2024-25 Roster Thread #2: Midseasonnar

[BiggE]

Zev Buium projected to be the #1 D on the US World Junior squad.

But hey, we got a future middle 6 forward.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Based entirely on feel from what I have watched this season it seems like teams are working harder to maintain control until they can produce high danger shots. It seems like there is a lot less "getting pucks on net" then there was say 5-10 years ago.

There is quite a bit of data to support this. There was a shift 2-3 years ago and it’s only accelerating.

 

[BiggE]

There is quite a bit of data to support this. There was a shift 2-3 years ago and it’s only accelerating.

Except for the Flyers, they still think it’s 1984

 

[deadhead]

This change in strategy has increased the value of PFs and big D-men.

It's one thing to hang on on the edge of the High Danger zone and take better shots, it's quite another to park in front of the net and screen the goalie and pounce on rebounds.

If you look at the Flyers heat maps, they struggle at both ends of the ice, both creating traffic in front of the net and clearing the porch.

Which is why you should always account for the "Red Queen effect," you can see this in the NFL where the shift to smaller, quicker defenses has revived the power running game. In the NHL, it is why size will still matter, not your whole roster, but a strategic group of players that allow you to play a "power" game to complement quick, skilled players.

 

[VladDrag]

There is quite a bit of data to support this. There was a shift 2-3 years ago and it’s only accelerating.

Did a quick analysis myself :

A few notes:
It's only 5v5 data.
For 19-20 season, I used the first 68 games so it was an easier equation in excel
For the most 24-25, I only used first 19 games for the same reason.
Shot Danger -- xG/FF*100 -- gives you a snapshot of how dangerous each shot is. It's something I made up, but it makes sense to me.
Data is from NST

Year	CF	FF	xG	Corsi per Team per game	Shot Danger
10-11	105709	78713	4383.13	42.97	5.57
11-12	105549	78393	4360.12	42.91	5.56
2013	61581	45426	2535.44	42.76	5.58
13-14	106050	78906	4340.55	43.11	5.50
14-15	107256	79176	4386.05	43.60	5.54
15-16	106114	78732	4372.53	43.14	5.55
16-17	109124	81095	4474.75	44.36	5.52
17-18	117750	87685	4891.67	46.32	5.58
18-19	117188	87482	4959.3	46.10	5.67
19-20	94616	71336	4044.69	44.88	5.67
20-21	74572	56311	3183.65	42.96	5.65
21-22	117826	89129	5307.31	44.90	5.95
22-23	119786	88764	5584.94	45.65	6.29
23-24	125473	89353	5418.26	47.82	6.06
24-25	28640	20256	1216.1	47.11	6.00

You see a pretty large increase in shot attempts over the last few seasons, and the shots are certainly more dangerous over the last 3-4 seasons.

This is why I've prioritized players like Brink, Frost and to a lesser extent Foerster. These are guys who can cycle the puck in the zone better than others.

 

[dragonoffrost]

Except for the Flyers, they still think it’s 1974

FTFY

 

[JojoTheWhale]

This change in strategy has increased the value of PFs and big D-men.

It's one thing to hang on on the edge of the High Danger zone and take better shots, it's quite another to park in front of the net and screen the goalie and pounce on rebounds.

I am not aware of any recorded increases in Rebound rates.

 

[deadhead]

Did a quick analysis myself :

A few notes:
It's only 5v5 data.
For 19-20 season, I used the first 68 games so it was an easier equation in excel
For the most 24-25, I only used first 19 games for the same reason.
Shot Danger -- xG/FF*100 -- gives you a snapshot of how dangerous each shot is. It's something I made up, but it makes sense to me.
Data is from NST

Year	CF	FF	xG	Corsi per Team per game	Shot Danger
10-11	105709	78713	4383.13	42.97	5.57
11-12	105549	78393	4360.12	42.91	5.56
2013	61581	45426	2535.44	42.76	5.58
13-14	106050	78906	4340.55	43.11	5.50
14-15	107256	79176	4386.05	43.60	5.54
15-16	106114	78732	4372.53	43.14	5.55
16-17	109124	81095	4474.75	44.36	5.52
17-18	117750	87685	4891.67	46.32	5.58
18-19	117188	87482	4959.3	46.10	5.67
19-20	94616	71336	4044.69	44.88	5.67
20-21	74572	56311	3183.65	42.96	5.65
21-22	117826	89129	5307.31	44.90	5.95
22-23	119786	88764	5584.94	45.65	6.29
23-24	125473	89353	5418.26	47.82	6.06
24-25	28640	20256	1216.1	47.11	6.00

You see a pretty large increase in shot attempts over the last few seasons, and the shots are certainly more dangerous over the last 3-4 seasons.

