Confirmed with Link: Faulk & 5th to STL for Edmundson, Bokk, 2021 7th

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
Where do I (not me citing others) say they won't make it? I said that crazy talk isn't so crazy given their current slump. In other words, it's possible. Does that mean likely? Probably not. You know the difference between possible and probable don't you?


Anyhow, I guess don't be patient with Faulk. Your choice. Get the bus ready. I won't be on that bus you are driving. Interesting how one word on how to handle Faulk triggered you.
Dude, you are captian doom and gloom. So the term "patience" is contradictive to the persona you have here.


How long do people need to be patient? He's been up and down, at his best for Stl, he's still not a 6.5m dman. He never has been. Are we supposed to wait till the playoffs? Next season? Halfway through his contract? At the end of it? We saw Schenn and Orielly hit the ground running, why should Faulk get a season+ before we see the expected results before getting criticized? I wouldn't say I'm driving a bus persay......he signed a max extension, were stuck with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranksu

AjaxManifesto

Pro sports is becoming predictable and boring
Mar 9, 2016
24,636
16,092
St. Louis
Dude, you are captian doom and gloom. So the term "patience" is contradictive to the persona you have here.


How long do people need to be patient? He's been up and down, at his best for Stl, he's still not a 6.5m dman. He never has been. Are we supposed to wait till the playoffs? Next season? Halfway through his contract? At the end of it? We saw Schenn and Orielly hit the ground running, why should Faulk get a season+ before we see the expected results before getting criticized? I wouldn't say I'm driving a bus persay......he signed a max extension, were stuck with him.

Talk about doom and gloom.


LOL
 

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
Talk about doom and gloom.


LOL
Are you trying trying to misdirect here? It's not working. It's just funny how you're preaching patience with Faulk, but if the team goes on a losing streak......the talk of missing the playoffs isnt crazy talk.

Still you didnt answer. How patient should people be with Faulk? I'm fairly biased, so him seemingly not being a fit is confirmation bias on my part, but were almost 3/4 of the way through the season and he's performed worse then he did in Carolina
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ranksu

LetsGoBooze

Buium or bust
Jan 16, 2012
2,294
1,376
We can truly debate/evaluate the contract extension in 5 years and see how it plays out, but i still think this team is better with Faulk than with Eddy. So im still fine/happy with the trade, and if we can re-sign Pie and extend our window another 4-5 years i don't really care how bad the contract plays out 6 or 7 years from now, cause we will have as good of a shot as any team to win it all (again) during said window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AjaxManifesto

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,685
14,074
So....Faulk and Eddy are on pace for about 20pts this season :laugh:. We've successfully cut a "OFD" offense in half. Dude just isnt a fit here. There are times where he looks good. There are aspects to his game that I like but I'm not seeing the results that should be expected. Even if he hit his 35-40pt mark, I thought 6.5m was still too rich, but cut it in half...and add his propensity to have defensive brain farts. That's just a bad acquisition and extention.
I agree with you.

But right now we aren’t getting enough production from a single player on defense besides Pietrangelo. He’s having an unreal season, but nobody else is even on pace to break 25 points.

What the hell is going on? Obviously Faulk is going to get a lot of criticism because of the money he makes and that’s fair. But Parayko hasn’t hit the net with a slap shot since Nam, and Dunn is just meh.
 

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
I agree with you.

But right now we aren’t getting enough production from a single player on defense besides Pietrangelo. He’s having an unreal season, but nobody else is even on pace to break 25 points.

What the hell is going on? Obviously Faulk is going to get a lot of criticism because of the money he makes and that’s fair. But Parayko hasn’t hit the net with a slap shot since Nam, and Dunn is just meh.
Parayko is a guy that flies under the radar for me. He's so good at everything else that its something that can be overlooked. Dunn has been very meh, but he's young. He's had some really good looks and outside of Petro has looked the most dangerous. His contract will reflect his poor play
 

JoshFromMO

Registered User
Apr 6, 2015
1,120
1,012
Missoura
Why? Pietrangelo was already there. Why cut across ice, leaving Draisatl open? I know Pietrangelo didn't havea great gap, but why make things unnecessarily complicated by switching his assignment at the last second and forcing him to redirect his focus?
It was mostly a joke, but I imagine it's easier covering the guy with 15 career points and just shy of 40 games compared to the 50 goal scorer and over ppg player lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon IC

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
Thanks for noticing, I kept trying to tell Brian that I was not aware of this new advanced stat. The title of the stat sounds like it’s an opinion or that it’s based off the traditional +/- stat, if that makes sense.

