Post-Game Talk: Following Glass' lead, Pens-4, Jets-2

[MrBurghundy]

Take out those 4 years he lost and he's undefeated!

see what I did there?

Bylsma haters will hate
Bylsma fans will love
He's not has bad as the haters say
He's not as great as the lovers think

He's a good coach who is still young and has potential to get better

Yeah I did see. You cherry picked one season. I used the past 4 seasons.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Needs more Gibbons praise.

 

[billybudd]

I don't remember a sequence like billybudd described either. I remember one play in the defensive zone where Bennett was trying to get the puck to Kunitz and turned the puck over. But after that he most certainly didn't "completely screw up his duties."

I wasn't watching the third period. Bourque is the one who was ripping Bennett over some play in the third. I'm just the messenger.

 

[Shady Machine]

He's a good coach who is still young and has potential to get better

In general, this is a fair statement. However, the Pens aren't a developing team. Their top players are at the peak of their careers. They don't have time to wait for Bylsma to get better. Some of his decisions are actually holding the team back now. By the time he figures things out, Sid and Geno might be on the back 9 of their careers with no solid support to take the reigns.

 

[Allie Kitsune]

Needs more Gibbons praise.

The Fancy Gibbons picture might be the second best thing I've seen on the Pens' HFBoard, right behind the gif of Mario, Shero, and Burkle photoshopped into waving money around being used every time we signed an AHL guy...

 

[66-30-33]

Hahaha another cancelled practice.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I wasn't watching the third period. Bourque is the one who was ripping Bennett over some play in the third. I'm just the messenger.

Speaking for myself, I know you meant Bourque said that.

Aside from your typical clear or two that gets cut off, I didn't see him make any glaring mistakes. Maybe something did happen, because he missed two or three shifts I believe, on the back ten of the third.

Of course it could have just been that DB wanted the dynamic duo out there keeping that lead safe. I can only imagine the carnage had BB been allowed to help protect the lead. Gives me shivers to think about.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

The Fancy Gibbons picture might be the second best thing I've seen on the Pens' HFBoard, right behind the gif of Mario, Shero, and Burkle photoshopped into waving money around being used every time we signed an AHL guy...

 

[DoktorZaius]

This idea of keeping on a coach who's young but "has potential" is so ironic it makes me want to cry, since this guy is probably responsible for hampering the development of pretty much all our young guys with potential outside of Maatta.

Long story short, "young but has potential" makes a lot more sense for NHL PLAYERS, not coaches.

 

[IcedCapp]

The Penguins roster is not the "on the job training" kind of roster.

You want On the Job Training, go to Columbus or Buffalo or Edmonton. (and also be, ya know, willing to learn and grow and adapt).

The Penguins roster isn't a finished product (I hope), but their goals are.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

No practice again? Genius.

 

[Your Boy Troy]

Pyatt has looked like a force for a combined total of one long shift during his time here.

This is an inaccurate statement. Taylor Pyatt did look like a force when he was playing with Evgeni Malkin and James Neal in the game against Washington. However, if you previously read what I wrote, I stated that Taylor Pyatt is too inconsistent to be playing on the third line.

Why are you so hung up on size? Here are things Gibbons has done that don't require size, but make a huge impact on a team that struggles with puck possession and secondary scoring:

1. #2 in On Ice Goals total rating: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=5v5&pos=forwards&minutes=300&teamid=24&type=goals&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC
2. #7 in On Ice Fenwick total rating (the only players above him are top 6): http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?db=201314&sit=5v5&type=fenwick&teamid=24&pos=forwards&minutes=300&disp=1&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC
3. #2 in On Ice +/-/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=25&s=25&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#
4. #1 in On Ice GAA/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=25&s=24&rs=t&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#
5. #1 in fewest penalties taken/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=41&s=45&rs=t&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+41+42+43+44+45+46#
6. #2 in most penalties drawn/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=41&s=46&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+41+42+43+44+45+46#

So, where is his weakness, exactly? Where is he costing the team anything? Where is there a quantifiable size/toughness/aggression deficit that is costing the team anything?

Again, these advance statistics are completely irrelevant. Search up who is sixth in points/60 5vs5 with 100 minutes or more played. It is Paul Bissonnette. Jay Feaster was largely interested in advance statistics, and look where he winded up. I do not think that a single NHL general manager that is currently employed takes these statistics seriously.

