News Article: Penguins Midseason Grades: Defensemen & Goalies

[Jaded-Fan]

Really nice read giving mid season evaluations of the defense and goalies from one of my favorite sites.

The Pittsburgh Penguins are 42 games into the season, which means it’s just past midseason. As we did with the forwards, it’s time to grade the performance of the Penguins’ defensemen and goalies. The blue line has never been their strongest area, but the bounceback of Kris Letang and some other surprises have helped mask some of the shortcomings. Meanwhile, Casey DeSmith’s strong play and Matt Murray’s return to form have brought stability to their crease.

*Note: Justin Schultz (four games) and Chad Ruhwedel (11 games) aren’t included on the midseason report because they’ve played fewer than 25 percent of the season (21 games).

Pittsburgh Penguins Midseason Grades: Defensemen & Goalies

Click to read more...

 

[Empoleon8771]

Honestly, I hate these kind of articles that just make player evaluation based on advanced stats. Like there's no analysis there, it's just posting what comes up on naturalstattrick and maybe posting a GAR chart or whatever. Any random HFer can just make an article like that, the only thing they posted that wasn't just pulled from an advanced stat website was the comment about Johnson failing the eye test (which he hasn't for the last 20 games, but whatever).

Maybe it's too much to expect these kind of articles to be on par with what guys like Jesse Marshall do, but this article just seems lazy and something a HFer could throw together in 15 minutes.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

Honestly, I hate these kind of articles that just make player evaluation based on advanced stats. Like there's no analysis there, it's just posting what comes up on naturalstattrick and maybe posting a GAR chart or whatever. Any random HFer can just make an article like that, the only thing they posted that wasn't just pulled from an advanced stat website was the comment about Johnson failing the eye test (which he hasn't for the last 20 games, but whatever).

Maybe it's too much to expect these kind of articles to be on par with what guys like Jesse Marshall do, but this article just seems lazy and something a HFer could throw together in 15 minutes.

I honestly feel a lot of the same way. I hate when articles are all metrics only with no eye test/very little eye test. As well as I dislike articles that are all opinion eye test only with no supporting metrics at all.

 

[BHD]

Apologies, Jaded. I shortened the preview to go with the site's guidelines for articles.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Apologies, Jaded. I shortened the preview to go with the site's guidelines for articles.

Oh no problem, I am sorry to have made you. Most people know how to click a link if they feel interested enough to read. I have always liked the site and thought it an interesting read.

 

[BHD]

Oh no problem, I am sorry to have made you. Most people know how to click a link if they feel interested enough to read. I have always liked the site and thought it an interesting read.

No worries.

 

[Ryder71]

When it's all said and done hopefully we get an A+ as a team.

 

[pistolpete11]

My biggest takeaway from that is just how tall and lanky Petterson is. It doesn't even look like he has pads on in that picture.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

That writer loves Letang about as much as I do.

Hart votes are a little exagerated.

 

[Turin]

Seems right. Get JJ off this team.

 

[Tom Hanks]

That writer loves Letang about as much as I do.

Hart votes are a little exagerated.

This season he’s been our most valuable but in terms of wording for the Hart it really can’t be anyone else but McDavid while they are close to a playoff spot.

 

[Peat]

Honestly, I hate these kind of articles that just make player evaluation based on advanced stats. Like there's no analysis there, it's just posting what comes up on naturalstattrick and maybe posting a GAR chart or whatever. Any random HFer can just make an article like that, the only thing they posted that wasn't just pulled from an advanced stat website was the comment about Johnson failing the eye test (which he hasn't for the last 20 games, but whatever).

Maybe it's too much to expect these kind of articles to be on par with what guys like Jesse Marshall do, but this article just seems lazy and something a HFer could throw together in 15 minutes.

Eh. I both write a lot and spend a lot of time on advanced stats sites, but I don't think I could have done that in 15 minutes. Hell, an hour would have been quick.

Where I'd throw rocks at him is failing to do a full statistical analysis, in particular neglecting special teams. Like, how does it make sense to give Maatta and Johnson such low marks when they're the first choice pairing for one of the league's PKing units? At the very least explain that shizzle.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Eh. I both write a lot and spend a lot of time on advanced stats sites, but I don't think I could have done that in 15 minutes. Hell, an hour would have been quick.

Where I'd throw rocks at him is failing to do a full statistical analysis, in particular neglecting special teams. Like, how does it make sense to give Maatta and Johnson such low marks when they're the first choice pairing for one of the league's PKing units? At the very least explain that shizzle.

It was an exaggeration about the length of time it would take, but a better way to put it is that any hockey fan who knows where those stats are would be able to write that article pretty quickly. There wasn't any actual thought put into the article outside of the small Johnson quote, which didn't really explain any specifics. And I agree with you entirely on the PK, advanced stats are solely 5v5 numbers, so I don't know why you wouldn't include special teams.

I could cherrypick a couple of other things, such as Riikola being above Maatta (they provided literally no justification for him being ranked higher), but it just doesn't seem like a quality article.

 

[Peat]

It was an exaggeration about the length of time it would take, but a better way to put it is that any hockey fan who knows where those stats are would be able to write that article pretty quickly. There wasn't any actual thought put into the article outside of the small Johnson quote, which didn't really explain any specifics. And I agree with you entirely on the PK, advanced stats are solely 5v5 numbers, so I don't know why you wouldn't include special teams.

