Salary Cap: The Endless Speculation Edition

[Anya6687]

I'm not seeing the goal scoring problem as some of you are. There 10th in the league avg 3.3 goals a game....avg 3 goals a game in the last 4....there issue is giving up early goals and having to come back every game lately

 

[Peat]

I'm not seeing the goal scoring problem as some of you are. There 10th in the league avg 3.3 goals a game....avg 3 goals a game in the last 4....there issue is giving up early goals and having to come back every game lately

We have a feast or famine problem. The average is distorted by the fact that no other team has had so many 7 or more goal games so far; we'd have 3, two other teams have 2, everybody else has 1 or none.

The team is currently struggling to regularly stick 3 or more goals on a team in regulation. We don't do it over half the time. Look at some of the teams that are just that little ahead of us like Florida and Montreal, and they do it two-thirds of the time. Regularly force teams to score 4 or more goals to beat you and you'll win a lot of games. We don't do that. We go quiet too often. Right now that's just costing us a few points here and there. Do it in the playoffs and it's out barring Matt Murray carrying us.

This team needs more consistent goalscoring.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Yeah, look at the Penguins standard deviation in terms of goals/game. It's crazy high, which shows that the Penguins are wildly inconsistent when it comes to scoring. Having a good average goal total doesn't count for anything if you're scoring 8 goals in 1 games and 4 goals total in the next 3 games.

 

[Anya6687]

Yeah, look at the Penguins standard deviation in terms of goals/game. It's crazy high, which shows that the Penguins are wildly inconsistent when it comes to scoring. Having a good average goal total doesn't count for anything if you're scoring 8 goals in 1 games and 4 goals total in the next 3 games.

They've had four seven goal games...take away there 3 0ne goal games and there shutout...there avg is higher. If you wanna take out the high games...take out the low games....14 of the 18 games they've played...they have scored 2 or more goals

 

[Empoleon8771]

They've had four seven goal games...take away there 3 0ne goal games and there shutout...there avg is higher. If you wanna take out the high games...take out the low games....14 of the 18 games they've played...they have scored 2 or more goals

That's not how statistics work

We can look at the variance of their goals/game with things like standard deviation. You don't just take out the outliers, you look at how varied the data is. With the Penguins goal scoring, it is highly varied.

 

[Anya6687]

That's not how statistics work

We can look at the variance of their goals/game with things like standard deviation. You don't just take out the outliers, you look at how varied the data is. With the Penguins goal scoring, it is highly varied.

Playing with a full squad for 2 periods...there is bigger problems than what you guys are complaining about

 

[Anya6687]

Also have avg 3 goals a game the last 4 games w/o tanger and sid (was there for 3 of them...but not really)

 

[Peat]

Games aren't decided by goal averages. They're decided by how many goals scored in them. Averages are a helpful tool for determining trends but are a long way from being the be-all and end-all. Neither is sorting goals by low efforts, high efforts, and thrashings (to use the divisions I've just come up with) but its another angle and its an angle that shows the problem me and others are seeing - too many close games where we've not got the result we could have because the team couldn't score goals that night.

And scoring 2 goals isn't a significant achievement. Its still pretty easy to lose when you score 2 goals.

 

[Anya6687]

Games aren't decided by goal averages. They're decided by how many goals scored in them. Averages are a helpful tool for determining trends but are a long way from being the be-all and end-all. Neither is sorting goals by low efforts, high efforts, and thrashings (to use the divisions I've just come up with) but its another angle and its an angle that shows the problem me and others are seeing - too many close games where we've not got the result we could have because the team couldn't score goals that night.

And scoring 2 goals isn't a significant achievement. Its still pretty easy to lose when you score 2 goals.

I agree with that..but thats every teams problem except washington..our issue is that we are playing from behind every game lately...maybe not going down 3 nothing every game...wouldn't put the emphasis on goal scoring...btw...they've came back every game

 

[Peat]

Agreed.

I think the Pens have a lot of what I'd call "tweeners", decent offensive guys who can generate a bunch of chances. But I think the reason we see a lot of games where they generate 40+ shots and struggle to score more than 2 or 3 goals in those games is because we lack in pure goal scorers. We've essentially got 3 guys who can score 30+, but after that it's a massive drop to a bunch of whack-a-mole types who can score 15-20 in a good year.

