Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Habs lines, 2021-22 season.


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Hoffman is basically the equivalent to me at forward to what we got from MA Bergeron or Mark Streit on D. A nice PP weapon, but a liability at ES. Not worth the salary we're giving him and hard to hide in the line-up, especially come playoff time (not a concern for this year I know but still).

 

19 hours ago, maas_art said:

 

Its getting worse too.  Back in his late days in ottawa/early days in florida he was better away from the puck (I assume his coaches had been riding him) but he's regressing again.   Definitely an incredibly talented shooter, insane release & a shifty good skill to get into position, but you can see that when the play moves back into his zone he's mostly checked out. 

A contending team would absolutely have use for him on their 4th line/top PP but that contract doesnt really fit with that role.   I wouldnt be surprised to see us keep him to be honest. I am not sure many teams would give up much for him & while it sucks for him (we wont be contenders while he's under contract) maybe we can move him in a year or two. 

 

20 hours ago, claremont said:

I would echo Ramcharger's thoughts - Hoff is great on the power play and open ice with a superb shot, but I cringe if he is put out on overtime as he is very weak defensively. My guess is he was brought in by MB to fill Tatar's role. We measure everything against the cap now, and I believe for $4.5 million there are more complete players we could obtain at that price. 

Well... I think it is more of a label he has been stuck with and it has become overstated. I have seen him do everything you quote as being bad as no worse than others who don't get labelled and sometimes better. My eye test has been different. I like his play and experience... he has shown leadership for this team IMO.  Hearsay is not proof to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

 

 

Well... I think it is more of a label he has been stuck with and it has become overstated. I have seen him do everything you quote as being bad as no worse than others who don't get labelled and sometimes better. My eye test has been different. I like his play and experience... he has shown leadership for this team IMO.  Hearsay is not proof to me.

Yeah not hearsay from me but my own eye test and I have new glasses so I am pretty sure I am seeing right. I am not saying he is a bad player he just is not as complete as he could be for the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

Well... I think it is more of a label he has been stuck with and it has become overstated. I have seen him do everything you quote as being bad as no worse than others who don't get labelled and sometimes better. My eye test has been different. I like his play and experience... he has shown leadership for this team IMO.  Hearsay is not proof to me.

And thats fair, we all have differing opinions and evaluate players differently. 

If we were a contender, having him around as a key player when you need a late goal or something is a luxury id be all over.  I just dont see him fitting with our current needs.  Unfortuantely, with the extra couple of years on his contract, he's probably not going to be an easy sell either so you may end up with your wish of having him long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ramcharger440 said:

 I am not saying he is a bad player he just is not as complete as he could be for the money.

I dont even think the money is particularly bad. $4.5m isnt ideal but its not the worst either.  I dont think we'll actually have any issues with cap as we move more vets out.  I think the term is the bigger deal on his contract but it is what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

 

 

Well... I think it is more of a label he has been stuck with and it has become overstated. I have seen him do everything you quote as being bad as no worse than others who don't get labelled and sometimes better. My eye test has been different. I like his play and experience... he has shown leadership for this team IMO.  Hearsay is not proof to me.

Not just an eye test. We can look at his metric as well... Corsi of 46.19%, which is 12th out of 18 skaters with 300+ minutes of ice time at ES this year. Expected goals for of 37.0%, which is 18th and dead last on the team. That means when he's on the ice, the other team is expected to score twice as many goals as us based on chances and possession. It's awful.

Think this year is an anomaly? Well last year his Corsi was 44.9% on a decent St. Louis team, and his expected GF was 44.7%. He hasn't had an expected goals that's been positive (ie where his team is expected to score more goals than the let up with him on at even strength) since the 2014-15 season when he was with Ottawa. The writing has been on the wall for years that he's not a good even strength player.

