on every other pass in some games - and then looking fantastic in other games. Johnsson is not a first line winger in the NHL. We can just laugh about it if you say he is.

There are other options than Sharangovich... and unless 'handedness' governs everything in this world, Bratt, Palms and Hughes should probably play together - else you stuff Zacha on the wing and Zacha Hughes Bratt is your line.

Of course that last line will spark a '23-yr-old 1st rounder Zacha is what he is' debate, whereas 7th round 26 year-old Johnsson with one good year in the NHL will somehow get a free pass.

 

[Hisch13r]

Is that necessary? Shara is four years younger and playing in his first NHL season, I'm fine with giving him more chances considering what he showed in the KHL.

Those are 2 different conversations. Sure give him opportunities. That doesn't change the fact that Johnsson is clearly better right now and is the clear better fit alongside Hughes. What Sharangovich "showed" in the KHL was that he got lucky and went on a bit of a SH% bender. He shot 18%. If that's a more reasonable 11% then he has 10 or 11 goals instead of 17. He also was playing 20 minutes a night. People look at the 17 goals in 34 games and just get wowed by that

 

[Hisch13r]

Your inability to look at stats as just another tool and assess their value within context is just plain amazing. Your reliance upon Corsi as God is truly hilarious.

Johnsson looked better alongside Hughes and the numbers back it up as well. Sharangovich is not better nor is he a better fit alongside Hughes

 

[Hisch13r]

The line was working great with Bratt - but lacked size - but even then, it was Bratt and Hughes that looked dynamic, and Johnsson who looked out of place with pucks jumping over his stick on every other pass in some games - and then looking fantastic in other games. Johnsson is not a first line winger in the NHL. We can just laugh about it if you say he is.

There are other options than Sharangovich... and unless 'handedness' governs everything in this world, Bratt, Palms and Hughes should probably play together - else you stuff Zacha on the wing and Zacha Hughes Bratt is your line.

Of course that last line will spark a '23-yr-old 1st rounder Zacha is what he is' debate, whereas 7th round 26 year-old Johnsson with one good year in the NHL will somehow get a free pass.

Why should anyone care that they "lack size" when they were the ones controlling play every game? The only time they didn't was the 2nd period against the Rangers where they admittedly got their faces caved in

 

[billingtons ghost]

Johnsson looked better alongside Hughes and the numbers back it up as well. Sharangovich is not better nor is he a better fit alongside Hughes

For two or three games, Bratt Johnsson and Hughes looked dynamic and the numbers were astronomical. They absolutely dominated.

I haven't seen Johnsson look 'better' alongside Hughes since. I've seen Hughes skate circles around everyone, and Palms occasionally benefit, and I've seen Johnsson have a great game followed by a poor game, and do some really questionable things.

I know we're hyped on our new toy but I'd agree with those that would say there are much better options up front.

 

[Hisch13r]

For two or three games, Bratt Johnsson and Hughes looked dynamic and the numbers were astronomical. They absolutely dominated.

I haven't seen Johnsson look 'better' alongside Hughes since. I've seen Hughes skate circles around everyone, and Palms occasionally benefit, and I've seen Johnsson have a great game followed by a poor game, and do some really questionable things.

I know we're hyped on our new toy but I'd agree with those that would say there are much better options up front.

If the only goal is to maximize the Hughes line then sure Bratt and Palms are better than Johnsson. Then who are you putting with a struggling Nico who is trying to get back up to speed? Zacha and Johnsson? Maybe when Nico is fully back then that line can work but I doubt it will now. Nico needs a Palms or Bratt right now.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Why should anyone care that they "lack size" when they were the ones controlling play every game? The only time they didn't was the 2nd period against the Rangers where they admittedly got their faces caved in

I certainly don't. I don't agree with the change. I think we should have kept that line together.

BUT. If that is what Lindy is going on, and some element of size must be on that line, I want Johnsson off and Bratt back alongside Hughes where he belongs on that line. If that size comes from Palms, Zacha, Sharangovich, Wood I don't care, as long as those two can play together and Hughes has someone who thinks the same way and can at least anticipate or accept his passes and skate with him.

Johnsson is recommended by his shot and his skating and maybe a knack for being in the right place. Those are good things. Not enough to keep him on that line if a change MUST BE MADE. (not saying it must).

Everything else has been pretty weak.

