Dave.....waiting on
@twabby to confirm..../shrug.....
If I had to guess.....”luck” will be invoked....
No, Peter Hassett simply doesn't know how to read a table, or do simple division. From Natural Stat Trick (
Player Season Totals - Natural Stat Trick):
Player | CA | HDCA | % HDCA |
Alex Ovechkin | 373 | 65 | 17.43% |
Nicklas Backstrom | 379 | 60 | 15.83% |
T.J. Oshie | 304 | 51 | 16.78% |
Richard Panik | 245 | 43 | 17.55% |
Jakub Vrana | 278 | 39 | 14.03% |
Conor Sheary | 236 | 45 | 19.07% |
Lars Eller | 220 | 36 | 16.36% |
Nic Dowd | 300 | 48 | 16.00% |
Garnet Hathaway | 275 | 45 | 16.36% |
Carl Hagelin | 271 | 41 | 15.13% |
Evgeny Kuznetsov | 194 | 33 | 17.01% |
Tom Wilson | 269 | 38 | 14.13% |
Daniel Sprong | 140 | 24 | 17.14% |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
So it looks like Kuznetsov allows more like 1 in 6 shots to be high danger. Same with Backstrom. Same with basically the entire team. I have no idea where he is getting 1 in 4 and 1 in 9, respectively.
But not only that, even if he didn't mess up the numbers I think Peter Hassett made a huge mistake interpreting the numbers. Focusing on the proportion of shots that are high danger rather than the absolute number that are high-danger is uh highly misguided!
For instance, suppose Player A gave up 4 shots every 60 minutes, but 1 of them was high danger. Suppose Player B gave up 90 shots every 60 minutes, but 10 of them were high danger. Ignoring other context, who would you assume is doing better at suppressing chances?
Peter is saying that Player B is better, because only 1 in 9 are high danger shots vs. Player A who is allowing 1 in 4 shots against to be high danger.
Of course, this is nonsense.
On a per 60 basis, Backstrom gives up more high danger chances than Kuznetsov this season. He gives up more scoring chances per 60. He gives up more shots per 60. He gives up more goals per 60 (actual goals, the goals that matter to everyone). He gives up more expected goals per 60.
Does that mean that Kuznetsov is a better defensive player? No, not on its own. But it certainly doesn't show that he is a weaker defensive player either. A deeper analysis is needed to tackle that question, which he doesn't do.
Furthermore, he mentions the "cost" of sheltering Kuznetsov is that Dowd and the 4th line are putting up bad numbers in an absolute sense. He, again, I believe is very mistaken.
Dowd is currently sporting a 48% xGF%. Not great, but better than Backstrom, Ovechkin, and Wilson at this point. Here is Dowd's picture:
As mentioned, Dowd gets heavy defensive zone usage, only starting 16% in the offensive zone.
And here is Dowd's competition:
So to summarize Nic Dowd: he is facing very difficult competition in heavy D zone usage and is almost breaking even with expected goals. I think Dowd is actually doing a fantastic job in his role. Anyone clamoring for Jay Beagle to come back and replace him is on some sort of substance.
Peter's note about Dowd and Hathaway taking penalties is duly noted, but they've taken penalties their entire career and this year isn't really out of whack. In fact, Hathaway has taken fewer minor penalties on a per 60 basis this year than last year. Same with Hagelin. Dowd's is up, but it very well could be incidental.
I also think Peter has cause and effect mixed up. He thinks Dowd is getting such difficult matchups because Kuznetsov isn't being trusted with them. I see quite the reverse: I think Kuznetsov (and Backstrom, and Eller) are getting easier matchups
because Dowd is being trusted with such difficult matchups. And with Dowd's results absorbing this tough competition, the strategy seems like a sound one. It's allowing the top 9 to be in a better position to score goals. Indeed, the team is the best in the NHL at 5v5 goals per 60.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but Laviolette's usage of the 4th line reminds me a lot of how the Blackhawks used their 4th line in 2012-13, but especially in 2014-15. Marcus Kruger got 24% offensive zone starts and faced difficult competition, allowing more offensively gifted players like Jonathan Toews (60%), Patrick Sharp (72%), and Patrick Kane (78%) to feast on easier deployments. I don't need to remind you who won the Stanley Cup in 2013 and 2015 either.
TLDR: Peter Hassett can't read numbers from a chart or can't do division or both. And even if he could, he's interpreting the numbers in a really bad way. And I think he's confusing cause and effect with Dowd and Kuznetsov, especially since Backstrom, Oshie, Wilson, and Eller are also getting easy zone starts and no one would claim they are huge defensive liabilities. All of the top 9 is benefitting from Dowd getting those hard matchups and it seems to me to be a strategy that can win a Stanley Cup as evidenced by it being a strategy that was employed on at least 2 Stanley Cup winners in the past decade.