News Article: Malkin Opens up about 18-19 season

[Empoleon8771]

More fun facts, since we have to include them:

1. Malkin saw no benefit from playing with Kessel last year, while Kessel's stats plummeted away from Malkin (source)
2. Malkin and Johnson without Kessel and Schultz have almost an identical stat line to Malkin without Kessel, Johnson and Schultz (2nd and 4th last rows of source)
3. Even with Schultz being terrible after coming back next year, the 2nd line hurt Johnson-Schultz more than Johnson-Schultz hurt the second line in terms of xGF% (6th row and 11th row of above source)

 

[Empoleon8771]

Did you notice that even without Schultz, JJ still brought down Geno and Kessel's possession numbers considerably?

He is the problem.



You're talking about a player JJ played 49 minutes with last year and won't play with this year.

But again, I'm cherry-picking?

Okay, you're just that dense. I'm not going to bother continuing this conversation if you just dismiss the points that prove your argument to be BS just because you don't want to believe them. The stats prove that your claim that "the second line's problems are due to Jack Johnson" is ENTIRELY WRONG. I don't really care if you refuse to admit it, because you're WRONG. You saying "Pettersson won't play with Johnson next year" is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. You failing to even understand the sample size I'm using is IRRELEVANT.

Let's recap what the stats actually say:

1. Johnson didn't have an impact on Malkin statisticaly when Schultz wasn't his D partner and Kessel wasn't on the 2nd line
2. Johnson didn't have much of an impact on Malkin and Kessel as a duo when Schultz wasn't his D partner (better xGF% with worse CF%, not sure how that works though)
3. Johnson gave good results while with Malkin and Kessel as a duo when Pettersson was his D partner

All of that looks at the entire season. That totally says Johnson is the sole reason that the 2nd line sucked last year, though.

 

[Deport Ogie]

Hey man. Don’t disparage the success we had when we surrounded Jags with Czech talent.

It's true. Obviously what Malkin needs is Jan Hrdina.

 

[Gurglesons]

It's true. Obviously what Malkin needs is Jan Hrdina.

Maybe we should fire Sullivan and get Malkin’s Hlinka.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Okay, you're just that dense. I'm not going to bother continuing this conversation if you just dismiss the points that prove your argument to be BS just because you don't want to believe them. The stats prove that your claim that "the second line's problems are due to Jack Johnson" is ENTIRELY WRONG. I don't really care if you refuse to admit it, because you're WRONG.

Let's recap what the stats actually say:

2. Johnson didn't have much of an impact on Malkin and Kessel as a duo when Schultz wasn't his D partner (better xGF% with worse CF%, not sure how that works though)

Kessel and Malkin are better without Johnson than with him, with or without Schultz.

The numbers bear it out. Production, possession, whatever. They're also better than '17-'18 when you remove JJ from the equation.

These are the key numbers.

You saying "Pettersson won't play with Johnson next year" is IRRELEVANT to this discussion. You failing to even understand the sample size I'm using is IRRELEVANT.

You're isolating on a 49 minute sample size. Why is that important, even without considering future implications?

 

[Empoleon8771]

Kessel and Malkin are better without Johnson than with him, with or without Schultz.

The numbers bear it out. Production, possession, whatever. They're also better than '17-'18 when you remove JJ from the equation.

Again, do you even know what you're arguing here? You're not arguing that Johnson was A problem for the 2nd line, you're arguing that Johnson was THE SOLE problem for the 2nd line. You're not actually disproving any of the points I'm making, you're just waving them away because it doesn't agree with your argument.

Your argument here is just bad. Your entire argument is that the 2nd line was better in 2017-2018 than it was in 2018-2019 and Kessel and Malkin with Johnson was worse than Kessel and Malkin without JJ, therefore Johnson is the sole thing that sunk the second line. It's a terrible "correlation does not equal causation" fallacy to begin with, and when you dig deeper into the numbers, the numbers say that's a completely wrong statement. Yet you still keep acting like you're right.

You're isolating on a 49 minute sample size. Why is that important, even without considering future implications?

Pettersson-Johnson was the most commonly used D pair including Johnson last year, and that gave good results with the Malkin-Kessel duo. And again, we're talking about LAST YEAR. The discussion was what caused the 2nd line to struggle LAST YEAR. Whether MP and Johnson play together going forward is not relevant to that discussion.

