Blueliners and Their Partners, 2008-09 Edition
by J.P. on Jul 21, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
Email
Print
A little more than a year ago, we looked back at the recently concluded season with a focus on which defensemen had skated together most frequently and which had been most productive together. For that 2007-08 campaign, the Caps' most common even strength combos on the blueline were Mike Green and Shaone Morrisonn, Tom Poti and Milan Jurcina, Green and Poti, and Jeff Schultz and Brian Pothier.
One year later that same duo - Green and Morrisonn - was still the most frequent Caps pairing, but with just 58% of the total even strength ice time they shared a season prior. That the most frequent pairing played together just over half as much as the most frequent pair from a year earlier speaks to the fact that injuries were the story of the 2008-09 Caps' defense corp, and with the injuries came instability (to get a true sense of that instability, one need look no further than the fact that Karl Alzner and Jurcina - a mid-season, 30-game rookie call-up and a bottom pairing blueliner - were second to Green and Mo in even strength ice time as a pair).
Given that Green and Morrisonn were out so often together and the 2008-09 season that the former had, it should come as no surprise that this top pairing also combined for the most points at even strength of any Caps blueline duo. But what may come as a surprise is that those 12 points were tied with the point total put up by Green and Schultz, and just two more than the Alzner-Jurcina pairing. And while the 27 goals that the Caps scored while Green and Mo were on the ice at even strength led the team's D-pairs, it was only the third best scoring rate among that group. After the jump, a look at the Goals For per sixty minutes of evens strength time for each of the blueline duos that skated more than 40 minutes together at even strength this past season (Why 40 minutes? Why not? It's about three games together for the low-minutes defensemen).
Some of these samples are quite small, of course, and favorable numbers here can be the result of which forwards are out with the defensemen (though when one considers that John Erskine had the highest 5-on-5 Quality of Teammates among these rearguards, that argument starts to take on some water).
But different defensemen have different roles, so let's take a look at the flip side of the Goals For coin - Goals Against:
Seeing minute-munching Tom Poti in four of the bottom six spots here and Jeff Schultz in three of the bottom four is a bit disheartening, but one wonders how much consistency of pairings comes into play here, especially considering how young this blueline is - each of the top-seven pairings in terms of ice time is in the top eleven in GA/60, and that includes Schultz's two most frequent pairings placing in the top five. Additionally, consider Quality of Competition and seeing Poti at the bottom and Erskine at the top, generally, is further explained. Finally, Mike Green is a much better five-on-five defenseman than he's generally given credit for being, and seems to be able to play with anyone... and at just 23-years-old.
Putting it all together, then, we can get a fairly useful plus-minus for each pairing, both raw and per sixty:
Perhaps more than anything, this reinforces how important stability is in the performance of a defense corps (you know what to do, Bob Woods). What we see at the top is a high-skill pairing followed by the three most common combinations, a veteran pairing, another high-minutes duo, and so on, while at the other end we have five of the six least familiar pairings holding five of the bottom six spots (including the bottom four). To be sure, there's a bit of "chicken-or-the-egg" at play here - do pairs stick because they're effective or are pairs effective because they've stuck? - but it's hard to deny that on a blueline that featured so many early twenty-somethings, familiarity with one's partner is a very good thing.
There's plenty to take away from this exercise, and some to leave - a goal here or a save there and maybe these tables look completely different. But with a little health and consistency, the pieces are there, they just need to be put - and kept - together.
155 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It is not clear to me why WSH isn’t paying you to do this kind of statistical analysis. I mean, this is data that should be informing decision-making.
Interesting to see how much Juice benefited from being paired with consistent non-rookie partners.
This data should put to rest once-and-for-all that Mike Green is a poor defensive defenseman. Put him with anyone and the GAON 5-on-5 numbers are good-to-better. He is not in any of the bottom eight groups in that stat.
One of these days, J.P. is going to get a call from either GMGM or BB when he posts a method that they actually use to make decisions on the team. This has got to be really close to one of ’em…
Or did Ron Wilson leave town with the Statistical Probability Analysis Hockey Team concept?
by war_capitals on Jul 21, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t you know that real sports guys don’t use statistics… none of ‘em are “stats” guys (listen to the John Thompson Show on Radio Free 980 for about 10 minutes). They’re “eyeball” guys.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 21, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
the revolution is coming. stats guys are winning over baseball (literally). they will win over hockey eventually.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Basketball, too. There’s a lot of money and effort being put into advanced basketball statistics right now and there’s no salary cap on front-office guys or stat teams.
by Knee high to a duck on Jul 21, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
just the other day (full disclosure: after picking up two fantasy football magazines), it struck me that american football is the least suitable sport for high-level statistical analysis…in my opinion due to the heavy influence of coaches, schemes and playcalling…i.e. would tom brady v.2007 have been nearly as productive in another offense (the orton-cutler swap this year should be interesting), would a mobile zone-blocking offensive lineman be as efficient in a joe gibbs offense, etc.
and to take that further, is the average american sports fan drawn to football in part because the arguments are less stat-driven, because one opinion is no more valid than another opinion when debating players?
