Why the hate on Burish?

[Audio Outlaw]

Because of his cap hit.

It is really this simple...

 

[SactoShark]

Burish is a notorious diver and it is embarrassing.

 

[WantonAbandon]

-not really a good PKer. The coaches like to play up that angle but that's because they can't justify him in the lineup otherwise. He's actually not better than our other players if not worse.

Oh come on... The team is clearly transitioning to going younger and faster. The coaching staff isn't going to look for an excuse to justify a veterans spot on the roster.
Who are your top 4 pkers and how many of them are not among the teams top 4 point producers?

You need players other than Marleau, Pavelski, and Thornton to eat up penalty minutes

 

[DuckEatinShark]

He's like Jody Shelley but paid twice as much.

Scot Nichol was twice as good as he is, yet is paid half as much.

It's not fair to Burish because who wouldn't want to be grossly overpaid. But we still take it out on him nonetheless because it's an easy target (see Zito, Barry)

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Since Burish is on a 1 way deal, can they even assign him to Worcester if they want to? Or is that not an option?

We seem to have a lot of youngsters who could potentially step into Burish's spot of the 4th line and are cheaper.

They can assign him to Worcester if they want. He'd have to pass through waivers which would easily happen. However, they'd only save about half the cap hit due to the new rules.

Me ................... Burish

If you wanted it to be truly accurate, when contact was made whichever is Burish would've snapped his head back and flopped to the ground.

Oh come on... The team is clearly transitioning to going younger and faster. The coaching staff isn't going to look for an excuse to justify a veterans spot on the roster.
Who are your top 4 pkers and how many of them are not among the teams top 4 point producers?

You need players other than Marleau, Pavelski, and Thornton to eat up penalty minutes

Generally, in a situation where it's between a veteran and a younger player, most coaching staffs will choose the veteran even if the younger player is only marginally better. And while the GM made moves to transition to a younger and faster team doesn't mean the coaching staff hasn't broken away from their tendencies. How long did guys like Handzus and Murray keep a lineup spot when they were playing horribly? There's a good chance that Scott Hannan will play Murray's role and Burish will be in Handzus' role as those guys. At least Hannan is paid in a manner suitable for his contributions.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Looking at some numbers over the past week (mostly in preparation for fantasy drafts, but I digress), I discovered a problem. Compared to other top teams, our top-6 forwards are woefully underused at even strength. I think the root of the problem is that guys like Marleau, Pavelski, Couture, and even Thornton, are better PKers than our bottom-6 guys. If Burish were a good PKer, we could save the likes of Couture and Thornton for more even strength minutes.

 

[WantonAbandon]

He's like Jody Shelley but paid twice as much.

Scot Nichol was twice as good as he is, yet is paid half as much.

It's not fair to Burish because who wouldn't want to be grossly overpaid. But we still take it out on him nonetheless because it's an easy target (see Zito, Barry)

He is nothing like Jody Shelly. The only thing Nichol had on Burish was draws. Burish is better in every other way.

Generally, in a situation where it's between a veteran and a younger player, most coaching staffs will choose the veteran even if the younger player is only marginally better.

Too general. The reality is three youngsters made the team from camp who have never played an NHL game before, although the Torres injury contributed to that. This was the coaches decision. Usually a teams coaches and GM are relatively on the same page

To all the Burish haters, who besides Marleau, Pavelski, and Thornton do you want to see taking up pk minutes? How much do you want the team to lean on those three during short handed minutes?

 

[Juxtaposer]

To all the Burish haters, who besides Marleau, Pavelski, and Thornton do you want to see taking up pk minutes? How much do you want the team to lean on those three during short handed minutes?

Desjardins is a really good PKer. Wingels and Kennedy are both as good or better than Burish. Burish is good at PKing the same way Torrey Mitchell was: Not.

 

[sr228]

Desjardins is a really good PKer. Wingels and Kennedy are both as good or better than Burish. Burish is good at PKing the same way Torrey Mitchell was: Not.

Not real sure how you can come to that conclusion when his average SHTOI during his NHL career is less then 2 seconds per game.

 

[Coily]

He's like Jody Shelley but paid twice as much.

Scot Nichol was twice as good as he is, yet is paid half as much.

