Did the system change make us a worse team or a better team?

[TomasHertlsRooster]

This is a long, long post with a TL;DR at the bottom. The post will attempt to compare and contrast the team before and after the “system change”.

Let’s say that our “system change” was implemented after our regular season overtime loss @ Vegas. All numbers are 5V5.

Our season results before the system change:

12-8-2 (97 point pace)
11 ROW (14th in NHL)
6th in CF/60 (60.94)
10th in CA/60 (55.23)
5th in CF% (52.46%)
10th in FF/60 (44.51)
1st in FA/60 (38.51)
4th in FF% (53.61%)
10th in SF/60 (31.75)
1st in SA/60 (27.56)
3rd in SF% (53.54%)
12th in SCF/60 (26.97)
17th in SCA/60 (25.98)
12th in SCF% (50.94%)
4th in HDCF/60 (11.71)
22nd in HDCA/60 (10.78)
9th in HDCF% (52.07%)
30th in GF/60 (1.86)
6th in GA/60 (2.04)
22nd in GF% (47.76%)
29th in oiSH% (5.87%)
15th in oiSV% (92.60%)
25th in PDO (98.5%)

For those who don’t know what this means: the team was elite at suppressing shots and carrying the rate of shots. They were very good at suppressing goals, creating scoring chances, creating shots, and carrying the rate of scoring chances. They were poor at limiting scoring chances. They were very poor at creating goals for, but this is entirely because of their poor on-ice shooting percentage.

Given the fact that an above average percentage of their scoring chances were of the high danger variety, and that their shot generation, scoring chance generation, and high danger chance generation were all above average, I’m not convinced that team really had an offensive problem. The only difference between that team and an above average offensive team (GF/60 being the only measure of offense we’re using here) was their hilariously low on-ice shooting percentage which was totally not sustainable for a team with the offensive talent that we had.

However, the argument could also be made that our goals against was unsustainable. We had the 15th best save percentage, but given the amount of HDCA we gave up relative to the amount of shots and scoring chances we gave up, one would expect our GA/60 to be due for somewhat of a regression. (Or increase in this case) The team was elite at suppressing shots but mediocre to poor at suppressing scoring chances and high danger chances.

Personally, I think the biggest factor here is Brent Burns. Burns’ offensive confidence was terrible; he only had 1 goal at this point in the season and it came in the final game of this sample size. This played a big factor in our poor on-ice shooting percentage. In addition, his defensive play was also terrible; he made boneheaded error after boneheaded error which led to a massively inflated HDCA/60; Burns’ was 3rd worst in the team in this stat behind Paul Martin, who only played in 2 games, and Melker Karlsson, who had only played half as many minutes and was our worst player all season. Burns had elite shot based metrics because his possession game was strong and he took shot after shot but the amount of crucial errors he made led to a high amount of high danger scoring chances against, and his poor shot selection and poor shooting percentage led to a high amount of shots and fenwick for without many goals actually being scored.

Below, I’ve attached the WOWYs for the Sharks and Brent Burns in that time frame. I didn’t attach every single statistic because I don’t want to flood the page with more and more stats on stats and because I think these are the most important numbers. I’ve also added where that stat would rank among all teams at that point in the season.

Sharks without/without Brent Burns, through the first 22 games:

With:
65.6% OZFO
47.75% HDCF - 24th
12.24 HDCA/60 - 28th
2.42 GA/60 - 19th
27.2 SCA/60 - 23rd
3.40% OiSH - 31st
1.32 GF/60 - 31st
33.3% GF - 31st

Without:
48.3% OZFO
56.87 HDCF% - 1st
9.86 HDCA/60 - 10th
1.8 GA/60 - 2nd
25.22 SCA/60 - 14th
7.74% oiSH - 13th
2.27 GF/60 - 20th
55.81% GF - 5th

Their possession and shot rate metrics much stronger with Burns, but were still well above average without. It’s pretty clear, though, that Burns, despite starting much more of his shifts in the offensive zone and being deployed with much stronger players, completely tanked our defensive numbers. However, it does match the eye test; he really was that bad defensively. It also makes sense that he tanked our oiSH% when his shot selection was very poor, not as dynamic as it was in past years, and he was also just unlucky on top of that.

In summary, the team for the first 22 games, before the system change, was far from bad. Brent Burns’ poor play at both ends of the ice, which was egregiously visible via the eye test, was both A) Clearly not sustainable and B) Possibly the only thing separating that team from one of the top teams in the NHL.

