Toggle sidebar

GDT: Hawks Vs Wings - 7:30PM CT on NBCSCH+ -- Man Dog Meets Madhouse on Maddison

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toews2Bickell

Toews2Bickell

It's Showtime
Nov 24, 2013
23,393
23,306
Fiddy, Anisimov is just as bad at the dot and arguably a worse 200 ft player than Schmaltz. Removing Schmaltz from center duties to give Johnson the 3C role weakens the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RememberTheRoar
pvr

pvr

Leather Skates
Jan 22, 2008
4,705
2,103
Game suspension said:
file.pdf
Click to expand...
That roster is within 15-20% of the eventual opening day roster.
 
Fortyfives

Fortyfives

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 13, 2011
5,858
2,396
Q is setting a line up that takes face offs on their strong side outside of Toews. I’m not sure I would do that but it could work.
 
RememberTheRoar

RememberTheRoar

“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
Oct 21, 2015
23,119
21,154
That's me in the corner
hawksfan50 said:
The reasons Schmaltz is not at centre "developing":

1.Q is on the hot seat. ..cannot afford to "rely" on "developing" players that cannot do the job.

2.Schmaltz bring offensive creativity and neutral zone speedcforctake-aways and angling offs on closing to check....HOWEVER he cannot be trusted in the C -role in the d-zone...his d-zone reads and anticipation a tee pyre cap. ..so he either loses his check or cannot bust up the passing through the lanes...he is reacting and slow to realize who he should be checking..and even if he gets there in time to check,lacks the physical will to shove guys off the puck ...all the things hood d-zone defending centers are required to do..I have seen zero improvement in the work of dchmaltz in the d'zone...Maybe he "develops" these necessary traits with more experience or maybe he just can never adapt his game to the level Q trusts in the d-zone from his centers ... BUT the point is Q is not going to risk his job with Dchmaltz at C with a lot yet to "develop" in defending his own n zone...Q cannot afford to wait on this. .
So Dchmaltz back to the wing ...

3.Face'offs...Q cannot trust Schmaltz to win draws...
Click to expand...

I brought this up in the other thread that Powers and Lazerus are now calling Schmaltz the 1C of the future.

Just looked at Laz' Athletic article from today on the lack of importance of faceoffs [which I'm sure the article will really grind your gears], but in it he writes:

Nick Schmaltz, the Blackhawks' No. 1 center of the not-too-distant future.
Click to expand...

Do you all think Laz is saying this just because he's going out on his own and anointing Schmaltz that, or do you think that is the organization's intention?

If they actually think Schmaltz is going to be the 1C soon, you absolutely CANNOT allow Q to take away time from his development at center. This time is beyond critical for Schmaltz to develop at center given that it's a development year for the team.

Either Laz is being a total nutsack here, or Q is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennyWharramPeace

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,094
1,980
I do not subceibe to The Athletic...so did the stats Laz displayed show the effect of winning draws especially in PP and PK situations?Maybe 5x5 there is no big deal if you are bad at draws..but I simply cannot believe that losing offensive zone draws on the PP is irrelevant to PP success...nor can I believe losing draws in the d-zine is irrelevant in PK goal prevention..To argue such irrelevance seems counter-intuitive and so if Laz did not separate 5x5 data from the specialty teams PP and PK data then the entire data set is skewed to hide the most important areas where winning draws as opposed to losing draws has greatest effect for specialty team success....Further one must separate Hawks data on draws for all 3 distinct situations...evens/pk/PP from league averages...it could be losing draws effects Hawks more than league averages in these 3 situations..So did Laz just give generic league GF and GA after winning or losing draws and the puck staying in o-zone or exiting and then how quickly or not goals are scored type data all blended I together for all teams on average and not separated into the 3 situations of man up or down or evens....because if he did that,we learn Nothing !


All I remember by eye test is that if we lose a draw it stays in our d-zine a long time and goals usually result ...especially after Seabs fails to clear even if we are lucky enough to re-gain possession. ..after failing to clear pucks out ..after goal again st usually is imminent ....Also the eye testing our woeful PP ...I recall too often when we lose the draw a good clear g team forces Kane to go all the way back near our end line to get the puck and we lose a half minute of PP attack time ...robsbour PP of any consistent pressure and tires our guys out skating all the way back to our zone to retievevthe puck ..So whether we are worse than league averages after losing draws in scoring gnor preventing goals against. .I am not sure..but I just know what the eye sees..and it ain't very good with the results after we lose draws...especially in PP and PK situations.
 