It's not fair to Burish because who wouldn't want to be grossly overpaid. But we still take it out on him nonetheless because it's an easy target (see Zito, Barry)

He's nothing like Shelley. Shelley was just a goon that could on the odd occasion pot a good shift. Burish can actually take faceoffs and PK.

Yeah he's making a little too much money, get over it.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Not real sure how you can come to that conclusion when his average SHTOI during his NHL career is less then 2 seconds per game.

Really? I was sure I'd seen him do it.

 

[ChubbChubby]

Could someone pull up the stats on the PK for our players? I recall Burish not being very good last time I saw it, but I could potentially be remembering it wrong.

 

[sr228]

Could someone pull up the stats on the PK for our players? I recall Burish not being very good last time I saw it, but I could potentially be remembering it wrong.

Fear the Fin did a 'season review' on every player over the summer - while no one anywhere is going to argue that Burish is worth his contract, he's far from "useless" or "not an NHL player".

I've stated my thoughts on him here a few times so I won't repeat myself but here's the breakdown with PK stats, he was good on the PK last season.

http://www.fearthefin.com/2013/6/21/4449766/2013-sharks-season-review-adam-burish

The Sharks were (are) clearly hoping they were getting the Burish that played the previous 2 seasons in Dallas and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't give him an opportunity to show he can be that player again.

 

[ChubbChubby]

That's actually better than I expected. For a fourth liner that isn't bad. Not good, but at least not absolutely terrible. He's still overpaid and his role can likely be replaced by some of our other roster players, but at least he's not Shelley-level bad.

Here's hoping he can rebound next year to his prior form. 48 game season is a small sample size on a new team with new linemates, so there's a chance I guess.

End of the day though, I still despise the guy for faking headshots.

 

[WantonAbandon]

Desjardins is a really good PKer. Wingels and Kennedy are both as good or better than Burish. Burish is good at PKing the same way Torrey Mitchell was: Not.

Ok you think Desi is better than Burish? As for Wingles this last condensed season was the only time Wingels had any SH TOI of any significance. As stated by someone else you are making an unsupportable assumption with Kennedy

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

Well, if we are going to win a cup we need a 4th line that can contribute. This means that those players need to have some good years, including Burish as well as Shep, Desi, etc.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Too general. The reality is three youngsters made the team from camp who have never played an NHL game before, although the Torres injury contributed to that. This was the coaches decision. Usually a teams coaches and GM are relatively on the same page

To all the Burish haters, who besides Marleau, Pavelski, and Thornton do you want to see taking up pk minutes? How much do you want the team to lean on those three during short handed minutes?

The reality is that three youngsters made the team because they have injuries to Havlat, Torres, and Burish so the choice is taken out of their hands.

Pfft...Thornton shouldn't be seeing PK minutes either because he's just as bad as Burish in the situation. Marleau, Pavelski, Couture, Desjardins, Wingels, and Sheppard should be the main six guys. If guys like Hertl, Nieto, and Hamilton can step into the role as well, great. And if so, I'd take Couture, Pavs, and Marleau off in that order if they earn the privilege to play those shifts. This was a small issue I had with Torres and Kennedy being our 3rd line answers. Neither are PK'ers.

 

[SJeasy]

To all the Burish haters, who besides Marleau, Pavelski, and Thornton do you want to see taking up pk minutes? How much do you want the team to lean on those three during short handed minutes?

The top 3 PKers are Pavs, Marleau and Couture (not JT). Couture was the main guy for 3on5. Couture has been steadily improving his PK. At best, JT should be 3rd unit or fill guy.

PF,
I wouldn't let Sheppard touch PK. I have no problem with Desi and Wingels on secondary PK units.

 

[sr228]

The top 3 PKers are Pavs, Marleau and Couture (not JT). Couture was the main guy for 3on5. Couture has been steadily improving his PK. At best, JT should be 3rd unit or fill guy.

PF,
I wouldn't let Sheppard touch PK. I have no problem with Desi and Wingels on secondary PK units.

Couture and Thornton were #7 and #9 (respectively) among forwards in SHTOI this past season.

Do you have the numbers on 3 vs 5 'cus I seem to remember that Pavelski was the main forward they used in that situation.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The top 3 PKers are Pavs, Marleau and Couture (not JT). Couture was the main guy for 3on5. Couture has been steadily improving his PK. At best, JT should be 3rd unit or fill guy.

