Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XV

[Raspewtin]

Chytil wins the draw in the offensive zone. The puck is now on DeAngelo's or Fox's stick. Do the Rangers have a greater opportunity for a goal than if he had lost the draw?

This fact alone doesn't tell any kind of story.

1. Who are the forwards on the team? What are their chances of scoring a goal? What are their chances of making a play?

2. Will Fox or TDA have the positioning and reaction time to make a quick, heads-up play toward the net or to a dead spot in coverage while the defenders are scrambling?

3. Was that faceoff loss a set play and the defenders know exactly where to go to seal off any potential opportunities?

4. Who is the goaltender in net?

5. When the puck is eventually lost how will the Rangers recover it?

In the most literal sense, the Rangers have a better chance of scoring a goal. That better chance has not proven to correlate to higher goal or possession rates, and is a miniscule difference at best. A driver of goals is the talent that's on the ice, not faceoff wins.

 

[McRanger]

I disagree. The expectation of Kreider was a top line wing. And that is exactly what he became. I do not think that Barron has such an expectation. That said, of course I would hope for that. That would be wonderful. Heck, if Barron turned out to be Kreider 2.0, that pick is an absolute home run. And then some. It would be a grand slam.

When did you have these expectations? Expecting a 19th pick who has never played anything higher than prep school hockey to be an NHL 1st line player is usually setting yourself up to be disappointed. Expecting it from a player who had Kreider's college career usually is too.

The only real difference between the two, looking at them in their D+3 seasons, is where they were drafted and maybe that Barron isn't from the US (or a 1st round pick) so there was zero chance he would ever have made a WJC squad.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

You don't need a spreadsheet or to be a math whiz to know that fancy stats look at hockey in terms of minutes and hours while something like face offs or <insert hockey thing that doesn't matter when creating a team> matters only when you are viewing hockey in terms of seconds, any more than you need to have worked in a skate factory to know that they go on your feet.

So, you don't ice skate? You make ice skates? Face offs are meaningless? I'm struggling to understand your point.

 

[True Blue]

What? I think that premise is very soft. "All you have to do is replace a top line player." Kreider is/never was a 1st line player. He may have played on the top line, but that doesn't mean jack. Has no offensive consistency and his brain farts are too much.

Look at Kreider' stats for the last 5 years. He is up there in every points and goals metric, placing him the top-30 LWs in hoceky and top 100 forwards. The stats bear out. Like it or not, he IS a top line player. You have nothing to show why he is not.

He seldomly took the team by the balls.

Not a requirement to be a top line player.

Bringing in Panarin didn't "allow us" to drop our top line player to the 2nd line. A true 1st liner came in and he drops rightfully so to the 2nd line.

Until you can show me something, ANYTHING, that points otherwise, he very much IS a top line player. No? Name 60 better wings or 30 better left wings.

As such, Panarin signing here very much allowed the Rangers to drop their very much legit top line LW to the second line.

I agree that Lemmy is not a top-6 winger. Barron could be anything from 2nd, to 4th line, to nothing, yes. Get the picks and prospect and go from there.

The you cannot believe that they are replacing Krieder, can you?

Kreider is an institution here, I love him, but team hasn't come up an endorsement. No C or extension so far. He hasn't come up with a stamp.

One does not need a C to be a leader, which is what he is. He is one of the leaders of this very young team and someone the younger players lean up. Also, you have NO idea of whether or not he is getting extended. Buch could be the one going and Krieder stays.

I'm fine with a reasonable deal (5-6-ish/y), but that won't come, so we have to deal him.

That is a different debate.

 

[duhmetreE]

Faceoffs do mean something in a single game sample size. No major advanced stats proponents out there will be telling you otherwise.

But in a larger sample size, over the course of 10 games, or a full season...it doesn't mean much.

Even in small sample sizes, especially faceoffs in the NZ, the teams change puck possession quickly or don't even do anything with their puck possession within a small window following the FO win.

Special teams it's more important, but the inconsistency of when specials teams usage occurs makes it less reliant as an important stat.