Gibbons is a solid two-way forward, but I don't see him ever being a legitimate top-six forward. If Gibbons can prove me wrong, then that would be great. It's just my personal opinion.

 

[Fordy]

This is an inaccurate statement. Taylor Pyatt did look like a force when he was playing with Evgeni Malkin and James Neal in the game against Washington. However, if you previously read what I wrote, I stated that Taylor Pyatt is too inconsistent to be playing on the third line.



Again, these advance statistics are completely irrelevant. Search up who is sixth in points/60 5vs5 with 100 minutes or more played. It is Paul Bissonnette. Jay Feaster was largely interested in advance statistics, and look where he winded up. I do not think that a single NHL general manager that is currently employed takes these statistics seriously.

Gibbons is a solid two-way forward, but I don't see him ever being a legitimate top-six forward. If Gibbons can prove me wrong, then that would be great. It's just my personal opinion.

so what you're saying is, there are no GMs in the league that think drawing the second most penalties on the team while taking the fewest is an important stat? there is not a GM in the league that cares if a player has the fewest goals scored against them on our team per 60 minutes?

also, you seem to be saying that adjusting stats for playing time is an "advanced statistic" which is amusing. the guy only listed like 2 actual advanced statistics. you seem to have a very low threshold for advanced math. oh yeah, but that one GM that liked them wasn't very good so therefore they are wrong and you can hand-wave them away, and one statistic that again is not advanced in anyway has a wholly unsurprising player finishing near the top. why are you surprised a guy that barely ever touches the ice, but frequently gets points beyond all explanation, would finish highly in that stat? gibbons is not in the same situation as bissonette so that's absolutely stupid to draw the comparison. let's even pretend you're right and that clearly that stat has no bearings or significance on anything. OBVIOUSLY all of these stats are now useless.

hooray

if you can quote anyone on this board actually trying to argue that gibbons is a top six forward, maybe you'll have some sort of roundabout point

 

[billybudd]

Why are you so hung up on size? Here are things Gibbons has done that don't require size, but make a huge impact on a team that struggles with puck possession and secondary scoring:

1. #2 in On Ice Goals total rating: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=5v5&pos=forwards&minutes=300&teamid=24&type=goals&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC
2. #7 in On Ice Fenwick total rating (the only players above him are top 6): http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?db=201314&sit=5v5&type=fenwick&teamid=24&pos=forwards&minutes=300&disp=1&sort=HARTp&sortdir=DESC
3. #2 in On Ice +/-/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=25&s=25&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#
4. #1 in On Ice GAA/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=25&s=24&rs=t&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#
5. #1 in fewest penalties taken/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=41&s=45&rs=t&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+41+42+43+44+45+46#
6. #2 in most penalties drawn/60: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=41&s=46&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f4=C+LW+RW&f5=PIT&f7=20-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+41+42+43+44+45+46#

So, where is his weakness, exactly? Where is he costing the team anything? Where is there a quantifiable size/toughness/aggression deficit that is costing the team anything?

PDO http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67# second-highest on the team. Until very recently, it was the highest.

1st on team in Shooting % among active players, 7th in the NHL.

Team save percentage is also incredibly high with Gibbons on the ice. You tend to see this with four types of players--shot blockers, elite defensive forwards, players playing in front of an elite goaltender (anybody playing in front of Rask, Quick) and guys who are just getting lucky. I think it's safe to say the first three don't apply here.

Most (read: all) of Gibbons' statistical bonafides are 1-1 with things statisticians believe to be largely rooted in variance. In other words, luck. Throwing out Crosby's minutes, when GF% is very high (70%) and corsi% is low (46%), that GF number almost always swings back the other way big time.

In repeatable skills (possession, shot generation), Gibbons doesn't look like much of an asset once you separate him from Sidney Crosby. He also generates less shots on net/minute than Adams and Glass do. Think about that for a minute. A supposed skill player, who has spent ~40% of his NHL career alongside Sidney Crosby, finds himself in position to put rubber on net less frequently than two shotblockers who can barely play (and in Adams' case, cannot play at all).