Again, this is what the stats say about the 2nd line last year:

1. The 2nd line was bad last year.
2. Without Schultz, Johnson didn't have a big impact on Malkin and Malkin-Kessel as a duo
3. With Schultz, the Johnson-Schultz pair was so bad with Malkin and the Malkin-Kessel duo that it took his fine stats with Malkin and Malkin-Kessel to bad.
4. With Pettersson, the Pettersson-Johnson pair got good results out of Malkin and the Malkin-Kessel duo.

 

[Darren McCord]

Top 25 Under 25 - #15 Jake Guentzel

How the Pens landed Guentzel

Guentzel was pegged as an exceptionally smart and gifted player from the beginning, but as Scott Bell mentioned, the biggest knock on him was that "he looked like a 4th grader".

If we took more risks on players like Guentzel, I'd be ecstatic.

We did with Sprong who was moved for MP. The we did with Almeida.

We have taken players with some risk but when you have 3 or 4 picks a year you cant take those risks every year.

I also find it out people complaining about prospects when this is the best the pool has looked in yeaaaars

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Again, do you even know what you're arguing here? You're not arguing that Johnson was A problem for the 2nd line, you're arguing that Johnson was THE SOLE problem for the 2nd line. You're not actually disproving any of the points I'm making, you're just waving them away because it doesn't agree with your argument.

The crux of it is this:

If Kessel and Malkin weren't a problem in '17-'18, then why were they a problem in '18-'19? What evidence is that based on?

Pettersson-Johnson was the most commonly used D pair including Johnson last year, and that gave good results with the Malkin-Kessel duo. And again, we're talking about LAST YEAR. The discussion was what caused the 2nd line to struggle LAST YEAR. Whether MP and Johnson play together going forward is not relevant to that discussion.

But it's only 49 minutes.

Fantastic that JJ and Pettersson worked well for those 49 minutes, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant - and shouldn't be given outsized importance - given that Johnson stunk and dragged down Kessel and Malkin for the overwhelming majority of the time.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The crux of it is this:

If Kessel and Malkin weren't a problem in '17-'18, then why were they a problem in '18-'19? What evidence is that based on?

Uh....are you serious? Please tell me you're not serious right now, because even for the standards of the arguments you've provided in here, the argument of "if they were good one year, so they have to be good in every year" is really bad. Like that's bad in a dumb way, like it's a dumb argument to make.

Crosby-Sheary worked amazingly well in 2016-2017, to the point where Sheary was putting up elite ES numbers. The next year, Sheary struggled to even hit 30 points and was booted off of Crosby's line. Your logic says that since it worked in 2016-2017, something else must have caused that line to struggle, because it couldn't have been Sheary.

But it's only 49 minutes.

Fantastic that JJ and Pettersson worked well for those 49 minutes, but that doesn't seem terribly relevant - and shouldn't be given outsized importance - given that Johnson stunk and dragged down Kessel and Malkin for the overwhelming majority of the time.

And Johnson-Schultz worked terribly for 72 minutes, yet you think that's plenty to say that Johnson "dragged down Kessel and Malkin for the overwhelming majority of the time" despite it being blatantly false.

Let's just save us some time here. Is there ANY way you're going to admit you're wrong? Because if you're just going to refuse to admit you're wrong, no matter what evidence is provided that says you're wrong, you're wasting my time by even replying. I provided the facts that say you're wrong. If you want to argue the sky is red because Mars had a red sky and you don't agree with the facts that say the sky is blue, then I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Uh....are you serious? Please tell me you're not serious right now, because even for the standards of the arguments you've provided in here, the argument of "if they were good one year, so they have to be good in every year" is really bad. Like that's bad in a dumb way, like it's a dumb argument to make.

This doesn't answer the question, at all.

Nobody had a problem with Geno and Phil in '17-'18. Their ES production and underlying numbers together are better in '18-'19 than '17-'18 when you remove JJ from the equation, with or without Schultz.

So why were they worse this year? What is that based on?