Our season results after the system change:

33-19-8 (101 point pace) + 4 points
29 ROW (14th in the NHL)
6th in CF/60 (60.78) +/- 0 spots, -0.16
22nd in CA/60 (59.9) -12 spots, -4.67
13th in CF% (50.38%) -8 spots, -2.08%
11th in FF/60 (44.28) -1 spot, -0.23
17th in FA/60 (42.45) -16 spots, -3.94
11th in FF% (51.05%) -7 spots, -2.56%
16th in SF/60 (31.11) -6 spots, -0.64
12th in SA/60 (30.08) -11 spots, -2.52
14th in SF% (50.84%) -11 spots, - 2.7%
10th in SCF/60 (27.67) +2 spots, +0.7
19th in SCA/60 (26.95) -2 spots, -0.97
12th in SCF% (50.66%) +/- 0 spots, -0.28%
7th in HDCF/60 (11.54) -3 spots, -0.17
21st in HDCA/60 (11.22) +1 spot, -0.44
13th in HDCF% (50.71%) -4 spots, -1.36%
9th in GF/60 (2.55) +21 spots, +0.69
23rd in GA/60 (2.61) -17 spots, -0.57
17th in GF% (49.42) +5 spots, +1.66%
9th in oiSH% (8.21%) +20 spots, +2.34%
26th in oiSV% (91.31%) -11 spots, -1.29%
20th in PDO (99.5%) +5 spots, +1%

For those who don't know what this means: The rate at which the Sharks controlled shots and high danger scoring chances got much worse. Their plain scoring chance rate generation marginally improved, but their rate of high danger scoring chance prevention and creation, along with every single one of their shot generation and their shot prevention metrics decreased. At this point in the season, they were mostly middle of the pack by all metrics; a far cry from the near elite team they were at the start of the season.

Their overall goals for percentage had improved, but this was mostly due to an improvement in their on ice shooting percentage. Their increase in on-ice shooting percentage can be mostly explained by the fact that they took far less shots, but scored on a ridiculously higher amount of those shots. A higher percentage of the shots and chances they did get were of the high danger variety, but they still created less high danger chances than they did before. It can be expected that this would lead to a small bump in their shooting percentage, but the bump in overall goals for shows that the bump in shooting percentage was a lot more than we might be able to expect.

Sharks with/without Brent Burns, through the final 60 games.

With:

59.29% OZFO
52.28 HDCF% - 10th +14 spots, + 4.53%
11.95 HDCA/60 - 25th +3 spots, +0.29
2.55 GA/60 - 20th -1 spot, -0.13
26.86 SCA/60 - 19th -4 spots, -0.34
7.20% oiSH - 25th +6 spots, +3.8% (THIS MORE THAN DOUBLED!)
2.39 GF/60 - 16th +15 spots, +1.07
48.42% GF - 21st +10 spots, +15.12%

Without:

42.1% OZFO
49.54 HDCF% - 15th -14 spots, -7.33%
2.66 GA/60 - 25th -23 spots, -0.86
27 SCA/60 - 21st -7 spots, -1.78
8.92% oiSH - 3rd +10 spots, +1.18
2.66 GF/60 - 6th +14 spots, +0.39
50% GF - 17th -12 spots, -5.81%

The team as a whole seriously improved when Brent Burns was on the ice, and got seriously worse with him off the ice, after the system change. The team was under or very close to 50% in all shot and chance based metrics without Burns on the ice while they were comfortably above 50% in all metrics without Burns on the ice before the system change. The Sharks' improvement with Burns on the ice makes a lot more sense and it has a much bigger correlation with his play - he stopped taking such low danger shots, which led to an increase in his on-ice shooting percentage. His improvement on defense also can be largely attributed to him when considering the level of high danger chances that the Sharks were allowing with him on the ice in the first 22 games Vs. the final 60, and when considering whether or not he actually has a heavy direct impact on that. (He does)

Conclusion:

The Sharks as a whole got much worse after the system change was implemented. There are two primary reasons that their goals for percentage marginally improved.

1. Brent Burns heavily improved his play from the worst 5v5 player in the NHL in the first 22 games to a Norris level player in the final 22 games, and something in between in the other 38. This has the ability to totally tank a team or totally boost them when a player plays as any minutes as Burns, and when the player has as much of a discrepancy between their good play and their bad play.

2. The Sharks' on-ice shooting percentage heavily increased after the system change. However, I believe this is more due to regression to the mean (both in Brent Burns and in the team as a whole) than I believe it is due to the system. It makes sense that the system would marginally increase on ice shooting percentage, since the system marginally decreased shots more than it decreased high danger chances, and it actually increased scoring chances. But I do not believe the system change has anywhere near as large of an effect on our oiSH (and our GF) to conclude that our new system is responsible for it, or that the massive increase in oiSH% we saw is sustainable.