This is why I've prioritized players like Brink, Frost and to a lesser extent Foerster. These are guys who can cycle the puck in the zone better than others.

I don't see Brink and Frost as good at cycling the puck, they're good passers, but cycling the puck requires winning board battles on a regular basis to maintain possession. They need to play with linemates who can do the dirty work and get them the puck so they can make plays.

Laughton - Poehling - Hathaway are probably the best at this, but only Laughton can finish on a regular basis.

Foerster was good at this last season, but has regressed a bit.

The other aspect of a successful cycle are forwards who have a good feel for the "rotation," knowing when to fall back and cover a D-man pinching to keep the puck in the O-zone.

 

[deadhead]

I am not aware of any recorded increases in Rebound rates.

Don't know, and don't know if that would capture the effect unless you map the rebounds.

Heat maps might, if more shots are coming within 5 feet or less, probably players getting better at turning rebounds into shots.

If the increase in high danger shots were coming from 5-15', then it's more likely to be the result of getting pucks to players in the high danger areas.

In either case, you would want to know the source of the shot, from a pass, rebound, recovery of the puck from a blocked shot, etc. It would be interesting to see shot release data (i.e. something akin to pop up data for baseball catchers, how quickly shot is released once shooting motion is initiated).

The other data that would be interesting would be akin to the QB in the pocket, and separation for WRs - how much time between a forward receiving a puck in various spots before he's challenged by a defender. Which forwards make plays quickly, which teams are quick to challenge potential shooters in the HD areas.

I suspect this is the kind of data that tends to be proprietary, since it would require coding each shot (off video), and each player shooting - which is time consuming and therefore expensive. I wonder how much of an analytics budget goes to actual analysis, and how much is spent on gathering raw data.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Don't know, and don't know if that would capture the effect unless you map the rebounds.

Heat maps might, if more shots are coming within 5 feet or less, probably players getting better at turning rebounds into shots.

If the increase in high danger shots were coming from 5-15', then it's more likely to be the result of getting pucks to players in the high danger areas.

In either case, you would want to know the source of the shot, from a pass, rebound, recovery of the puck from a blocked shot, etc. It would be interesting to see shot release data (i.e. something akin to pop up data for baseball catchers, how quickly shot is released once shooting motion is initiated).

The other data that would be interesting would be akin to the QB in the pocket, and separation for WRs - how much time between a forward receiving a puck in various spots before he's challenged by a defender. Which forwards make plays quickly, which teams are quick to challenge potential shooters in the HD areas.

I suspect this is the kind of data that tends to be proprietary, since it would require coding each shot (off video), and each player shooting - which is time consuming and therefore expensive. I wonder how much of an analytics budget goes to actual analysis, and how much is spent on gathering raw data.

Well, you were positing that this manifests in netfront players. That means the burden of proof is on you. I’m just saying I have never seen data that supports it, which is of course not the same thing as proving it false.

The way Rebounds are currently defined I don’t believe has anything to do with distance. It’s just a low time period between Shots without a break in play.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I would imagine the league-wide reduction in save-percentages has much to do with equipment changes.

Most particularly, the sticks these days are so ridiculously light and powerful. It's like if you let MLBers switch to non-wood bats.

 

[deadhead]

I would imagine the league-wide reduction in save-percentages has much to do with equipment changes.

Most particularly, the sticks these days are so ridiculously light and powerful. It's like if you let MLBers switch to non-wood bats.

I'd think this would show up in shot velocity (though the data doesn't seem to distinguish between slapshots and wrist shots). And that would be reflected in higher Sh% rates outside the high danger areas (i.e. higher velocity shots from longer distances beating goaltenders).