And Johnson-Schultz worked terribly for 72 minutes, yet you think that's plenty to say that Johnson "dragged down Kessel and Malkin for the overwhelming majority of the time" despite it being blatantly false.

Let's just save us some time here. Is there ANY way you're going to admit you're wrong? Because if you're just going to refuse to admit you're wrong, no matter what evidence is provided that says you're wrong, you're wasting my time by even replying. I provided the facts that say you're wrong. If you want to argue the sky is red because Mars had a red sky and you don't agree with the facts that say the sky is blue, then I'm not going to waste my time.

Like I said, even when you remove Schultz, JJ still made Malkin and Kessel worse.

It's important to isolate the real problem here, because we're putting Galchenyuk in the same position this season and as much as I dislike the trade and we all understand he's not going to live up to Kessel's standard, we need to place the blame where it belongs if things go awry.

What do you think will happen if JJ spends a lot of time with Malkin and Galchenyuk?

 

[HaveKnifeWillButcher]

NVM

 

[Empoleon8771]

Okay, I'm not going to bother doing this anymore. If you seriously think that saying "the 2nd line was worse in 2018-2019 than it was in 2017-2018, so Johnson individually sunk the 2nd line" is at all a logical argument, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you. Trying to use logic in an argument based on a completely illogical premise is a waste of time.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Okay, I'm not going to bother doing this anymore. If you seriously think that saying "the 2nd line was worse in 2018-2019 than it was in 2017-2018, so Johnson individually sunk the 2nd line" is at all a logical argument, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you. Trying to use logic in an argument based on a completely illogical premise is a waste of time.

That's what the stats show when we account for the JJ factor.

Understanding what went wrong with the 2nd line last year is the key to understanding how we can avoid those mistakes this year. Why should we expect something different with Geno and Gooch if they play as much time with JJ next year?

 

[Gurglesons]

This doesn't answer the question, at all.

Nobody had a problem with Geno and Phil in '17-'18. Their ES production and underlying numbers together are better in '18-'19 than '17-'18 when you remove JJ from the equation, with or without Schultz.

So why were they worse this year? What is that based on?



Like I said, even when you remove Schultz, JJ still made Malkin and Kessel worse.

It's important to isolate the real problem here, because we're putting Galchenyuk in the same position this season and as much as I dislike the trade and we all understand he's not going to live up to Kessel's standard, we need to place the blame where it belongs if things go awry.

What do you think will happen if JJ spends a lot of time with Malkin and Galchenyuk?

Tons of people had a problem with Malkin and Kessel in 17-18 which is why we were all super stoked when HMH clicked and Brassard was brought in?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Tons of people had a problem with Malkin and Kessel in 17-18 which is why we were all super stoked when HMH clicked and Brassard was brought in?

I don't recall that. People liked the line-up versatility and depth Brass brought, but I don't think the idea that our two leading scorers last season were an untenable problem together was a majority one, at all.

 

[dogthateats]

 

[Gurglesons]

I don't recall that. People liked the line-up versatility and depth Brass brought, but I don't think the idea that our two leading scorers last season were an untenable problem together was a majority one, at all.

You’re blind as a bat then. #batmanforever

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Nice to see the hot takes were off-base.

 

[dogthateats]

Sorry about the size of the image. I am on mobile and can’t resize rn

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You’re blind as a bat then. #batmanforever

 

[Empoleon8771]

That's what the stats show when we account for the JJ factor.

Understanding what went wrong with the 2nd line last year is the key to understanding how we can avoid those mistakes this year. Why should we expect something different with Geno and Gooch if they play as much time with JJ next year?

No, the stats show the 2nd line was worse in 2018-2019 than 2017-2018. Pixies had a great description in the other thread that applies to what you're doing, you're looking at data and wanting it to say something instead of actually reading the data. This "JJ factor" that you're mentioning is small compared to the Schultz factor, the Kessel factor, the Malkin factor and the Sullivan factor that impacted the 2nd line last year.