I did notice that towards the end of his post an attempt to explain it. I’m not a big advanced stats guy but will reference this thread if I ever have the urge lol.

No, you did not. I literally provided you with a 2015 article explaining the "new" stat when you first confused +/- with expected +/- and this was your response:

I really hope you’re not being serious about me not knowing that expected +/- is a separate category than your traditional +/- stat!?

You know the most useless and misleading stat of all hockey stats
After that, you started repeatedly quoting me as talking about a "projection" despite me repeatedly telling you I never used that word.

Don't sit here and act like I wasn't clear or was being intentionally vague. All of the information was provided to you early in the back and forth. You chose to ignore it and pretend I said things I never said.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,261
6,796
Central Florida
I agree with you.

But right now we aren’t getting enough production from a single player on defense besides Pietrangelo. He’s having an unreal season, but nobody else is even on pace to break 25 points.

What the hell is going on? Obviously Faulk is going to get a lot of criticism because of the money he makes and that’s fair. But Parayko hasn’t hit the net with a slap shot since Nam, and Dunn is just meh.

A lot of it has to do with PP time on ice. Pietrangelo has twice as much as any 2 D combined. He is the sole D on PP 1. Dunn and Faulk get PP2 time, and are 2nd and 3rd respectively. Both however have less than half the time as Pietrangelo. Parayko has 25 minutes total PP ice time (roughly 1/7th of Pietrangelo's and 1/3 of Faulks). Yet he has the same amount of PP points as Faulk, 3. Parayko's removal from the PP partially explains his lack of points, as well as his clearly more defensive role when at ES.

ES ice time is also a factor for Dunn. He averages 14 and a half minutes a night ES, which is 4 minutes less than our lowest top 4 D (Pie, Faulk, JBO, Parayko).

I'll admit that even despite these things, I'd like Dunn and Parrayko's numbers to be better. However, Faulk is the one being put in the best position to succeed after Pietrangelo. His taking ice time and PP play ice time away from the others while not scoring, is hurting their production as well.
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
Dude, you are captian doom and gloom. So the term "patience" is contradictive to the persona you have here.


How long do people need to be patient? He's been up and down, at his best for Stl, he's still not a 6.5m dman. He never has been. Are we supposed to wait till the playoffs? Next season? Halfway through his contract? At the end of it? We saw Schenn and Orielly hit the ground running, why should Faulk get a season+ before we see the expected results before getting criticized? I wouldn't say I'm driving a bus persay......he signed a max extension, were stuck with him.
Personally, I won't have anything beyond mild concern about his deal until about this time next year. He is a career 6% shooter and is shooting just 3.5% this year. I expect that number to tick up a bit long term, which would alleviate some of the concerns about lack of production. My eyes tell me that he is making good decisions about when to shoot and is taking good shots. He doesn't hit the goalie in the chest much, so even when he doesn't score, he is creating a lot of rebounds that we aren't putting in at a high rate at all. The first 50 games a player plays with a team are very rarely an accurate predictor of what a guy will be over the next several seasons (and it works in both directions).

I haven't seen anything in his play to indicate that he can't be a 30+ point D man here. He's obviously hasn't been that in his 53 games as a Blue, but I've seen enough great reads, passes and shots in the offensive zone that I'm comfortable thinking he is playing a bit better offensively than his counting stats indicate.

I don't gain anything by panicking about Faulk or locking in a determination about the contract now. He isn't going anywhere this year or next year. Full stop. He is playing on the left side for the first time in his career and never got a training camp to learn our system before being thrown into action. He has had plenty of defensive miscues that aren't attributable to that, but I'm also more than comfortable with the idea that D men often take a long time to learn a new system/team and that we aren't seeing Faulk at 100% of his eventual comfort within the system.

Faulk hasn't been as good as I'd like and he hasn't been worth the money on his extension (which he isn't even playing on yet FWIW). But it isn't by nearly the margin some people are suggesting.
 
Last edited:

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
Petro already had all the help he needed from the wall. He was already walling the puck carrier out of the play, forcing him to pass or try to get past. The only thing Faulk needed to do was take away the passing lane and not let Drasaitl get behind him. This was a ridiculous over read by Faulk, over complicating what should have been a simple 2-on-2 ending either in a dump in or a turnover.