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Michael Lewis discusses this a bit in “The Blind Side.” (excellent book, btw) I think he was a little surprised at how hard it is to do statistical anaylsis in football, simply because no one thinks keeping those stats is wroth doing in the first place.
That said, there are people that have entire careers devoted to advanced football statistical analysis – KC Joyner comes to mind. I do agree that scheme, coaching, playcalling, etc. tends to have a greater impact, but I think it’s a mistaken assumption if you believe that football can’t be usefully parsed in the same way (not clear if you do).
I’m not sure it has much to do with fan appeal – I think that’s more cultural and driven by the weekly game model as much as anything else.
I do agree that the Caps’ brass should at least be reading this. The Caps should be paying JP and crew for this and many other reasons :)
my burgeoning thesis: the average hockey fan (if i were sarah palin, i might say “real hockey fan”) is less willing to make the time investment to read up on or study a player’s stats, more willing to trust his or her eyes and ears while watching the action. in that way, i think baseball requires more of the average fan than football.
from my limited reading of KC joyner, he mines some really interesting and less-common data, but his conclusions might be more beneficial to the fantasy football community (i.e. how well does one player do within his existing environment compared to another player within his existing environment) than a GM trying to fit holes on his roster from the FA list.
…of course this can be said for hockey and basketball also, since these are team sports and all players occupy different roles. the bottom line is probably DMG’s point about all the variables that need to be controlled (beginning with coaching and playcalling). you can make valuable conclusions from football statistics, particularly when evaluating two of your own players for a roster position, but stats could never be the bible for deciding whether peyton manning or tom brady is the better quarterback.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
is the average american sports fan drawn to football in part because the arguments are less stat-driven, because one opinion is no more valid than another opinion when debating players?
Don’t try to take it too far. The average fan is more drawn to football because it is more exciting than baseball. When I hear people complain about baseball it’s because it is too slow or boring, not because baseball discussions are stats driven. Americans like violence and speed, neither of which exist in baseball.
I think scheduling is a major factor. The vast majority of football games are on Sunday afternoons, when people don’t tend to be all that busy. Plus a football game lasts about three hours, so with 16 games you’re talking 48 hours to watch a team’s entire season. Compare that with 162 baseball games at 2:45 (446 hours) and it’s hard not to believe that part of the reason football is so popular is how easy it is to be a casual fan.
Maybe. But baseball games are more fun to attend, and more kids play baseball than play football. Yeah it’s easier to be an NFL fan, but fandom isn’t about easy. How many people do you know that cite “ease to follow the sport” as a reason they watch hockey? Or any other sport? Sunday schedules explain ratings and some other NFL phenomena, but I don’t think it explains the sheer popularity.
I guess part of the difference lies in the difference between the questions “What made football so popular?” and “Why is football so popular” because I think a large part of the reason the NFL is so popular is that the NFL is so popular. Every game is on, there are games on all day, it gets covered to death by print and television media – it is easy. In places like Chicago or Washington you can become fairly knowledgeable about the team by osmosis, and that’s not something you really see with other sports on that same scale. That makes it easier to be a casual fan and I do think that for a lot of people being a fan is about how easy things are because not all that many people live and breathe a sport.
Why football became so popular is something I don’t think can be pinned to one specific thing but I think the fact that football serves as a rallying point/social event for towns and universities, that it’s easy to follow time-wise, and that it’s dominated by Americans are some of the biggest reasons.
How many people do you know that cite "ease to follow the sport" as a reason they watch hockey?
None, because following hockey in Washington isn’t that easy. I have had people told me that part of the reason they don’t have much interest in hockey is that it’s hard to follow because it doesn’t get much coverage, though.
Ease can help you get into a sport but it won’t turn you into a fan if you don’t like the sport. I know (a few) people that don’t like the NFL despite the constant inundation.
That would be me… Can’t stand football. Perhaps BECAUSE of the constant inundation.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Also because the need to get in a commercial break after every snap, which I guess suits the average American couch potato who waddles over for more pizza. But with 3 commercial breaks a period in hockey, even basketball seems slow.
by red army line on Jul 21, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
the biggest thing football has going for it is a 16 game schedule. Every game matters.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 21, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
college football = even moreso!
…..unless you’re utah.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this. While I think there are many reasons why football is so popular, scheduling is perhaps the biggest reason. It’s not a phenomenon limited to the NFL either. Where I grew up in Texas, attending the local HS game on Friday night was tradition. College football fans build their weeks around their Saturdays like NFL fans do. The games are regularly scheduled, there aren’t many of them, and the vast majority of them are scheduled when most people have free time. Hell, even when they deviate from the normal day in the NFL and college football, it’s often to put games on holidays. I don’t know that the impact of that can be overemphasized to explain how many casual football fans there are.