It might also show up as quicker releases if "better" sticks allowed you to garner velocity with a more compact shooting motion. Watching games, a quick release is more deceptive (and makes it easier to use a defender as a screen) and thus should be effective at lower velocity (the key is not how fast a puck is shot, but how much time the goalie has between recognizing a shot and it arriving at the goal).

Again, probably requires detailed and thus proprietary data.

 

[VladDrag]

I don't see Brink and Frost as good at cycling the puck, they're good passers, but cycling the puck requires winning board battles on a regular basis to maintain possession. They need to play with linemates who can do the dirty work and get them the puck so they can make plays.

Laughton - Poehling - Hathaway are probably the best at this, but only Laughton can finish on a regular basis.

Foerster was good at this last season, but has regressed a bit.

The other aspect of a successful cycle are forwards who have a good feel for the "rotation," knowing when to fall back and cover a D-man pinching to keep the puck in the O-zone.

I think it's important to explain what I believe is cycling the puck.

When a team cycles the puck they already have possession = they don't need to engage in board battles when cycling. They already have 100% possession. Why would you put the puck in a 50/50% change to gain or loose the puck? Doesn't make sense. A well cycling team moves the puck around defenders so that they don't loose possession. The point is being able to possess the puck. Viewing board battles as a requirement to be a good cycling team is somewhat antiquated.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no value in board battles. Dump and chase is still viable, applying forechecking pressure to turn the puck over is important. Board battles are a means to gaining possession so you can move the team can move to the cycle. But you can be good in the NZ and enter the zone with possession and either get a rush scoring chance or go to the cycle. I think the prime example of this is when McKinnon, Toews and Makar were on the ice for the Avalanche. That's supreme cycling at it's best -- they didn't have to do any board battling. Just pass it around defenders.

 

[Cody Webster]

I think it's important to explain what I believe is cycling the puck.

When a team cycles the puck they already have possession = they don't need to engage in board battles when cycling. They already have 100% possession. Why would you put the puck in a 50/50% change to gain or loose the puck? Doesn't make sense. A well cycling team moves the puck around defenders so that they don't loose possession. The point is being able to possess the puck. Viewing board battles as a requirement to be a good cycling team is somewhat antiquated.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no value in board battles. Dump and chase is still viable, applying forechecking pressure to turn the puck over is important. Board battles are a means to gaining possession so you can move the team can move to the cycle. But you can be good in the NZ and enter the zone with possession and either get a rush scoring chance or go to the cycle. I think the prime example of this is when McKinnon, Toews and Makar were on the ice for the Avalanche. That's supreme cycling at it's best -- they didn't have to do any board battling. Just pass it around defenders.

We're going to cycle the shit out of the puck tonight!

 

[VladDrag]

We're going to cycle the shit out of the puck tonight!

3 full lines tonight

 

[Cody Webster]

3 full lines tonight

I know, so sad

 

[VladDrag]

Don't know, and don't know if that would capture the effect unless you map the rebounds.

Heat maps might, if more shots are coming within 5 feet or less, probably players getting better at turning rebounds into shots.

If the increase in high danger shots were coming from 5-15', then it's more likely to be the result of getting pucks to players in the high danger areas.

In either case, you would want to know the source of the shot, from a pass, rebound, recovery of the puck from a blocked shot, etc. It would be interesting to see shot release data (i.e. something akin to pop up data for baseball catchers, how quickly shot is released once shooting motion is initiated).

The other data that would be interesting would be akin to the QB in the pocket, and separation for WRs - how much time between a forward receiving a puck in various spots before he's challenged by a defender. Which forwards make plays quickly, which teams are quick to challenge potential shooters in the HD areas.

I suspect this is the kind of data that tends to be proprietary, since it would require coding each shot (off video), and each player shooting - which is time consuming and therefore expensive. I wonder how much of an analytics budget goes to actual analysis, and how much is spent on gathering raw data.