I think this play is getting way blown out of proportion. D switch on that type of play all the time and Faulk had a better line on the puck carrier than Petro did. At the time Faulk committed to the puck carrier, all 3 Edmonton forwards were in a straight line at the faceoff dot on Petro's side. Petro was flat footed with poor gap control and there was zero threat in the middle or Faulk's side of the ice. Faulk should absolutely be coming over to help.

Faulk-Petro-1

Faulk takes a really good angle and it is clear when the Edmonton player is still at his own blueline that Faulk will easily cut him off well before he reaches the Blues blue line.

Faulk-Petro-2

Faulk is actively pointing behind him to signal Petro to switch well before the Edmonton puck carrier reaches the red line. He continues communicating for a switch pretty much the entire time the puck carrier is in the neutral zone.

Faulk-Petro-3
Faulk-Petro-4

At this point, Faulk has the puck carrier contained and if Petro had switched, Faulk easily would have been able to rub him into the boards between the red line and the blueline, forcing a dump or wild pass across the grain to Drai, which would have given Petro and our backchecker a chance to close off the play in the neutral zone. Petro doesn't recognize and and continues taking his line to defend the puck carrier. Based on that decision, Faulk peels off the puck carrier and gets caught in no man's land and the puck carrier makes an easy pass to an open Drai. Petro's outreached stick while he is still backing up is significantly less disruptive to the pass than Faulk would have been coming across the grain angling him into the boards. But Faulk can't commit to that hit now, because that would leave Drai with a complete breakaway instead the contested shot he ends up getting off.

Faulk-Petro-5

Faulk needed to recognize earlier that Petro wasn't switching, but Petro deserves just as much blame for not recognizing what Faulk was doing. People are acting like Faulk actively peeled of Drai at our blue line for no reason, when the reality is that Faulk commited to the play when Drai (and all Edmonton attackers) were on the far right side of the ice in their own zone. At the time Faulk signaled for a switch, he had put himself in position to eliminate the puck carrier earlier and more decisively than Petro could have from his position. It was also early enough in the developing play that Petro would have been able to get great position on Drai while still being able to easily retrieve a dump in. He was also visibly signalling Petro to switch waaaaay before Petro had to commit anywhere, giving Petro plenty of time to recover even though he was late recognizing the play. This wasn't a play where Faulk made some baffling decision. The offside D comes over to make that play very often in the NHL when everyone on the ice has bunched to one side. Again, he needed to peel off earlier when his partner didn't recognize the switch, but people acting like Faulk took some inexplicable line and abandoned his man are just incorrect.

Sticking to a rigid "Both D stay on their side of the ice in this type of play" ensures that you are dealing with either a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 right around your blue line, with both D backing up and allowing the puck carrier to dictate the gap. Properly executing a switch means you are attacking the puck carrier laterally in the neutral zone while still leaving your "worst case scenario" as a 1 on 1 with your D between the puck carrier and the goalie. As a goalie, I want my D switching on this type of play 100% of the time.
 
Last edited:

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
Personally, I won't have anything beyond mild concern about his deal until about this time next year. He is a career 6% shooter and is shooting just 3.5% this year. I expect that number to tick up a bit long term, which would alleviate some of the concerns about lack of production. My eyes tell me that he is making good decisions about when to shoot and is taking good shots. He doesn't hit the goalie in the chest much, so even when he doesn't score, he is creating a lot of rebounds that we aren't putting in at a high rate at all. The first 50 games a player plays with a team are very rarely an accurate predictor of what a guy will be over the next several seasons (and it works in both directions).

I haven't seen anything in his play to indicate that he can't be a 30+ point D man here. He's obviously hasn't been that in his 53 games as a Blue, but I've seen enough great reads, passes and shots in the offensive zone that I'm comfortable thinking he is playing a bit better offensively than his counting stats indicate.

I don't gain anything by panicking about Faulk or locking in a determination about the contract now. He isn't going anywhere this year or next year. Full stop. He is playing on the left side for the first time in his career and never got a training camp to learn our system before being thrown into action. He has had plenty of defensive miscues that aren't attributable to that, but I'm also more than comfortable with the idea that D men often take a long time to learn a new system/team and that we aren't seeing Faulk at 100% of his eventual comfort within the system.