What might be surprising is that his expected goals against while on is 2.66 per 60 minutes, which is fairly average for our team (but still not good in general). Where he's lacking is in expected goals for, where he's only at 1.56 goals for per 60 minutes, good for last on the team again. He's almost a full half goal behind the 2nd-worst player and more than a full goal behind the team leaders (Lehkonen and Gallagher). So his defence is pretty meh and he's producing very few chances at net offensively. He's been an asset on the PP, where he's been 2nd-best on the team for offence generated behind only Toffoli (who's no longer here). But this is why I said he's essentially become a PP specialist like MAB or Streit but virtually unusable at ES. You can't have a guy out there who is getting outscored 2:1 when he's on, it'll kill your chances of winning... so no, not just an eye test, this is backed up by stats. He's been bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 8:54 PM, BigTed3 said:

Not just an eye test. We can look at his metric as well... Corsi of 46.19%, which is 12th out of 18 skaters with 300+ minutes of ice time at ES this year. Expected goals for of 37.0%, which is 18th and dead last on the team. That means when he's on the ice, the other team is expected to score twice as many goals as us based on chances and possession. It's awful.

Think this year is an anomaly? Well last year his Corsi was 44.9% on a decent St. Louis team, and his expected GF was 44.7%. He hasn't had an expected goals that's been positive (ie where his team is expected to score more goals than the let up with him on at even strength) since the 2014-15 season when he was with Ottawa. The writing has been on the wall for years that he's not a good even strength player.

What might be surprising is that his expected goals against while on is 2.66 per 60 minutes, which is fairly average for our team (but still not good in general). Where he's lacking is in expected goals for, where he's only at 1.56 goals for per 60 minutes, good for last on the team again. He's almost a full half goal behind the 2nd-worst player and more than a full goal behind the team leaders (Lehkonen and Gallagher). So his defence is pretty meh and he's producing very few chances at net offensively. He's been an asset on the PP, where he's been 2nd-best on the team for offence generated behind only Toffoli (who's no longer here). But this is why I said he's essentially become a PP specialist like MAB or Streit but virtually unusable at ES. You can't have a guy out there who is getting outscored 2:1 when he's on, it'll kill your chances of winning... so no, not just an eye test, this is backed up by stats. He's been bad.

I understand the stats you quote, but have a question or two... how do these stats relate to the players he has had to play with... he is after all just one component of a line? What was different when he was with Ottawa in terms of deployment (who did he play with and when etc.)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

I understand the stats you quote, but have a question or two... how do these stats relate to the players he has had to play with... he is after all just one component of a line? What was different when he was with Ottawa in terms of deployment (who did he play with and when etc.)?

He was younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

I understand the stats you quote, but have a question or two... how do these stats relate to the players he has had to play with... he is after all just one component of a line? What was different when he was with Ottawa in terms of deployment (who did he play with and when etc.)?

Won't comment on the Ottawa part because I don't know his deployment there off the top of my head, but with respect to the Habs this year, you can see how a player does with and without certain teammates, yes.

- If you look at the D men on the team, the following D men have better possession metrics without Hoffman than with him: Romanov, Petry, Savard, Wideman, and Niku. Only Chiarot and Clague had better metrics with him than without him.

- Likewise, if we look at forwards he's played a decent amount with this year, the following have done better without him: Gallagher, Dvorak, Evans, Poehling, Caufield, Armia, Perreault, and Lehkonen. Guys who have better numbers with him include Suzuki, Drouin, Byron, and Dauphin.

- The list is pretty similar when you look at how various combinations have fared relative to the rest of the line-up... ie when Hoffman is with Suzuki, they are producing Corsi numbers better than the team is when they are on the bench and conversely when Hoffman an Gallagher are on, they are producing Corsi worse than the team when they are on the bench.

All that to say that Hoffman seemed to benefit from playing with Suzuki more than anything, but for the most part, he's been worse than team average and most players on the team were worse with Hoffman than without him. The other point I'll make is that Hoffman has largely been sheltered no matter who he's played with. Most of his shifts start in the offensive zone, and the only two players who have been better with Hoffman than without him AND who have started more shifts in the D zone than O zone with him are Drouin and Chiarot.