Your attitude and ignorance here is straight garbage, btw

Wouldn't this be equivalent to saying, you only score on 15% of your shots... so shooting isn't that important

Faceoffs are important. They may not sway possession numbers greatly but they sure as hell could give you scoring opportunities ( or deny them )

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

Wouldn't this be equivalent to saying, you only score on 15% of your shots... so shooting isn't that important

Faceoffs are important. They may not sway possession numbers greatly but they sure as hell could give you scoring opportunities

How many times have you seen a team lose a face off on a powerplay and waste thirty seconds trying to gain possession in the offensive zone? But it only lasts a few seconds, so therefore it's irrelevant? Insanity.

 

[SA16]

Wouldn't this be equivalent to saying, you only score on 15% of your shots... so shooting isn't that important

Faceoffs are important. They may not sway possession numbers greatly but they sure as hell could give you scoring opportunities ( or deny them )

If there is no correlation between FO% and individual points, team goals, and team shot attempts, then why are they important?

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

If there is no correlation between FO% and individual points, team goals, and team shot attempts, then why are they important?

Because it's part of the game. Why even have a blue line? Or offsides or icing?

 

[B17 Apricots]

With what we have on the roster and in the system for me you need to just get your value out of Strome and Kreider. Stay the course and keep getting assets. At some point they need to turn the corner but aside from Zib, Panarin and Trouba the real building blocks for this team are still young enough that I'm perfectly content to just walk away from this draft with a top 15 pick and a late first. I really don't need any immediate roster players unless your making some value moves like Chicago with Strome and Nylander and Detroit recently with Perlini and Fabbri. Not a ton of risk there especially with Detroit. To me you move those two and if anything do what Carolina and Toronto did with Williams and Marleau (not his contract though). Bring in a talented vet for a year or two than supplement them with your young guys. Maybe you see a guy like Simmonds hit FA again.

 

[duhmetreE]

How many times have you seen a team lose a face off on a powerplay and waste thirty seconds trying to gain possession in the offensive zone? But it only lasts a few seconds, so therefore it's irrelevant.

Yeah.. Its a fallacy in the logic IMO

 

[McRanger]

So, you don't ice skate? You make ice skates? Face offs are meaningless? I'm struggling to understand your point.

A single face off can have an impact on scoring a goal.

But face offs over the course of a season do not have an impact on scoring or stopping goals. If you are good at face offs in the offensive or defensive zone there is no correlation to you being good at offense or defense.

Its not a wildly complicated concept.

And no I don't ice skate or make ice skates, I gave up on those dream after my application at the skate factory was rejected. Having never made skates, I never received the knowledge necessary to put them on.

 

[True Blue]

This fact alone doesn't tell any kind of story.

They tell all the story

1. Who are the forwards on the team? What are their chances of scoring a goal? What are their chances of making a play?

Who cares? Do you have a better chance at an offensive opportunity in the offensive zone right after taking possession of the puck due to a face of win or not? Or do you think that the offensive chances remain exactly the same if you loose the puck and the opposing team begins their break out?

2. Will Fox or TDA have the positioning and reaction time to make a quick, heads-up play toward the net or to a dead spot in coverage while the defenders are scrambling?

Just answer the question. They have the puck right after a face off win. Are your offensive chances better or worse or neutral than if the opposition won the draw and now have the puck?

3. Was that faceoff loss a set play and the defenders know exactly where to go to seal off any potential opportunities?

If to loose the face off was a set play, that does not fit into the fact pattern of what I asked. Address the question that I asked please.

4. Who is the goaltender in net?

Again, who cares? Patrick Roy is in goal. Do you stand a better chance of scoring on Patrick Roy if your center won the draw and the puck is on your stick or if the draw was lost and now either his Montreal team or Colorado team is starting their breakout?

5. When the puck is eventually lost how will the Rangers recover it?

Why would the assumption be that the puck is lost? Now you are leapfrogging. Answer the question that was posed to you please.

In the most literal sense, the Rangers have a better chance of scoring a goal. That better chance has not proven to correlate to higher goal or possession rates, and is a miniscule difference at best. A driver of goals is the talent that's on the ice, not faceoff wins.

This is not about a "higher" goal. Or possession rate. Answer the question please.

 

[True Blue]

When did you have these expectations? Expecting a 19th pick who has never played anything higher than prep school hockey to be an NHL 1st line player is usually setting yourself up to be disappointed. Expecting it from a player who had Kreider's college career usually is too.