Faulk hasn't been as good as I'd like and he hasn't been worth the money on his extension (which he isn't even playing on FWIW). But it isn't by nearly the margin some people are suggesting.
I agree with 99% of this. I'm not necessarily alarmed and am screaming to move Faulk at all cost. I accept the notion that we're most likely stuck. I will say my stance has always been that I'm not sure his contract is great even if we get Carolina Faulk. There are aspects to his game that I do like though
 

stl76

No. 5 in your programs, No. 1 in your hearts
Jul 2, 2015
9,005
8,265
I was thinking about the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing earlier and decided to dig into the advanced stats to see if Ranksu and other's critiques were supported by the data. Turns out there is actually a very legit argument that the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing is our strongest 5v5.

The Blues have 8 D pairings that have played over 100mins together 5v5. I am choosing 100mins kind of at random, but it seems like a reasonable sample size. I would have a hard time giving serious consideration of our "best pairing 5v5" to a pairing with less than 100mins together. This does not include a couple pairings that have only played a couple games together (ex. Colt and Dunn have only played ~77 mins together, Mikkola - Bortz only ~60). All data is taken from naturalstattrick - LINK

TOICF%GFGAGF%xGF%HDCF%OZS% oiSV%oiSH% PDO
Bouw - Colt500:5544.98151451.7239.4238.51 37.97 94.09 7.39 1.015
Bouw - Faulk355:3144.5491636.0046.0743.69 49.11 90.80 6.38 .972
Faulk - AP278:1255.72151550.0056.6657.29 53.75 88.19 9.09 .973
AP - Colt251:5251.59111247.8354.2848.19 45.31 90.55 7.69 .982
Dunn - Faulk212:4354.318850.0049.9247.30 64.91 93.10 6.35 .995
Dunn - Bort209:1048.8910566.6746.6551.32 58.11 95.41 9.62 1.050
Dunn - AP197:4661.4715768.1860.0160.94 61.76 91.36 12.00 1.034
Gunnar - AP149:5544.927750.0037.8635.59 43.64 91.03 10.77 1.018
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So what conclusions can we draw?

Well, Bouw and Colt play a ton together clearly take a lot of the toughest defensive matchups (nothing ground breaking here). They have the lowest % of offensive zone starts, and give up a lot of shots and scoring chances. Interesting that they also have a very high on ice save %, yet they have by far the worst high danger CF% and give up the most HD chances against. There is a also a fairly large difference between their GF% and xGF%, all of which suggests they may be getting a little lucky. Its important to note here that this pairing has only been on the ice for 14 goals against at 5v5 - given the amount of TOI for this pairing and the matchups they draw every night, 14 is fantastic.

Bouw and Faulk played a fair amount together, and the results were not good. This does match the eye test IMO for this pairing. Worth noting that this pairing had the lowest PDO and the xGF% is way higher than the actual GF%. Back luck seems to play a factor here, but the xGF% was still one of the lowest of all pairings.

Faulk and AP pairing actually has pretty stellar underlying metrics. They do get a fair amount of offensive zone starts, but their CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% are all still very high. What stands out to me here is the PDO (2nd lowest of all pairings), on ice SV% (by far the lowest of all pairings), and the GF% (they are a minus 7 at 36%). It seems pretty clear looking at these numbers that these 2 have been unlucky. I think we can reasonably expect a reversion to the mean if we keep these 2 together. Seriously, the offensive metrics are probably the best of any pairing, taking into account game situation/matchups.

Dunn - Faulk pairing had surprisingly decent underlying metrics. I remember reading a lot of complaining about those 2, but the data suggests they might not have been as horrible as some thought. Still, the offensive zone start % is extremely high for this pairing at nearly 65%, so take their "decent" offensive metrics with a rather large grain of salt

AP - Colt pairing is interesting to compare to Faulk - AP. Both pairings played a similar amount of minutes together, and has similar GF% and xGF%. Faulk - AP significantly better underlying offensive shooting metrics (CF% and HDCF% to be exact). AP- Colt had lower offensive metrics, but started more in the dzone and still had OK offensive metrics. The biggest differences between the two pairings are in high danger shots, zone starts, and on ice save %.

One other thing to note, yeah Dunn has good offensive metrics, but he is also very sheltered. He also tends to get thrown out in offensive situations with the team down a goal late in a game, so best to take his numbers with a grains of salt, particularly the Dunn - AP pairing.
 

