Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread|8 Days - TDL Being "Center" of Attention - PART II

[Ryder71]

We finished 7th and 8th respectively out of the playoff teams in both years percentage wise.

Wouldn't the worst suggest 15th or 16th? Middle of the road doesn't equate to being among the worst.

 

[DesertedPenguin]

Who cares if he regresses. McCann and Blueger should be the bottom six centers anyway.

As I've said repeatedly on this thread, McCann should be a wing.

 

[BillyOcean]

Never forget that JR said Jankowski and ERod were brought in to be 2/3 of the 3rd line

That's gross. Stop being gross.

 

[Gurglesons]

Wouldn't the worst suggest 15th or 16th? Middle of the road doesn't equate to being among the worst.

The point was we were not good. We were below average to average in the RS and playoffs in the back to back years. The overarching point is acquiring a player who is worse at every other aspect of the game then McCann, Blueger and Gaudreau, but good at faceoffs is not a way to improve this team.

The other overarching point is @Peat made. Faceoff wins have no correlation with team wins.

 

[DesertedPenguin]

Acquiring a 3rd line center to play on the 4th line seems like a bad idea to me

Glendening is a fourth liner who gets extra minutes for the Wings because he's their top PK guy and best faceoff guy.

Derek Ryan is no longer a third line center. He was. He's now a fourth liner. He's playing 11 minutes per game.

Zajac is the only one who is arguably a third line center, and I don't think he's a feasible acquisition anyway, though he'd be a definite upgrade.

 

[Ryder71]

The point was we were not good. We were below average to average in the RS and playoffs in the back to back years. The overarching point is acquiring a player who is worse at every other aspect of the game then McCann, Blueger and Gaudreau, but good at faceoffs is not a way to improve this team.

The point is you were wrong and intentionally tried to mislead our beloved board here. Saying we were among the worst was highly inaccurate.

 

[Gurglesons]

The point is you were wrong and intentionally tried to mislead our beloved board here. Saying we were among the worst was highly inaccurate.

Detective @Ryder71 on the case again.

 

[Ryder71]

Detective @Ryder71 on the case again.

Instead of asserting things you can't conclusively know to be true, why not just keep such things to yourself? Or research it first before you espouse your opinions and perspective? You just pull things out of your ass time and time again.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

We finished 7th and 8th respectively out of the playoff teams in both years percentage wise.

So in other words, we were a top half team in faceoff percentages both years? 7 out of 16 and 8 out of 16 is a far cry from "not good".

 

[DesertedPenguin]

Instead of asserting things you can't conclusively know to be true, why not just keep such things to yourself? Or research it first before you espouse your opinions and perspective? You just pull things out of your ass time and time again.

Nah, why do that when you can wildly assert that a player is a coach's pet despite playing only a quarter of his career with him?

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

I honestly don't see an issue with the bottom-6 centers. We have McCann, TB, and Gaudreau for two spots. If you acquire a LW for Geno+Kap, you can run Zucker-McCann-Tanev and ZAR-TB-E-Rod/Angello/Gaudreau/Whatever.

If you don't, you have this as the forward corps--which I think is just fine;

Jake-Sid-Rust
Zucker-Geno-Kap
McCann-TB-Tanev
ZAR-Gaudreau-E-Rod/Angello/Whatever

or

Jake-Sid-Rust
McCann-Geno-Kap
Zucker-TB-Tanev
ZAR-Gaudreau-E-Rod/Angello/Whatever

 

[Peat]

The point was we were not good. We were below average to average in the RS and playoffs in the back to back years. The overarching point is acquiring a player who is worse at every other aspect of the game then McCann, Blueger and Gaudreau, but good at faceoffs is not a way to improve this team.

The other overarching point is @Peat made. Faceoff wins have no correlation with team wins.

I think only one of the last five SC winners finished top 10 for faceoffs in the regular season. You look at post-season stats - Tampa and Washington both won with under 50, don't think Vegas have had a playoff run over 50, St Louis won with 50% dead on...