By that logic, Americans should adore hockey… Way more speed than football, with at least comparable violence.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah and I’ve been saying that for years. A halfway decent marketing campaign would make that connection and realize some gains. But the NHL is totally incompetent in that regard. I have a lot of law school friends from the south (esp. TX) and have had a lot of success turning them into hockey fans by just having them watch more games. The game really is exciting and people tend to realize that without too much exposure to the games.
Yeah… I converted quite a few friends by convincing them all to come to a viewing party for the ’08 playoffs.
But yeah, seems to me that alot of people that bash hockey only do it because it’s the ‘cool’ thing to do for lack of a better word. Most of them have never seen a hockey game, and once they do, they start to realize it’s a pretty damned awesome sport.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. My friends usually hang out at my place and I get the Center Ice package so they are pretty much forced to watch hockey all winter/spring. It doesn’t take long for them to start enjoying it. I find one of the biggest complaints is that they don’t know what people are doing because they don’t understand any of the strategy. Once they know what players are basically trying to do it makes it much more entertaining.
I’d also argue that hockey doesn’t get a large following because not alot of people PLAY it. I know I had a baseball glove in my hand almost before I could walk, and I’d say most American kids get onto baseball/football teams as kids. I didn’t play on a hockey team for the first time until high school. Granted, once I did, I never looked back.
It’s easy to play baseball, all you really need is a glove and a bat (and multiple people can share the bat). Football is easy because all you need is the ball, at least for playing in the street. Hockey… you need $600 worth of specialized equipment and a sheet of ice. Not exactly newbie-friendly, and a parent is probably more likely to take a chance with a cheaper sport.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. And the Pros make it look so easy it makes it hard to appreciate just how good they are. Battling in the corners is amazingly difficult but people that have never done that don’t realize it. You also lose perspective on how fast and quickly they do everything when you watch on TV, or even high in the stands.
yup. Its a lot easier to go in the side yard and throw a football, or play wiffleball or shoot hoops in the school gym. Not every kid has a street hockey stick but those who get exposed to it love it.
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 21, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t soccer the biggest sport among US youth?
by red army line on Jul 21, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s because all you need for that one is a ball…
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
but i have also heard (notably from steve czaban, who i’ll use for now as “average american sports fan,” even though that’s generous to mr. czabe) that people don’t follow hockey because they need years of watching and/or close analysis to really understand the game. there are multiple factors here. despite the rise of “moneyball,” baseball does have the advantage of being the lazy, summertime, outside-with-beer sport, and hockey has the disadvantage of competing against the media (read: ESPN) darlings that are football and basketball.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s nonsense, IMO (and I realize that’s kind of the point). Hockey is a very simple game, really – the rules are simple in comparison to, say, football, and while there is a lot of strategy involved, I don’t think you need to understand much more than the concept of line changes to begin to appreciate the nuances. I think you can pick that up by attending one game live or paying attention to a handful of games on TV.
In comparison, I think baseball is a sport where you really do need to understand the strategy and what’s going on behind the scenes to appreciate it. Maybe people know more about baseball by and large because they play it, but I think the basic gameplay of baseball is pretty boring unless you recognize all of the different situations and tactics involved.
The thing that is hardest to figure out in hockey is WTF they are trying to do with the puck. When you are watching on TV you don’t have the benefit of seeing the play develop and knowing where all 8-10 skaters are at any one time. Guys move the puck so fast that the cameras aren’t always on top of it following it and the puck is tiny so it isn’t easy to follow if you don’t know where the puck is probably going. I still routinely rely on the body posture of guys without the puck to figure out where the puck is going, and I’m sure I’m not alone on that. Sometimes a player dumps the puck in because he has no help or needs a change; sometimes the player gains the blue line and pulls up because he has a guy driving wide. You don’t see that happening on TV until the play is already executed. Knowing the game really increases the enjoyment.
That’s a very good point – I forget about this. Non-hockey fans I know complain about being unable to see the puck, but it’s become second-nature to me to read the play to figure out what it is. The only good part about that stupid glow-puck was how you could see it against the near boards on TV.
