Injury Report: Vanek out week-to-week | no call ups planned

[Bench]

The worst line in the NHL doesn't remain + players while taking heavy d-zone starts against tough matchups.

The value of players like Glendening, Ott and Miller will NEVER be seen in pretty advanced stats.

Genuine question: So what is the proper evaluation tool?

I don't take corsi as the gospel either, so I'm curious how we quantify value from a defensive line.

 

[Winger98]

Genuine question: So what is the proper evaluation tool?

I don't take corsi as the gospel either, so I'm curious how we quantify value from a defensive line.

Can't be shots/shots against at ES, at least not if you want it to be favorable for OMG. Every stat points to them spending gobs of time defending in their own zone, generating little offense of their own. Yeah, they don't get scored on a lot,but that much time in your own zone is mentally and physically tiring.

 

[Frk It]

Genuine question: So what is the proper evaluation tool?

I don't take corsi as the gospel either, so I'm curious how we quantify value from a defensive line.

Idea-- Who says we have to have a defensive line?

 

[Mijatovic]

The worst line in the NHL doesn't remain + players while taking heavy d-zone starts against tough matchups.

The value of players like Glendening, Ott and Miller will NEVER be seen in pretty advanced stats.

Totally agree. I think they are one of our better lines at doing their job.

 

[Bench]

Can't be shots/shots against at ES, at least not if you want it to be favorable for OMG. Every stat points to them spending gobs of time defending in their own zone, generating little offense of their own. Yeah, they don't get scored on a lot,but that much time in your own zone is mentally and physically tiring.

Is there a stat that tracks minutes in the defensive zone you don't get scored on? Like maybe it takes 3 minutes for this line to get scored on whereas it takes another like 2, even if the shot differential seems better for the other line?

I guess the idea is if you have a line that stalls out their scoring line longer than their team can stall yours... you win?

Of course that falls apart entirely if you don't spend equal time in the opponent's zone...

Idea-- Who says we have to have a defensive line?

The grind line made it an institution.

Totally agree. I think they are one of our better lines at doing their job.

Alright, but how do we know that? How do we determine they are better than any other 4th line?

 

[Winger98]

Is there a stat that tracks minutes in the defensive zone you don't get scored on? Like maybe it takes 3 minutes for this line to get scored on whereas it takes another like 2, even if the shot differential seems better for the other line?

I guess the idea is if you have a line that stalls out their scoring line longer than their team can stall yours... you win?

Of course that falls apart entirely if you don't spend equal time in the opponent's zone...



The grind line made it an institution.

I haven't seen one. I was just looking at their shots stats and looking at their ESTOI. 2/3 get less than 10 minutes a game at ES, but they bleed shots. Granted, they also appear to start more of their shifts in either the neutral zone or the defensive zone, but if they continue to give up as many shots as they do then the law averages will catch up at some point.

And I think these conversations do a bit of disservice to the Grind Line and to history. They were a great line but if we needed a defensive stop, they weren't the ones over the boards. We saw Yzerman and Fedorov going out there against the other team's top lines and in the big minutes. Those guys were horses and carried such a massive load for this team.

I'm with Frk It and would like to see us just send this defensive line thing into the sunset. Right now, if we just ditched (or benched) Ott and Miller, we could put a "fourth" line together of Gator-Helm-Glendening, and use Mantha and a healthy Vanek to put together a respectable looking top9.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Genuine question: So what is the proper evaluation tool?

I don't take corsi as the gospel either, so I'm curious how we quantify value from a defensive line.

Not getting scored on.

If we had prime Z and Dats taking the top matchups and dominating them, we would see the OMG line get less minutes and against lesser opposition and likely coming out looking much better in possession metrics. But we don't have that luxury. Literally the only thing I ask from Glenny & Co. is not getting scored on. Any offense they can produce is a bonus, anytime they can get in the face of opposing players and annoy them it's great. If they were driving possession against tough matchups, they would not be a 4th line.

Idea-- Who says we have to have a defensive line?

Well only a complete fool would look at the players we have available to us, and look at opposing matchups like Benn-Seguin, Johnson-Kucherov, Crosby, etc. and think "we can roll 4 lines of offense and not spend much time defensively".