Putting that together, it means Hoffman has had favorable deployment, has brought down most of the teammates he's played with, and has metrics worse than most of the team. It's not a very impressive season he's having, and it's not that different than where he was in past recent years, so this isn't a one-off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the following have done better without him: Gallagher, Dvorak, Evans, Poehling, Caufield, Armia, Perreault, and Lehkonen. Guys who have better numbers with him include Suzuki, Drouin, Byron, and Dauphin... Hoffman has had favorable deployment, has brought down most of the teammates he's played with, and has metrics worse than most of the team. It's not a very impressive season he's having, and it's not that different than where he was in past recent years, so this isn't a one-off.

To be fair I think that if other players were singled out as you do with Hoffman, you may be able to make similar statements. Some players were injured at different times and have not performed well this year as a result. Some have only recently returned (Byron, Gallagher) and Have looked awful out there. Some performed terrible themselves before St. Louis became the coach (Caufield, Armia, etc., Gallagher again).

When you say most of the team, who are the players that were indeed worse if they are singled out? Maybe his deployment was more favorable when he played for Ottawa... and less so since that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

the following have done better without him: Gallagher, Dvorak, Evans, Poehling, Caufield, Armia, Perreault, and Lehkonen. Guys who have better numbers with him include Suzuki, Drouin, Byron, and Dauphin... Hoffman has had favorable deployment, has brought down most of the teammates he's played with, and has metrics worse than most of the team. It's not a very impressive season he's having, and it's not that different than where he was in past recent years, so this isn't a one-off.

To be fair I think that if other players were singled out as you do with Hoffman, you may be able to make similar statements. Some players were injured at different times and have not performed well this year as a result. Some have only recently returned (Byron, Gallagher) and Have looked awful out there. Some performed terrible themselves before St. Louis became the coach (Caufield, Armia, etc., Gallagher again).

When you say most of the team, who are the players that were indeed worse if they are singled out? Maybe his deployment was more favorable when he played for Ottawa... and less so since that time.

So you like him as a player, many of us don't think he is worth his contract. oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ramcharger440 said:

So you like him as a player, many of us don't think he is worth his contract. oh well.

Actually... it is more about questioning the singling out of an individual player in a team sport with so many factors coming into play. IMO, the media often label players and it becomes almost cliche to quote them. At times, a bad wrap is questionable :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

Actually... it is more about questioning the singling out of an individual player in a team sport with so many factors coming into play. IMO, the media often label players and it becomes almost cliche to quote them. At times, a bad wrap is questionable :(

I really had not noticed the media talking about him at all really? for myself it is a personal observation when I look at the team and what it needs and what would be best moving forward I just don't see him fitting in what he brings is not what we really need. I feel his money on our cap and Perrault and Savard and Paquette could and should have been used to find a much better Dman another second line winger was not as much of a priority and I feel Hoffman is not impactful enough to warrant his cap hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2022 at 9:02 PM, BigTed3 said:

The other point I'll make is that Hoffman has largely been sheltered no matter who he's played with. Most of his shifts start in the offensive zone, and the only two players who have been better with Hoffman than without him AND who have started more shifts in the D zone than O zone with him are Drouin and Chiarot.

This is actually untrue, this season he has started in the oZS% at 49.7 percent of the time compared to starting in the dZS% at 50.3%....

While Players like Cuafield, Drouin, Armia, Gallagher, Poehling, Toffoli,  have started in the offensive zone at a higher percentage of the time then Hoffman. 

As for deployment you can go up and down any NHL lineup and know that some players do better with other players on the roster, that is what make good coaches good and bad coaches bad, finding the righ line combinations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

To be fair I think that if other players were singled out as you do with Hoffman, you may be able to make similar statements. Some players were injured at different times and have not performed well this year as a result. Some have only recently returned (Byron, Gallagher) and Have looked awful out there. Some performed terrible themselves before St. Louis became the coach (Caufield, Armia, etc., Gallagher again).

When you say most of the team, who are the players that were indeed worse if they are singled out? Maybe his deployment was more favorable when he played for Ottawa... and less so since that time.