Numerically, it would be insufficient to say that there are red flags associated with the numbers you've used as Gibbons' bonafides. It would be more accurate to say there's a Mr Yuck sticker on everything but penalties drawn.

And really, on that last note, how long before referees start saying to themselves: "Gee, this little guy just can't stay on his skates. He probably just fell over because he's small."

 

[Fordy]

PDO http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67# second-highest on the team. Until very recently, it was the highest.

1st on team in Shooting % among active players, 7th in the NHL.

Team save percentage is also incredibly high with Gibbons on the ice. You tend to see this with four types of players--shot blockers, elite defensive forwards, players playing in front of an elite goaltender (anybody playing in front of Rask, Quick) and guys who are just getting lucky.

Most (read: all) of Gibbons' statistical bonafides are 1-1 with things statisticians believe to be largely rooted in variance. In other words, luck. Throwing out Crosby's minutes, when GF% is very high (70%) and corsi% is low (46%), that GF number almost always swings back the other way big time.

In repeatable skills (possession, shot generation), Gibbons doesn't look like much of an asset once you separate him from Sidney Crosby. He also generates less shots on net/minute than Adams and Glass do. Think about that for a minute. A supposed skill player finds himself in position to put rubber on net less frequently than two shotblockers who can barely play (and in Adams' case, cannot play at all).

Numerically, it would be insufficient to say that there are red flags associated with the numbers you've used as Gibbons' bonafides. It would be more accurate to say there's a Mr Yuck sticker on everything but penalties drawn.

And really, on that last note, how long before referees start saying to themselves: "Gee, this little guy just can't stay on his skates. He probably just fell over because he's small."

his shooting percentage is high because he rarely shoots. he's a pass first player. he generates few shots because again, he rarely shoots.

how far do you think his GA will regress over time? worse than gladams? pyatt? kobasew? how far do you think his penalties drawn will regress? do you think he'll start taking even more penalties too? more than gladams?

this is a player that only managed 30 points in his first two AHL seasons. he is currently better than our other options. see what happens

 

[MrBurghundy]

I feel proud of my work on that one lol.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

Most (read: all) of Gibbons' statistical bonafides are 1-1 with things statisticians believe to be largely rooted in variance. In other words, luck. Throwing out Crosby's minutes, when GF% is very high (70%) and corsi% is low (46%), that GF number almost always swings back the other way big time.

In repeatable skills (possession, shot generation), Gibbons doesn't look like much of an asset once you separate him from Sidney Crosby. He also generates less shots on net/minute than Adams and Glass do. Think about that for a minute. A supposed skill player, who has spent ~40% of his NHL career alongside Sidney Crosby, finds himself in position to put rubber on net less frequently than two shotblockers who can barely play (and in Adams' case, cannot play at all).

Numerically, it would be insufficient to say that there are red flags associated with the numbers you've used as Gibbons' bonafides. It would be more accurate to say there's a Mr Yuck sticker on everything but penalties drawn.

And really, on that last note, how long before referees start saying to themselves: "Gee, this little guy just can't stay on his skates. He probably just fell over because he's small."

So you say his stats are inflated because he's playing with Sid, then you throw out a stat that he doesn't shoot much. Have you considered this is because he's deferring to Sid and Kunitz? Are you seriously trying to convince people that Gibbons is a worse possession and Corsi player than Glass and Adams? Do you watch these games?

I've seen some atrocious use of stats on these forums, but you're really taking it to a new level here.

Gibbons is a serviceable fill-in, he does not hand grenade the puck, he's got speed and draws penalties, and his defensive game has been improving. You can tell that by just watching the guy, but the stats back that up too. He's not a savior of the franchise at winger or anything. But he could be useful in the bottom six situationally, until his size gets him hurt.

 

[Shady Machine]

Again, these advance statistics are completely irrelevant. Search up who is sixth in points/60 5vs5 with 100 minutes or more played. It is Paul Bissonnette. Jay Feaster was largely interested in advance statistics, and look where he winded up. I do not think that a single NHL general manager that is currently employed takes these statistics seriously.

Gibbons is a solid two-way forward, but I don't see him ever being a legitimate top-six forward. If Gibbons can prove me wrong, then that would be great. It's just my personal opinion.

