Player Discussion Neal Pionk

[duhmetreE]

I should be forum banned.

My point still remains: Mika’s on-ice shooting% with Shatty is at 12% and at 24% with Pionk. The Rangers are more dangerous offensivey with 93-22 than 93-44.

What’s depressing is it shows that the 5v5 trends are gonna regress because they’re not sustainable. C’est la vie.

If that's the way you perceive it.

What if, Pionk is setting up Z with better passes and in high percentage spots? Maybe he's making better decisions/moves with the puck? Creating more space for him? Maybe the disparity is because of Pionk's play? better utilizing Mika and his shot?

The numbers can be twisted to tell whatever story you want. ( I'm not saying the above is the case, just attempting to make a point )

 

[duhmetreE]

It's funny, because I think he's generally pretty good defensively from the blue line in. He has some struggles in front of the net tying up sticks, at least he has as a Ranger. But his biggest issue to me is how he handles the rush, often not gapping up enough and allowing easy zone entries. And he's not great at transitioning the puck out of his zone, but is very good at creating plays from the blueline in. His work as a PPQB is 2nd to none, and I am going to have to disagree with you there.

I feel like the team as a whole has this issue. Giving them way too much space on the rush in..

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Legit though, if people are going to come in here and confuse the **** out of the lot of us with your numbers, please get on the same page with each other and maybe give a quick primer. No one is gonna care about Pionk's relCOCK% if we're given different measures and don't even know what they mean. This is why "advanced" stats got it's own thread.

Liked for relcock lmao

 

[DanielBrassard]

I feel like the team as a whole has this issue. Giving them way too much space on the rush in..

Maybe, but Shattenkirk has been that way for years, so it's likely not a coaching/system issue.

 

[Mac n Gs]

If that's the way you perceive it.

What if, Pionk is setting up Z with better passes and in high percentage spots? Maybe he's making better decisions/moves with the puck? Creating more space for him? Maybe the disparity is because of Pionk's play? better utilizing Mika and his shot?

The numbers can be twisted to tell whatever story you want. ( I'm not saying the above is the case, just attempting to make a point )

I’m not twisting the numbers any way at all. When they’ve been on the ice together on the powerplay, there have been 41 shots on net; 10 of these shots resulted in goals.

Regarding the perception- go re-watch the two PP goals Mika has scored last night and against the Flames. Both times Pionk dishes it over to Mika who has time and space in the left circle. He scores off two wrist shots because of two amazing screens by Kreider set on Rittich and Hutchinson. The studded step appeared more as a panic move than a juke because he realized Buch hadnt been set up on the half wall yet. Does it really matter? No because it still ended up being a good play. It’s silly to try to compare him to Shattenkirk who has proven himself to be a top-3 PPQB in the league throughout his career.

I like Neal Pionk. I think he has a solid skill set and can be rounded into a solid 2nd pairing defender that handles second PP duties. However, I currently think he’s being played over his head, and that’s a by-product of weak RD depth in our organization. It doesn’t help either that 48:34 of his 112:15 5v5 ice time has been spent with Staal who’s made some horrific blunders as his partner. I actually wonder how he’d look with a guy like Claesson because I think they’d make a solid defensive pairing.

I just think the brakes need to be pumped a bit because I can see him being an easy target once his scoring rates slow down. I watch him closely every game, and he still has a bad habit of not pressing gaps when defending against the rush and trying to do too much when moving the puck out of the zone. I think if he cuts these mistakes down, he’ll be a solid asset for a long time here.

 

[Off Sides]

I'd kind of question if that Shattenkirk is coming back.

 

[lilphildub]

I’m not twisting the numbers any way at all. When they’ve been on the ice together on the powerplay, there have been 41 shots on net; 10 of these shots resulted in goals.

Regarding the perception- go re-watch the two PP goals Mika has scored last night and against the Flames. Both times Pionk dishes it over to Mika who has time and space in the left circle. He scores off two wrist shots because of two amazing screens by Kreider set on Rittich and Hutchinson. The studded step appeared more as a panic move than a juke because he realized Buch hadnt been set up on the half wall yet. Does it really matter? No because it still ended up being a good play. It’s silly to try to compare him to Shattenkirk who has proven himself to be a top-3 PPQB in the league throughout his career.