 

[billingtons ghost]

If the only goal is to maximize the Hughes line then sure Bratt and Palms are better than Johnsson. Then who are you putting with a struggling Nico who is trying to get back up to speed? Zacha and Johnsson? Maybe when Nico is fully back then that line can work but I doubt it will now. Nico needs a Palms or Bratt right now.

It doesn't matter who goes with Nico. Right now you have zero lines going. Before you had 2 (Wolfpack and Hughes' line).

Fix Hughes's line first so you gain momentum and at least can have one line out their caving heads and one line that will at least bring energy. Best players who fit his playing style should be on his wings. Period.

Let Nico play himself back into shape with whomever. He can cover for Johnsson's mistakes and he can make any of his wings better. Nico is the only problem with Nico's lines right now, because he's out of shape and rusty. He's only been here for two games, so chemistry isn't an issue yet. I'm sure he could make Zacha and Johnsson better, and Zacha could take a bit of the load of defense from him.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

Johnsson has more giveaways than shots this season, and he's fooled by as many Hughes passes as he has collected. I think it's a stretch to call him a top 6 winger. I'd like to see him on the 3rd line, where his primarily north/south game would work alongside Zajac. Hughes to me was just as good with Sharangovich as Johnsson. Last game, Hughes was far more dangerous in the third period alongside Bratt than in the first two alongside Johnson, who made a nice play early in the first for a high-danger shot off the right wing, but then was essentially a turnover machine the rest of the way.

yeah, lets just say that I strongly disagree.

Johnsson was very bad in the first 4-5 games of the season but has picked it up significantly since then. Johnsson-Hughes-Bratt were dominant at times together and frankly I hope that line gets put back together.

I hate to be "that guy", but you seem to be down on whatever Johnsson does because he was traded for a guy you absolutely loved in Joey Anderson....

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

I'm not sure how this giveaway stat is factored, but to me it's when the next player to touch the puck after you is the opposition, except in the case of a dump-in or shot attempt. If you watch Johnsson last night, there was one instance of this in the first, three in the second and one in the third. I feel this was why Ruff dropped Johnsson from the Hughes line -- he kept sinking the momentum of the line with loss of possession.

The reason Johnson was traded, and this cannot be stated enough, is because he was completely ineffective in 20219-20. 7 goals in 43 games for a player whose best attribute is scoring is not okay. We need to stop discussing him as a first-line winger, because he's not. Palmieri is a first/second line tweener at best, and he's entire worlds and universes better than Johnsson in every single aspect of the game. I feel Hughes has been terrific all year no matter who has been on his wing, but I felt he was a bit more dynamic alongside Sharangovich, who offered more speed and compete level than Johnsson.

the reason Johnsson was traded was because Toronto has no cap space. Thats...it.

 

[Hisch13r]

It doesn't matter who goes with Nico. Right now you have zero lines going. Before you had 2 (Wolfpack and Hughes' line).

Fix Hughes's line first so you gain momentum and at least can have one line out their caving heads and one line that will at least bring energy. Best players who fit his playing style should be on his wings. Period.

Let Nico play himself back into shape with whomever. He can cover for Johnsson's mistakes and he can make any of his wings better. Nico is the only problem with Nico's lines right now, because he's out of shape and rusty. He's only been here for two games, so chemistry isn't an issue yet. I'm sure he could make Zacha and Johnsson better, and Zacha could take a bit of the load of defense from him.

First and foremost Hughes' line doesn't need "fixing". The idea that it does is nonsense. Why do they need to be fixed? Because they went one singular game without a goal? They scored in the 3 games prior to that.

Zacha shouldn't be taking the defensive load off of anyone. Zacha is an awful 5v5 defender and the fact that people still try to act like he isn't is hilarious.

 

[FooteBahl]

So many stats much wow. Anyway

I saw this today on Twitter. This guy is 100% right. Sometimes the eye test is better than all of those fancy stats. It’s like bashing Gretzky because his XGF/GA^2/3.1416 wasn’t up to par

 

[Nubmer6]

I saw this today on Twitter. This guy is 100% right. Sometimes the eye test is better than all of those fancy stats. It’s like bashing Gretzky because his XGF/GA^2/3.1416 wasn’t up to par

Does that guy only have half a mustache?

 

[Nubmer6]

Johnsson is so tough to figure out - because he seems to spend large parts of games turning the puck over, and then ends up in the right place at the right time and puts the puck in the net when he gets a chance. I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons he got dealt.

Seems to me Johansson has a good game, then gains a bit too much confidence and tries to do too much the next game. He needs to keep it simple.

