Rumor: 2021-22 Trade Rumors and FA Part V: To Giroux or not to Giroux

[Zandar]

I think when his college season is done

He can be signed at any time but he gives up college eligibility once he signs. So in theory he could sign while at the Olympics and join the Avs once back in the states. Highly unlikely but possible.

 

[flyfysher]

This year, they are currently 16th at 49.8%


Last year they were also 16th at 50.1% and in 2020 they were 11th at 50.5%.


In the playoffs they were 11th out of 16 teams last year at 48.1% and 16th out of 24 teams in 2020 at 48.5%

TY

 

[McMetal]

Where does TB rank on FO%?

16th. So right square in the middle of the pack. Top 5 teams are Toronto, Dallas, Carolina, Boston, and Philly, in that order. Seems like an almost random selection, no? When you look at the list, it's a very haphazard distribution of good and bad teams. Minnesota is 23rd, Vancouver is 9th. It certainly would seem that FO% has little relation to how much a team wins and losses.

There’s grand scheme of things and then there are situations that are the exception to the rule.

People like to say that, but even if you have a guy like Giroux who is 60%, that's still a 40% chance to lose, which is pretty high. Go less than that, to a guy who's only 55%, and that's a 45% chance to lose. And you only get to flip that coin once, it doesn't "even out". You either win a draw, or you lose it, no do-overs where eventually the better man wins out. So a slight edge in key situations really doesn't matter all that much, a bad bounce or a lucky break for the other guy will cost even the very elite faceoff guys fairly often.

It seems counterintuitive, but faceoffs are glorified coin tosses, that's all. They should be treated as such when building teams. Coaches already treat them exactly this way, they have set plays written up for whether the team wins or loses the draw. Of course, you would rather win it clean, but how a team reacts to losing a draw is far more important than just the win or loss.

 

[Balthazar]

There's perhaps 20% of important faceoffs during a hockey game: PK, PP and those at the end of 3rd period when you're protecting a lead or trying to tie the game.

Those stats are taking all faceoffs into account, including all the 5v5 at center ice.

 

[flyfysher]

16th. So right square in the middle of the pack. Top 5 teams are Toronto, Dallas, Carolina, Boston, and Philly, in that order. Seems like an almost random selection, no? When you look at the list, it's a very haphazard distribution of good and bad teams. Minnesota is 23rd, Vancouver is 9th. It certainly would seem that FO% has little relation to how much a team wins and losses.


People like to say that, but even if you have a guy like Giroux who is 60%, that's still a 40% chance to lose, which is pretty high. Go less than that, to a guy who's only 55%, and that's a 45% chance to lose. And you only get to flip that coin once, it doesn't "even out". You either win a draw, or you lose it, no do-overs where eventually the better man wins out. So a slight edge in key situations really doesn't matter all that much, a bad bounce or a lucky break for the other guy will cost even the very elite faceoff guys fairly often.

It seems counterintuitive, but faceoffs are glorified coin tosses, that's all. They should be treated as such when building teams. Coaches already treat them exactly this way, they have set plays written up for whether the team wins or loses the draw. Of course, you would rather win it clean, but how a team reacts to losing a draw is far more important than just the win or loss.

Stat wise I agree. However, I have repeatedly seen the most inopportune situations where the Avs needed to win the FO and couldn’t.

 

[McMetal]

Stat wise I agree. However, I have repeatedly seen the most inopportune situations where the Avs needed to win the FO and couldn’t.

Like I said, faceoffs are a coin toss. You win some, you lose some. Even an elite faceoff man is going to lose 40% of his critical faceoffs, that's a lot when you think about it.

How a team reacts (and how quickly) can mean a lot more to the situation than just whether you win or lose the draw.

 

[flyfysher]

Like I said, faceoffs are a coin toss. You win some, you lose some. Even an elite faceoff man is going to lose 40% of his critical faceoffs, that's a lot when you think about it.

How a team reacts (and how quickly) can mean a lot more to the situation than just whether you win or lose the draw.

The Avs are bad at FO% from season to season so it’s more than random chance like a coin toss.

 

[McMetal]

The Avs are bad at FO% from season to season so it’s more than random chance like a coin toss.

We're talking about just a couple percentage points though, over thousands of faceoffs taken every season. Not only that, but despite being bad at faceoffs, we've been a very good team over the course of the last few seasons. It's almost as if a few faceoffs here and there don't have that big of an effect. Once possession is established it equalizes pretty quickly. The team that wins the draw can make an errant pass or lose a battle and give possession right back within seconds. Faceoffs are just irrelevant to success.