The only good part about that stupid glow-puck was how you could see it against the near boards on TV.
the orange flame gets a bad rap. :)
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
in my opinion due to the heavy influence of coaches, schemes and playcalling…i.e. would tom brady v.2007 have been nearly as productive in another offense
How is that any different from hockey? Try this:
in my opinion due to the heavy influence of coaches, schemes and playcalling and systems…i.e. would tom brady v.2007 Alex Ovechkin have been nearly as productive in another offense CBJ or MIN?
i’d be more willing to use green as the example than ovechkin, but i do see what you’re saying…
hence the further elucidation of the point here:
…of course this can be said for hockey and basketball also, since these are team sports and all players occupy different roles. the bottom line is probably DMG’s point about all the variables that need to be controlled (beginning with coaching and playcalling). you can make valuable conclusions from football statistics, particularly when evaluating two of your own players for a roster position, but stats could never be the bible for deciding whether peyton manning or tom brady is the better quarterback.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
and i’d guess that schemes in basketball or soccer stand more in contrast to the complexities of football playcalling than do the schemes in hockey…but now i’m just showing my biases.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
also, i’m inclined to think that tom brady might not even be a starter on another team, nonetheless a pro-bowler. (another huge personal bias). while AO would hold his own in any system. i do think offensive systems and roles in the NFL go well beyond what we see in other sports.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Well...
Brady (and for that matter, Cassel) are only starters because they were a no-name backup when the starter got hurt, but once given a shot, they proved themselves to be great quarterbacks.
ZING! ZANG! ZUNG!
cue the shane battier new york times article.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
sooner rather than later. Lots of hockey guys are baseball fans and its pretty hard to ignore that those smart stat-geek baseball guys have done. Hockey’s probably the only other sport where sabrmetrics-style stats anaylsis would be taken seriously. (I was surprised to read how stats anaylsis adverse pro football is)
Well, a lot of the really advanced work is highly proprietary and is considered part of teams competitive advantage.
You’re seeing it already with stuff like Corsi-numbers, but I’m sure that many teams go into much deeper detail and analysis.
by Knee high to a duck on Jul 21, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m hoping the team’s scouting department gives us a window into how much they value player statistics during the september event at the convention center. i’m not expecting real trade secrets. maybe just a hint about the scouting group’s priorities?
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
You have to remember that with "stat’ guys, very few have the ability to write about advanced statistics in an entertaining way. After all, sports is an entertainment industry.
Couple that with a majority of fans of any given team enjoy “eyeball” commentators because they’re easier to follow and generally appease fans with talk that suits the fan-base and you have your answer as to why 980 does so well with ratings.
Capitals Kremlin the second line center of the Caps blogosphere.
by CapitalsKremlin on Jul 21, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
seconded, but there is a difference between taking over sports media and taking over front offices.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
They tell “stories” at Radio Free 980.
Find someone who can tell a story with numbers (sort of like “hiding the vegetable” in food that kids will actually eat), and one might have something.
The other side of the problem is that there are a fair number of places (haven’t seen it here) where statistics appear to be more a tool to show off the methodological chops of the author than to shed light on what the number say (which at that level of detail is… “not much”).
If you've read this far...seek help.
I’m surprised that ESPN hasn’t made a debate show (PTI style) between a stat guy and an eyeball commentator. Would be a sports debate show I’d enjoy considering Around the Horn is just good for Woody Paige acting like a jackass.
Capitals Kremlin the second line center of the Caps blogosphere.
by CapitalsKremlin on Jul 21, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’d sooner shove an icepick in my eye as watch ATH. The collective IQ on that show wouldn’t make a decent shoe size.
If you've read this far...seek help.
It’s a great show to teach young sports journalists how not to behave. In my later year when I succumb to teaching college kids AP style, I will remember your comments and be sure to make an example of ATH.
Capitals Kremlin the second line center of the Caps blogosphere.
by CapitalsKremlin on Jul 21, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Also,
some Pitt fans went to China and taught kids English with PTI and made the kids cheer for the Pens. (There’s a video somewhere)
ZING! ZANG! ZUNG!
It’d be painful – neither side thinks the other side knows what the hell its talking about and there’s no common ground.
“His OPS is .300”
“I know what my eyes see.”
End of show.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Schultz has the most interesting numbers in this set, and it makes me want to smack upside the head folks who keep whining about him. He has several pairings in which he and his partner have had poor GF-GA/60 differentials. They also are the pairings with the lowest TOI values.
Schultz also shows up on two of the top three GF-GA/60 differentials, and they so happen to be pairings that are among the top four in TOI values.
Schultz is a young defenseman — barely two full years of NHL game experience. I would expect that such inexperience could manifest itself in how quickly (or not) he adapts to playing with new partners. What these numbers suggest, with respect to Schultz, is pair him with Green and leave them alone.
It also bears noting that Jurcina had a minus differential on every pairing, except that with Schultz. I’m never going to figure out why it is that people hate this guy so much.
If you've read this far...seek help.
At some point in the very near future, it could be this season, all of us who have been defending the big guy are going to feel very smug about ourselves. It’s no surprise that the Caps brass is so staunch in their support for Jeff. They look at numbers like these and know what they’ve got in Schultz and that very soon he’s going to emerge as a legit top four defenseman with the wing span of a condor. It’s not surprising that you don’t hear the same kind of passionate support from Caps management for guys like Juice or ShaMo who don’t have the upside of Schultz.
a legit top four defenseman with the wing span of a condor
Wingspan of a condor – I love this phrase.