Don't really feel like I've singled Hoffman (or anyone else) out. I look at advanced possession metrics as being good predictors of future performance, and I know not everyone subscribes to that, but I post about what kind of data players put up. When I've posted about Hoffman having bad advanced stats that ranked near the bottom of the team, it's because he had those stats. It has very little to do with singling out one particular player. For what it's worth, I've talked about other players who have done similarly poorly in these statistical categories this year, like David Savard, Christian Dvorak, Cedric Paquette, Matthieu Perreault, and Ben Chiarot, and I've talked about the my view on the importance of these stats for many years in other cases. It has very little to do with one particular player, and frankly, if I was going to "single out" one player as having been the biggest failure this year, it would be Savard and not Hoffman.

In Hoffman's case, he's actually been a bit better over the past few games, so his rank within the team has improved a bit. That said, he still has awful numbers. Among players with 20 games or more, his Corsi of 46.6% is better than Romanov, Clague, Chiarot, Savard, Dauphin, Poehling, Drouin, and Dvorak. His expected goals for % of 40.1% is a team worst among regulars. His scoring chances % for of 40.6% is better than only Dauphin and Savard.

All that to say that Hoffman is a useful PP weapon, but he's a guy who has played poorly at even strength. That's not me singling out a player, that's me telling you what the advanced stats show. Savard has also been a liability at ES. So has Dauphin. Chiarot's contributions have been grossly overrated, and if you look at a lot of the media crowd who ascribe to advanced stats, there are a good dozen or more who have put out articles specifically citing that buyers should beware when it comes to Chiarot because the numbers just don't support that he's very good. I've posted many times about how players like Chiarot, Dvorak, Alzner, Savard, Hoffman, and more came to us with warning signs about their advanced metrics. So this has very little to do with the player. Yes, he's got a great shot. Yes, he can help the PP. Am I willing to pay 4.5M to have a PP specialist? Nope. To boot, even if he personally is an asset to the PP, it's still ranked 31st in the league for conversion rate, so it's not like we're talking about removing a guy from the line-up who's driving a unit that scores every game. He really doesn't add a lot of advantages to us by being in the line-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a very informative and interesting discussion about Hoffman thanks to input from a number of you. I must admit I have not really looked into advanced metrics and have relied more on the eye test as I do watch each and every Hab game. I listen to the commentators who do definitely use cliche/label like comments very often as do some reporters and columnists. It makes me cringe when they do.  I firmly believe that it is a team sport yet agree some players are not as good as others. I also realize that unit combinations (6 players at full strength or otherwise 4 and 5) not just lines per se, as well as times at full strength, during, before or after penalties, at the beginning or end of games or periods, injury status, and schedule etc., all factor into performance. Coaching can definitely make a difference and systems too. 

Unfortunately surveys as well as statistics, although sometimes helpful, can at times be manipulated to prove a point or mislead opinion. A prime example that has been questioned for validity by some is plus/minus. Points, or lack thereof, attributed to players can be another one that may be questioned in terms of player value on a team. It is a real kettle of fish no doubt. Video replay is part of the game and team's practice the use of such before during and after games etc, currently even on the bench. The eye test still does have a lot of value IMO.  Thanks everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

This has been a very informative and interesting discussion about Hoffman thanks to input from a number of you. I must admit I have not really looked into advanced metrics and have relied more on the eye test as I do watch each and every Hab game. I listen to the commentators who do definitely use cliche/label like comments very often as do some reporters and columnists. It makes me cringe when they do.  I firmly believe that it is a team sport yet agree some players are not as good as others. I also realize that unit combinations (6 players at full strength or otherwise 4 and 5) not just lines per se, as well as times at full strength, during, before or after penalties, at the beginning or end of games or periods, injury status, and schedule etc., all factor into performance. Coaching can definitely make a difference and systems too. 

Unfortunately surveys as well as statistics, although sometimes helpful, can at times be manipulated to prove a point or mislead opinion. A prime example that has been questioned for validity by some is plus/minus. Points, or lack thereof, attributed to players can be another one that may be questioned in terms of player value on a team. It is a real kettle of fish no doubt. Video replay is part of the game and team's practice the use of such before during and after games etc, currently even on the bench. The eye test still does have a lot of value IMO.  Thanks everyone.