There are outliers in statistics. Clearly, Biz Nasty is an outlier. Advanced stats are helpful when combined with watching the player play on a consistent basis. Generally speaking, the stats back up what a well trained eye sees.

Many GM's may be behind the curve on advanced stats, but I bet you several of them DO take advanced stats seriously.

 

[Rocket of Russia]

And really, on that last note, how long before referees start saying to themselves: "Gee, this little guy just can't stay on his skates. He probably just fell over because he's small."

I don't think bigger players would draw the kinds of penalties I see Gibbons drawing. I see Gibbons drawing calls by throwing the puck down the boards and beating the defender clean to it, and rather than get beat the defender interferes with him to slow him down. Actually his size seems advantageous in this case as he's more agile and can move horizontally easier while maintaining his speed, helping him get out of the defender's reach and forcing them to do something more blatant to slow him down.

I'm on board for having some size (Penner anyone?) but I think you're picking on the wrong guy here. If any advantage of having players with size actually came from our guys with some size maybe we wouldn't be worried about Gibbons' height. Glass and Pyatt have size...lot of good it does us. Sure, Gibbons might not get these calls in the playoffs. But are guys like Pyatt and Glass going to battle through in places Gibbons can't? I have my doubts.

 

[MtlPenFan]

Speaking for myself, I know you meant Bourque said that.

Aside from your typical clear or two that gets cut off, I didn't see him make any glaring mistakes. Maybe something did happen, because he missed two or three shifts I believe, on the back ten of the third.

Of course it could have just been that DB wanted the dynamic duo out there keeping that lead safe. I can only imagine the carnage had BB been allowed to help protect the lead. Gives me shivers to think about.

If Glass and Adams are good for one thing, it's clearing the zone.

 

[MtlPenFan]

There are outliers in statistics. Clearly, Biz Nasty is an outlier. Advanced stats are helpful when combined with watching the player play on a consistent basis. Generally speaking, the stats back up what a well trained eye sees.

Many GM's may be behind the curve on advanced stats, but I bet you several of them DO take advanced stats seriously.

I never bothered with advanced stats until recently. I would just watch a player to make sure he passed the eye test, and when it comes to GlaAdams, all I saw were two guys who spent way too much time in their own zone. When you then look at their advanced stats, it backs up the eye test.

 

[billybudd]

So you say his stats are inflated because he's playing with Sid, then you throw out a stat that he doesn't shoot much. Have you considered this is because he's deferring to Sid and Kunitz? Are you seriously trying to convince people that Gibbons is a worse possession and Corsi player than Glass and Adams? Do you watch these games?

I've seen some atrocious use of stats on these forums, but you're really taking it to a new level here.

Gibbons is a serviceable fill-in, he does not hand grenade the puck, he's got speed and draws penalties, and his defensive game has been improving. You can tell that by just watching the guy, but the stats back that up too. He's not a savior of the franchise at winger or anything. But he could be useful in the bottom six situationally, until his size gets him hurt.

Let's consider that now.

In the 138 minutes Gibbons has played with Sidney Crosby at even strength, he has taken 11 shots on net.

In the 207 minutes Gibbons played with someone else, he took 12 shots on net.

So no, the idea that he takes few shots because he's deferring to Sidney Crosby and would have more shots in a different assignment is something that only exists in your mind.

The same is true of pretty much everything else you wrote here, including the notion that I said Craig Adams is a better possession player than anybody.

 

[Pens1566]

To me, Gibbons is a player where the advanced stats and eye test tell completely different stories. Outside of his first handful of games (which I think are bumping those stats up greatly) he's been underwhelming.

 

[td_ice]

I feel proud of my work on that one lol.

As you should Ron, that's good stuff.

 

[AjaxTelamon]

Let's consider that now.

In the 138 minutes Gibbons has played with Sidney Crosby at even strength, he has taken 11 shots on net.

In the 207 minutes Gibbons played with someone else, he took 12 shots on net.

So no, the idea that he takes few shots because he's deferring to Sidney Crosby and would have more shots in a different assignment is something that only exists in your mind.

The same is true of pretty much everything else you wrote here, including the notion that I said Craig Adams is a better possession player than anybody.

So what is your point with this shooting volume stat?