One thing to consider, is that the Sharks lost Tim Heed and Joe Thornton right around the time the system was implemented. The vast majority of the pre-system 22 were with Heed and Thornton and the vast majority of the post-system 60 were without Heed and Thornton. It is possible that that change in personnel, which removed two of our strongest possession and scoring chance driving players, had more of a negative effect on the team than our change in "system" did. I would be open to some statistical analysis looking into this as well at a different time but I am currently exhausted after all of the work I did on this.

Click to read more...

 

[Used As A Shield]

Such Jekyll and Hyde.

 

[Barrie22]

Such Jekyll and Hyde.

That it was and thats why in the other thread i said it was basically just burns vbecoming burns esque for the 2018 portion of the season compared to whatever it was he was doing in the 2017 portion.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

That it was and thats why in the other thread i said it was basically just burns vbecoming burns esque for the 2018 portion of the season compared to whatever it was he was doing in the 2017 portion.

But the rest of the team, outside of Burns, fell off a cliff. Do we think that is all just due to the loss of Joe Thornton and Tim Heed?

 

[gaucholoco3]

I don’t know how it would influence the numbers (don’t want you to do more than the work you have already done) but I doubt they could change the system overnight after the Vegas game. Also as you mentioned heed and Thornton contributed to the numbers. Also 22 games is an awfully small sample size.

I am curious to see how they play to start the season with a full training camp.

Thanks for going through all the stats.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I don’t know how it would influence the numbers (don’t want you to do more than the work you have already done) but I doubt they could change the system overnight after the Vegas game. Also as you mentioned heed and Thornton contributed to the numbers. Also 22 games is an awfully small sample size.

I am curious to see how they play to start the season with a full training camp.

Thanks for going through all the stats.

I’ve looked through the numbers for different time frames and they generally tend to match this trend that we see here and they just get more pronounced as you get further into the season.

For example, in the final 20 games, the Sharks had 19 GF and 10 GA with Burns, and 31 GF and 32 GA without Burns. Their possession and chance based metrics are strong with him and tank without him. In the final 41 games, it’s pretty similar.

 

[Jaleel619]

Just from the basic eye test, in 2016 we were insanely creative with our scoring, it seemed like we could score off on any little play on any line. Then it seemed like since 2017 every play would be a pass back to the point for a Burns shot. I thought the revision helped us get back more in line with creative scoring.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Just from the basic eye test, in 2016 we were insanely creative with our scoring, it seemed like we could score off on any little play on any line. Then it seemed like since 2017 every play would be a pass back to the point for a Burns shot. I thought the revision helped us get back more in line with creative scoring.

Idk, they did create more shots and goals without Burns after the system change. But they created a lot less high danger chances without Burns.

 

[Alwalys]

i thought the system change was a stronger focus on scoring off the rush which for whatever reason is currently the money play in the NHL, but tends to have a reverse effect on possession numbers.

 

[one2gamble]

All that tells me is Burns is better than people think at altering the outcome of the play and the sharks are relying on him to much to drive the play

 

[Hinterland]

i thought the system change was a stronger focus on scoring off the rush which for whatever reason is currently the money play in the NHL, but tends to have a reverse effect on possession numbers.

I don't think there has been a system change. You probably just feel that way because many Sharks players were injured/tired and were playing poorly. DeBoer added to that by icing idiotic lines that didn't make sense at all. That led to the Couture line being the only threat left. That particular line was always more dangerous on the breakaways than other, slower lines.

I didn't see a system change, just many tired or banged up players and stupid lines.

 

[sharks_dynasty]

Doug and Pete have stated there was a system change around December and they took some ideas from Vegas. It absolutely helped considering the Sharks played better afterwards. I also see it as management trying to adjust to not having Thornton in the lineup. All in all, it’s great that they don’t wait till the season has ended before attempting something new.

 

[hohosaregood]

I just know that the system we started 2017-2018 was the system we had 2016-2017 and that system was dog shit.

 

[WSS11]

I just know that the system we started 2017-2018 was the system we had 2016-2017 and that system was dog ****.

“ the sharks have a 3 on 2, Labanc crosses the line with the puck and pulls up and sends a pass across the ice to the point and the play is broken up by the back checking forward” rinse, lather and repeat.


