GDT: Sharks @ Hawks 4pm CSNCA

[Alwalys]

patty and joe are incapable of having a big game against the hawks. i cannot wait until the patty and joe era is over for good

Actually they are some of the few players good enough to step to meet the challenge of the Hawks. The rest of the team usually gets smoked by their depth.

 

[Mattb124]

Burns makes a lot of bad decisions on defense, and that was what Hedican was getting on him for. In that one sequence, he rushed in to make a play when he was the last player back (akin to a bad pinch). It was bad luck the puck jumped over his stick, but it did. When he got back into the play he layed down to block the pass which is a questionable play. He then went to the far side post to cover the pass behind the net (where they are not going to get scored on from) and Shaw walked to the front of the net and scored. There were other defensive breakdowns and some bad luck there, but Burns was basically covering air when the goal went in. He should have been at the top of the crease to contest either player coming from below the goal line.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Burns makes a lot of bad decisions on defense, and that was what Hedican was getting on him for. In that one sequence, he rushed in to make a play when he was the last player back (akin to a bad pinch). It was bad luck the puck jumped over his stick, but it did. When he got back into the play he layed down to block the pass which is a questionable play. He then went to the far side post to cover the pass behind the net (where they are not going to get scored on from) and Shaw walked to the front of the net and scored. There were other defensive breakdowns and some bad luck there, but Burns was basically covering air when the goal went in. He should have been at the top of the crease to contest either player coming from below the goal line.

It's fine to criticize him for vacating the front of the net. That's perfectly valid. His method to break up the odd-man rush against though is not questionable. He was in a spot to force the puck-handler to make a play and he prevented the pass. He did precisely what he should have to break up that play. Riding him for pinching on a power play when the puck is popping out to him for an opportunity to score is wholly unjustified. One, he's not the last man back. Two, how often have you seen Burns score from that area and it's because if he gets that puck and puts it on net, it's significantly less time for the goalie and defense to read and react. You need that in order to produce. Just because it doesn't work out all the time doesn't make the criticisms justified.

 

[hohosaregood]

I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that Burns plays a risky offensive game that has been effective on the offensive side and he needs someone that can cover him for jumping up in the play and Martin's not really doing the job. Which makes it kind of strange how often we see Burns being the one covering the 2 on 1 since it should be Martin that's in that position more often.

 

[Mattb124]

It's fine to criticize him for vacating the front of the net. That's perfectly valid. His method to break up the odd-man rush against though is not questionable. He was in a spot to force the puck-handler to make a play and he prevented the pass. He did precisely what he should have to break up that play. Riding him for pinching on a power play when the puck is popping out to him for an opportunity to score is wholly unjustified. One, he's not the last man back. Two, how often have you seen Burns score from that area and it's because if he gets that puck and puts it on net, it's significantly less time for the goalie and defense to read and react. You need that in order to produce. Just because it doesn't work out all the time doesn't make the criticisms justified.

I went back and re-watched that sequence and you are correct that Burns was not the last man back as Martin was also back. The reason it seemed that way is because Burns went to the same guy Martin was on, went down, and almost took Martin out as well. Martin was able to block the pass to the open Hawk at the far post (who Burns should have been covering) while Burns was getting up off the ice. I still don't think it is a good play in general, as its all or nothing and hard to recover from. Neither did the commentators have played in the NHL. But what do they know?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I went back and re-watched that sequence and you are correct that Burns was not the last man back as Martin was also back. The reason it seemed that way is because Burns went to the same guy Martin was on, went down, and almost took Martin out as well. Martin was able to block the pass to the open Hawk at the far post (who Burns should have been covering) while Burns was getting up off the ice. I still don't think it is a good play in general, as its all or nothing and hard to recover from. Neither did the commentators have played in the NHL. But what do they know?

Well, hey if we're just going to use the appeal to authority fallacy, the player did the move and has done the move a few times but what does he know right?

 

[Mattb124]

Alright Aristotle, I am actually appealing to the "how well did that move work in OT against Edmonton?" argument. Burns took himself out of the play with that maneuver - game over.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Alright Aristotle, I am actually appealing to the "how well did that move work in OT against Edmonton?" argument. Burns took himself out of the play with that maneuver - game over.

And I can point to at least half a dozen times where he's done it and it worked. Eventually, you gotta learn to take the good with the bad with some of these players and deal with it.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

And I can point to at least half a dozen times where he's done it and it worked. Eventually, you gotta learn to take the good with the bad with some of these players and deal with it.

or you can justifiably criticize them which is what the poster had done.....

 

[CrypTic]

or you can justifiably criticize them which is what the poster had done.....