Davimir Tarablad

Registered User
Sep 16, 2015
8,839
12,353
Faulk and AP pairing actually has pretty stellar underlying metrics. They do get a fair amount of offensive zone starts, but their CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% are all still very high. What stands out to me here is the PDO (2nd lowest of all pairings), on ice SV% (by far the lowest of all pairings), and the GF% (they are a minus 7 at 36%). It seems pretty clear looking at these numbers that these 2 have been unlucky. I think we can reasonably expect a reversion to the mean if we keep these 2 together. Seriously, the offensive metrics are probably the best of any pairing, taking into account game situation/matchups.
The Faulk-JBo pairing has the 36% GF%, the Faulk-Petro pairing has an even 50% GF%

To me, the underlying numbers show that Faulk plays fairly solid for most of his TOI, it's just his mistakes are big ones that have generally ended up in the back of the net, and that ends up sticking on our minds more than a mistake that doesn't result in a goal against. If even a few of those big mistakes don't end up in our net, he'd probably have a much better perception on here in my opinion. He seems like he's caught in between not being an ideal fit and having a bit of bad luck in terms of bounces both for and against.
 

Blueston

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 4, 2016
18,706
19,287
Houston, TX
I was thinking about the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing earlier and decided to dig into the advanced stats to see if Ranksu and other's critiques were supported by the data. Turns out there is actually a very legit argument that the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing is our strongest 5v5.

The Blues have 8 D pairings that have played over 100mins together 5v5. I am choosing 100mins kind of at random, but it seems like a reasonable sample size. I would have a hard time giving serious consideration of our "best pairing 5v5" to a pairing with less than 100mins together. This does not include a couple pairings that have only played a couple games together (ex. Colt and Dunn have only played ~77 mins together, Mikkola - Bortz only ~60). All data is taken from naturalstattrick - LINK

TOICF%GFGAGF%xGF%HDCF%OZS% oiSV%oiSH% PDO
Bouw - Colt500:5544.98151451.7239.4238.51 37.97 94.09 7.39 1.015
Bouw - Faulk355:3144.5491636.0046.0743.69 49.11 90.80 6.38 .972
Faulk - AP278:1255.72151550.0056.6657.29 53.75 88.19 9.09 .973
AP - Colt251:5251.59111247.8354.2848.19 45.31 90.55 7.69 .982
Dunn - Faulk212:4354.318850.0049.9247.30 64.91 93.10 6.35 .995
Dunn - Bort209:1048.8910566.6746.6551.32 58.11 95.41 9.62 1.050
Dunn - AP197:4661.4715768.1860.0160.94 61.76 91.36 12.00 1.034
Gunnar - AP149:5544.927750.0037.8635.59 43.64 91.03 10.77 1.018
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So what conclusions can we draw?

Well, Bouw and Colt play a ton together clearly take a lot of the toughest defensive matchups (nothing ground breaking here). They have the lowest % of offensive zone starts, and give up a lot of shots and scoring chances. Interesting that they also have a very high on ice save %, yet they have by far the worst high danger CF% and give up the most HD chances against. There is a also a fairly large difference between their GF% and xGF%, all of which suggests they may be getting a little lucky. Its important to note here that this pairing has only been on the ice for 14 goals against at 5v5 - given the amount of TOI for this pairing and the matchups they draw every night, 14 is fantastic.

Bouw and Faulk played a fair amount together, and the results were not good. This does match the eye test IMO for this pairing. Worth noting that this pairing had the lowest PDO and the xGF% is way higher than the actual GF%. Back luck seems to play a factor here, but the xGF% was still one of the lowest of all pairings.

Faulk and AP pairing actually has pretty stellar underlying metrics. They do get a fair amount of offensive zone starts, but their CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% are all still very high. What stands out to me here is the PDO (2nd lowest of all pairings), on ice SV% (by far the lowest of all pairings), and the GF% (they are a minus 7 at 36%). It seems pretty clear looking at these numbers that these 2 have been unlucky. I think we can reasonably expect a reversion to the mean if we keep these 2 together. Seriously, the offensive metrics are probably the best of any pairing, taking into account game situation/matchups.

Dunn - Faulk pairing had surprisingly decent underlying metrics. I remember reading a lot of complaining about those 2, but the data suggests they might not have been as horrible as some thought. Still, the offensive zone start % is extremely high for this pairing at nearly 65%, so take their "decent" offensive metrics with a rather large grain of salt

AP - Colt pairing is interesting to compare to Faulk - AP. Both pairings played a similar amount of minutes together, and has similar GF% and xGF%. Faulk - AP significantly better underlying offensive shooting metrics (CF% and HDCF% to be exact). AP- Colt had lower offensive metrics, but started more in the dzone and still had OK offensive metrics. The biggest differences between the two pairings are in high danger shots, zone starts, and on ice save %.