Yes, I had the expectations when he was drafted.

 

[Cag29]

What makes you think he should be more than he is offensively?

Does he have great hands? No. Does he have great puck handling skills? No. Does he have great vision? No. Is he a great passer? No. Does he have a great shot? No.

So, why should he be any more productive than he is? Because he’s a big guy who can skate fast?

Then I would not pay him 7x7 which is what we were talking about. Read the post.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

A single face off can have an impact on scoring a goal.

But face offs over the course of a season do not have an impact on scoring or stopping goals. If you are good at face offs in the offensive or defensive zone there is no correlation to you being good at offense or defense.

Its not a wildly complicated concept.

And no I don't ice skate or make ice skates, I gave up on those dream after my application at the skate factory was rejected. Having never made skates, I never received the knowledge necessary to put them on.

You need goals to win games, at least I thought so. If they impact your ability to score a goal, they impact your ability to win a game, which impacts your season.

Whatever value you want to assign to that, have at it. But saying they have no correlation to a team being good on offense seems like a narrow way to approach the game.

 

[Raspewtin]

They tell all the story

epic

Who cares? Do you have a better chance at an offensive opportunity in the offensive zone right after taking possession of the puck due to a face of win or not? Or do you think that the offensive chances remain exactly the same if you loose the puck and the opposing team begins their break out?

Just answer the question. They have the puck right after a face off win. Are your offensive chances better or worse or neutral than if the opposition won the draw and now have the puck?

If to loose the face off was a set play, that does not fit into the fact pattern of what I asked. Address the question that I asked please.

Again, who cares? Patrick Roy is in goal. Do you stand a better chance of scoring on Patrick Roy if your center won the draw and the puck is on your stick or if the draw was lost and now either his Montreal team or Colorado team is starting their breakout?

Why would the assumption be that the puck is lost? Now you are leapfrogging. Answer the question that was posed to you please.

This is not about a "higher" goal. Or possession rate. Answer the question please.

In the most literal sense yes it increases your chance of a goal. That increase over a meaningful sample size has proven to make almost no difference. Would I prefer to win the faceoff? Yes. Are faceoffs (that largely happen in neutral territory and low pressure situations at even strength) important over a significant sample? No. There.

You can keep dodging your shoddy little gotcha's shortcomings all day if it makes you feel better.

 

[Irishguy42]

epic



In the most literal sense yes it increases your chance of a goal. That increase over a meaningful sample size has proven to make almost no difference. Would I prefer to win the faceoff? Yes. Are faceoffs (that largely happen in neutral territory and low pressure situations at even strength) important over a significant sample? No. There.

You can keep dodging your shoddy little gotcha's shortcomings all day if it makes you feel better.

Don't bother.

 

[duhmetreE]

A single face off can have an impact on scoring a goal.

But face offs over the course of a season do not have an impact on scoring or stopping goals. If you are good at face offs in the offensive or defensive zone there is no correlation to you being good at offense or defense.

Its not a wildly complicated concept.

And no I don't ice skate or make ice skates, I gave up on those dream after my application at the skate factory was rejected. Having never made skates, I never received the knowledge necessary to put them on.

This is where it breaks down for me. Think about what you're saying. If you're going to analyze faceoffs, look at what happens immediately after a faceoff. Do not analyze what happens in-between.

Winning a faceoff does not make you a great team. Winning a faceoff does not give you great analytics. Winning a face-off can help you win games.

Good teams out shoot, out-score and out-play their opponents. I don't need advanced stats to break that down for me.

I'd be curious in seeing a , 'winning faceoffs in pivotal/crucical moment in a game.' type stat

 

[mike14]

Ignoring everything else; if faceoffs aren't that deemed that important, and there are teams (like the current Rangers one) who don't seem to be very good at them, it would be nice to see some different setups at puckdrop rather than setting up like you expect to win possession off the drop. Half the time we seem to just be wasting the center's position, and we're more likely to get called on interference from the wingers trying to rush in and help out

 

[kovazub94]

This is the second time this week that a group of posters on here has gotten upset at the verbiage on one of my posts. Maybe trash is too 'harsh' of a word, but I didn't intend to spark a firestorm. It's so funny how easily everyone here can get up in arms over something so small.

