LastWordArmy
Registered User
A look at Ivan Provorov's transition game metrics.
Philadelphia Flyers: Ivan Provorov in Transition - Last Word on Hockey
Philadelphia Flyers: Ivan Provorov in Transition - Last Word on Hockey
I can't speak to how he graded out by these metrics in Tampa. As for his time in Philadelphia, I can attest to his troubles here. His outlet passes tend to be extremely inaccurate. Which is why he has so many icings. You'd think he'd see that as a problem that needs fixing.Interesting info. Gudas comes up looking really bad by these metrics.
Yep! MacDonald rolls out the red carpet for opponents on zone entries.Good stuff. Provy and Ghost are both beasts at both ends of the ice.
MacDonalds Entry Defense numbers are ****ing hilarious
Yep! MacDonald rolls out the red carpet for opponents on zone entries.
I can't speak to how he graded out by these metrics in Tampa. As for his time in Philadelphia, I can attest to his troubles here. His outlet passes tend to be extremely inaccurate. Which is why he has so many icings. You'd think he'd see that as a problem that needs fixing.
Yep! MacDonald rolls out the red carpet for opponents on zone entries.
Gudas never grades out that well by entry/exit data. There’s correlation with possession numbers but not always. Mattias Ekholm usually doesn’t grade out well either. Many examples of defensemen who overcome it by other means.
Gudas is a player that concerns me. If he can't play his intimidating hitting game he's just not very good.
I can imagine Hak looking at AMac's stats and thinking "That's the guy I want to put on the ice with minute left in a one goal game. And #53 needs to sit because... Yea, because."It's something we all know and bring up when discussing him all the time, but those numbers are still shocking lol
Sanheim was better than Gudas, MacD, Manning, and Hagg. Do you think it is good coaching to play so many inferior players over a superior player?
To be fair, it is not an even comparison. All four of those defensemen had far more difficult assignments than Sanheim, who was deployed with kid gloves. If it were a scientific study, it would be completely invalidated by that.
He had a slightly down year, but he still did fine by most every metric, certainly in the positive. I think a lot of it is narrative based, combined with Gudas playing a very hot and cold, visibly good or ugly game to begin with. He was no less physical in the trenches, and it's not like he just lights people up in the NZ every rush attempt. I think playing with Manning hurt him more than a suspension. I also expect a good year next year.
I don't think Gudas is a low IQ player, the last playoff games skews perceptions when he tried to do too much.
Most of the time he plays like a guy who understands his physical limitations.
My problem with Gudas was after his suspension he played tentatively, until close to the end of the season.
And Gudas and Hagg have no future as finesse defensemen.
There's a role for a physical, stay at home defensemen in this league, but you have to be smart, play with good anticipation, and play it safe.
Gudas has learned how to do that, he regressed last year, but was very good the previous season.
But if you look at Gudas as a rookie and Hagg as a rookie, they're pretty similar.
To be fair, it is not an even comparison. All four of those defensemen had far more difficult assignments than Sanheim, who was deployed with kid gloves. If it were a scientific study, it would be completely invalidated by that.
We don't know enough about quantifying the effects of QoC (or QoT) to say it would invalidate anything. Of course in a perfect world, we should factor it in, as you said. I just don't like to put the proverbial cart before the horse when we're talking so broadly.
I would point to QoT more than QoC for this roster, especially Defensemen, given how useless so many line combinations were.