One other thing to note, yeah Dunn has good offensive metrics, but he is also very sheltered. He also tends to get thrown out in offensive situations with the team down a goal late in a game, so best to take his numbers with a grains of salt, particularly the Dunn - AP pairing.
Biggest takeaways to me is that JayBo has been bad and Petro good, pretty much independent of partner. Which confirms the eye test. So if we want to clear cap space to resign Petro (which I assume we do), Jaybo’s money could be used to better effect if we just give it to Petro.
 

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
I was thinking about the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing earlier and decided to dig into the advanced stats to see if Ranksu and other's critiques were supported by the data. Turns out there is actually a very legit argument that the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing is our strongest 5v5.

The Blues have 8 D pairings that have played over 100mins together 5v5. I am choosing 100mins kind of at random, but it seems like a reasonable sample size. I would have a hard time giving serious consideration of our "best pairing 5v5" to a pairing with less than 100mins together. This does not include a couple pairings that have only played a couple games together (ex. Colt and Dunn have only played ~77 mins together, Mikkola - Bortz only ~60). All data is taken from naturalstattrick - LINK

TOICF%GFGAGF%xGF%HDCF%OZS% oiSV%oiSH% PDO
Bouw - Colt500:5544.98151451.7239.4238.51 37.97 94.09 7.39 1.015
Bouw - Faulk355:3144.5491636.0046.0743.69 49.11 90.80 6.38 .972
Faulk - AP278:1255.72151550.0056.6657.29 53.75 88.19 9.09 .973
AP - Colt251:5251.59111247.8354.2848.19 45.31 90.55 7.69 .982
Dunn - Faulk212:4354.318850.0049.9247.30 64.91 93.10 6.35 .995
Dunn - Bort209:1048.8910566.6746.6551.32 58.11 95.41 9.62 1.050
Dunn - AP197:4661.4715768.1860.0160.94 61.76 91.36 12.00 1.034
Gunnar - AP149:5544.927750.0037.8635.59 43.64 91.03 10.77 1.018
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So what conclusions can we draw?

Well, Bouw and Colt play a ton together clearly take a lot of the toughest defensive matchups (nothing ground breaking here). They have the lowest % of offensive zone starts, and give up a lot of shots and scoring chances. Interesting that they also have a very high on ice save %, yet they have by far the worst high danger CF% and give up the most HD chances against. There is a also a fairly large difference between their GF% and xGF%, all of which suggests they may be getting a little lucky. Its important to note here that this pairing has only been on the ice for 14 goals against at 5v5 - given the amount of TOI for this pairing and the matchups they draw every night, 14 is fantastic.

Bouw and Faulk played a fair amount together, and the results were not good. This does match the eye test IMO for this pairing. Worth noting that this pairing had the lowest PDO and the xGF% is way higher than the actual GF%. Back luck seems to play a factor here, but the xGF% was still one of the lowest of all pairings.

Faulk and AP pairing actually has pretty stellar underlying metrics. They do get a fair amount of offensive zone starts, but their CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% are all still very high. What stands out to me here is the PDO (2nd lowest of all pairings), on ice SV% (by far the lowest of all pairings), and the GF% (they are a minus 7 at 36%). It seems pretty clear looking at these numbers that these 2 have been unlucky. I think we can reasonably expect a reversion to the mean if we keep these 2 together. Seriously, the offensive metrics are probably the best of any pairing, taking into account game situation/matchups.

Dunn - Faulk pairing had surprisingly decent underlying metrics. I remember reading a lot of complaining about those 2, but the data suggests they might not have been as horrible as some thought. Still, the offensive zone start % is extremely high for this pairing at nearly 65%, so take their "decent" offensive metrics with a rather large grain of salt

AP - Colt pairing is interesting to compare to Faulk - AP. Both pairings played a similar amount of minutes together, and has similar GF% and xGF%. Faulk - AP significantly better underlying offensive shooting metrics (CF% and HDCF% to be exact). AP- Colt had lower offensive metrics, but started more in the dzone and still had OK offensive metrics. The biggest differences between the two pairings are in high danger shots, zone starts, and on ice save %.

One other thing to note, yeah Dunn has good offensive metrics, but he is also very sheltered. He also tends to get thrown out in offensive situations with the team down a goal late in a game, so best to take his numbers with a grains of salt, particularly the Dunn - AP pairing.
Excellent post! Thanks for all the work you put in. An old geezer like me who is new to advanced stats really appreciates
the comprehensive breakdown. :wally: This really helps!
 

simon IC

Moderator
Sponsor
Sep 8, 2007
9,219
7,606
Canada
Anybody else notice that the "same side" pairings (Faulk-AP, Colt-AP) had the highest GA for their TOI?
 