Why should we expect something different to happen next year? Well:

1. Kessel is gone, and Kessel did not provide any positive to Malkin's line last year (source)
2. Schultz isn't coming back from a gruesome injury, so he won't tank Malkin's numbers next year like he did last year (source)
3. Malkin is coming back extremely motivated and in better shape than last year, plus he'll be in a better space mentally without having to be in the middle of a pissing contest between Kessel and Sullivan.
4. Pettersson likely continues to be used similarly to how he was used at the end of last year, meaning he'll be jumping Johnson on the depth chart.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

No, the stats show the 2nd line was worse in 2018-2019 than 2017-2018. Pixies had a great description in the other thread that applies to what you're doing, you're looking at data and wanting it to say something instead of actually reading the data.

Not when you remove JJ, Schultz or no Schultz.

The numbers are plain as day. I can link them again.

Why should we expect something different to happen next year? Well:

1. Kessel is gone, and Kessel did not provide any positive to Malkin's line last year (source)

According to those stats, Malkin's possession got better and his GF/GA got much better with Kessel.

Gooch is no better on the possession front than Kessel, and he's been a -50 the last 2 years with the worst and 2nd worst +/- and the Yotes and Habs despite good zone deployment.

2. Schultz isn't coming back from a gruesome injury, so he won't tank Malkin's numbers next year like he did last year (source)

As I showed earlier, Schultz or no Schultz, JJ made the tandem worse. A gibbled Schultz compounded the problem, but JJ didn't need any help tanking the numbers, as ever.

3. Malkin is coming back extremely motivated and in better shape than last year, plus he'll be in a better space mentally without having to be in the middle of a pissing contest between Kessel and Sullivan.

That's true.

4. Pettersson likely continues to be used similarly to how he was used at the end of last year, meaning he'll be jumping Johnson on the depth chart.

Could be. But the premise of the argument is "what if Geno and Gooch play as much time with JJ?"

 

[Empoleon8771]

"If you ignore the context of why those numbers take a hit, you can prove that Johnson caused those numbers to take a hit"

What a fantastic argument, bravo! Who needs context and facts when you have an agenda to push? Yeah, extra information to make more logical statements is stupid when you can look at 1 WOWY table and draw conclusions, while rejecting any further tables that don't support your claim.

I'm just going to keep repeating these 3 points until it gets through. This is what the stats show from last year:

1. The Johnson-Schultz pair was about 90% of the cause for why Malkin's stats without Johnson were better than with Johnson.
2. Without Schultz, Johnson had a small negative impact on Malkin with Kessel and no impact on Malkin without Kessel.
3. Johnson did have a negative impact on a lot of players last year, especially on the bottom-6. However, the problems on the 2nd line were mostly other things than him.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

"If you ignore the context of why those numbers take a hit, you can prove that Johnson caused those numbers to take a hit"

What a fantastic argument, bravo! Who needs context and facts when you have an agenda to push? Yeah, extra information to make more logical statements is stupid when you can look at 1 WOWY table and draw conclusions, while rejecting any further tables that don't support your claim.

No context is being ignored.

Even when we account for Schultz, JJ still brought Kessel and Malkin down. Without him, they were better together than the year before on every relevant front.

It doesn't get less true the more you dispute it.

I'm just going to keep repeating these 3 points until it gets through. This is what the stats show from last year:

1. The Johnson-Schultz pair was about 90% of the cause for why Malkin's stats without Johnson were better than with Johnson.
2. Without Schultz, Johnson had a small negative impact on Malkin with Kessel and no impact on Malkin without Kessel.
3. Johnson did have a negative impact on a lot of players last year, especially on the bottom-6. However, the problems on the 2nd line were mostly other things than him.

1. The subject is the Malkin-Kessel combination.
2. We're talking about JJ's impact on the Malkin-Kessel duo. And he was what made them worse than the previous year.
3. JJ was the single biggest difference for the duo over the course of the season.

It's a simple equation:

Malkin + Kessel = not perfect, but not a problem.
Malkin + Kessel + Johnson = a problem.

It will almost certainly remain the case for the 2nd line this season:

Malkin + Galchenyuk = not perfect, but not a problem
Malkin + Galchenyuk + Johnson = a problem

Why should we expect any different from a 32 year old who's been one of the worst possession drags in the league over the course of his career?

 

[Empoleon8771]

I am done explaining this, you're intentionally ignoring the stats that show you're wrong just and just keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over again. Good luck in the future. I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who refuses to admit their wrong and just disregards stats that don't agree with their agenda.