As I said, to each his own... in general I find that the eye test tends to measure two things: one is actually what's measured by advanced stats, so how much possession and shot attempts and puck control a team has when a player is on the ice. We remember that Armia-Staal-Perry pinned the other team in their defensive zone for a minute and a half and through a bunch of chances at the net and dominated that shift.

The other is specific moments that stand out as being key. So a guy who dekes through the team to create a scoring chance or a big hit or an obvious turnover. The thing here is that this type of eye test tends to bias us to whatever this particular moment stood out to us for and not necessarily a macroscopic view of the player's value. As one example, players like Karlsson, Subban, Petry, etc. tend to have a high number of turnovers and can make some memorably dramatic ones. But if you look at the number of turnovers they make as a percentage of times they have the puck, it's actually usually better than league average. But your eye test doesn't register that a D man who's on the ice a lot and handles the puck a lot made a tape-to-tape pass 40 times, it remembers the 1 time the player gaffed and put the puck onto the other team's stick for a scoring chance against. Similarly, you can recall Hoffman's great one-timer on the PP, but not necessarily be aware that the team got pinned in a dozen times while he was on the ice. The eye test doesn't necessarily tell you that Hoffman wasn't in position or didn't get on a loose puck first or so on. But those things, when they add up, can be just as important as the one great-timer that wowed you. So this is where advanced stats come in and tell us how many shot attempts and scoring chances and so on are happening with a given player on the ice, or if you wish, relative to how often they're happening when the player is on the bench and other players are on the ice.

Agreed with you that how players are used and what systems they're deployed in makes a difference, but this should still be reflected in the stats we see at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

As I said, to each his own... in general I find that the eye test tends to measure two things: one is actually what's measured by advanced stats, so how much possession and shot attempts and puck control a team has when a player is on the ice. We remember that Armia-Staal-Perry pinned the other team in their defensive zone for a minute and a half and through a bunch of chances at the net and dominated that shift.

The other is specific moments that stand out as being key. So a guy who dekes through the team to create a scoring chance or a big hit or an obvious turnover. The thing here is that this type of eye test tends to bias us to whatever this particular moment stood out to us for and not necessarily a macroscopic view of the player's value. As one example, players like Karlsson, Subban, Petry, etc. tend to have a high number of turnovers and can make some memorably dramatic ones. But if you look at the number of turnovers they make as a percentage of times they have the puck, it's actually usually better than league average. But your eye test doesn't register that a D man who's on the ice a lot and handles the puck a lot made a tape-to-tape pass 40 times, it remembers the 1 time the player gaffed and put the puck onto the other team's stick for a scoring chance against. Similarly, you can recall Hoffman's great one-timer on the PP, but not necessarily be aware that the team got pinned in a dozen times while he was on the ice. The eye test doesn't necessarily tell you that Hoffman wasn't in position or didn't get on a loose puck first or so on. But those things, when they add up, can be just as important as the one great-timer that wowed you. So this is where advanced stats come in and tell us how many shot attempts and scoring chances and so on are happening with a given player on the ice, or if you wish, relative to how often they're happening when the player is on the bench and other players are on the ice.

Agreed with you that how players are used and what systems they're deployed in makes a difference, but this should still be reflected in the stats we see at the end of the day.

So if I understand this right... you believe my eye test relates to advanced stats (curious) and specific moments that stand out. Yet if I am seriously watching all the games (PVR'd BTW) and reviewing play (as coaches and players do) I am still not getting the picture enough to compare with what some advanced stats could indicate even if not everything is measured by those stats. I'm sure I would and have noticed the player that handles the puck a lot and makes numerous tape-to-tape passes as well as the great plays and/or occasional gaffs. As far as position is concerned I question if advanced stats reveal that complete or accurate a picture. And I would argue overall performance of a player over time can be seen with the eye test. And can even register from shift-to-shift, period-to-period and game to game, regular season and/or playoffs. etc. But you do have to watch to take it in. And I definitely wonder what advanced stats say when the goalie is crap. 