I like Neal Pionk. I think he has a solid skill set and can be rounded into a solid 2nd pairing defender that handles second PP duties. However, I currently think he’s being played over his head, and that’s a by-product of weak RD depth in our organization. It doesn’t help either that 48:34 of his 112:15 5v5 ice time has been spent with Staal who’s made some horrific blunders as his partner. I actually wonder how he’d look with a guy like Claesson because I think they’d make a solid defensive pairing.

I just think the brakes need to be pumped a bit because I can see him being an easy target once his scoring rates slow down. I watch him closely every game, and he still has a bad habit of not pressing gaps when defending against the rush and trying to do too much when moving the puck out of the zone. I think if he cuts these mistakes down, he’ll be a solid asset for a long time here.

I just rewatched it and saw him set up the play by faking a pass on the half wall. Not "panic". He's reading the play. He's setting the play up with a fake and MADE Zibby open. I guess that's the problem with the eye test and bias though. We see what we want to see. Whether I'm right or you're right we really don't know because we don't know what he's thinking. I think that play is a positive while you see it as a panic move.


With the rest of your post, I definitely agree. He's gotta improve his defense big time and won't be scoring at a rate to make up for it. He's still young though so am hopeful he will improve into a regular top 4 Dman

 

[duhmetreE]

Letting analytics create a preconceived notion. If Shattenkirk were to make this play, what would you say?



That's not panic. That's a beautiful play.

And I don't believe anyone is saying Pionk is perfect. He's just not as bad as the 'analytics' perceive and in the same token, Shattenkirk is not as good as the 'analytics' foretell. It's faulty and folly to base all perception and opinion based on analytics

 

[Irishguy42]

It's faulty and folly to base all perception and opinion based on the eye test

This is also equally accurate.

But the thing is, it's more likely that people who use pretty much only analytics also use the eye test, rather people who pretty much only use the eye test also use analytics. Hence why there is a lot of misunderstanding of what different stats accomplish.

 

[nyr2k2]

Eh, its a mix of both. @Mac n Gs "elHDCF% for Mika with Shatty:/ Pionk is 8.19/2.02." confused the hell out of me and wish he explained a little bit instead of assuming anyone knows what it means. But at the same time it made me do research and see how it could be useful. The more info the better to me

I mean look. I'm all about advanced stats in baseball. I like the concept. I don't particularly like the "advanced" stats we have in hockey, but that's beside the point. If you want other people to adopt them you need to make it a point to explain them, and not just toss out a bunch of numbers and acronyms and expect that people are going to understand them.

Really though, my biggest hang-up, is if you go back a few years here (actually longer), it started to get to a point where literally every thread became a debate about the merits of advanced stats. And I think we've got to the point where most people agree they're useful, when understandable and in proper context, and yet this thread is still becoming a shit show. Again, this thread is the perfect example of why there was a thread created for talk of everything advanced stats. And I'm not suggesting that talk of them outside of that thread be forbidden; it's just really frustrating for me to see this happening again.

 

[silverfish]

I mean look. I'm all about advanced stats in baseball. I like the concept. I don't particularly like the "advanced" stats we have in hockey, but that's beside the point. If you want other people to adopt them you need to make it a point to explain them, and not just toss out a bunch of numbers and acronyms and expect that people are going to understand them.

Really though, my biggest hang-up, is if you go back a few years here (actually longer), it started to get to a point where literally every thread became a debate about the merits of advanced stats. And I think we've got to the point where most people agree they're useful, when understandable and in proper context, and yet this thread is still becoming a **** show. Again, this thread is the perfect example of why there was a thread created for talk of everything advanced stats. And I'm not suggesting that talk of them outside of that thread be forbidden; it's just really frustrating for me to see this happening again.

If I may, for a second, make a serious post for once...

It's happening in this thread specifically because Pionk is extremely polarizing. His underlying metrics, all of them, adjusting for competition, for teammates, for zone starts, for age, for TOI, for anything you want to adjust for, are simply abysmal. They were abysmal last year, and they're abysmal again this year. However, there are parts of his game where he passes the eye-test. He's running hot on the PP right now dishing pucks to Zibanejad and Zuccarello. He's piling up those points. He plays a lot of minutes - and generally speaking the more you see of a guy, the more of a chance he has to do good things that you remember. Simply put, I understand why Pionk passes the eye-test for a lot of people. None of that surprises me.

So, I think you see these threads sort of go the way this thread did because of that. The extremes are just that, they're extremes. The posters who utilize advanced metrics, maybe too much for some people's liking, will look at Pionk and go, man, this guy sucks, what are we missing? The eye-test people will look at Pionk and go, man, he's good. And thus you have the perfect formula for disaster.