Yes, the Avs do struggle to win key faceoffs at times. But can you point to any specific situations where it cost us a game anytime recently? Even a goal against?

 

[dahrougem2]

Yes, the Avs do struggle to win key faceoffs at times. But can you point to any specific situations where it cost us a game anytime recently? Even a goal against?

Do you really want to take that chance, though?

Take the game against Florida for example. The Avs lost 3 faceoffs in a row and the Panthers damn near tied the game. Ditto the game against the Rangers. Our centres kept losing every single draw and the Rangers not only scored a goal off a faceoff to make it 3-2, they almost tied the game.

I get it. "Almost" means that our team survived. But I'd rather win those faceoffs, get the puck out and force the other team to enter our zone than have to scramble off of a lost faceoff to defend in our zone.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

The Avs are bad at FO% from season to season so it’s more than random chance like a coin toss.

That's also not even true. Last year the Avs were 8th in the entire league at 51.6%.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Do you really want to take that chance, though?

Take the game against Florida for example. The Avs lost 3 faceoffs in a row and the Panthers damn near tied the game. Ditto the game against the Rangers. Our centres kept losing every single draw and the Rangers not only scored a goal off a faceoff to make it 3-2, they almost tied the game.

I get it. "Almost" means that our team survived. But I'd rather win those faceoffs, get the puck out and force the other team to enter our zone than have to scramble off of a lost faceoff to defend in our zone.

But that's the point. Just like how winning the faceoff isn't a guaranteed goal offensively, winning the faceoff as the Defensive team isn't a guaranteed zone exit either. Especially in a 6 on 5 late game situation(IMO almost the only time faceoff wins are truly important).

Its way, way more important for a team to be prepared and ready to move after the draw regardless of result of the faceoff, then the faceoff win itself.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Grubauer wanted to come back too. I think we'll keep him but that doesn't mean much.

Good thing joe didnt bring Grubauer back. I wouldnt be shocked to see someone give Frank a chance at #1. Im not sure Frank came all this way to be a back up his entire time in the NHL.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Good thing joe didnt bring Grubauer back. I wouldnt be shocked to see someone give Frank a chance at #1. Im not sure Frank came all this way to be a back up his entire time in the NHL.

Probably not, but he also seems to genuinely like it here. Plus tbh I think he's got as good of a chance here to be the #1 as he does anywhere else at this point.


The UFA market for goalies next year isn't great to say the least. Kuemper and Campbell I think are basically the best. If Frankie signs here again he's likely going to be in a similar 1B situation where he'll have real shot at playing lots of games.

 

[dahrougem2]

But that's the point. Just like how winning the faceoff isn't a guaranteed goal offensively, winning the faceoff as the Defensive team isn't a guaranteed zone exit either. Especially in a 6 on 5 late game situation(IMO almost the only time faceoff wins are truly important).

Its way, way more important for a team to be prepared and ready to move after the draw regardless of result of the faceoff, then the faceoff win itself.

That's not the point, though. I'd always, always, always rather have puck possession than have to chase it. You ask any player that and they'll tell you the same. Nothing in life is guaranteed so guarantees don't matter in this scenario. What matters is the likelihood of scoring vs not scoring, and if we have the puck and are able to clear there's a stronger chance of the other team not scoring.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

So long as you have one guy you can rely on, that's all that matters.

Faceoffs in general absolutely don't matter. The statistical evidence is overwhelming.

I don't know if it is something that is tangible/quantifiable in any way ... but I feel like the Avs lose almost every big face-off. So while its maybe not wrong that in general face-offs don't matter --- if it was something that could be tracked --- I feel like the Avs would be near the bottom over the last 3-4 years in "not winning these 2-3 really important face-offs each game".

Its not really about the outright %. Its about the big 2-3 face-offs each game.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Probably not, but he also seems to genuinely like it here. Plus tbh I think he's got as good of a chance here to be the #1 as he does anywhere else at this point.


The UFA market for goalies next year isn't great to say the least. Kuemper and Campbell I think are basically the best. If Frankie signs here again he's likely going to be in a similar 1B situation where he'll have real shot at playing lots of games.

Frank can probably go to a few teams today and be a number 1. He would have to really love it in Denver to stick around as a 1B. I wouldnt hate it if Joe brought him back another year at the same price.