This is where Galchenyuk not working out is hurting us. Him returning to his 30-ish goal days and being that extra guy who can pick the corners on a consistent basis would have been huge.

I mean, lets put blame where it should be first and foremost; the Power Play should have another 4-5 goals. That'd probably be another 1-2 points just like that. It'd improve the situation a lot. And okay, some of the PP's struggles are on injuries, but a long way from all.

But yes. Galchenyuk should have at least a couple by now. The plan had him getting about 20 at ES. Bjugstad was threatening to do that last season by pace, him doing that would also be part of the plan. Their cumulative failures - again, affected by injury - is probably the next biggest problem we've got there. No rush right now, but they need to sort that out.

As for the tweeners... if I had time, I'd try to determine their points scoring rates in terms of scoring in big games, scoring when Sid or Geno score. I've got a suspicion that maybe their numbers are inflated by feasting on foes morally broken by the big dogs and they're not as good as the numbers indicate. I can't prove that, and even if I could, I'd have a huge amount of work to do to prove it was bad compared to others, but it is a growing suspicion. That suspicion aside - I'm pretty sure most teams have that same split between the 3 guys who might combine for a 100 and the cast of guys who'll do well to score 20. But if we want to be more than most teams, then yeah, it'd be nice to have an extra guy.

As things stand... we have 6 guys in the top 100 of forwards (80 minutes +) for g/60 at 5v5. None are Crosby or Malkin. The tweeners are coming up big. It's the big dogs that haven't really got going in terms of actual goal scoring. So... maybe my theory is wrong?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I mean, lets put blame where it should be first and foremost; the Power Play should have another 4-5 goals. That'd probably be another 1-2 points just like that. It'd improve the situation a lot. And okay, some of the PP's struggles are on injuries, but a long way from all.

But yes. Galchenyuk should have at least a couple by now. The plan had him getting about 20 at ES. Bjugstad was threatening to do that last season by pace, him doing that would also be part of the plan. Their cumulative failures - again, affected by injury - is probably the next biggest problem we've got there. No rush right now, but they need to sort that out.

As for the tweeners... if I had time, I'd try to determine their points scoring rates in terms of scoring in big games, scoring when Sid or Geno score. I've got a suspicion that maybe their numbers are inflated by feasting on foes morally broken by the big dogs and they're not as good as the numbers indicate. I can't prove that, and even if I could, I'd have a huge amount of work to do to prove it was bad compared to others, but it is a growing suspicion. That suspicion aside - I'm pretty sure most teams have that same split between the 3 guys who might combine for a 100 and the cast of guys who'll do well to score 20. But if we want to be more than most teams, then yeah, it'd be nice to have an extra guy.

As things stand... we have 6 guys in the top 100 of forwards (80 minutes +) for g/60 at 5v5. None are Crosby or Malkin. The tweeners are coming up big. It's the big dogs that haven't really got going in terms of actual goal scoring. So... maybe my theory is wrong?

I think the problem with g/60 (or any per 60) numbers this early in a season is sample size and over the course of a full season, you'll see guys who aren't natural scorers fall well down. I also think g/60 can be a bit misleading because it can make a guy who scores 10 goals in 10 minutes of action per game look as good as a legit 20 goal guy who gets top line minutes.

I just think that, at the end of the season, our roster is full of guys who will fall in the 15-ish goal, 35-ish point range with only 3 (assuming full health) who can score in the 30-ish goal, 60-ish point range. I think that's a bit different than some other elite clubs who have more than 3 guys who can produce the latter.

 

[Peat]

I think the problem with g/60 (or any per 60) numbers this early in a season is sample size and over the course of a full season, you'll see guys who aren't natural scorers fall well down. I also think g/60 can be a bit misleading because it can make a guy who scores 10 goals in 10 minutes of action per game look as good as a legit 20 goal guy who gets top line minutes.