The turnovers also make me think he's bad at zone entries and should leave that up to his linemates. Perhaps that's why he works with Hughes, who's a puck carrying machine.

I'm a strong proponent of chemistry over playing all the best players on the first line. If Hughes makes Johansson useful, I'm all for keeping them paired.

 

[The 29th Pick]

So many stats much wow. Anyway

they might soon change the name from Stanley Cup, to Stat-ley Cup

 

[The 29th Pick]

Seems to me Johansson has a good game, then gains a bit too much confidence and tries to do too much the next game. He needs to keep it simple.

he's got a little hot-dog in him, reminds me of Damian Brunner sometimes....blah

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

again, no one here has ever (that I have seen) said stats are the ONLY things that matter....I'm not really sure why numbers and facts get laughed at by some here. If you don't want to choose to believe in them, thats fine, but don't bring down those that do.

But when you make claims, you should have some type of information to back that up other than "well my eyes said so". The "eye test" is useful for some things but for many things it is not.

However to be honest, I am not sure how anyone could have watched this team this year and surmised that Sharangovich has been better with Hughes than Johnsson. Sharangovich had a nice first 2-3 games and has done basically nothing of note since then.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I saw this today on Twitter. This guy is 100% right. Sometimes the eye test is better than all of those fancy stats. It’s like bashing Gretzky because his XGF/GA^2/3.1416 wasn’t up to par

IDK if this is new, people used to bash Allen Iverson and Kobe Bryant for being inefficient too, despite being a joy to watch play. Maybe basketball analytics has gotten better so their case for bashing those types of players is stronger.

I guess the analogue to this video is someone bashing a good hockey fight by pointing out that it doesn't actually help your team win. I mean..sure but I like watching good hockey fights! You do too! With that said, the NHL product has gotten a lot better, in part due to removing inefficient/ineffective players from lineups, and hockey nerds were a major driving force behind that.

 

[billingtons ghost]

But when you make claims, you should have some type of information to back that up other than "well my eyes said so". The "eye test" is useful for some things but for many things it is not.

It is fine to offer up some numbers that maybe allow you to draw a correlation and strengthen an argument. The problem here is that people arrogantly bandy about statistics that are inherently flawed because of their sample set size is so small - and then they tie the word 'facts' to it.

A legitimate knock on +/- is sample set. And yet we're hearing single game (or even 4-5 game) Corsi stats given as undeniable, undebatable fact.

Severson was the best player on the ice last game. And according to the statsheads, he was 'caved-in'.
Similarly, he was trash in many many many games over a 5 year period and yet a Corsi darling.

You have your last sentence is foolishly, absurdly, and ridiculously backwards - Although the 'eye test' is subjective, and therefore subject to inaccuracies because of the viewer's own biases and opinions and knowledge of the game- the eye test picks up literally THOUSANDS of more events and nuances than what any current stat today will ever capture - and what is more important - it is able to qualify them - as opposed to relying upon sheer bulk of events reducing outliers.

 

[Oneiro]

Hockey analytics are about to make an incredible jump, the tech is there or getting there now. I think a lot of the eye test people are going to get lit up hard this next decade.

Doesn't mean the organization / character-building stuff isn't timeless, though.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

It is fine to offer up some numbers that maybe allow you to draw a correlation and strengthen an argument. The problem here is that people arrogantly bandy about statistics that are inherently flawed because of their sample set size is so small - and then they tie the word 'facts' to it.

A legitimate knock on +/- is sample set. And yet we're hearing single game (or even 4-5 game) Corsi stats given as undeniable, undebatable fact.

Severson was the best player on the ice last game. And according to the statsheads, he was 'caved-in'.
Similarly, he was trash in many many many games over a 5 year period and yet a Corsi darling.

You have your last sentence is foolishly, absurdly, and ridiculously backwards - Although the 'eye test' is subject, and therefore subject to inaccuracies because of the viewer's own biases and opinions and knowledge of the game- the eye test picks up literally THOUSANDS of more events and nuances than what any current stat today will ever capture - and what is more important - it is able to qualify them - as opposed to relying upon sheer bulk of events reducing outliers.

that is absurd

how can you compare players across teams or leagues? You can't possibly watch every minute of every player of every game.

That is why stats are important in context.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Hockey analytics are about to make an incredible jump, the tech is there or getting there now. I think a lot of the eye test people are going to get lit up hard this next decade.

Doesn't mean the organization / character-building stuff isn't timeless, though.

Is this in reference to player tracking? I always felt like that was the next leap forward.