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
The Faulk-JBo pairing has the 36% GF%, the Faulk-Petro pairing has an even 50% GF%

To me, the underlying numbers show that Faulk plays fairly solid for most of his TOI, it's just his mistakes are big ones that have generally ended up in the back of the net, and that ends up sticking on our minds more than a mistake that doesn't result in a goal against. If even a few of those big mistakes don't end up in our net, he'd probably have a much better perception on here in my opinion. He seems like he's caught in between not being an ideal fit and having a bit of bad luck in terms of bounces both for and against.
Problem is fairly solid and his mistakes end up in the back of the net is not a good thing. He's never been known as an elite dmen. So the Blues really need the offense from him....which was never spectacular to begin with. :dunno:
 

MissouriMook

Still just a Mook among men
Sponsor
Jul 4, 2014
7,817
8,147
I found it interesting that there were 29 goals scored (by both teams combined) in this sample while JBo and Parayko were on the ice in nearly twice the minutes that Faulk and Petro were paired, and there were 30 goals scored while that pair was on this ice together in this sample. The JBo-Parayko pairing are certainly good at playing low event hockey.
 

Davimir Tarablad

Registered User
Sep 16, 2015
8,839
12,353
Problem is fairly solid and his mistakes end up in the back of the net is not a good thing. He's never been known as an elite dmen. So the Blues really need the offense from him....which was never spectacular to begin with. :dunno:
True, I’m just trying to hold out that the stretch of play Faulk had before the Parayko injury is something he can do more consistently. If we get that version of him for 60+ games a year, I think he’s worth his extension. But if he can only manage that level for 15-20 games like he has so far this season, he’ll be a disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dbrownss

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
Biggest takeaways to me is that JayBo has been bad and Petro good, pretty much independent of partner. Which confirms the eye test. So if we want to clear cap space to resign Petro (which I assume we do), Jaybo’s money could be used to better effect if we just give it to Petro.
Jay-Bo's age allows us to structure a very, very cap friendly contract though.

We can give him a contract that pays him league minimum in guaranteed money with a sizeable bonus for hitting the 10 game mark. The league minimum portion would count against the cap, but then if we are right up to the cap next year and he hits his 10 games played bonus, we can apply that bonus to the next season's salary cap (which should be easier to manage with the expiration of Steen, Allen, Bozak, Gunnar and Sanford's contracts). If we are looking to pinch pennies on D in order to fit in a Petro extension, Jay-Bo should be retained if he is still able to provide adequate play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Em etah Eh

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,744
I was thinking about the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing earlier and decided to dig into the advanced stats to see if Ranksu and other's critiques were supported by the data. Turns out there is actually a very legit argument that the Faulk - Pietrangelo pairing is our strongest 5v5.

The Blues have 8 D pairings that have played over 100mins together 5v5. I am choosing 100mins kind of at random, but it seems like a reasonable sample size. I would have a hard time giving serious consideration of our "best pairing 5v5" to a pairing with less than 100mins together. This does not include a couple pairings that have only played a couple games together (ex. Colt and Dunn have only played ~77 mins together, Mikkola - Bortz only ~60). All data is taken from naturalstattrick - LINK

TOICF%GFGAGF%xGF%HDCF%OZS% oiSV%oiSH% PDO
Bouw - Colt500:5544.98151451.7239.4238.51 37.97 94.09 7.39 1.015
Bouw - Faulk355:3144.5491636.0046.0743.69 49.11 90.80 6.38 .972
Faulk - AP278:1255.72151550.0056.6657.29 53.75 88.19 9.09 .973
AP - Colt251:5251.59111247.8354.2848.19 45.31 90.55 7.69 .982
Dunn - Faulk212:4354.318850.0049.9247.30 64.91 93.10 6.35 .995
Dunn - Bort209:1048.8910566.6746.6551.32 58.11 95.41 9.62 1.050
Dunn - AP197:4661.4715768.1860.0160.94 61.76 91.36 12.00 1.034
Gunnar - AP149:5544.927750.0037.8635.59 43.64 91.03 10.77 1.018
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So what conclusions can we draw?