Aside from Meier and now Kane our whole team did that. Drove me f**king insane that we did that on odd man rushes, even a few 2 on 1s we’d wait for the trailing man to drop it back to.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I think the thing this thread really confirms is that Brent Burns is our most important player without question. It’s the reason that despite somewhat disliking the terms of his contract, I’m 100% on board with DW giving it to him (unlike the other long-term contracts he’s handed out). He really is the heartbeat of this team in the wake of Jumbo.

 

[Alwalys]

Doug and Pete have stated there was a system change around December and they took some ideas from Vegas. It absolutely helped considering the Sharks played better afterwards. I also see it as management trying to adjust to not having Thornton in the lineup. All in all, it’s great that they don’t wait till the season has ended before attempting something new.

it's clear the system changed, probably in response to personnel but kudos to them for recognizing what vegas was doing well and implementing it.

i'm a huge stats nerd but i can't argue with results.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The system change never made us a better team; it merely coincided with a regression to the mean in the team’s on-ice shooting percentage and Brent Burns’ overall performance. The biggest effect that the system change had was that it made us a much worse defensive team.

it’s now clear that the blame for that can’t be put on personnel like it was in the past when we said that Braun as #2RD and DeMelo as #3RD were the big problems. The big problem is the system that we have in place; it promotes terrible team defense.

Martin Jones’ numbers have tanked since the system change and while some of that may be due to decline/injuries, some of it may also be due to the system change. It’s tough to say because he got injured in the very next game after we made the system change. Before the system change, he had played 146 games, and was a .916 SV% goaltender with a 2.32 GAA. After the system change, he has played 59 games, and is a .907% SV% goaltender with a 2.74 GAA.

A key factor (besides the eye test) which tells me that a lot of this is due to the system change is that Aaron Dell’s numbers have also been hit very hard since the system change. Before the system change, he played in 28 games and was a .928 SV% goaltender with a 2.06 GAA. Since the system change, he has played in 26 games and he has been a .910 SV% goaltender with a 2.82 GAA.

Both of these mid-20s goaltenders did not suddenly fall off of a cliff. The system change has hung them out to dry.

 

[The Nemesis]

DeBoer's systemic issue seems to basically be a square peg/round hole issue. You can't play such a swashbuckling, freewheeling, offensively aggressive style when a significant portion of your offensive game is routed through your two elite offensive d-men, thus negating the defence's ability to cover for a decrease in team-based defensive coverage. The Vegas model worked because their offence was largely by-committe from the forwards (plus William Karlsson's season-long hot streak) and a 6-deep defensive corps that was mostly concerned with being responsible and clamping down on the other team instead of playing aggressive offensive hockey. The Sharks, on the other hand, need Burns and Karlsson to push the envelope, so suddenly you've basically got 4 guys on the ice who are offensively tilted, and just 1 d-man looking back towards his own zone (except when you have the non-Burns/Karlsson pairing out there, though that's somewhat negated by Superstar Pickles' new insistence on showing that he can Bobby Orr things up too)

This is made worse by the fact that Jones' playstyle better suits being a "system goalie" where his calm, positionally-focused game needs structure in front of him that's designed to funnel opposing offensive chances to areas that play to his strengths.

So now the Sharks allow more chances against, and more chances against that exploit the weaknesses in Jones' games. Basically we've been turned into what everyone said the Leafs were going to be at the beginning of the season.

This is also made worse by the fact that DeBoer's biggest tactical/in-game weakness is making sensible adjustments. His line mixing makes things worse as much or more than it makes things better (break a good line to try and fix a bad one, or playing favorites when it comes to promotions/demotions and scratches) and also seems to be slow to react to issues in the first place (the power play's continuing crap operation, and how long things like the Karlsson/burns mismatch went on before changes were made). It comes across like a "player's coach" type thing, believing that they'll just leave things alone and they'll work themselves out.