Of course I'm biased to the 'advanced stats' posters' side of the arguments in this thread, so perhaps I shouldn't be the voice of reason here. Like, I'm literally shutting the game off when I see Pionk on PP1 over Shattenkirk. I'm that biased. silverfish is in fact, not watching the games.

 

[lilphildub]

If I may, for a second, make a serious post for once...

It's happening in this thread specifically because Pionk is extremely polarizing. His underlying metrics, all of them, adjusting for competition, for teammates, for zone starts, for age, for TOI, for anything you want to adjust for, are simply abysmal. They were abysmal last year, and they're abysmal again this year. However, there are parts of his game where he passes the eye-test. He's running hot on the PP right now dishing pucks to Zibanejad and Zuccarello. He's piling up those points. He plays a lot of minutes - and generally speaking the more you see of a guy, the more of a chance he has to do good things that you remember. Simply put, I understand why Pionk passes the eye-test for a lot of people. None of that surprises me.

So, I think you see these threads sort of go the way this thread did because of that. The extremes are just that, they're extremes. The posters who utilize advanced metrics, maybe too much for some people's liking, will look at Pionk and go, man, this guy sucks, what are we missing? The eye-test people will look at Pionk and go, man, he's good. And thus you have the perfect formula for disaster.

Of course I'm biased to the 'advanced stats' posters' side of the arguments in this thread, so perhaps I shouldn't be the voice of reason here. Like I'm literally shutting the game off when I see Pionk on PP1 over Shattenkirk. I'm that biased. silverfish is in fact, not watching the games.

Well that about solves it. The reason why Pionk is racking up those PP points is because Silverfish turns the tv off and stops watching. And then they keep magically scoring with him on the ice.. Coincidence?! No way! Its his fault. Mystery SOLVED!

Fore real though, I agree 100%. He's a tough player to pin down because he doesn't make too many glaring mistakes but he keeps bleeding shots. And everything is saying he's the reason why. He's also putting up points so it makes it easier to dismiss his defensive side.

What's funny is besides one post, there weren't too many "advanced stats" really brought up in the thread. Just some nice back and forth conversation.

 

[Machinehead]

Maybe we just overcomplicate this whole thing. Why can't he just be a good OFD who sucks in his own zone? We so easily ascribe that to countless other players.

 

[Irishguy42]

Maybe we just overcomplicate this whole thing. Why can't he just be a good OFD who sucks in his own zone? We so easily ascribe that to countless other players.

What else is new?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Letting analytics create a preconceived notion. If Shattenkirk were to make this play, what would you say?



That's not panic. That's a beautiful play.

And I don't believe anyone is saying Pionk is perfect. He's just not as bad as the 'analytics' perceive and in the same token, Shattenkirk is not as good as the 'analytics' foretell. It's faulty and folly to base all perception and opinion based on analytics

Having 'bad corsi' doesn't mean you are a bad player and vice versa. I agree too many people buy into this gospel. But a player who's perceived to be 'good' via the eye test and has bad underlying numbers should be questioned and looked into. And vice versa.

There's a middle ground here which reality exists in. Most people exist on the two extreme ends of the spectrum. Because this is HF and lots of people are hyperbolic. Like you who complete dismisses analytics because they dont support your observations or opinions. And the stat watchers who think a player is either good or bad based on their on ice shot shares.

The analytics people will you tell you 'its just a tool' but it seems like that's the only one in their toolbox. I've been trying to break down the game tape and understand why NP looks good at times out there yet has such concerning underlying numbers. Hoping to get some time and put a video together of some of the things he does well and what he struggles with.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Too easy...

Narrowed it down to a single prediction per category:

The Good
Georgiev is legit. He has a strong season and takes a lot of the strain off of Hank.

The Bad
Hayes continues his excellent play, but we're forced to trade him at the deadline for a discounted price.

The Ugly
Pionk works his ass off, puts up a respectable amount of points, and gets pinned in his own zone routinely. The board implodes on itself.

 

[darko]

Having 'bad corsi' doesn't mean you are a bad player and vice versa. I agree too many people buy into this gospel. But a player who's perceived to be 'good' via the eye test and has bad underlying numbers should be questioned and looked into. And vice versa

Having bad underlying numbers just means you are not as good as your stats suggest.

 

[Machinehead]

It's not about "bad corsi."

That's such a cop-out.