PF,
I wouldn't let Sheppard touch PK. I have no problem with Desi and Wingels on secondary PK units.

I'd rather it be Sheppard than Thornton or Burish and if it meant taking a hit on quality, I'd prefer Sheppard over Couture, Pavelski, or Marleau as long as someone has reliably taken over the duties on the top end to justify moving them off.

And if he really doesn't do the job and isn't contributing offensively then he needs to be moved so that they can bring in a PK'er on that 4th line role. There's no reason at this point for the 4th liners not to be capable of killing penalties...especially when two of the desired regular 3rd liners aren't PK'ers.

 

[SJeasy]

Couture and Thornton were #7 and #9 (respectively) among forwards in SHTOI this past season.

Do you have the numbers on 3 vs 5 'cus I seem to remember that Pavelski was the main forward they used in that situation.

They switched towards the end of the season. It won't show in full season #'s yet. Pavs was main for 3on5 which made the switch very noticeable when Couture started getting a lot of those shifts. I did notice that they virtually removed JT from PK, mainly a few odd shifts at tail end and for faceoffs.

 

[sr228]

They switched towards the end of the season. It won't show in full season #'s yet. Pavs was main for 3on5 which made the switch very noticeable when Couture started getting a lot of those shifts. I did notice that they virtually removed JT from PK, mainly a few odd shifts at tail end and for faceoffs.

Getting some short handed shifts 'towards the end of the season' in a shortened season isn't going to yield much data period.

I agree that Couture is a good PKer but the coaches looked to be trying to get away from using him among the top two PK units last season. That could very easily change this year if Burish misses time and with Galiardi gone but I think they'll continue to use Wingels and Desi on a regular basis and the coaches seemed to be giving Kennedy a look on the PK as well.

Sheppard, Hertl, Hamilton and Nieto have all been regular PKers during their careers as well, not sure any of them will get that opportunity anytime soon but if the coaches can get away from leaning on Couture while shorthanded I think they will.

 

[oyster]

Couture and Thornton were #7 and #9 (respectively) among forwards in SHTOI this past season.

When looking at PKers there's TOI and GA/60. SHTOI is a good indicator of how much they've played on PK, but not necessarily how good they are at it. Your best PKers should have high SHTOI and relatively low GA. Even that's probably an oversimplification but it's a good start. Couture didn't spend a ton of time on the PK, but he did do very well when he did.

Burish eats up a lot of PK time, but he's not very good at it. Part of the team's resurgence on the PK is they're putting more of the responsibility on the team's top players instead of letting bottom 6 guys try to PK and fail. I think Jux may be right that this increased PK load on top players may be leading to reduced 5v5 scoring. Maybe instead of depth scoring the Sharks really need bottom 6 PK specialists. They tried getting that with Burish and it hasn't really worked out. Winnik was a perfect fit for this and I'm still a little butthurt that he wasn't retained.

 

[sr228]

When looking at PKers there's TOI and GA/60. SHTOI is a good indicator of how much they've played on PK, but not necessarily how good they are at it. Your best PKers should have high SHTOI and relatively low GA. Even that's probably an oversimplification but it's a good start. Couture didn't spend a ton of time on the PK, but he did do very well when he did.

Burish eats up a lot of PK time, but he's not very good at it. Part of the team's resurgence on the PK is they're putting more of the responsibility on the team's top players instead of letting bottom 6 guys try to PK and fail. I think Jux increased PK load on top players may be leading to reduced 5v5 scoring. Maybe instead of depth scoring the Sharks really need bottom 6may be right that this PK specialists. They tried getting that with Burish and it hasn't really worked out. Winnik was a perfect fit for this and I'm still a little butthurt that he wasn't retained.

The previous couple of seasons when the PK was bottom 1/3 in the league the coaches were leaning on their top players to PK. This past season only Marleau and Pavelski were leaned on heavily, and they will continue to be leaned on heavily, but aside from them it was all 3rd and 4th liners getting a majority of the PK time and the team finished in the top 1/3, I think that means that those 3rd and 4th liners were a whole lot better then anyone is giving them credit for.

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

ok, this poor guys needs some support, at lease before the season starts and he can actually play a game. He's over 50% on face-offs which is good for a puck possession team, he also will block some shots and make some hits.