We are going to lose matchups on the corsi level. What matters is not losing too many of them in actual scoring. I'd be all for running 4 scoring lines if we had Lidstrom-Rafalski-Kronwall on the backend.

 

[taylorjonl]

We have a 6 game winning streak, then we drop two games(they were horrible), and now we need our savior Anthony Mantha to save us? Sorry, but if we keep playing the way we did the last couple days it will take way more than Anthony Mantha to fix us.

 

[jkutswings]

The grind line made it an institution.

The Grind Line scored about 800 points throughout their combined careers, and included a Selke winner in Kris Draper. They were an interesting combination of getting under opponents' skin, chipping in key goals, and solid defensive play.

The OMG line consists of staying in your own zone, crossing your fingers, and hoping you don't get scored on. Hip hip hooray.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Is there a stat that tracks minutes in the defensive zone you don't get scored on? Like maybe it takes 3 minutes for this line to get scored on whereas it takes another like 2, even if the shot differential seems better for the other line?

I guess the idea is if you have a line that stalls out their scoring line longer than their team can stall yours... you win?

Of course that falls apart entirely if you don't spend equal time in the opponent's zone...



The grind line made it an institution.



Alright, but how do we know that? How do we determine they are better than any other 4th line?

The grind line could do anything. Draper was a first line center for a little bit. Do you see Glenden doing that?

 

[Winger98]

The Grind Line scored about 800 points throughout their combined careers, and included a Selke winner in Kris Draper. They were an interesting combination of getting under opponents' skin, chipping in key goals, and solid defensive play.

The OMG line consists of staying in your own zone, crossing your fingers, and hoping you don't get scored on. Hip hip hooray.

The grind line could do anything. Draper was a first line center for a little bit. Do you see Glenden doing that?

But the Grind Line was the original form of what we're seeing now, at least on teams that I remember. Lines like OMG aren't anywhere close to them, but I think that's the point. I think a better comparison would be that line Anaheim threw out there for a year or two with Pahlsson-Neidermeyer-Moen. They played a lot of minutes, took some big defensive assignments, and were thrilled to break even at the end of the day. I think they tilted the ice more than the fourth lines we've been throwing out there, though (and weren't they actually a third line?).

 

[Frk It]

I'm with Frk It and would like to see us just send this defensive line thing into the sunset. Right now, if we just ditched (or benched) Ott and Miller, we could put a "fourth" line together of Gator-Helm-Glendening, and use Mantha and a healthy Vanek to put together a respectable looking top9.

Maybe you don't ice a 4th scoring line, I mean you still need to have 4 penalty killers among your 12 forwards. But it needs to be more of a hybrid line, than this defensive line we think we are putting out there. You can't have 3 offensively inept players on a line in the NHL, and I think that is what Miller, Ott, and Glendening are. I would like a mix of some offensive wingers with Glendening in the middle to win draws and be the down low defensive guy. Miller used to be a 10 goal guy. Used to have Eaves that was a 10 goal guy. Used to have Abby and Helm crashing and banging on the 4th line.

The quality of 4th line wingers on this team has gone to complete crap. Would really like to upgrade that position on this team, either by promoting guys like little Bert, or picking up bargain UFA's that can actually provide offense.

 

[njx9]

Idea-- Who says we have to have a defensive line?

Our roster says we need one, since there's no way we can actually run 4 scoring lines right now. We simply don't have the talent to not have a defense-heavy line. We don't really have the talent to have a hybrid line, either - Helm, Glendening and Abbie aren't all that much better than Ott/Glendening/Miller (once you remove Vanek from Helm).

 

[Pavels Dog]

Maybe you don't ice a 4th scoring line, I mean you still need to have 4 penalty killers among your 12 forwards. But it needs to be more of a hybrid line, than this defensive line we think we are putting out there. You can't have 3 offensively inept players on a line in the NHL, and I think that is what Miller, Ott, and Glendening are. I would like a mix of some offensive wingers with Glendening in the middle to win draws and be the down low defensive guy. Miller used to be a 10 goal guy. Used to have Eaves that was a 10 goal guy. Used to have Abby and Helm crashing and banging on the 4th line.