This team has done well when it's got 12 good forwards that fit a scheme onto the ice and struggled a bit when it hasn't. A genuine faceoff ace for the moments it matters most would be great but it's secondary to the first point.

So in other words, we were a top half team in faceoff percentages both years? 7 out of 16 and 8 out of 16 is a far cry from "not good".

You could also call that average, which is kinda synonymous with not good...

 

[Ryder71]

The point was we were not good. We were below average to average in the RS and playoffs in the back to back years. The overarching point is acquiring a player who is worse at every other aspect of the game then McCann, Blueger and Gaudreau, but good at faceoffs is not a way to improve this team.

The other overarching point is @Peat made. Faceoff wins have no correlation with team wins.

Overarching? meh

But are there instances where a win on a faceoff does indeed decide a game here and there? Absolutely.

And over time that very well could mean the difference between winning and losing. Particularly when you have two evenly matched teams.

 

[Gurglesons]

So in other words, we were a top half team in faceoff percentages both years? 7 out of 16 and 8 out of 16 is a far cry from "not good".

I guess. If you guys want to make it seem like face offs matter more power to y’all. When star players like Getzlaf are saying they specifically lose faceoffs to run set plays makes me question that validity of the stat.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

But bloody atrocious at EN and PK situations in 15-16, where he was 38% on PK and didn't win a single one against the Empty Net. Although maybe that was just him collapsing on the faceoff and preventing a clean win everytime, even if he rarely won it himself.

While Bonino was better in those situations in 15-16, the year he had the worst percentages overall.

I'm not typing the whole thing out because there's not a whole lot to learn other than small sample stats are funky, but we were a pretty dodgy dangerous situations faceoff team in 15-16 and okay enough at first glance in 16-17. Which, of course, doesn't line up with the regular season, where we were one of the worst in 16-17 and average in 15-16.

I was just talking about overall.

I think when talking about incredibly small sample sizes, like holding a small lead with EN situations during a 24 game stretch, it's difficult to draw a conclusion here or there about effectiveness. But the larger you stretch the sample size (ie. all situations) I think it paints a better picture.

In any case, like I said originally. I'm not saying faceoffs are the be-all, end-all and that they're one of the most important aspects of winning a hockey game. I just largely disagree with the idea that they don't matter at all. Whether you believe that to that degree or whether that's just pixie, that's my bigger contention.

 

[Gurglesons]

Overarching? meh

But are there instances where a win on a faceoff does indeed decide a game here and there? Absolutely.

And over time that very well could mean the difference between winning and losing. Particularly when you have two evenly matched teams.

But faceoffs have little predictive value. It’s why we could go from the 28th worst team in the regular season in 2017 to 8th in the playoffs.

Yes, a faceoff can have a big impact on a game. No, a player who is 53% instead of 46% is typically not going to win that faceoff especially when faceoff stats are not strictly kept by whether the draw is won or not.

Glendening being good at faceoffs in the regular season has no predictive value on what Glendening will do during the playoffs in a must win faceoff.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_A_contextual_analysis_of_hockey_face-offs

There have been multiple analytical studies of this.

 

[Ryder71]

I was just talking about overall.

I think when talking about incredibly small sample sizes, like holding a small lead with EN situations during a 24 game stretch, it's difficult to draw a conclusion here or there about effectiveness. But the larger you stretch the sample size (ie. all situations) I think it paints a better picture.

In any case, like I said originally. I'm not saying faceoffs are the be-all, end-all and that they're one of the most important aspects of winning a hockey game. I just largely disagree with the idea that they don't matter at all. Whether you believe that to that degree or whether that's just pixie, that's my bigger contention.

I think that's where I'm at. Not every face off is significant, but there are very consequential ones here and there, and you'd prefer to have a very capable center take that draw if at all possible. Totally dismissing the importance of faceoffs is just silly.

 

[Gurglesons]

I think that's where I'm at. Not every face off is significant, but there are very consequential ones here and there, and you'd prefer to have a very capable center take that draw if at all possible. Totally dismissing the importance of faceoffs is just silly.

I’m not dismissing the importance of faceoffs. I’m dismissing the idea that Glendening having a high faceoff percentage means anything.