I don't generally like hanging a team's poor play entirely on the coach, but even if we ignore the fact that DeBoer seems to have some critical flaws (it would stand to reason that it's no accident he's never lasted more than 3 complete seasons in either of his prior NHL coaching stops, and generally presided over diminishing year-to-year returns. To the point that the Sharks' gradual one-point-per-year improvement is an aberration largely driven by an increase in OTLs rather than improved win totals), we're getting to the "the team has to do something" point and the fact is that the Sharks are simply not in a position to make any sort of splashy roster-shake-up trades. We don't have the draft pick capital, don't have enough sexy prospects, and don't have expendable roster players with both value and easy tradeability (ie no NTC/NMC) to do anything else big to shake things up (hell, the biggest thing the team needs to fix is its defence/goaltending, but prior to the season it was easier to argue that the d corps was perhaps the one area that the Sharks could afford to deal from. But what now? They need help on the back end more than up front, and it's not like Braun or Dillon are going to have suitors beating down the door). In the face of all of that, canning the coach and switching things up seems like the only move that the team can make that would have any reasonable chance of paying dividends. The only thing standing in the way of that happening would be DW's generally unshakeable faith in giving coaches "fair" chances to turn things around and his apparent hesitance to make coaching changes as a reactionary move based on past history.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Oh yeah, one other reason to fire DeBoer is the hilariously awful way he managed the Kadri (non-)situation. He iced a 4th liner to try and fight/bully Kadri off the whistle, and clearly the instruction was to risk taking a penalty in order to do so. That dumbass decision set the tone for the entire game by allowing the Maple Leafs to score early on a PP and by setting our players up to recklessly chase Kadri and take retaliatory penalties all game.

It was incredibly bush league, but not completely unprecedented for DeBoer. He did something similar as the coach in New Jersey in a game against John Tortorella.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Compelling analysis, but I'd argue that there are sample size issues.

In 2016, Thornton had the best season of his career, as did Jones and Vlasic. Burns had a stretch of 50 otherworldly games. Pretty much every player outside of Marleau had a great year...and Pavelski and Couture had career-best playoff runs.

That, more than anything explains the Shark's success that year.

 

[Alwalys]

Oh yeah, one other reason to fire DeBoer is the hilariously awful way he managed the Kadri (non-)situation. He iced a 4th liner to try and fight/bully Kadri off the whistle, and clearly the instruction was to risk taking a penalty in order to do so. That dumbass decision set the tone for the entire game by allowing the Maple Leafs to score early on a PP and by setting our players up to recklessly chase Kadri and take retaliatory penalties all game.

It was incredibly bush league, but not completely unprecedented for DeBoer. He did something similar as the coach in New Jersey in a game against John Tortorella.

that was pretty lame, when i heard that on the radio at the start, i was like ...wtf is this mickey mouse shit?

 

[Bleedred]

Oh yeah, one other reason to fire DeBoer is the hilariously awful way he managed the Kadri (non-)situation. He iced a 4th liner to try and fight/bully Kadri off the whistle, and clearly the instruction was to risk taking a penalty in order to do so. That dumbass decision set the tone for the entire game by allowing the Maple Leafs to score early on a PP and by setting our players up to recklessly chase Kadri and take retaliatory penalties all game.

It was incredibly bush league, but not completely unprecedented for DeBoer. He did something similar as the coach in New Jersey in a game against John Tortorella.

Haha I was about to say, this brought back memories of that game against the Rangers in March of 2012. When he coached the Devils and started his 4th line to start a line brawl. In one of the earlier games that season that was a home game for the Devils, Torts started his 4th line and DeBoer started his. Torts was mad Pete started his 4th at MSG because Torts started one of his better lines. and Pete said something like “It’s okay for John to start his tough guys in our building, but not okay for us to start our tough guys in their building?”. Road team submits their starting lineup first, so Torts should have known what Pete was doing starting his 4th line.

By the way, I think goonery is stupid in the NHL. I hate those kinds of stupid tricks.

 

[LeftHeartInSF]

The eye and sniff test says the 'system change' is allowing far too many quality opportunities to our opponents. Like me, im sure some of you have started to wonder if we will get through a game without giving up a breakaway goal or three.

 

[WSS11]

It works for Vegas because their forwards are actually fast. If our forwards get caught deep especially Jumbo and Pavs we are screwed. The other team could stop in the concession for a beer and hot dog and still come away with a chance.
I know Quenville’s teams haven’t been known for a having a great PP lately but even if he helps us tighten up 5 on 5 I’m good. It’s clear as crystal that Pete still doesn’t know how to prepare this team to play against fast teams. For that reason alone he needs to go

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

It works for Vegas because their forwards are actually fast. If our forwards get caught deep especially Jumbo and Pavs we are screwed. The other team could stop in the concession for a beer and hot dog and still come away with a chance.
I know Quenville’s teams haven’t been known for a having a great PP lately but even if he helps us tighten up 5 on 5 I’m good. It’s clear as crystal that Pete still doesn’t know how to prepare this team to play against fast teams. For that reason alone he needs to go

Jumbo and Pavs are slow. Couture, Labanc and Hertl are average speed. When more than half of your top-9, which is largely responsible of scoring, is average to slow you are going to pay if the forwards are caught deep.

The system itself is exciting for sure, but like you pointed out it actually works best when your forwards are fast.