I think PF's point is that if, given the risks and rewards of that play for Burns (vs other plays that Burns could have made), the risk was worthwhile, any criticism isn't justified. I tend to agree with PF here. It didn't work (and actually seemed to impede Martin if I'm remembering the play correctly) but it often does, which justifies the risk. It sounds like you disagree but, unless you, Matt, or PF are willing to spend hours watching tape for every time Burns tries that play vs another play in similar situations, there's really not much more to the argument than "I think it was" "I don''t think it was".

 

[Pinkfloyd]

or you can justifiably criticize them which is what the poster had done.....

It's just too bad it wasn't for how he handled the rush. His cheating for the pass behind the net is perfectly justifiable. The other stuff isn't. It's also a convenient way for most to ignore that Martin got beat badly on the play which is as big of a concern as Burns cheating on the play.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Has the good really outweighed the bad with Burns?

He's taking up 5.7 million in cap space, and is on the ice for a lot more goals against than he is on for goals for. Sure, he is a great contributor on the powerplay, but you have to wonder if he is worth the pedestal some are putting him on.

I also wanted to mention that if you want to criticize Martin for his play in this game, his play on the Anisimov goal is much more worthy of criticism.

 

[do0glas]

Has the good really outweighed the bad with Burns?

He's taking up 5.7 million in cap space, and is on the ice for a lot more goals against than he is on for goals for. Sure, he is a great contributor on the powerplay, but you have to wonder if he is worth the pedestal some are putting him on.

I also wanted to mention that if you want to criticize Martin for his play in this game, his play on the Anisimov goal is much more worthy of criticism.

Burns is an enigma, clearly we aren't going to turn him into good in his own zone, so he should probably play a bit less at evens. Vlasic has shown enough to split time with burns/Braun.

Would like to see vlasic eating harder minutes. Deboer shouldn't be so stuck to the pairings and get vlasic in the dzone with burns etc.

 

[CrypTic]

Burns is an enigma, clearly we aren't going to turn him into good in his own zone, so he should probably play a bit less at evens. Vlasic has shown enough to split time with burns/Braun.

Would like to see vlasic eating harder minutes. Deboer shouldn't be so stuck to the pairings and get vlasic in the dzone with burns etc.

I agree that PDB should try Burns with Vlasic (or Dillon). However, I dug up the 5x5 numbers for last year and the GF%age weren't good for any D-men on the team now. Here's what I found (copied from another thread):

Last year, Burns CF% with Vlasic (370:44 TOI) was 54.1 but his GF% was 42.3. With Dillon (285:20 TOI), it was 54.8 CF% vs 40.0 GF%. With Mueller (264:56 TOI), it was 52.2 vs 44.0. This season with Vlasic his CF% is 54.5 while his GF% is 100 but there are only 59:17 minutes. With Dillon, his CF% is also 54.5 but his GF% is 27.3 with 111:17 TOI. With Martin, CF% is 42.0 but GF% is 39.4 with 446:52 minutes. He's only played 10 minutes with Mueller and has a 50.0 CF% and 0.0 GF% but that is a tiny sample size so I'd go with last season's.

The CF%ages are decent for everyone but Martin but the GF%ages aren't except for with Vlasic this season but that's a small sample size. It's worth a try but I wouldn't count on any D-man on the current roster playing well with Burns. Per last year, they may as well bring Mueller up and pair him with Burns.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I agree that PDB should try Burns with Vlasic (or Dillon). However, I dug up the 5x5 numbers for last year and the GF%age weren't good for any D-men on the team now. Here's what I found (copied from another thread):

Last year, Burns CF% with Vlasic (370:44 TOI) was 54.1 but his GF% was 42.3. With Dillon (285:20 TOI), it was 54.8 CF% vs 40.0 GF%. With Mueller (264:56 TOI), it was 52.2 vs 44.0. This season with Vlasic his CF% is 54.5 while his GF% is 100 but there are only 59:17 minutes. With Dillon, his CF% is also 54.5 but his GF% is 27.3 with 111:17 TOI. With Martin, CF% is 42.0 but GF% is 39.4 with 446:52 minutes. He's only played 10 minutes with Mueller and has a 50.0 CF% and 0.0 GF% but that is a tiny sample size so I'd go with last season's.

The CF%ages are decent for everyone but Martin but the GF%ages aren't except for with Vlasic this season but that's a small sample size. It's worth a try but I wouldn't count on any D-man on the current roster playing well with Burns. Per last year, they may as well bring Mueller up and pair him with Burns.

Good numbers.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is if those GF numbers will eventually regress, or if the difference between CF and GF is based on the underlying way that Burns and his partner are playing.

 

[Groo]

The Sharks are icing too many spectators.

 

[CrypTic]

Good numbers.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is if those GF numbers will eventually regress, or if the difference between CF and GF is based on the underlying way that Burns and his partner are playing.

I agree. The sample sizes aren't large enough to tell one way or another IMO.