“The Condor” would be an awesome nickname. Unleash the Condor!
Maybe, but I’m still sticking with ‘Pillows’ for the time being…
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Boyd Gordon is “Muffins.”
We need tougher nicknames.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 21, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Della Rovere can take “Jerky” if he comes up.
by Knee high to a duck on Jul 21, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Least we don’t have Matt ‘Princess’ Pettinger anymore…
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
have you been to the official discussion boards in, oh say, the last six months?
If you've read this far...seek help.
Try not in the last six years. ;-) The last official boards discussion I remember was about the relative merits of Kip Miller. (’Twas a short discussion, very, very short…)
In the light of the boffo statistical analysis here, I’d like to see OFB take the space on their site to make their argument against Schultz, to refute everything that DMG & JP have posted. If. They. Can. (HA.)
relative merits of Kip Miller
That merit being that he was related to Kelly? That would be a short discussion.
What I’m getting from this is that Green and Poti need to play together more xD
But looking at Schultz’s numbers, it does seem he plays well when he’s partnered with someone consistently. He has 2 of the top 3 differential slots with 300+ minutes and 4 of the bottom six at <100 minutes (Poti excluded).
I’m not sold on him as Green’s partner (I personally don’t think Schultz plays odd-man breaks all that well), I too tend to see Alzner in that role eventually. As it stands, I’d pair him with Jurcina. It was a pretty effective pairing and Jurcina performed well above how he did with his other pairings.
That leaves Pothier/Poti, though playing with one of those two (a veteran) might do Alzner (or Carlson, if he’s here) some good.
Guess we’ll have to trust Woodsy on this one.
Smallest time sample of the lot. I’m not convinced.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jul 21, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Green/Poti? Yeah, I didn’t really mean that seriously… But they are some good-looking numbers.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Poti eats a ton of minutes. He needs a partner who can do the same. I wouldn’t pair him with Pothier or with Juice.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 21, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Also makes no sense to go 2-3 because you’ve wasted a veteran presence on a young blueline
by red army line on Jul 21, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Poti spent the most time with Sloan, of all people… Who do you see him playing with next year?
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe the top four are Green, Poti, Alzner and Schultz. Of those four, I wouldn’t put Green and Poti together because they make the best breakout passes so I’d rather split them up. I like the idea of
Green Alzner
Poti Schultz
a little better than
Green Schultz
Poti Alzner
But either way those four guys ought to account for 45 or more minutes per game.
by Gould Old Days on Jul 21, 2009 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if Alzner is ready to be a regular NHL player it’s a lot to ask him to give you top pair minutes and watch Mike Green’s back. He’s going to be in a lot of tough decisions and I think it’s better to take it slower with him (though Poti has been guilty of some of the most egregiously bad pinches I can recall).
I agree that Alzner needs a mentor. Hell, Schultz and Green do, too.
To over-simplify to the point of absurdity, there are two ways to bring along defensemen – as the Caps did with Witt, Gonchar and Klee (having Johansson, Reekie and Cote pair with them), and as the Caps did with Eminger.
These guys are still young and could use a real veteran presence on the blueline beyond Poti.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
This really makes me think about the D-man that might be traded sometime soon. If you look at the successful pairings, Green-Schultz is one that stands out as being pretty impressive. Alzner-Jurcina doesnt necesarily have the stats, but I remember that both of them just looked really comfortable playing with each other. Thats a pair that I think could play well together. Poti was the one player that Erskine had a plus GF/GA with, and I believe that the toughness of Erskine matches up well with the play of Poti. Finally, Pothier is a player that can play a few different styles. He can replace Poti and play with Erskine, or adapt to playing with Jurcina. This leaves out Morrisonn out… I know a lot of people have been saying that he looks like the odd D out, and this just solidifies it a little more. Im not advocating to trade him this minute, but through these stats he seems to be on the outside of the roster.
by amkcaps on Jul 21, 2009 12:32 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
As good as Juice-Alzner looked at times, I’m of the camp that believes Mo is significantly better than Juice. Jurcina and Pothier (in that order) look like the odd men out to me (though I do think Pothier is versatile).
Wait and see what Juice gets in Arb. and then determine if he’s that much worse than Shamo. Shamo isn’t twice as good as Juice so Juice at 1 mill. > Shamo at 2 mill.
By stats, by talent, by versatility, and by just about any other measure I’d have to think Jurcina is the odd man out on the blue line right now.
Jurcina has shown flashes of, well, maybe not brilliance, but luminosity at least. Plus, he was one of our best, if not our best, defenseman in the playoffs.
Granted, that could be attributed to the fact that all the other ones were injured. But I can’t deny that the guy stepped up his game when it mattered most.
