Prospect Info: Morgan Barron

[Thirty One]

Faceoffs matter. But the things some fans will do to get a player who wins another 1 faceoff out 20...

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Faceoffs matter. But the things some fans will do to get a player who wins another 1 faceoff out 20...

Except it's not that simple.

A guy who wins 50-55% of draws vs the best in the league is going to crush a guy all night long in the face off dot vs a guy who is below average in the draw at 40-45%.

The guy winning 40-45% of draws is winning most of those draws vs average/below average centers and losing vs the good faceoff centers routinely.

 

[Thirty One]

Except it's not that simple.

A guy who wins 50-55% of draws vs the best in the league is going to crush a guy all night long in the face off dot vs a guy who is below average in the draw at 40-45%.

The guy winning 40-45% of draws is winning most of those draws vs average/below average centers and losing vs the good faceoff centers routinely.

OK, but if you add up all their faceoffs against good faceoff men, medium faceoff men and bad faceoff men, a 50% faceoff guy wins 1 out of 20 more than a 45% faceoff guy.

 

[GAGLine]

OK, but if you add up all their faceoffs against good faceoff men, medium faceoff men and bad faceoff men, a 50% faceoff guy wins 1 out of 20 more than a 45% faceoff guy.

Unless they are playing against each other in a 7 game series.

 

[nyr2k2]

Unless they are playing against each other in a 7 game series.

Sooo, do you build a team for a theoretical seven game series against the Face-Off Beasts, or do you build your team for sustained success over the course of the season and playoffs?

Also:

"Since the start of the 2014 season, there have been 580 instances of teams going 60 percent or better on draws, resulting in 295 victories, or 50.86 percent."

Absolutely killing it on face-offs gives you a less than 2% greater likelihood of winning.

It's great if you can find some really good face-off guys, but it's more important that they're good hockey players in general. Having a FO specialist who is a generally poor player otherwise is a detriment to the team.

 

[GAGLine]

Sooo, do you build a team for a theoretical seven game series against the Face-Off Beasts, or do you build your team for sustained success over the course of the season and playoffs?

Also:

"Since the start of the 2014 season, there have been 580 instances of teams going 60 percent or better on draws, resulting in 295 victories, or 50.86 percent."

Absolutely killing it on face-offs gives you a less than 2% greater likelihood of winning.

It's great if you can find some really good face-off guys, but it's more important that they're good hockey players in general. Having a FO specialist who is a generally poor player otherwise is a detriment to the team.

All else being equal, I'd rather have the guy who is better at faceoffs. I never said I would prioritize faceoffs over other stuff.

And that winning percentage means nothing. You can't use that as a means to quantify the importance of faceoffs because all of the other variables weren't the same in every case.

 

[Harbour Dog]

All else being equal, I'd rather have the guy who is better at faceoffs. I never said I would prioritize faceoffs over other stuff.

And that winning percentage means nothing. You can't use that as a means to quantify the importance of faceoffs because all of the other variables weren't the same in every case.

That's a pretty big sample size to shrug off as being potentially biased.

And what would the bias be? Teams with good faceoff centres are generally worse than opposing teams at other stuff? Because that kind of goes to @nyr2k2 's point.

 

[nyr2k2]

All else being equal, I'd rather have the guy who is better at faceoffs. I never said I would prioritize faceoffs over other stuff.

And that winning percentage means nothing. You can't use that as a means to quantify the importance of faceoffs because all of the other variables weren't the same in every case.

Who wouldn't?

My point is, when all else isn't equal, I will take the guy who is good at driving play instead of the guy who is good at FOs.

The other things I posted or that one could find if they searched, those attempt to quantify the actual value of face-offs into things like expected goals and wins. I just posted a basic statistic about dominating face-offs since this particular part of the thread was spurred by the awesome observation that really good face-off guys will do better against really bad face-off guys.

Anyway, I'm done.

 

[GAGLine]

That's a pretty big sample size to shrug off as being potentially biased.

And what would the bias be? Teams with good faceoff centres are generally worse than opposing teams at other stuff? Because that kind of goes to @nyr2k2 's point.

No, the bias is in concluding that other factors didn't influence the outcomes. And it still doesn't speak to the point of the small sample size. If the Rangers win a faceoff in overtime and consequently score a goal, then in that particular game, being good at faceoffs resulted in a 100% win rate.

 

[bobbop]

Look at who is winning face offs late in a game. There are times during a game when a player will let the other guy win a face off just to get a line on what he does. What is really important is having the guy you can send out to win a clutch face off in your own end, especially late in the game. Those are the guys you want.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

OK, but if you add up all their faceoffs against good faceoff men, medium faceoff men and bad faceoff men, a 50% faceoff guy wins 1 out of 20 more than a 45% faceoff guy.

Sure, if you want to assume the good face off guys are taking faceoffs equally against the bad guys and the good guys...unfortunately they are not so your argument has no merit.

The good face off guys are consistently taking faceoffs more often against the other teams top #1/2 face off centers in the end zones on every powerplay/penalty kill. Close games there is no team putting out a center who is below average in the dot vs the other teams top face off guy in the last 10 minutes...unfortunately teams like the Isles have to do this and Barzal gets crushed much more than 40% when he keeps going against the other teams top centers.

 

[Leetch3]

 

[charliemurphy]

Would like to see this kid in the mix as soon as possible.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Would like to see this kid in the mix as soon as possible.

He will replace Howden on the 4th line

 

[Harbour Dog]

He will replace Howden on the 4th line

Now we just need somebody to replace Howden on the 3rd line.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Now we just need somebody to replace Howden on the 3rd line.

Henriksson. But who replaces Howden on the 2nd line?

 

[Harbour Dog]

Henriksson. But who replaces Howden on the 2nd line?

Kravtsov. But if Kakko doesn't hit his 1st line ceiling, were f***ed.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Kravtsov. But if Kakko doesn't hit his 1st line ceiling, were f***ed.

I'm happy we are over the "Kravtsov/Kakko at center" BS

 

[Harbour Dog]

I'm happy we are over the "Kravtsov/Kakko at center" BS

I must of quick-scrolled through any Kakko to centre discussions. Don't remember them at all

Kravtsov I remember, and I can see a little more merit for, but I just don't know why we would be trying to project a kid that plays the wing, as a pro centre. especially when he is still just doing what he can to be an NHLer player.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I must of quick-scrolled through any Kakko to centre discussions. Don't remember them at all

Kravtsov I remember, and I can see a little more merit for, but I just don't know why we would be trying to project a kid that plays the wing, as a pro centre. especially when he is still just doing what he can to be an NHLer player.

Kakko played 4 games at center in Liiga in his draft year, and fans got carried away.

 

[nsvoyageurs]

Morgan Barron still undecided whether to turn pro or stay at Cornell (recorded recently):

 

[NYSPORTS]

Morgan Barron still undecided whether to turn pro or stay at Cornell (recorded recently):

it’s undecided if the NCAA will have a hockey season based on these Covid predictions.

 

[Leetch3]

it’s undecided if the NCAA will have a hockey season based on these Covid predictions.

I think that's a big reason why it makes sense that he is taking his time to make the decision. no one has any idea what things will look like next season for the ncaa, nhl or ahl.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think he pretty clearly wants to stay and make a run at the championship, but will sign if there is no season (or will sign after that season). I haven't seen or heard anything that leads me to believe he won't sign here.

 

[Leetch3]

I think he pretty clearly wants to stay and make a run at the championship, but will sign if there is no season (or will sign after that season). I haven't seen or heard anything that leads me to believe he won't sign here.

it probably kills him that they were the top team when the season was cancelled.