I could cherrypick a couple of other things, such as Riikola being above Maatta (they provided literally no justification for him being ranked higher), but it just doesn't seem like a quality article.

I guess my point is that quality articles are difficult enough to do that I'm grateful even for mediocre articles. Even when they're not all that it still gives me something to read and think about.

But it is mediocre. I don't disagree with the grades all that much but the arguments and information presented could be a lot better.

 

[RSPens]

It was an exaggeration about the length of time it would take, but a better way to put it is that any hockey fan who knows where those stats are would be able to write that article pretty quickly. There wasn't any actual thought put into the article outside of the small Johnson quote, which didn't really explain any specifics. And I agree with you entirely on the PK, advanced stats are solely 5v5 numbers, so I don't know why you wouldn't include special teams.

I could cherrypick a couple of other things, such as Riikola being above Maatta (they provided literally no justification for him being ranked higher), but it just doesn't seem like a quality article.

The part that you are missing and why you are questioning Maatta and Riikola's positions is that they are not graded against each other as much as they are graded against expectations. Maatta was expected (and should be) to be a top 4 reliable d-man, he hasn't exactly lived up to expectations, except since he's been paired with Riikola. The expectations of Riikola were very low, maybe #7 or first call up AHL D. But instead he has shown that he can potentially play top 4, in the right situation. A better way to highlight this is to look back at the forwards and look at the centre grades. Rightfully so, Brassard is the lowest ranked centre, but does that mean that the fans/team wants Cullen, Sheahan or Grant playing 3rd line centre?

 

[Peat]

The part that you are missing and why you are questioning Maatta and Riikola's positions is that they are not graded against each other as much as they are graded against expectations. Maatta was expected (and should be) to be a top 4 reliable d-man, he hasn't exactly lived up to expectations, except since he's been paired with Riikola. The expectations of Riikola were very low, maybe #7 or first call up AHL D. But instead he has shown that he can potentially play top 4, in the right situation. A better way to highlight this is to look back at the forwards and look at the centre grades. Rightfully so, Brassard is the lowest ranked centre, but does that mean that the fans/team wants Cullen, Sheahan or Grant playing 3rd line centre?

Solely in terms of winning the next game, yes. Hope dictates Brassard's place on the team, not current form.

But that's kinda besides the point. Its not made explicit that the author is grading against expectations. I think its implicit, but not explicit, and in any case wouldn't be consistent as how is Petterson a B against expectations? Who was expecting this when we traded for him?

 

[Empoleon8771]

The part that you are missing and why you are questioning Maatta and Riikola's positions is that they are not graded against each other as much as they are graded against expectations. Maatta was expected (and should be) to be a top 4 reliable d-man, he hasn't exactly lived up to expectations, except since he's been paired with Riikola. The expectations of Riikola were very low, maybe #7 or first call up AHL D. But instead he has shown that he can potentially play top 4, in the right situation. A better way to highlight this is to look back at the forwards and look at the centre grades. Rightfully so, Brassard is the lowest ranked centre, but does that mean that the fans/team wants Cullen, Sheahan or Grant playing 3rd line centre?

Peat summed it up perfectly, it isn't made explicit by the author that they're rating relative to expectations. And if anything, why is Johnson a D if they're rated to expectations? Everyone expected him to be horrible here. And why is Oleksiak a C-? Why would anyone be expecting any more out of him than what they've seen?

 

[RSPens]

I can't really argue with that, he is obviously using a combination of stats, expectations and some opinion. I think he has rated some players more on expectations, while others are more based on stats. It is a little all over the place, but in general the grades are pretty accurate. Sure Brassard hasn't performed how we would like him to, but I would much rather have him on the third line with Kessel and Pearson than Grant, Cullen or Sheahan. Sure Brassard isn't lighting the world on fire, but without him on the third line we are completely a 2 line team (offensively) and then we have two wingers that are not being utilized properly.

 

[SEALBound]

Honestly, I hate these kind of articles that just make player evaluation based on advanced stats. Like there's no analysis there, it's just posting what comes up on naturalstattrick and maybe posting a GAR chart or whatever. Any random HFer can just make an article like that, the only thing they posted that wasn't just pulled from an advanced stat website was the comment about Johnson failing the eye test (which he hasn't for the last 20 games, but whatever).

Maybe it's too much to expect these kind of articles to be on par with what guys like Jesse Marshall do, but this article just seems lazy and something a HFer could throw together in 15 minutes.

Its about as bad as a Ryan Wilson article.

Either too many told them they were smart, or not enough told them they were dumb

 

[Ugene Magic]

Considering Riikola has only been here and played 22 games I'd probably give him a solid C+ going through the transformation from the big ice to north American ice. JJ is also within that realm.

 

[Allie Kitsune]

Peat summed it up perfectly, it isn't made explicit by the author that they're rating relative to expectations. And if anything, why is Johnson a D if they're rated to expectations? Everyone expected him to be horrible here. And why is Oleksiak a C-? Why would anyone be expecting any more out of him than what they've seen?

Maybe some people are still thinking that every Defense Reclamation Project is going to pull a Niskanen.