Did another quick one for you. Just a few notes:

IT's 5v5 data. It's from NST. NST defines a rebound as a corsi attempt that is taken within 3 seconds after a previous corsi attempt. IT does not specify 'rebound' the way we think of one.

	iCF	iFF	iSCF	iHDCF	Rebounds Created	% of total CF that are Rebounds
18-19	117185​	87480​	54388​	22500​	6875​	5.87%​
19-20	97091​	73216​	45787​	18484​	5907​	6.08%​
20-21	74461​	56230​	35478​	14028​	4346​	5.84%​
21-22	117819​	89124​	58697​	23545​	7212​	6.12%​
22-23	119783​	88762​	60202​	25117​	9675​	8.08%​
23-24	125472​	89352​	57553​	23475​	11352​	9.05%​
24-25	31366​	22162​	14140​	5657​	2877​	9.17%​

Rebounds increase xG for sure. Unfortunately, this specific dataset doesn't really answer your question tho. I'd imagine that one of the sites somewhere may let you filter shots by rush vs rebound and see where the heat maps are for them. I can look into that in a bit.

 

[deadhead]

I think it's important to explain what I believe is cycling the puck.

When a team cycles the puck they already have possession = they don't need to engage in board battles when cycling. They already have 100% possession. Why would you put the puck in a 50/50% change to gain or loose the puck? Doesn't make sense. A well cycling team moves the puck around defenders so that they don't loose possession. The point is being able to possess the puck. Viewing board battles as a requirement to be a good cycling team is somewhat antiquated.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no value in board battles. Dump and chase is still viable, applying forechecking pressure to turn the puck over is important. Board battles are a means to gaining possession so you can move the team can move to the cycle. But you can be good in the NZ and enter the zone with possession and either get a rush scoring chance or go to the cycle. I think the prime example of this is when McKinnon, Toews and Makar were on the ice for the Avalanche. That's supreme cycling at it's best -- they didn't have to do any board battling. Just pass it around defenders.

How about the other three lines on Colorado?
I mean we're talking a half dozen forwards and 2 or 3 centers who can do that in the NHL on a regular basis.
Certainly not Brink and Frost. Nor are they that good at zone entry.

The one player who has really improved is TK, used to be he'd dump and chase, and hope to get an interference call but most of the time it isn't called and he'd lose possession. Now he's gotten much better at deking defenders at the blue line.

The other player good at zone entries is Tippett, b/c he's big and fast, so he can dump and skate past or through the defender and gain possession.

Board battles aren't just about dump and chase, teams that pressure the puck force board battles (teams that don't pressure the puck give you a lot more space and are usually bad defensively). Most of the time a cycle is broken up by attacking the player with the puck, and teams that maintain the cycle are able to win those battles and keep possession.

Carolina excels at that, they attack the puck in the D-zone and regain possession on a regular basis. It's both about forcing hasty/bad decisions with the puck then winning battles when you knock the puck loose and it's a free for all.

 

[Beef Invictus]

There is quite a bit of data to support this. There was a shift 2-3 years ago and it’s only accelerating.

Passing across the ice from well outside an HD area to an HD area doubles shooting percentages! Seems useful!

 

[Beef Invictus]

I think it's important to explain what I believe is cycling the puck.

When a team cycles the puck they already have possession = they don't need to engage in board battles when cycling. They already have 100% possession. Why would you put the puck in a 50/50% change to gain or loose the puck? Doesn't make sense. A well cycling team moves the puck around defenders so that they don't loose possession. The point is being able to possess the puck. Viewing board battles as a requirement to be a good cycling team is somewhat antiquated.

Now, that doesn't mean there is no value in board battles. Dump and chase is still viable, applying forechecking pressure to turn the puck over is important. Board battles are a means to gaining possession so you can move the team can move to the cycle. But you can be good in the NZ and enter the zone with possession and either get a rush scoring chance or go to the cycle. I think the prime example of this is when McKinnon, Toews and Makar were on the ice for the Avalanche. That's supreme cycling at it's best -- they didn't have to do any board battling. Just pass it around defenders.