I just think that, at the end of the season, our roster is full of guys who will fall in the 15-ish goal, 35-ish point range with only 3 (assuming full health) who can score in the 30-ish goal, 60-ish point range. I think that's a bit different than some other elite clubs who have more than 3 guys who can produce the latter.

It is a bit misleading, aye. Rust is currently 1st in the NHL - he's not going to score more goals than anyone else in the NHL.

But it is a good way to measure effectiveness given opportunity, particularly over small samples. Right now the lesser lights aren't the problem for goal scoring in terms of averages - they are mostly doing everything possible with their opportunities. Down the line, sure, maybe having too many lesser lights is a problem, but right now, no. Right now the problem is underperformance at the top, which tbf, is kinda reasonable.

And having a look around the NHL last season...

Boston, Calgary and Tampa all had 4 guys in the 30-ish goal range. San Jose had 5!

But Colorado, Nashville, Winnipeg, Washington, Vegas and Toronto all had 3 or less. It is more usual.

And if you look at the teams in the first section, the PP's pretty important in terms of those players getting there (except Tampa). If we play 3 forwards on the 1st PP unit, then we're not going to have more than 3 forwards on track for 30 goals. Pretty much every team I've listed here, including us, had only 2-3 forwards with more than 20 goals at ES; only Tampa and San Jose exceeded it. If our roster is full of 15-ish goal guys at the end of the season, then we're actually doing really well because most of those goals will come at ES and if you've got 6 forwards with over 15 ES goals you're doing really well.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It is a bit misleading, aye. Rust is currently 1st in the NHL - he's not going to score more goals than anyone else in the NHL.

But it is a good way to measure effectiveness given opportunity, particularly over small samples. Right now the lesser lights aren't the problem for goal scoring in terms of averages - they are mostly doing everything possible with their opportunities. Down the line, sure, maybe having too many lesser lights is a problem, but right now, no. Right now the problem is underperformance at the top, which tbf, is kinda reasonable.

And having a look around the NHL last season...

Boston, Calgary and Tampa all had 4 guys in the 30-ish goal range. San Jose had 5!

But Colorado, Nashville, Winnipeg, Washington, Vegas and Toronto all had 3 or less. It is more usual.

And if you look at the teams in the first section, the PP's pretty important in terms of those players getting there (except Tampa). If we play 3 forwards on the 1st PP unit, then we're not going to have more than 3 forwards on track for 30 goals. Pretty much every team I've listed here, including us, had only 2-3 forwards with more than 20 goals at ES; only Tampa and San Jose exceeded it. If our roster is full of 15-ish goal guys at the end of the season, then we're actually doing really well because most of those goals will come at ES and if you've got 6 forwards with over 15 ES goals you're doing really well.

Just to clarify, I kind of moved my point more toward production as a whole, not just goals. Washington may only have 2 or 3 "30 goal" guys, but when you include their 20+ goal playmakers like Backstrom and Kuznetsov, along with Oshie and Ovechkin, I do think they have more high end players than the Pens do.

For the Pens, it's not just that we don't have any other guys capable of 30+ goals, we also only have 3 guys who you can rely on to be "elite" offensive contributors, whether it be goal scoring or playmaking at a top line level.

Honestly, it was one of my main concerns about trading Kessel. Yes, he's been a wreck for Arizona, and yes, he wasn't nearly as effective his last year in Pittsburgh at 5on5. But he was one of the few forwards we had that had the potential to be a high end producer. We replaced him with Galchenyuk, who isn't that.

 

[ownal]

Feel really bad for Brodie. I hope he gets well.

 

[Peat]

Just to clarify, I kind of moved my point more toward production as a whole, not just goals. Washington may only have 2 or 3 "30 goal" guys, but when you include their 20+ goal playmakers like Backstrom and Kuznetsov, along with Oshie and Ovechkin, I do think they have more high end players than the Pens do.

For the Pens, it's not just that we don't have any other guys capable of 30+ goals, we also only have 3 guys who you can rely on to be "elite" offensive contributors, whether it be goal scoring or playmaking at a top line level.

Honestly, it was one of my main concerns about trading Kessel. Yes, he's been a wreck for Arizona, and yes, he wasn't nearly as effective his last year in Pittsburgh at 5on5. But he was one of the few forwards we had that had the potential to be a high end producer. We replaced him with Galchenyuk, who isn't that.