I think quite a bit of Jurcina’s future depends on his arbitration award. And I’m sort of thinking he knew that going in and WANTS the Caps to let him walk.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I think quite a bit of Jurcina’s future depends on his arbitration award.
This. I wonder if it depends on whether Jurcina comes in significantly under Alzner’s price tag or not.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Except do you really believe they’re going to use the cushion at all? Yeah, I guess Alzner’s bonuses are probably going to be tough to reach, depending on what they are, but still…
thats Jurcina’s best argument and why I think he nudges out ShaMo (if retained) – he was the best defender in the playoffs and the most physical during the regualr season, something this d squad lacks outside of Erskine.
I agree w/ this… the important games (playoffs) are won by the physical players in the D-end, IMO.
Cheaper and more physical, I’m taking Juice over ShaMo.
I agree w/ this… the important games (playoffs) are won by the physical players in the D-end, IMO.
Then why aren’t the most physical teams always the best teams?
While that’s a fair point, take another perspective: what does Mo do well that Juice doesn’t? And is that anything that wins you games in the playoffs?
Does “not making stupid fucking mistakes” count?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
they both fall short in that department.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
On the subject of stupid fucking mistakes, I feel obligated to point out that no member of the d-corps was exempt from those.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Morrisonn played more minutes, tougher minutes, and against better competition that Jurcina and turned the puck over 36% less often. He also took a lot fewer penalties.
by David Getz on Jul 21, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
wait a second….i thought you were jurcina’s legal representative!
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
from your own HHT/60 breakdown in case anyone missed:
Milan Jurcina takes a lot of restraining penalties and a lot of HHT penalties even though he plays against fairly weak competition. Given that he has almost no offensive upside, should the Capitals be looking for another defenseman as the trade deadline approaches?
caveat: pre-playoffs. but also pre-behind-the-back-hand-pass.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Just to throw it out there, Shamo was pretty damn atrocious on the Game 3 GWG v. PIT. Let’s not make too much of Juice’s retarded blunder, which hurt way less ultimately.
i’m not remembering. that was the letang slap shot off the draw? did shaMo screen varlamov?
you’re right though, tossing in the jurcina hand-pass jab isn’t totally fair when there were a number of other notable blunders by other defensemen. i believe juice also made a highlight reel legal handcuff on a player breaking free during the rangers series.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t say he was as bad as juice, but he’s still guilty of taking untimely penalties (pucks over the glass for example) and making terrible decisions with the puck (Calgary game for example, or was it Phoenix?)
To further this: is there any way to separate penalties taken while already down a man? Or even in different game situations in general? I seem to remember a few big 5-on-3s caused by Mo.
props to anyone that finds that out… not that all the other stats aren’t difficult to put together, but that seems like a lot of work!!
many thanks to JP/DMG/Pepper for their work…
Looking at that site, it does have 4-on-5 numbers as well. If I’m reading it right, Mo has 1.8 to Juice’s 0.8 penstaken/60, which fits what I thought I had seen.
It’d be great if there were a way overall to quantify the “timliness” of penalties, because it feels like Mo’s were usually of the untimely variety, but other than specific situations like this I’m sure there’s no solid way to do anything like that.
i mean this in a serious nature… as I’m only scanning while at work, and maybe i’m reading these wrong…
but it looks to me like Jurcina’s name is ranked above ShaMo’s on the GA/60 and GF-GA Overall chart, and he’s only behind Morrisson on the GF/60 Chart thanks to #52.
Also per the individual stats linked above (in the post)… Juice played more games, had more points, almost double the SOG’s and less PIM’s on the season than did Mo
Personally, I’d take Jurcina’s size, shot and physical presence over ShaMo’s game anytime. Especially because the caps lack in the physical aspect (minus Erskine and Poti somewhat)
Also per the individual stats linked above (in the post)… Juice played more games, had more points, almost double the SOG’s and less PIM’s on the season than did Mo
But none of those really mean anything except for shots on net. Jurcina played more games, but Morrisonn played more minutes per game (and on the season), Jurcina only had one more point, and Morrisonn’s penalty minute totals are inflated by the one game he assessed a major and game misconduct.
Personally, I’d take Jurcina’s size, shot and physical presence over ShaMo’s game anytime. Especially because the caps lack in the physical aspect (minus Erskine and Poti somewhat)
Poti’s not a physical player. Last season he literally hit less often than any other Capitals defenseman.
I think I’d still take Jurcina over ShaMo. At this point, I don’t think Mo’s getting any better, while I still think Jurcina might have some upside we haven’t seen yet.
That said, I think they’re both rather expendable at this point.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Juice also had notably worse quality of teammates than Mo, mostly from never getting to play with Green I imagine, and still has fewer GAON/60.
The issue here, as those stats show somewhat, is one of roles. Mo is being used in a larger role than Jurcina, and dare I say being asked to do much more than he should be. I don’t know if Jurcina is.