 

[LORDE]

I felt he was our best player last night... there’s obviously some work to be done in his own zone... but we don’t win that game without him being a magician w the puck on his stick.

 

[Irishguy42]

but we don’t win that game without him being a magician w the puck on his stick.

He was not a magician w/ the puck on his stick.

Let's stick to reality and not hyperbole.

 

[LORDE]

He was not a magician w/ the puck on his stick.

Let's stick to reality and not hyperbole.

Wow you really put me in my place with this.

I don't think my post was overly hyperbolic, especially on this board but, that's fine.

I thought he was great QB-ing the PP and made a lot of good-great outlet passes and transitions.

Thanks for pointing that issue out to me in the most Richard-ish way possible. Truly what makes these boards a real joy to be a part of.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I don’t want this to come off wrong but more often than not, Pionk doesn’t make an outstanding play. He is not a wizard with the puck.

But what he does do consistently is make the RIGHT play. The simple play i(with the benefit of a much better camera angle) think will keep the play alive. It’s not flash and dash, he won’t win any skills competitions. But he consistently makes smart plays with the puck. It’s very much like Stepan.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

What I am seeing is when he is with Skjei he is about 47% ( a 7 attempt differential)

But when he is with Staal that drops to ~34% (a 33 attempt differential)

Is it really Pionk CF% that is bad, or is it Staal

Sure Staal without Pionk looks good, at 59%CF,

but Staal has played 43:19 with Smith ~57% CF

Staal without Smith ~43%

Not possible Smith is making Staal look good, which is why Staal without Pionk looks good?

Staal's CF with out Pionk is skewed by the time he played with Smith against Washington in the one good game hes played all year.

 

[duhmetreE]

This is also equally accurate.

But the thing is, it's more likely that people who use pretty much only analytics also use the eye test, rather people who pretty much only use the eye test also use analytics. Hence why there is a lot of misunderstanding of what different stats accomplish.

Having 'bad corsi' doesn't mean you are a bad player and vice versa. I agree too many people buy into this gospel. But a player who's perceived to be 'good' via the eye test and has bad underlying numbers should be questioned and looked into. And vice versa.

There's a middle ground here which reality exists in. Most people exist on the two extreme ends of the spectrum. Because this is HF and lots of people are hyperbolic. Like you who complete dismisses analytics because they dont support your observations or opinions. And the stat watchers who think a player is either good or bad based on their on ice shot shares.

The analytics people will you tell you 'its just a tool' but it seems like that's the only one in their toolbox. I've been trying to break down the game tape and understand why NP looks good at times out there yet has such concerning underlying numbers. Hoping to get some time and put a video together of some of the things he does well and what he struggles with.

I do not dismiss it. I use it to back up watching the player.

My point previously - Analytics show that Shattenkirk is good and Pionk is bad. I do not in any form see Shattenkirk as a 'good' player. Just using this year, he's a detriment when he's on the ice, but he's a plus player according to analytics. This example contradicts reality.

It's a bizarre thing. It's like there's different games being played

People have been using eye-test only for a loooong time.. Analytics is new.. And until someone comes up with a much better formula, it will always be secondary. It does not work as well as it does in baseball. Baseball can be analyzed as an individual sport. Hockey is not and has too many variables.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I do not dismiss it. I use it to back up watching the player.

My point previously - Analytics show that Shattenkirk is good and Pionk is bad. I do not in any form see Shattenkirk as a 'good' player. Just using this year, he's a detriment when he's on the ice, but he's a plus player according to analytics. This example contradicts reality.

It's a bizarre thing. It's like there's different games being played

People have been using eye-test only for a loooong time.. Analytics is new.. And until someone comes up with a much better formula, it will always be secondary. It does not work as well as it does in baseball. Baseball can be analyzed as an individual sport. Hockey is not and has too many variables.

Agreed. Baseball is unique in the ability to isolate one individual player, on a discrete play by play basis, and filter out extraneous data to judge his performance based almost exclusively on his own merits. Both the constant interaction/interdependence of players in hockey, as well as the continuous play, make it much more difficult to analyze in the same way.

ALSO, baseball is going on – what, thirty years? – of refining analytical analysis. Hockey analytics have been around for decades less.

I'm not saying that analytics in hockey is useless. But as currently constituted, they pale in their determanitive value relative to those in baseball. It may change in the future with new innovations and further refinement, but for now, IMHO, they are clearly secondary to the eye test.