 

[The Kingslayer]

That's not the point, though. I'd always, always, always rather have puck possession than have to chase it. You ask any player that and they'll tell you the same. Nothing in life is guaranteed so guarantees don't matter in this scenario. What matters is the likelihood of scoring vs not scoring, and if we have the puck and are able to clear there's a stronger chance of the other team not scoring.

you say that like you havent seen Jack Johnson play hockey before.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I don't know if it is something that is tangible/quantifiable in any way ... but I feel like the Avs lose almost every big face-off. So while its maybe not wrong that in general face-offs don't matter --- if it was something that could be tracked --- I feel like the Avs would be near the bottom over the last 3-4 years in "not winning these 2-3 really important face-offs each game".

Its not really about the outright %. Its about the big 2-3 face-offs each game.

I dont think its true at all. We just tend to remember the faceoffs that we lose, not so much the faceoffs we win. I dont know of any analytical department that tracks those "key faceoffs" in particular, but I would venture to guess that our actual numbers in those key faceoffs would be roughly the same as our general faceoff percentage.


Which might still be towards the bottom of the league because we are 29th in general... But I dont think we'd be at some ridiculous low number like 20% or something either.

 

[McMetal]

Do you really want to take that chance, though?

Take the game against Florida for example. The Avs lost 3 faceoffs in a row and the Panthers damn near tied the game. Ditto the game against the Rangers. Our centres kept losing every single draw and the Rangers not only scored a goal off a faceoff to make it 3-2, they almost tied the game.

I get it. "Almost" means that our team survived. But I'd rather win those faceoffs, get the puck out and force the other team to enter our zone than have to scramble off of a lost faceoff to defend in our zone.

Of course you would RATHER win a draw than lose a draw. I'm just saying that the actual, on-ice difference between winning and losing is so small that it shouldn't be a factor in building your team. Just grabbing guys that are "good at faceoffs" should be bottom priority compared to all the other play driving metrics you can attach to somebody. When the Avs add at the deadline, any faceoff skill they have should be coincidental.

Dallas won 58.8% of the faceoffs this afternoon and is top 5 in the league at it, fat lot of good it does for them as they lose 4-0 and sit outside a playoff spot.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

The UFA goalie market is garbage next summer. Ideally the Avs keep Kuemper and Francouz. I doubt Kuemper is in any hurry to leave as long as the contract is fair, his slow start should also keep the numbers reasonable.

 

[Richard88]

That's not the point, though. I'd always, always, always rather have puck possession than have to chase it. You ask any player that and they'll tell you the same. Nothing in life is guaranteed so guarantees don't matter in this scenario. What matters is the likelihood of scoring vs not scoring, and if we have the puck and are able to clear there's a stronger chance of the other team not scoring.

Watching the Dallas series where Pavelski would often win like 10 draws in a row in our DZ and have the puck dumped time and time again towards our crease by their Dmen until Perry/Benn/Pavelski inevitably hacked the puck into the net was painful viewing. Having that one faceoff guy who can stem the tide of things like that would be nice, especially late in tight games and on special teams.

 

[Gatorbait19]

There's perhaps 20% of important faceoffs during a hockey game: PK, PP and those at the end of 3rd period when you're protecting a lead or trying to tie the game.

Those stats are taking all faceoffs into account, including all the 5v5 at center ice.

It really doesn’t matter whether we’re 5th or 25th in FOs. But what matters is having the 1 guy that can go out there and win a draw for you need it. We don’t have that guy.

So while the panthers are bad at FOs overall, Barkov is a 55% FO guy that wins then when they absolutely need it. Last year Tampa had stamkos at 57% and Tyler Johnson at 54% (although both %s were higher in the regular season).

 

[Avs71]

 

[Perratrooper]

A lot of people here arguing that “you are still losing 40-45% of key draws” are really looking at the whole faceoff stat with a pessimistic view. If you told be I had a 5-10% better chance of winning a key faceoff I take that all day.

We have the most elite offensive defense group in the league and most offensive starts (based on overall average, if anyone has some specific faceoff numbers that would be awesome) we aren’t able to give them the advantage of starting with the puck.

I understand it’s not necessarily a be all, end all key stat, but at the end of the day everything comes down to small battles and if you can guarantee a win 5-10% more often I would take it.

 

[Balthazar]

When players are saying that losing all those draws is "a big disadvantage for them", I'll take their word.