It all comes down to price I’d say. Mo is overpaid. If Juice isn’t overpaid by his arb award (or any deal cut prior) then keep him and, if you need to, lose Mo. If they’re both overpaid, keep whoever’s less overpaid.
Maybe the numbers account for this, but isn’t Mo usually playing against better competition on a higher pairing, and thus his GA suffers (and Juice’s benefits) in comparison?
Got it. Read the first line the wrong way, my mistake. If I’m GMGM, the main thing I ask myself is who is the better player, Mo or Juice, all else being equal. Salaries and the cap are important, but the Caps need to put the best team on the ice they can.
I think you only move Mo if you think Juice is simply better or if there is no way to make room for Mo’s salary in some other way. I wouldn’t make concessions for quality at this point due to a $1m difference in salary, unless it’s truly necessary.
Mo’s salary means there’s going to be pressure to play him in a role larger than he’s fit for, I think. If Juice comes up with a similar issue then yeah, go with the better guy, but if he doesn’t I think you keep Juice as the role player with somewhat unique skills, and try to replace Mo with Schultz or Alzner stepping up, or perhaps a deadline deal.
We really can’t afford to go over the cap using the cushion. We really need the accumulated space at the deadline to have flexibility, and we can’t really afford a deferral hit next season. Neither Mo nor Juice are such key players in the scheme of things that their presence transcends cap implications.
I’m not sure that Mo’s salary has had anything to do with how the Caps have used him. They have a $4m press box fixture. I think they play Mo as much as they do because either a) they think he’s one of their top 4 D, or b) they think he just works well with Green. I think it’s the former.
I agree with your salary cap conclusions, I just feel like there has to be a better place to skimp and save $1m than moving one of the team’s top 4 defensemen (my ranking). Then again, I didn’t realize there would be such a vigorous debate about who is the flat out better player.
You said it yourself, we’re spending so much on a healthy scratch, we can’t afford to spend that much on a guy that’s borderline 3rd pairing.
This team can afford to move a top 4 guy because Pothier’s back, and Alzner is likely going to be putting on pressure as well. Of the players back there that make enough money to have an impact on the cap (so far, obviously pending Juice’s award), Mo is the least “good” of them, at least among defensemen. Pothier brings puck moving we can’t really spare too much, Poti’s our best defensive Dman, and obviously Green’s untouchable. Add in Schultz and possibly Alzner, both/either of whom could grow to fill Morrisonn’s role sooner rather than later, and Mo seems like the odd man out easily.
I wouldn’t necessarily advocate dropping Mo so easily if there were cap room. But Nylander’s not just going to disappear, and Clark’s the captain, and there’s really nobody else to move. With the current situation Mo could quickly become our 5th best Dman, and with our cap situation paying our #5 $2mil isn’t workable.
Of course this is moot if Juice gets paid too much, unless you want to replace them both (and I’d have no problem with that for the right player cough Hamhuis cough).
But none of those really mean anything except for shots on net. Jurcina played more games, but Morrisonn played more minutes per game (and on the season), Jurcina only had one more point, and Morrisonn’s penalty minute totals are inflated by the one game he assessed a major and game misconduct.
I would have to use the mike green theory here… the more the puck is in the other end (i.e. SOG’s), the less it’s in our end and the more scoring chances you get. so … does that help out defensively? or no?
More games = less lineup fluctuation. and he put up more points in less the minutes.
and of those 15 minutes (one major / one misconduct) did the team have to play minus one man on the ice AND on the bench? I don’t think you can discount that.
I would have to use the mike green theory here… the more the puck is in the other end (i.e. SOG’s), the less it’s in our end and the more scoring chances you get. so … does that help out defensively? or no?
An individual getting shots and the team keeping the puck out of their end aren’t one and the same. For example, Green led the team in shots on goal by defenseman by far, but the Capitals also saw more shots with him on the ice than any other defenseman.
More games = less lineup fluctuation. and he put up more points in less the minutes.
Fewer total minutes, yes. But Morrisonn spent a fair amount of time playing shorthanded, which Jurcina did not. At even strength (Jurcina had one powerplay point) both players had three goals and ten assists – but Jurcina played about 120 more minutes than Morrisonn.
and of those 15 minutes (one major / one misconduct) did the team have to play minus one man on the ice AND on the bench? I don’t think you can discount that.
The point wasn’t that it didn’t hurt the team. The point was that even though Morrisonn had a higher penalty minute total it was in large part due to one play and than Jurcina put the team in trouble with penalties more often than Morrisonn did over the course of the season.
And skates. And makes hand passes that don’t go into our slot
by red army line on Jul 21, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I totally agree with all.