Questions: how are advanced stats gathered and data registered (must use the eye test with video)? Are algorithms used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

So if I understand this right... you believe my eye test relates to advanced stats (curious) and specific moments that stand out. Yet if I am seriously watching all the games (PVR'd BTW) and reviewing play (as coaches and players do) I am still not getting the picture enough to compare with what some advanced stats could indicate even if not everything is measured by those stats. I'm sure I would and have noticed the player that handles the puck a lot and makes numerous tape-to-tape passes as well as the great plays and/or occasional gaffs. As far as position is concerned I question if advanced stats reveal that complete or accurate a picture. And I would argue overall performance of a player over time can be seen with the eye test. And can even register from shift-to-shift, period-to-period and game to game, regular season and/or playoffs. etc. But you do have to watch to take it in. And I definitely wonder what advanced stats say when the goalie is crap. 

Questions: how are advanced stats gathered and data registered (must use the eye test with video)? Are algorithms used?

My comments weren't specific to you as one individual. If you're analyzing games like a coach and re-watching segments, then you probably have a better feel for things than the average person. That said, it's just recall bias that causes people to remember key moments as opposed to many small moments. That's the human brain, it's how it works. It's not a criticism, it's human nature. Do you remember what you ate for lunch on June 5, 2018 or what color your toothbrush was on August 18, 2020 or do you remember your favorite vacation moments or your wedding day?

As far as advanced stats go, yes, someone is watching the games and registering who's on the ice when events happen. And they do take into account goaltending performance. You can look at a stat called PDO, which is essentially a combination of save percentage and shooting percentage for a team when a player is on the ice. In general, this should regress to a total of 1.000 for most players. So a number above this means they were either scoring at a higher clip than normal or they got bad goaltending when a player was on. It allows you to correct for bad luck or good luck with goaltending to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

So if I understand this right... you believe my eye test relates to advanced stats (curious) and specific moments that stand out. Yet if I am seriously watching all the games (PVR'd BTW) and reviewing play (as coaches and players do) I am still not getting the picture enough to compare with what some advanced stats could indicate even if not everything is measured by those stats. I'm sure I would and have noticed the player that handles the puck a lot and makes numerous tape-to-tape passes as well as the great plays and/or occasional gaffs. As far as position is concerned I question if advanced stats reveal that complete or accurate a picture. And I would argue overall performance of a player over time can be seen with the eye test. And can even register from shift-to-shift, period-to-period and game to game, regular season and/or playoffs. etc. But you do have to watch to take it in. And I definitely wonder what advanced stats say when the goalie is crap. 

Questions: how are advanced stats gathered and data registered (must use the eye test with video)? Are algorithms used?

A hot goaltender can make almost any team or players look great. I agree though before there were ever advanced stats, how did anyone know if a player was good or not? Advanced stats are good for a baseball game, but even then the human element comes into play. Hockey really isn't a good sport for advanced stats. Some players early in thier career can be deemed a defensive forward and then becomes deployed that way most of his career. Does it mean they couldn't have been a great offensive player? Datsyk is a great example. Several SELKIE trophy's, At the time because of the line up the team had he was told to play that role. Babbcock said if we turned him loose he could of been top 3 scoring just going all out forward. He said though we're trying to win cups not individual scoring titles. Players that sacrifice to block shots play outside of their comfort zones sometimes play through injuries. Advanced stats are geared toward offense and what they believe will create offense. Hockey can have a lot of ebbs and flows in the same game. A lot of changes in momentum. Not so much now but fights or big hits or a big save can change momentum of a game. At a crucial time a penalty kill gave give momentum to a team. Are then the penalty killer's ceratitid with helping to create that offense? Being a pest getting under the skin of other teams can throw a team off their game sometimes. Hockey is a lot more complex "yes the intangibles" actually are real and are hard to quantify. Subban was mentioned and yes he could control the puck. He also didn't play a smart game and know when to take that extra chance and not to. Several time the one hand on his stick defending off the other team end to end , but ending up in the corner because he didn't utilize his team mates enough. Yes he could skate and be a highlight real but he really didn't have enough "hockey smarts". Lindstrom from the Wings you watched his game it wasn't near as fancy but he was smart and when the game was done they won and he had points on the score sheet the same. In my opinion advanced stats especially don't work well with defenseman. The eye test will show the little things how the stick was in the lane the player was "steered" to the corner , the puck was stolen by the back checking forward. A shift by the 4th line players that hems in the other team giving momentum. A player may look totally different playing for a defensive minded coach than a run and gun coach. Offense wins season titles, defense wins championships. I don't believe anyone is totally saying no advanced stats , i just don't believe they are the end all be all. Wasn't it several years ago the GM of the Coyotes said he was going forward with advanced stats? 

Anyway longwinded yes but it's all just opinion and we're just fans (or we'd be working in a NHL job) so know one is right or wrong. Everyone is going to see or read about the same game their own way.  .....................Have fun everyone!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussing the stats is definitely interesting.  At a glance, I have trouble with letting go of players like Hoffman. We all want a group of well rounded players but sometimes we just need people who can put the puck in the net.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, seth505 said:

Discussing the stats is definitely interesting.  At a glance, I have trouble with letting go of players like Hoffman. We all want a group of well rounded players but sometimes we just need people who can put the puck in the net.  

I agree, you make exceptions for elite scorers but im not sure Hoffman is that anymore.  He's not even on pace for 20 prorated goals this year (albeit it's close).  We're likely stuck with him for the next couple of years so i sure hope he returns to his 25-35g seasons but I also think its imperative we find him linemates that can make up for his shortcomings.

I think there is a way to get 'more' out of some players but the coaches have to be flexible and understand that not everyone is Brendan Gallagher or Nick Suzuki. Some guys will need a little help to get to where they can really shine, whether its matchups or linemates or sheltering etc.  I think MSL seems to understand this so we shall see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seth505 said:

Discussing the stats is definitely interesting.  At a glance, I have trouble with letting go of players like Hoffman. We all want a group of well rounded players but sometimes we just need people who can put the puck in the net.  

True enough. Teams always need an assortment of players. You need to be able to adjust to the opponent you're playing. I wasn't s fan of going after Laine. I always thought he was to one Demensional and not good enough defensively. Especially for the price. That said when he's hot and put in the right spot with the right players he can score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seth505 said:

Discussing the stats is definitely interesting.  At a glance, I have trouble with letting go of players like Hoffman. We all want a group of well rounded players but sometimes we just need people who can put the puck in the net.  

 

3 hours ago, maas_art said:

I agree, you make exceptions for elite scorers but im not sure Hoffman is that anymore.  He's not even on pace for 20 prorated goals this year (albeit it's close).  We're likely stuck with him for the next couple of years so i sure hope he returns to his 25-35g seasons but I also think its imperative we find him linemates that can make up for his shortcomings.

The thing is, as I posted, it's not just Hoffman having shortcomings. He's plain not contributing at even strength. We think of him as a goal-scorer, and he's been strong at generating offence on the PP, but at 5v5, he has the worst expected goals for on the team, both in terms of expected goals generated per ice time and as a percentage of expected goals for vs. against. So he's actually the worst player on the team right now in terms of producing offence at ES. And if we look at his individual contribution and how many expected goal he's producing himself as one player, he's second last on the team, ahead of only Cedric Paquette.

Now if we want to ask ourselves whether this is an aberration or if this is the real Hoffman, you need only look at Hoffman's performance last year with Stl. This year, his team-worst 1.77 expected goals per 60 minutes of ice time is actually better than the 1.64 he posted last season. And in Hoffman's career, he's only been a positive player in expected goals once. That means in 8 of the 9 years, the other team outplayed his team with him on the ice.