Last edited:
RememberTheRoar

RememberTheRoar

“I’m not as worried about the 5-on-5 scoring.”
Oct 21, 2015
23,119
21,154
That's me in the corner
hawksfan50 said:
I do not subceibe to The Athletic...so did the stats Laz displayed show the effect of winning draws especially in PP and PK situations?Maybe 5x5 there is no big deal if you are bad at draws..but I simply cannot believe that losing offensive zone draws on the PP is irrelevant to PP success...nor can I believe losing draws in the d-zine is irrelevant in PK goal prevention..To argue such irrelevance seems counter-intuitive and so if Laz did not separate 5x5 data from the specialty teams PP and PK data then the entire data set is skewed to hide the most important areas where winning draws as opposed to losing draws has greatest effect for specialty team success....Further one must separate Hawks data on draws for all 3 distinct situations...evens/pk/PP from league averages...it could be losing draws effects Hawks more than league averages in these 3 situations..So did Laz just give generic league GF and GA after winning or losing draws and the puck staying in o-zone or exiting and then how quickly or not goals are scored type data all blended I together for all teams on average and not separated into the 3 situations of man up or down or evens....because if he did that,we learn Nothing !
Click to expand...

He didn’t break it down that way, I can try to direct message you the full article, if you’d like.

Here’s a quote from it where he cites a 2012 study that apparently looked into it:

Meanwhile, a 2012 study out of St. Lawrence Universityfound that “a player must win about 76 more faceoffs than (he) loses in order to obtain a goal differential for his team. A team that moves from winning 50 percent of (its) faceoffs to winning 60 percent of them against just over 12 goals per season, which is equivalent to two additional wins.” And considering the best faceoff team in the league last year, Carolina, won just 54.1 percent of its draws, the impact seems almost negligible.
Yet players, coaches, fans and general managers still obsess over the stat. When a shorthanded team loses a defensive-zone draw and the opponent scores four seconds later off a set play, it’s easy to see why.
Click to expand...
 

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,094
1,980
Anyway ...my beef with Schatz is not even on draws as a C...rather his lousy d-zo e coverages..he seems to be clueless in that zone as opposed to on attack or in the neutral zone ..If he were a good d-zine C he could help cover for his wingers. .and we know Kane is not the best of d-zine checkers...so any lune with both of them in the d-zine risks a lot of goals against ...It is just a fact and so far I have not seen any "decelopment" (ie. Improvement) in Schmaltz in his d-zine reads and his positioning or his anticipation hwlping him to close off guys properly in the d-zine. .nor his physical strength to shove guys off pucks ..anticipation required in abundance for any effective Center role in the d-zine.

At this stage of his career he just is not good enough in the d-zo e and so Q cannot trust him with the Center position rile..maybe if he was flanked by 2 wingers with such defensive zone ability and acumen.. Hossa could have helped cover for Schmaltz' d-zone issues ..but Kane cannot ...xapiche?

Till I and Q see Schmaltz play d'zone like Hossa did then he cannot be trusted as a Center because you cannot live on just offensive zone and neutral zone play..If we go with him at C then all we will get is about even in the +/- from his line ...he giveth and he taketh away ..net result. .about Zero .as many goals for as against ...at best
.
So the question is. ..CAN Schmaltz develop and IMPROVE his d-zone effectiveness? I am skeptical he will ever be a Selke cabdidadte ..but maybe he can improve enough to get trusted enough by Q with a Center role. .however so far no evidence he has improved enough in the d-zone ...too often reacting late ..too often not in proper position ...too often ineffective bin d-zone checking..
 
BK

BK

"Goalie Apologist"
Feb 8, 2011
33,636
16,483
Minneapolis, MN
dk2k said:
Which one of Kane, Sikura or Schmaltz would retrieve the puck when the other team stacks the blue line?
Click to expand...

If they change how they transition you can negate that. If we still emphasize the stretch pass then you much have a puck retriever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom