How success kills good teams (and why S. Gionta needs benching)

[Devils731]

Gio is 7th on the team for SOG. But you didn't mean SOG now did you? You meant some other stat that combines SOG and others to make some composite stat that you use to justify your argument. And if you had your way, we wouldn't have a point in the standings today.

 

7th in SOG, or another way of saying that, there are only 2 forwards that played as many games that he had more shots than, Bernier and Josefson.

 

I think him averaging a little over 1 shot a game is probably a reasonable number for him, but it's also not exactly a point in his favor of strong play.

No one is trying to argue that Gio is some underrated elite player. The premise of this whole thread is "he is killing this team" when it's obvious he is not unless you rely on arbitrary stats. His is contributing the way you would hope your marginal players would. The fact that he is on the 3rd line for the Devils is a testament to our lack of depth not his qualifications as an NHL regular.

 

I don't know that he's killing the team, I agree, but I may be comfortable saying his play hasn't been that good and he's benefited from some decent luck so far.  I expect him to be an average or below average 4th line type guy, so he's probably meeting my expectations.  It's his time playing against better players that is really killing him.

[Zubie#8]

Like I said, ideally we want CBGB as the 4th line. Everyone hold your complaints until Lou works some magic or when Zubrus returns to create a competent 3rd line.

[devlman]

CBGB is a 4th line. And Zubrus coming back will finally fill up a third line that will allow CBGB to be bumped back down. But to say they're not even a good line? We would not have gone as far in the playoffs if they were not a line. They are our best 4th line in YEARS. Right now it's just a matter of not having more talented bodies to fill up the third line, mostly because of barch

Agreed. This line is clearly filling in until we get some more offensive help. Til that happens I think gionta and his linemates are doing an adequate job w it. They're much better as a fourth line where they are pretty decent.

[Mayday]

I love Bernier/Carter/Gionta they always seem to have a good shift when the rest of the team is lagging.

Its true Carter/Gionta are 4th liners playing top 9 minutes so I can see the frustration. Bernier has the weird outburst of finesse every once and awhile but his skating is quite bad.

[Triumph]

He's also the guy that screws up his line's defense most often by running around, IMO. It's probably a function of him not filling a lot of space but he spends way too much time skating behind the puck carrier doing nothing.

 

This and he's real bad in transition defense - sometimes he will make a great play, but it's like the old baseball saying about who's better - the fielder who has to dive to get a bunch of balls or the guy who makes it look easy.  

 

Gionta had a great goal, but he's going to be continually hemmed in his own zone - and yeah, Sterio raises a fair point, I've only briefly mentioned Salvador, but he is basically the Gionta of the defense or worse.  Tomorrow we can see if Gionta got too much of the Silfverberg-Turris-Alfredsson line (which he probably did). 

Edited February 19, 2013 by Triumph

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if teams actually use or have someone who analyses these advanced statistics? Or is it not an accepted part of the game yet?

 

I often read about De Boer putting together tapes on specific assignments, and Iimagine the team has a guy who scouts and puts this stuff together, but would that job incorporate statistical analysis such as has been discussed here?

 

I know it is a key feature of premier league and European football these days, to the point where teams occasionally train with monitoring software day to day to pick up movements, training statistics and fitness and performance statistics.

 

[SterioDesign]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if teams actually use or have someone who analyses these advanced statistics? Or is it not an accepted part of the game yet?

 

 

I often read about De Boer putting together tapes on specific assignments, and Iimagine the team has a guy who scouts and puts this stuff together, but would that job incorporate statistical analysis such as has been discussed here?

 

 

I know it is a key feature of premier league and European football these days, to the point where teams occasionally train with monitoring software day to day to pick up movements, training statistics and fitness and performance statistics.

 

 

 

would be fair to look at those stats to see why those numbers where so high or low and go back and see clips and see what caused those numbers to tilt in a way or another since so many things can happen on a shift that could lead to more shots in a way or the other.

 

Thats logically what you'd have to do, not simply look at the stat sheet and look who has the worst corsi and ship him to albany and assume he had the worst game out of all players. (like some would do base on their posts)

 

just like any stats it's really misleading sometimes you really can't simply do 1+1=2 in most cases

Edited February 19, 2013 by SterioDesign

[DaneykoIsGod]

Put JJ in Lil Gio's spot. Cup.

[Triumph]

would be fair to look at those stats to see why those numbers where so high or low and go back and see clips and see what caused those numbers to tilt in a way or another since so many things can happen on a shift that could lead to more shots in a way or the other.

 

Thats logically what you'd have to do, not simply look at the stat sheet and look who has the worst corsi and ship him to albany and assume he had the worst game out of all players. (like some would do base on their posts)

 

just like any stats it's really misleading sometimes you really can't simply do 1+1=2 in most cases

 

Sigh.  Once again, that is not my position.  I don't judge players based on Corsi in one game.  It's a trend.  And once again, Gionta is bringing up the rear.  He's bringing up the rear so hard that he is near last in the league in this category.

 

Now yesterday he saw Ottawa's top line nearly half the time, a choice that makes no sense to me, so that explains some of it, but if he's getting destroyed why is he there?  It doesn't make sense.

[Devil Dan 56]

Sigh.  Once again, that is not my position.  I don't judge players based on Corsi in one game.  It's a trend.  And once again, Gionta is bringing up the rear.  He's bringing up the rear so hard that he is near last in the league in this category.

 

Now yesterday he saw Ottawa's top line nearly half the time, a choice that makes no sense to me, so that explains some of it, but if he's getting destroyed why is he there?  It doesn't make sense.

 

Probably because he's not getting as 'destroyed' as the numbers say. The coaching staff has access to all of these numbers as well, and they clearly think he brings more good than harm. Also, it's hard for them to bench him when the guy is putting up a goal or assist every other game or so. Maybe when he comes down to earth again they can.

[NLinfante]

Now yesterday he saw Ottawa's top line nearly half the time, a choice that makes no sense to me, so that explains some of it, but if he's getting destroyed why is he there?  It doesn't make sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The fact that our 3rd line is playing against Alfie and Turris means that lines 1 and 2 aren't. In theory, this creates better scoring chances for our top two lines against teams with a lack of F depth (ie, Ottawa). It's a very common style of coaching.

Some coaches like to match top line vs top line, others don't. I don't/can't disagree with you concerning Gio's numbers, but my point is simply that I don't think PDB cares. He'll gamble with Carter/Bernie/Gio on the ice if it means Elias and Kovy's lines are playing against inferior F's.

In his mind, the chances generated by our top lines will outweigh the chances given up by our 3rd (also, for the record I think NHL coaches are concerned about quality scoring chances for and against, not simply SOG). Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. But that's his style and he's the man being paid to coach.

[Crisis]

And for what it's worth, Gio's line shut down OTTs top line.

 

And the PK gave up no shots against.

[Daniel]

Sigh.  Once again, that is not my position.  I don't judge players based on Corsi in one game.  It's a trend.  And once again, Gionta is bringing up the rear.  He's bringing up the rear so hard that he is near last in the league in this category.

 

Now yesterday he saw Ottawa's top line nearly half the time, a choice that makes no sense to me, so that explains some of it, but if he's getting destroyed why is he there?  It doesn't make sense.

 

 

Again, what you're avoiding is whether putting Gio and similarly situated players up against top lines has the positive effect of opening things up for guys like Elias and Zajac, and to what extent.  Also, you're not providing a base line.  That is, let's assume that Gio, et al. are getting destroyed by players like Crosby, Malkin, or other top line forwards.  Is he fairing any better than other teams' third/fourth liners against the best players in the league?

 

Ultimately, it seems to me you're singling out a bottom line forward for being just that.  (Guys like 1999-2001 John Madden do not grow on trees).  You can say that he shouldn't be matched up against the other team's top players.  That does come with a price though. 

[Pepperkorn]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if teams actually use or have someone who analyses these advanced statistics? Or is it not an accepted part of the game yet?

 

 

I often read about De Boer putting together tapes on specific assignments, and Iimagine the team has a guy who scouts and puts this stuff together, but would that job incorporate statistical analysis such as has been discussed here?

 

 

I know it is a key feature of premier league and European football these days, to the point where teams occasionally train with monitoring software day to day to pick up movements, training statistics and fitness and performance statistics.

I think someone asked DeBoer at a press conference if he looked at Corsi/Fenwicks and he said he had no idea what those were - he was polite but just brushed it off. I may nto be remembering it properly

 

I think they'll be a decent tool to have in your arsenal

Edited February 19, 2013 by Pepperkorn

[ZeroGravityFat]

puck luck was not in either side, the puck bounced funny at each forecheck when there was a clear scoring chance and the two goalies saved some carnage plays very well. I can't blame either side for the win/loss but the devils definitely played a forecheck only game and didn't bother creating a forward move. They need to reduce Kovie's time to give him more potent chances, he looks destroyed after each shift and even if he gets through them well, he doesn't have the 'my puck' attitude when he's near the puck to save his energy in case there is a long pass.