So bottom line is that Hoffman is really an asset on the PP, but he's a guy you have to hide in the line-up otherwise, and as I posted, he's not even helping the PP much... even if he himself is doing okay, the team just isn't succeeding on the PP. So we have a bad ES player who's main utility is to help the PP, and the PP hasn't had any success. So not sure we have a need for him going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2022 at 9:32 AM, CaptWelly said:

A hot goaltender can make almost any team or players look great. I agree though before there were ever advanced stats, how did anyone know if a player was good or not? Advanced stats are good for a baseball game, but even then the human element comes into play. Hockey really isn't a good sport for advanced stats. Some players early in thier career can be deemed a defensive forward and then becomes deployed that way most of his career. Does it mean they couldn't have been a great offensive player? Datsyk is a great example. Several SELKIE trophy's, At the time because of the line up the team had he was told to play that role. Babbcock said if we turned him loose he could of been top 3 scoring just going all out forward. He said though we're trying to win cups not individual scoring titles. Players that sacrifice to block shots play outside of their comfort zones sometimes play through injuries. Advanced stats are geared toward offense and what they believe will create offense. Hockey can have a lot of ebbs and flows in the same game. A lot of changes in momentum. Not so much now but fights or big hits or a big save can change momentum of a game. At a crucial time a penalty kill gave give momentum to a team. Are then the penalty killer's ceratitid with helping to create that offense? Being a pest getting under the skin of other teams can throw a team off their game sometimes. Hockey is a lot more complex "yes the intangibles" actually are real and are hard to quantify. Subban was mentioned and yes he could control the puck. He also didn't play a smart game and know when to take that extra chance and not to. Several time the one hand on his stick defending off the other team end to end , but ending up in the corner because he didn't utilize his team mates enough. Yes he could skate and be a highlight real but he really didn't have enough "hockey smarts". Lindstrom from the Wings you watched his game it wasn't near as fancy but he was smart and when the game was done they won and he had points on the score sheet the same. In my opinion advanced stats especially don't work well with defenseman. The eye test will show the little things how the stick was in the lane the player was "steered" to the corner , the puck was stolen by the back checking forward. A shift by the 4th line players that hems in the other team giving momentum. A player may look totally different playing for a defensive minded coach than a run and gun coach. Offense wins season titles, defense wins championships. I don't believe anyone is totally saying no advanced stats , i just don't believe they are the end all be all. Wasn't it several years ago the GM of the Coyotes said he was going forward with advanced stats? 

Anyway longwinded yes but it's all just opinion and we're just fans (or we'd be working in a NHL job) so know one is right or wrong. Everyone is going to see or read about the same game their own way.  .....................Have fun everyone!!!

I'm with you on most of the above... as, IMHO, so many intangibles limit the accuracy of so much statistical data over time, as well as in a, past,  immediate and future sense.  "Offense wins season titles, defense wins championships." is questionable and somewhat a cliche yet is another one of those " in general" concepts we hear a lot. Not sure if it is proven. I don't outright discount the value of advanced stats and also agree they are not "be all, end all".  Got to watch the games and not simply read stats, reports and comments after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2022 at 9:13 AM, BigTed3 said:

My comments weren't specific to you as one individual. If you're analyzing games like a coach and re-watching segments, then you probably have a better feel for things than the average person. That said, it's just recall bias that causes people to remember key moments as opposed to many small moments. That's the human brain, it's how it works. It's not a criticism, it's human nature. Do you remember what you ate for lunch on June 5, 2018 or what color your toothbrush was on August 18, 2020 or do you remember your favorite vacation moments or your wedding day?

As far as advanced stats go, yes, someone is watching the games and registering who's on the ice when events happen. And they do take into account goaltending performance. You can look at a stat called PDO, which is essentially a combination of save percentage and shooting percentage for a team when a player is on the ice. In general, this should regress to a total of 1.000 for most players. So a number above this means they were either scoring at a higher clip than normal or they got bad goaltending when a player was on. It allows you to correct for bad luck or good luck with goaltending to some degree.

Recall bias definitely plays a part even for reporters and commentators and I am assuming the two of us. Memory can be amazing for some, fabricated by some or long-gone for others. In some respects this may have something to do with level of importance to the individual (that special event"!) at any given moment.  Love the "good luck/bad luck" expression. Like when you hear some people have all the luck and others can't even buy luck or catch a break. Intangibles no doubt. I feel for the individual player who plays the majority of a career playing for bad teams. We revere the great teams and the players fortunate to be a part of that experience (and hey the statistics make all the difference for that individual... right?). Still, I really do appreciate your knowledge of the metrics. The more we can know the better we may see things sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...