The quality of 4th line wingers on this team has gone to complete crap. Would really like to upgrade that position on this team, either by promoting guys like little Bert, or picking up bargain UFA's that can actually provide offense.

Miller has 2 goals, as many as Tatar, Sheahan, Zetterberg and Abdelkader COMBINED.

Glendening has 4 points, as many as Larkin and Zetterberg and good for 6th on the team.

Improve the 4th line and it's no longer our 4th line. Talking about putting Helm on the 4th line... why in the world would we put perhaps our best forward so far on the 4th line??? That's insane. Now bumping up Glendening to the 3rd line and increasing their icetime, and putting together something like Miller-Ott-Larkin on the 4th line, that may be an idea worth testing.

 

[HIFE]

Khan, from his most recent "ask Anser" article:

Mantha, likewise, is not a fit on the fourth line. He needs an opening on the top nine to get an opportunity, and it likely will come at some point this season.

The Wings state this so matter-of-factly, it bugs me and I'll never believe it. Athanasiou wasn't some liability on the 4th line; at least let Mantha fail before claiming he doesn't fit. Or move Sheahan or Abdelkader to the 4th, it makes no difference for what little they're creating.

Fresh players can work wonders. We've seen that initial rush of energy when Gus and AA were first put in. As terrible as the last games were it definitely can't hurt. Put Vanek on IR and call up Mantha.

 

[HockeyinHD]

If I have to choose between useless 4th line veterans with no potential upside that are offensive and defensive black holes and younger guys who *might* actually turn into something and cost less, I think I'll go with the latter.

That's why you're A) not a GM and B) certainly not the GM of a team with a playoff winning streak. You prefer hitting on 18 and trying to blackjack than staying on a hard 17.

Every team in the NHL has these 4th line guys whose roles you have no respect for, because they do respect those roles and they understand that while not immeasurably important they do, in fact, have value.

At the end of the day, your plan is less like winning and more like Russian roulette. Eventually you'd put yourself in a roster position that is inescapably bad and the team would crater. Now, that might be your subconscious goal, but it's nowhere near what the team wants to do. So, they seek the more consistent, predictable path.

 

[Heaton]

Khan, from his most recent "ask Anser" article:



The Wings state this so matter-of-factly, it bugs me and I'll never believe it. Athanasiou wasn't some liability on the 4th line; at least let Mantha fail before claiming he doesn't fit. Or move Sheahan or Abdelkader to the 4th, it makes no difference for what little they're creating.

Fresh players can work wonders. We've seen that initial rush of energy when Gus and AA were first put in. As terrible as the last games were it definitely can't hurt. Put Vanek on IR and call up Mantha.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. We lose a goal scorer, but Mantha would have to play on the 4th line? How about Abdelkader who has done nothing this season?

 

[BinCookin]

Genuine question: So what is the proper evaluation tool?

I don't take corsi as the gospel either, so I'm curious how we quantify value from a defensive line.

This is a very good question Bench. It really is. Because there are issues with some of the ways we have been doing this:

1) If our 4th line is used at the end of games more often, and thus get empty net goals more often... this will skew their +/- Values.

2) Corsi/Fenwick measure shot attempts, but if our defensive line is allowing more "perimeter / non-dangerous" shots .... who cares?
We really need to know about scoring chances. Or shots from a certain area (high scoring area).

I would say these are my ways i would "evaluate" the 4th line

1) Straight up Goals For and Goals Against over time on ice. Or G/60; GA/60. BUT this would have to be at even strength, and also when at least 2/3rds of that line is on the ice. Not Glendenning filling in on the 3rd line etc. Basically we need someone to ACTUALLY COUNT?! how many goals are scored against our 4th line. (Not just the players on the ice)

Basically this:

Not getting scored on.

2) I would like to see NOT how many shots they give up. But how many SCORING CHANCES our 4th line allows. Can this be counted??

3) I think Penalties drawn vs Penalties taken should be accounted for here. If we have a strong PP and our 4th line draws penalties... That helps us a lot!! If they take penalties and we get scored on...They might not be on the ice, but if they are in the box, its still partially their fault. So i dont know the results of this analysis, but penalties could be a big factor in 4th line effectiveness

These 3 measurements would tell us a lot more than "Corsi" or "+/-"

 

[njx9]

That's why you're A) not a GM and B) certainly not the GM of a team with a playoff winning streak. You prefer hitting on 18 and trying to blackjack than staying on a hard 17.

I could equally mis-cast it as you preferring to stand on an 12 just in case the dealer busts, instead of hitting when the count is high.

At the end of the day, your plan is less like winning and more like Russian roulette. Eventually you'd put yourself in a roster position that is inescapably bad and the team would crater. Now, that might be your subconscious goal, but it's nowhere near what the team wants to do. So, they seek the more consistent, predictable path.

The consistent, predictable path that leads to depending on a Boston loss to continue the streak? Or is it maybe not so consistent or predictable as the talent on the team crumbles and isn't, generally, replaced?

 

[HockeyinHD]

I could equally mis-cast it as you preferring to stand on an 12 just in case the dealer busts, instead of hitting when the count is high.

You are exactly right. That would be mis-casting it.

The consistent, predictable path that leads to depending on a Boston loss to continue the streak? Or is it maybe not so consistent or predictable as the talent on the team crumbles and isn't, generally, replaced?

We know, with certainty, that had Detroit done what you wanted (or even what I wanted the Legwand year) they would have already missed the playoffs at least once by now. We know, with certainty, that by doing what they did they have not.

Yet.

So, that's the scoreboard as far as the team is concerned. Until their process fails they aren't going to deviate from it.

 

[BinCookin]

Idea-- Who says we have to have a defensive line?

Ive thought that 4 offensive lines would be very interesting.

Is there any NHL team right now, that is putting smallish/skilled forwards on a 4th line. Or at least where scoring is weighted more over grit?

Does such a 4th line even exist?

I usually figure most teams have so LITTLE skill on their team.. that having a 4th skill line is basically impossible. Of course how we draft we COULD have done this, but choose not to.

So is there any team that has a "skilled" 4th line? And i mean this from a point of view that its not just "the highest scoring gritty line in the league" I mean a line that has pulkkinen/Tatar/Nyquist "types" on their 4th line. (shifty, dekey, non hard hitting forwards)

 

[Yemack]

Genuine question: So what is the proper evaluation tool?

I don't take corsi as the gospel either, so I'm curious how we quantify value from a defensive line.

well one way to do is tracking how many key scoring chances 'shutdown line' from each team allows per minute. Then we might want to stratify it by zone start. Finally we adjust it for other confounding variable such as overall team performance (standing).

Still this faces same issues like Corsi such as it does not take account of various strategy adopted by different teams. So we have too look deeper on defining, narrowing what 'key scoring chances' mean. Maybe something like any shots that goalie did not have a clear sight of the puck for more than half a second would consist of key scoring chances. Also any shots from the house.

 

[HockeyinHD]

This is a very good question Bench. It really is. Because there are issues with some of the ways we have been doing this

The universal problem I have with advanced stats as they relate to hockey is that it is almost impossible to weed out statistical noise because of the nature of hockey compared to other sports.

Baseball has definable, individual moments. Football and Basketball have defined and repeatable sequences of competition where the same group is out for long stretches and can have a much greater and certainly more identifiable impact on the flow of the game.

Hockey is wildly more diffuse. Line changes happen in all sorts of different situations, in different sequences, and the shifts are so (relatively) short that a shift which begins on poor (or positive) bias due to puck position, game flow, etc is highly unlikely to have a huge impact.

Pretty much every hockey stat is barely relevant because of this. We can roll up a bunch of them and get a decent idea of general trends, but as predictive or strategic tools they're almost useless beyond some very very simple applications.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. We lose a goal scorer, but Mantha would have to play on the 4th line? How about Abdelkader who has done nothing this season?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused with that logic.

 

[jkutswings]

Yet if, over an extended period of time, two subsets show significant differences, it's worth noting. Should the current level of play continue for the 4th line, I can't say that I'd call it either very valuable or impactful.