What wins games is having centers and forwards that can dictate play. If they are losing faceoffs they can still do that even within the context of faceoffs. Getzlaf has spoken about this. He purposefully lost o-zone faceoffs because the forechecking style of the Ducks promoted a higher danger chance if the defenseman had the puck below the net versus a point shot.

 

[Ryder71]

But faceoffs have little predictive value. It’s why we could go from the 28th worst team in the regular season in 2017 to 8th in the playoffs.

Yes, a faceoff can have a big impact on a game. No, a player who is 53% instead of 46% is typically not going to win that faceoff especially when faceoff stats are not strictly kept by whether the draw is won or not.

Glendening being good at faceoffs in the regular season has no predictive value on what Glendening will do during the playoffs in a must win faceoff.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_A_contextual_analysis_of_hockey_face-offs

Glendening is what at 64% this season? That's incredible. That doesn't guarantee he'll win a key draw. But you would think over the course of time in a given playoff series it very well could matter. And if you're a coach you just try give your team the best chance when it comes to a key faceoff late in a game. I'd prefer him over anyone else we have in that regard with the possible exception of Sid. But it'd be great to have two such options.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You could also call that average, which is kinda synonymous with not good...

That seems a bit of a stretch.

If one were to call a player "not good", you wouldn't immediately think of the average player. You think of a guy who is nothing more than a 4th liner or fringe NHL player. For instance, if you start a thread asking which Penguin forwards are "not good", I doubt the guys ranked in the 5/6 range out of our 12 forwards would be included in that list.

 

[Gurglesons]

Glendening is what at 64% this season? That's incredible. That doesn't guarantee he'll win a key draw. But you would think over the course of time in a given playoff series it very well could matter. And if you're a coach you just try give your team the best chance when it comes to a key faceoff late in a game. I'd prefer him over anyone else we have in that regard with the possible exception of Sid. But it'd be great to have two such options.

I’d prefer high chance and suppression focused players like McCann, Gaudreau and Blueger over players like Glendening and Jankowski in our system.

It is why Cullen was successful here in late draws. Not because of his “winning of the faceoff”. Because of what he did after it.

This is the point you and @Sidney the Kidney ate missing that I’m making. It isn’t the act of the faceoff that is wrong, it is the stat you are using to reflect what is going on there.

 

[Ryder71]

That seems a bit of a stretch.

If one were to call a player "not good", you wouldn't immediately think of the average player. You think of a guy who is nothing more than a 4th liner or fringe NHL player. For instance, if you start a thread asking which Penguin forwards are "not good", I doubt the guys ranked in the 5/6 range out of our 12 forwards would be included in that list.

Of course it's a stretch. But they aren't concerned with moving goal posts to further their agenda (unfortunately).

 

[Tender Rip]

You people are nuts .

 

[DesertedPenguin]

Glendening is what at 64% this season? That's incredible. That doesn't guarantee he'll win a key draw. But you would think over the course of time in a given playoff series it very well could matter. And if you're a coach you just try give your team the best chance when it comes to a key faceoff late in a game. I'd prefer him over anyone else we have in that regard with the possible exception of Sid. But it'd be great to have two such options.

Exactly. A guy who is at 64% and is a career 55% faceoff guy is a better option than a guy who is at 41% this season and 41.5% for his career (McCann).

Is it a guarantee? No. But it ups the odds, and it helps even more that he - and Derek Ryan, for that matter - are right-handed. That provides options.

Everyone bitches about Sullivan not matching lines or using guys situationally, and here's an option that would enable him to do just that.

 

[Ryder71]

Exactly. A guy who is at 64% and is a career 55% faceoff guy is a better option than a guy who is at 41% this season and 41.5% for his career (McCann).

Is it a guarantee? No. But it ups the odds, and it helps even more that he - and Derek Ryan, for that matter - are right-handed. That provides options.

Everyone bitches about Sullivan not matching lines or using guys situationally, and here's an option that would enable him to do just that.

Agreed. I can't believe this is even a discussion. Or disputed in any way whatsoever. lol