[Triumph]

Again, what you're avoiding is whether putting Gio and similarly situated players up against top lines has the positive effect of opening things up for guys like Elias and Zajac, and to what extent.  Also, you're not providing a base line.  That is, let's assume that Gio, et al. are getting destroyed by players like Crosby, Malkin, or other top line forwards.  Is he fairing any better than other teams' third/fourth liners against the best players in the league?

 

In retrospect, I didn't look at the numbers close enough.  What's not at issue is that this line does a reasonable job of suppressing shots against.  How much is pretty much impossible to say without going through game by game, which unfortunately isn't possible right now.  Let's say they're able to do it at least a little bit, although I think the Devils' defense are pretty good shot suppressors too - last year as a team the Devils faced 26.3 shots against per 60, right now Gionta is at 23.2 (not counting yesterday).  

 

What's more of a problem is that this line provides zero offense.  14.1 shots for per 60 minutes on the ice.  That means at an 8% shooting percentage over an 82 game season, Gionta should be on the ice for 17 goals for at 5 on 5.  And remember that counts him, his linemates and defensemen and everything.  This is a line being used for 10 minutes at ES every game.

Elias and Zajac aren't anywhere near the top of the league in shots for/60.  Kovalchuk is near the bottom himself.  If the plan is to get these guys easier ice time, it's not exactly paying off.

 

 

Ultimately, it seems to me you're singling out a bottom line forward for being just that.  (Guys like 1999-2001 John Madden do not grow on trees).  You can say that he shouldn't be matched up against the other team's top players.  That does come with a price though.

 

I don't really think it does though - Elias Zubrus Sykora was the main matchup line last year and it did just fine.  Elias is doing better this year - it remains to be seen whether that's because of decreased competition, a move to the wing, the removal of Sykora, the addition of Clarkson, etc.  And by cursory examination, he's getting plenty of the top lines too.  I guess I'd have to look into what Kovalchuk's been up to this year and last.  But you still shouldn't have to have a line that gets almost no offense in order to free guys like Kovalchuk and Elias. 

[SterioDesign]

what does those stats tells you when you play with a trigger happy player compared to a very concervative player who strictly shoot when he's sure he's got a good chance. Cause it has to change some data

[Zubie#8]

This team is missing Zubrus. He is the perfect player for our system, we are missing that offensive zone time he creates along the boards. There are so many lost board battles I have been seeing where I think "man Zubs would have won that one easily."

Edited February 19, 2013 by Zubie#8

[Devils731]

what does those stats tells you when you play with a trigger happy player compared to a very concervative player who strictly shoot when he's sure he's got a good chance. Cause it has to change some data

 

Shooting percentages aren't crazy different for most forwards, except for a few cases, so those trigger happy players tend to shoot more because their shot justifies those shots being good chances and the conservative player shoots less because his shot needs a great opportunity to find the back of the net.

 

Crappy shooters who take tons of shots to the detriment of their team probably don't ever make it to the NHL.

 

Playing with linemates that generate good Corsi numbers is likely going to help your own Corsi numbers, just like playing with good players tends to make you look better.

[SterioDesign]

Shooting percentages aren't crazy different for most forwards, except for a few cases, so those trigger happy players tend to shoot more because their shot justifies those shots being good chances and the conservative player shoots less because his shot needs a great opportunity to find the back of the net.

 

Crappy shooters who take tons of shots to the detriment of their team probably don't ever make it to the NHL.

 

Playing with linemates that generate good Corsi numbers is likely going to help your own Corsi numbers, just like playing with good players tends to make you look better.

 

mmm thats not really what i meant, Henrique has 4 goals on 11 shots... Parise has 7 goals on 69 shots... what does that tell you about Elias Clarkson Koivu and Heatley? not THAT much, some players shoot as soon they have an opportunity and some are waiting, its not because they NEED a great opportunity it's simply because its a nature. guys like Ovechkin grab the puck go up the ice and shoot the puck as soon they get in the offensive zone and most of the time its going in the goalies chest for a faceoff... its really not telling much about his linemates who simply watched him go

[Devils731]

mmm thats not really what i meant, Henrique has 4 goals on 11 shots... Parise has 7 goals on 69 shots... what does that tell you about Elias Clarkson Koivu and Heatley? not THAT much, some players shoot as soon they have an opportunity and some are waiting, its not because they NEED a great opportunity it's simply because its a nature. guys like Ovechkin grab the puck go up the ice and shoot the puck as soon they get in the offensive zone and most of the time its going in the goalies chest for a faceoff... its really not telling much about his linemates who simply watched him go

 

I'm really not sure what your point is.  Is it that Ovechkin generates useless shots and that makes Corsi a bad indicator?  Is it that linemates have little to do with how many shots some players generate so that makes Corsi a bad indicator?

 

I do believe you're incorrect on shooting though.  It's not about players nature, good shooters shoot more, bad shooters shoot less.  It's not nature, it's knowing where they can and can't score from.  Guys who rack up tons of shots are almost all good shooters, there are very few guys who shoot very little but are also good shooters, it's not a coincidence that this is the case.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Devils731

[SterioDesign]

I'm really not sure what your point is.  Is it that Ovechkin generates useless shots and that makes Corsi a bad indicator?  Is it that linemates have little to do with how many shots some players generate so that makes Corsi a bad indicator?

 

I do believe you're incorrect on shooting though.  It's not about players nature, good shooters shoot more, bad shooters shoot less.  It's not nature, it's knowing where they can and can't score from.  Guys who rack up tons of shots are almost all good shooters, there are very few guys who shoot very little but are also good shooters, it's not a coincidence that this is the case.

 

yes both of your statement is what i meant. its a bad indicator sometimes. 

 

And i'm sure i'm correct since i'm like that when i'm playing so i know. Some players have a pass first mentality and even though we KNOW we should shoot more, we don't. Even knowing we have a greater chance to put it in than the other guy you still want to pass. It's a nature i can assure you i know a bunch of guys like that.

[Devils731]

yes both of your statement is what i meant. its a bad indicator sometimes. 

 

And i'm sure i'm correct since i'm like that when i'm playing so i know. Some players have a pass first mentality and even though we KNOW we should shoot more, we don't. Even knowing we have a greater chance to put it in than the other guy you still want to pass. It's a nature i can assure you i know a bunch of guys like that.

 

It could be a bad indicator in some cases, but on a whole I don't believe it is.  It verifies what my eye sees too often on the Devils to be a coincidence, IMO.  Also, over a long period of time you'll get to see how players do when matched with different linemates, so you can see which are the guys bringing other players up and which are the guys bringing players down.

 

No offense to your hockey playing, but in this case we're talking about NHL level players, which is a whole different beast than anyone else.  If we had guys in the NHL who pass up too many good chances because they like to pass and only take amazing chances, then we should see some players consistently putting up 30% shooting percentages while only taking 1 shot a game, but we don't see players doing anything close to that.  On the flip side, if we have players who shoot no matter what, then we should see players who take way too many shots per minute and end up with shooting percentages in the 4-5% range while taking tons of shots, but we don't really see those players existing either.  

 

Sure some guys are shoot first and some guys are pass first, but there are very few people who take bad shots just to increase their number of pucks directed at net.  My eyes tell me those players don't really exist in the NHL and the numbers reflect that.

[squishyx]

What's more of a problem is that this line provides zero offense.  14.1 shots for per 60 minutes on the ice.  That means at an 8% shooting percentage over an 82 game season, Gionta should be on the ice for 17 goals for at 5 on 5.  And remember that counts him, his linemates and defensemen and everything.  This is a line being used for 10 minutes at ES every game.

Zero offense. Could you exaggerate just a little more? Literally a day after the guy who you recommending benching scores a goal you have the hubris to suggest he and his 7 points after 16 games is equivalent to 0.

Anyway, you know whats interesting? At the end of last year do you know who was 27th and 28th out of 30 for CORSI on our team? Bernier and Carter. Do you know who was 25th out of 26th for LA? Mike Richards who went on to score 15pts in 20 games. But I bet if you were the hypothetical coach you would have looked at that data and benched them (well not Richards, you aren't insane, just stubborn).

Yes I am cherry picking examples, not because I think the stat is flawed but because it illustrates that all stats can be misleading. Hockey is more then numbers on a sheet, and while Gionta scoring the next game after you made this thread is just a coincidence, you think you would lay off him a bit instead of doubling down on your argument.

[SterioDesign]

Zero offense. Could you exaggerate just a little more? Literally a day after the guy who you recommending benching scores a goal you have the hubris to suggest he and his 7 points after 16 games is equivalent to 0.

Anyway, you know whats interesting? At the end of last year do you know who was 27th and 28th out of 30 for CORSI on our team? Bernier and Carter. Do you know who was 25th out of 26th for LA? Mike Richards who went on to score 15pts in 20 games. But I bet if you were the hypothetical coach you would have looked at that data and benched them (well not Richards, you aren't insane, just stubborn).

Yes I am cherry picking examples, not because I think the stat is flawed but because it illustrates that all stats can be misleading. Hockey is more then numbers on a sheet, and while Gionta scoring the next game after you made this thread is just a coincidence, you think you would lay off him a bit instead of doubling down on your argument.