Interestingly, last year, the GF and CF%ages were reversed when Hannan or Irwin was paired with Burns. Together Hannan and Burns had a 49.2% CF% and a 52.6% GF% (which is pretty close IMO) with 217:27 TOI. With Irwin the CF% was 55.7 but the GF% was even better with 73.3% but only 164:56 TOI so less than half the TOI Burns had with Vlasic and slightly more than half the time Burns had with Dillon or Mueller.

I'm trying to think of why that might be. Is Burns better with bad skaters? Or is this some random fluctuation that means nothing?

 

[Led Zappa]

None of this accounts for the forwards they are playing with.

 

[CrypTic]

None of this accounts for the forwards they are playing with.

You're right about that. Last season, Burns was great with Pavs (gf% 60.5, cf% 57.3, TOI 495:37) and bad with Nieto (gf% 31.2, cf% 54.2 TOI 306:41). With most Fs, his gf% was ~50% (ranging from 47.4 for Couture to 55.6 with Karlsson) but had a low 40s gf% with Marleau (44.4) and Hertl (42.9). The low 40s are very slightly better than he had with Vlasic (42.3) or Dillon (40). Burns paired with Mueller (44.0) was in between.

For cf%, Burns was best with Thornton 58.9, Pavs 57.3 and Hertl 56.7. With most Fs, he was around 53 or 54 in cf%. He was worst with Wingels 51.6, Marleau 52, and Couture 52.3. I'd say that there wasn't a huge variation in cf%. For comparison, his cf% with Vlasic was 54.1, with Dillon 54.8, and with Mueller 52.2. So just ballparking, his CF with Vlasic and Dillon was about what it was with most forwards and with Mueller it was at the low end but there is't a big difference there.

 

[Led Zappa]

While the numbers are informative I just think a lot gets lost in the variables. Who was hurt. Who was on a new line. While we all focus on the glaring errors the devil is in the details and if the forward line that is on the ice is having issues it makes it more difficult for the D pairing on the ice.

Is it a large problem. It can be. Less skilled and younger players usually take longer to adapt to a new line or pairing. The F might not go to or be where the D expects them to go and on and on into the weeds you go.

 

[CrypTic]

While the numbers are informative I just think a lot gets lost in the variables. Who was hurt. Who was on a new line. While we all focus on the glaring errors the devil is in the details and if the forward line that is on the ice is having issues it makes it more difficult for the D pairing on the ice.

Is it a large problem. It can be. Less skilled and younger players usually take longer to adapt to a new line or pairing. The F might not go to or be where the D expects them to go and on and on into the weeds you go.

I think you need both ideas formed from watching games then checked against stats and ideas formed from looking at stats then checked against what you see in games. For me, the stats I pulled out are to try to get an idea of whom Burns plays best with. I think stats are very useful for that but you absolutely need to watch the games in order to figure out why Burns' stats (or any other player's stats) are what they are. Sometimes that is immediately obvious once the question is posed (whether the Q arises from looking at the stats or from watching a game). Other times, it's not.

 

[Led Zappa]

I think you need both ideas formed from watching games then checked against stats and ideas formed from looking at stats then checked against what you see in games. For me, the stats I pulled out are to try to get an idea of whom Burns plays best with. I think stats are very useful for that but you absolutely need to watch the games in order to figure out why Burns' stats (or any other player's stats) are what they are. Sometimes that is immediately obvious once the question is posed (whether the Q arises from looking at the stats or from watching a game). Other times, it's not.

I agree. I just think those numbers are often relied on too much to back up someones opinions around here and just adding my 2¢ as to where I think the flaws lie on relying on them too heavily.

 

[Sleepy]

I thought he worked well with Vlasic, though that was a small sample size. Burns is also a player whose most potent weapon isn't a consistent one.

I do agree with the overall idea that at his $$$ and term, Burns needs to be more than a guy that plays well (albeit really well) with just a handful of partners. He needs to be a guy who can carry a pairing. When he was acquired, I think he was seen as an upgrade on the best Dan Boyle could ever offer, but right now, he's not topping Boyle post-prime Boyle.

I dunno, his UFA $/yr puts him in the Niskanen/Carle/Green category. I don't think those are the types of guys that carry a pairing. Does he have the potential to be an elite defenseman? sure, but I don't think his contract requires that.

http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/rankings/cap-hit/defenseman/

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

I agree. I just think those numbers are often relied on too much to back up someones opinions around here and just adding my 2¢ as to where I think the flaws lie on relying on them too heavily.

YES! For instance what were the circumstances he was being paired with whom, and for which stretch of games against which competition...

 

[CrypTic]

YES! For instance what were the circumstances he was being paired with whom, and for which stretch of games against which competition...

It would be great if you or someone else wanted to dig that out. It's quite a bit of work, though.