Best cycle team I can think of in the last decade is Trotz's Caps en route to the Cup. If memory serves, he had them running a 1-2-2 where Dmen were heavily integrated into the forwards' rotation. They'd isolate a defender in a triangle, soccer style (Yet in a far tinier playing space!) and move and pass around them until they could rotate someone into an HD area and try to set them up. If a defender took their shooting lane away, back to passing around an isolated defender it was. Once they were established, formation barely mattered; it looked like positionless hockey, at least locally.

Cooper for my money put together the most elegant passing transition, and Trotz assembled the most elegant OZ cycle. It was like they'd manage to get a defender stuck in a loop of constantly changing who his coverage assignment was and caught him in permanent limbo, and then exploited it. Like watching someone find a glitch in EA. Probably solveable with pure man coverage, but nobody tried that during their run in any successful way. They did it to a lot of teams.

 

[Beef Invictus]

How about the other three lines on Colorado?
I mean we're talking a half dozen forwards and 2 or 3 centers who can do that in the NHL on a regular basis.
Certainly not Brink and Frost. Nor are they that good at zone entry.

The one player who has really improved is TK, used to be he'd dump and chase, and hope to get an interference call but most of the time it isn't called and he'd lose possession. Now he's gotten much better at deking defenders at the blue line.

The other player good at zone entries is Tippett, b/c he's big and fast, so he can dump and skate past or through the defender and gain possession.

Board battles aren't just about dump and chase, teams that pressure the puck force board battles (teams that don't pressure the puck give you a lot more space and are usually bad defensively). Most of the time a cycle is broken up by attacking the player with the puck, and teams that maintain the cycle are able to win those battles and keep possession.

Carolina excels at that, they attack the puck in the D-zone and regain possession on a regular basis. It's both about forcing hasty/bad decisions with the puck then winning battles when you knock the puck loose and it's a free for all.

Everything about Carolina's zone entry is planned out. Especially their dump-ins. There is no free for all, "effort wins the day" aspect there. When they dump in, they dump to areas designed to have an overload so they come away with the puck. The anti-AV.

 

[VladDrag]

How about the other three lines on Colorado?
I mean we're talking a half dozen forwards and 2 or 3 centers who can do that in the NHL on a regular basis.
Certainly not Brink and Frost. Nor are they that good at zone entry.

Both of those statements are not true. 1. There are a lot of forwards who can actually cycle the puck effectively. Not as long or as effectively as the elite forwards, but they exist. To say they don't basically tells me that you don't watch anything other than Flyers hockey. 2. Frost has two years of entry data that shows he's good at gaining the zone with possession and creating chances. Brink -- not yet in his career.

As for the rest of your post, I just don't think we see the game the same, and I don't feel like arguing with you yet again on something you'll never change your mind about.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Both of those statements are not true. 1. There are a lot of forwards who can actually cycle the puck effectively. Not as long or as effectively as the elite forwards, but they exist. To say they don't basically tells me that you don't watch anything other than Flyers hockey. 2. Frost has two years of entry data that shows he's good at gaining the zone with possession and creating chances. Brink -- not yet in his career.

As for the rest of your post, I just don't think we see the game the same, and I don't feel like arguing with you yet again on something you'll never change your mind about.

I mean, we even saw this claim with the Flyers. We watched a couple years of Knoblach-fueled controlled entry. They were pretty lethal on the rush with it. Then when AV came in and it was all stretched out dump and chase, Deady claimed that these players who had routinely run controlled entry couldn't do the thing they'd constantly done for a couple seasons.

It isn't even about limiting viewing to the Flyers; it's about insisting whatever is necessary to defend Flyers coaching and management.

 

[deadhead]

Everything about Carolina's zone entry is planned out. Especially their dump-ins. There is no free for all, "effort wins the day" aspect there. When they dump in, they dump to areas designed to have an overload so they come away with the puck. The anti-AV.

You missed the point, it's about what Carolina does when you have the puck in their D-zone. They don't sit passively back, they aggressively attack the puck and force quick decisions and create contested pucks. They make it hard to maintain the cycle.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You missed the point, it's about what Carolina does when you have the puck in their D-zone. They don't sit passively back, they aggressively attack the puck and force quick decisions and create contested pucks. They make it hard to maintain the cycle.

That capital D morphed into an O in my salt-addled brain