Kreider has been exactly what he's been his entire career. Volatile, continuous disappearing acts, various boneheaded plays, and penalties and shifts where he's completely dominant. Unfortunately, as it has been consistently with him, those bursts of dominance and effort are few and far between. All the talk last year about him becoming a leader was over the top. He is not the model I want any player following.

Maybe I'm expecting too much from a veteran player who has time and again shown us what he is. Rarely improving, rarely declining. But I think someone who is coming up on 30 years old, playing in his 8th NHL season, on the final year of his contracct, should, at the very least, not be making completely reckless plays.

I can forgive a lot. I can certainly forgive a lack of production or streaky production. What I can't forgive are the idiotic plays and penalties, seemingly often at inopportune times.

I have no interest in signing him, even more so with the emergence of Kakko, Panarin, Buchnevich's improved play, etc.

Good post to read. It's quality absolutely did not suffer from lack of "garbage" or "trash".

 

[Ola]

To start, obviously face-offs is a less important statistic than various cf% stats in terms of being indicative or contributing to a win vs loss. That aside, I view face-off and CF% in a kind of like opposite relationship of single game impact vs. long-term forward looking indicator. Face-off team’s stat is important in a particular game when a team is probably chasing the puck if it’s combined 33%/66%, but then your individual rate is 40%-60% just means that every 10 tries you lose one more than you win, which should not be a big deal. On the other hand being outshot in one game very often does not translate to loss in that particular game but over a period of time will indicate if a team is one of the better ones or the opposite.

I meant that if you can claim that FOs don’t matter, quality of opponents don’t matter, zone starts don’t matter — or matters very little — it’s less far fetched to claim that it’s possible to Corsi Scout players.

Very little effort has been put into understanding these things instead of just cherry picking indications that it doesn’t matter much at all if you play against Boston’s 1st line every shift or Boston’s 4th line every shift. Or whatever truth that supports CF%.

But now when these numbers have been around for quite a long time, it’s of course obvious to everyone that they more or less don’t say anything when it comes to comparing a player for one team used in one situation with a player for another team used in another situation. Every other time a player changes team his metrical foot print completely changes.

On FOs, my theory is:
1. FOs in important situations always matters fairly much. Ie more or less a maybe a 50% shot at getting a 5-10% shot at scoring a goal (an opportunity to get a shot through). Right.

2. A FO is more or less a coin flip, BUT there are good and bad players at it as well as good and bad match-ups for individual players.

You can be 55% in the circle, but then only win 25% against a certain opponent, of vice versa.

3. All this results in that the impact of how a team performs in the circle is more or less washed out — on average.

4. I don’t for a second buy that it doesn’t hurt you fairly much when you end up in a situation where NONE of your centers can’t match the top guy on the other team, and like lose 70% of the FOs clean against that guy. With that, you will lose many important FOs.

But what does that mean? I don’t think we should overrate the impact of that either. I still wonder if we aren’t talking about maybe 4 shots in a game or whatever.

5. I think it’s rare that one team don’t have one single center that cannot at least make it hard for the top guy on the other team. But it happens.

So ultimately I don’t find reason to doubt that FOs do not have a big impact. BUT, if I was building a team, I would be vary about having 4 centers that are weak in the circle.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

snip

After looking at some very rudimentary stats, I can only agree that Kreider is a top 30 LW in the league, pretty much from the get go of his career.

Whether or not he's a 1st liner, I still think that he's just not consistent enough.

 

[duhmetreE]

I think a team's zone draws should be a stat.

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

Three proposals from me:

Marc Staal for Ilya Kovalchuk

Lias Andersson for Jesse Puljujarvi

Ryan Gropp for a box of Fruit by the Foot

 

[MrAlmost]

Growing up we were told that faceoffs were important, and I believe that for sure. However, their importance is mainly in the offensive and defensive zones. Neutral zone draws are less impact, as one would expect, and I think that right there is what makes the overall numbers look like faceoffs do not have an effect. I'm with duhmetreE that the league should track draws in the attacking zones. Those are important situations that can and have lead directly to goals. We tied a playoff game in the last minute on that exact situation.

EDIT: And moreover, the league should track which players take those important draws and how they fair in those situations. More info never hurt anyone.