Winnipeg, Washington, Toronto, Tampa, Nashville, Vegas, Colorado - add Carolina - all had 3 or less players with 60+ points. Oshie was close with 54 tbf.

San Jose, Boston and Calgary were the only teams with 4 or more.

It would be nice, it would be ideal, but its not common to have more than 3 high end guys and its not a particular weakness.

 

[pokey10]

YO, someone Ubereats me a pizza and ill pay you Tuesday.

 

[EightyOne]

Also have avg 3 goals a game the last 4 games w/o tanger and sid (was there for 3 of them...but not really)

The hill you're choosing to die upon is strange...And muddy.

What's the team shooting percentage?

 

[Gurglesons]

Feel really bad for Brodie. I hope he gets well.

The entertaining of him as a Penguin and he has a freak injury.

 

[Jacob]

I think if Marino keeps looking good we could go into camp next year with him in the top 4 and letting Schultz and his 6+ million asking price (probably) walk. Dump Johnson along with some picks, then we'd only need to sign a cheap 3rd pairing guy to pair with Riikola- be it Holden, Braun, Kevan Miller, etc. None of which would command significant cap hit or term IMO.

Assuming Pettersson gets around $4 million, that's like.. under $20 million allocated to all 7 D-men.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think if Marino keeps looking good we could go into camp next year with him in the top 4 and letting Schultz and his 6+ million asking price (probably) walk. Dump Johnson along with some picks, then we'd only need to sign a cheap 3rd pairing guy to pair with Riikola- be it Holden, Braun, Kevan Miller, etc. None of which would command significant cap hit or term IMO.

Assuming Pettersson gets around $4 million, that's like.. under $20 million allocated to all 7 D-men.

You need to invest more in your defense than that. If you're getting rid of Johnson, you can't just replace him with a cheap 3rd pair guy. You need to get a legit upgrade.

 

[Jacob]

You need to invest more in your defense than that. If you're getting rid of Johnson, you can't just replace him with a cheap 3rd pair guy. You need to get a legit upgrade.

With some semi-decent prospects in the pipeline like Addison, POJ, maybe even Reilly, I just don't wanna get caught up in high cap hit and/or long term deals for guys that are or will soon be on the wrong side of 30.

 

[JTG]

Petts-Riikola as our third pairing is much, much better imo. Find a stud #2 guy to play LD with Marino.

That is a luxury. Pettersson is a 2nd pair all day long on pretty much any team.

 

[JTG]

With some semi-decent prospects in the pipeline like Addison, POJ, maybe even Reilly, I just don't wanna get caught up in high cap hit and/or long term deals for guys that are or will soon be on the wrong side of 30.

Right. With where our current blueline and pipeline are, I'd much rather move guys up. Petts and Marino is a really good, high potential middle pair. I would be open to bringing a guy like Ristolainen in here, only because I think Gonchar can progress him to what the Sabres thought they were getting, and he's young, and he's locked up for a couple of years. Other than that, there is nothing in free agency this summer that we can afford, and in all honesty, Schultz is like the 3rd best defenseman available, and the first we could conceivably pay.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Right. With where our current blueline and pipeline are, I'd much rather move guys up. Petts and Marino is a really good, high potential middle pair. I would be open to bringing a guy like Ristolainen in here, only because I think Gonchar can progress him to what the Sabres thought they were getting, and he's young, and he's locked up for a couple of years. Other than that, there is nothing in free agency this summer that we can afford, and in all honesty, Schultz is like the 3rd best defenseman available, and the first we could conceivably pay.

Plus Jake will stop getting concussions if that guy's on our roster.

 

[Peat]

With some semi-decent prospects in the pipeline like Addison, POJ, maybe even Reilly, I just don't wanna get caught up in high cap hit and/or long term deals for guys that are or will soon be on the wrong side of 30.

Get the skaters you need now and trade them later if needed; stay away from free agency if really worried about the risk of a logjam. This team should be making trades rather than signing free agents to solve its problems this summer anyway.