Well, Bouw and Colt play a ton together clearly take a lot of the toughest defensive matchups (nothing ground breaking here). They have the lowest % of offensive zone starts, and give up a lot of shots and scoring chances. Interesting that they also have a very high on ice save %, yet they have by far the worst high danger CF% and give up the most HD chances against. There is a also a fairly large difference between their GF% and xGF%, all of which suggests they may be getting a little lucky. Its important to note here that this pairing has only been on the ice for 14 goals against at 5v5 - given the amount of TOI for this pairing and the matchups they draw every night, 14 is fantastic.

Bouw and Faulk played a fair amount together, and the results were not good. This does match the eye test IMO for this pairing. Worth noting that this pairing had the lowest PDO and the xGF% is way higher than the actual GF%. Back luck seems to play a factor here, but the xGF% was still one of the lowest of all pairings.

Faulk and AP pairing actually has pretty stellar underlying metrics. They do get a fair amount of offensive zone starts, but their CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% are all still very high. What stands out to me here is the PDO (2nd lowest of all pairings), on ice SV% (by far the lowest of all pairings), and the GF% (they are a minus 7 at 36%). It seems pretty clear looking at these numbers that these 2 have been unlucky. I think we can reasonably expect a reversion to the mean if we keep these 2 together. Seriously, the offensive metrics are probably the best of any pairing, taking into account game situation/matchups.

Dunn - Faulk pairing had surprisingly decent underlying metrics. I remember reading a lot of complaining about those 2, but the data suggests they might not have been as horrible as some thought. Still, the offensive zone start % is extremely high for this pairing at nearly 65%, so take their "decent" offensive metrics with a rather large grain of salt

AP - Colt pairing is interesting to compare to Faulk - AP. Both pairings played a similar amount of minutes together, and has similar GF% and xGF%. Faulk - AP significantly better underlying offensive shooting metrics (CF% and HDCF% to be exact). AP- Colt had lower offensive metrics, but started more in the dzone and still had OK offensive metrics. The biggest differences between the two pairings are in high danger shots, zone starts, and on ice save %.

One other thing to note, yeah Dunn has good offensive metrics, but he is also very sheltered. He also tends to get thrown out in offensive situations with the team down a goal late in a game, so best to take his numbers with a grains of salt, particularly the Dunn - AP pairing.
Great write up and presentation of stats.

Bouw-Parayko have been drastically outproducing their expected GF% going back well into last season. At this point, we probably have a 100+ game sample size of their actual GF% being double digits better than their expected GF%. At a certain point, I have to believe that their play style isn't properly analyzed by expected GF%. The eye test tells me that they are a great shutdown pairing and we have 100+ games of our goaltenders having a noticeably higher SV% with them on the ice. They are both such big bodies and clog passing lanes so well. My theory is that they do a wonderful job of preventing cross ice passes and clearing rebounds, so a big percentage of the high danger chances against are "less" dangerous than they usually are because they aren't being taken immediately after a pass or broken play. A goalie square to a shot from 10 feet out has a much higher chance of stopping it than a goalie who is sliding over for the same shot. But the current state of analytics counts those as the same value chance. Bouw-Parayko limiting the amount of times our goalies have to move pre-shot could very well explain how they consistently outperform their expected numbers by such a large margin. The sample size is just too big for me to believe it is luck when my eyes tell me they do a fantastic job defensively.
 

JoshFromMO

Registered User
Apr 6, 2015
1,120
1,012
Missoura
Great write up and presentation of stats.

Bouw-Parayko have been drastically outproducing their expected GF% going back well into last season. At this point, we probably have a 100+ game sample size of their actual GF% being double digits better than their expected GF%. At a certain point, I have to believe that their play style isn't properly analyzed by expected GF%. The eye test tells me that they are a great shutdown pairing and we have 100+ games of our goaltenders having a noticeably higher SV% with them on the ice. They are both such big bodies and clog passing lanes so well. My theory is that they do a wonderful job of preventing cross ice passes and clearing rebounds, so a big percentage of the high danger chances against are "less" dangerous than they usually are because they aren't being taken immediately after a pass or broken play. A goalie square to a shot from 10 feet out has a much higher chance of stopping it than a goalie who is sliding over for the same shot. But the current state of analytics counts those as the same value chance. Bouw-Parayko limiting the amount of times our goalies have to move pre-shot could very well explain how they consistently outperform their expected numbers by such a large margin. The sample size is just too big for me to believe it is luck when my eyes tell me they do a fantastic job defensively.
We need a stat that measures plays broken up by a D pairing to truly appreciate what ParayBou does for the defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: SneakerPimp82

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->