Do we know what Mo re-signed for because i’m sure that’s the amount that can get us back under the cap… All off-season I have been secretly hoping for a rare blockbuster deal of nylander+morrison+prospect for 2nd line center (Marleau? Plekanec? etc) but now I think i would be happy with Morrison for a pick or prospect. We have plenty of d close to ready-enough in Hershey (Carlson for one) that we don’t need to carry 8.
ps – great job JP on the breakdown
Do we know what Mo re-signed for because i’m sure that’s the amount that can get us back under the cap
$1,975,000.
As it stands now the team is already under the cap, by roughly $1.5 million.
Which wouldn’t be enough for Alzner to come up… I’m wondering if we don’t see some of Carlson before we see Alzner for salary cap reasons.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Nevermind – just saw your post above… Didn’t realize bonuses didn’t apply directly to the cap.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
They do apply. The bonus cushion is just a way to get around it, and it sounds like GMGM doesn’t plan on doing that at the moment.
Alright, I’m lost… Can someone enlighten me as to how this bonus cushion works?
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Bonuses count against the cap until they become impossible to reach. You can exceed the cap by the amount of the bonuses, though, up to 7.5(?)% of the total cap.
If the bonuses do get met, you take the cap hit next year. If they don’t, you’re in the clear.
What I’m not sure of, is whether it’s similar to LTIR in that you don’t accumulate cap space. I can’t see them doing it if that’s the case, because then that screws up most of the hope for a deadline deal.
So if he doesn’t hit the bonuses, no problem, and if he does, it counts against next year’s cap? Gotcha… Thanks.
by Murshawursha on Jul 21, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, any amount you exceed the current years caps to pay bonuses, you lose from the following years cap.
Spend $1 million over the cap to pay bonuses in 09-10, you start 10-11 with 1 million less in cap space
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jul 21, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
taking out pairings that played less than 100 minutes together even strength (therefore taking out poti-green), and using each player only once through the top 6, the best combination of combinations (GF-GA/60) turns out to be:
green-shaMo
jurcina-schultz
erskine-poti
total: 2.76
ahead of
green-schultz
erskine-poti
alzer-jurcina
total: 2.25
i don’t mean this to suggest that the first lineup is the optimal choice (the second lineup doesn’t even contain shaMo)…but there are repercussions in the rest of the top 6 if BB matches green and schultz.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
In a related story: That demonstrates that Green is a legit, two-way No. 1, that Schultz is a legit top four, that Ersky is worth his contract (kills me to admit this), and that ShaMo at $1.975M may be The Disposable One if Juice does a deal in the $1.2M range.
agreed on all points, but it stands that green-shaMo was more efficient than green-erskine and could also be more efficient than green-NAMEthePLAYERbesidesSCHULTZ. if schultz and/or poti are needed to round out the lower lines, and shaMo is the best fit for green (the major reason for referencing these pairings), then it’s possible shaMo at $1.975M has more value than juice at $1.5M.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
and somehow i missed the $1.2M number in your post. still, depending on the moneys available (more of a salary cap discussion), i can see a scenario where the team deems shaMo’s paring with green as more valuable than jurcina’s contributions.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I vote BOTH Juice and ShaMo off the island.
Green – Schultz
Poti – Alzner
Pothier – Carlson(or Erskine)
Free John Carlson!
by Gould Old Days on Jul 21, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
or carlson-erskine in that last pairing, depending on pothier’s play. carlson certainly fits the bill for puckmoving third-liner, if his play warrants minutes.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
btw: all this quality competition makes me a happy camper.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I think a more defensive-minded vet in 3 would be better for Carlson. Also makes a right shot and left shot on each pair
by red army line on Jul 21, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
right, there will be a lot of different options for BB (and GMGM) to sort through. the most useful point seemed to be that using schultz on the top line could limit the effectiveness of lines below (despite the fact that green and schultz show up in the most pairings and can also compliment each other).
personally, i would love to see the caps roll three scoring forward lines and three puck-moving defensive pairings, with green, poti and pothier separated as much as possible.
but JP’s stats also reflect more poorly on poti-schultz than i would have expected (-0.89). depending on the development of alzner/carlson, the contract uncertainty of jurcina (the easiest to leave behind if GMGM can’t get what he wants in a shaMo trade) and the presumed full-recovery of pothier, i guess i’d like to see
green-shaMo
pothier-schultz
poti-erskine
possibly re-uniting poti and schultz on the top PK unit?
presuming alzner deserves full PT by the end of the season,
green-schultz
poti-alzner
pothier-erskine
or
green-schultz
poti-shaMo (shaMo’s most efficient partnering outside green)
pothier-alzner (have they had PT together in hershey?)
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
i wish i could edit my comments.
F&B, conclusion from what i wrote above + answer to your question: adding pothier (and in turn alzner and in turn carlson) in my mind improves the depth of the top 6 if those players are playing to potential, and definitely creates the possibility that green & schultz would be the correct choice for line #1 after all…leading me to the last two combos with green/schultz on top. but just from JP’s numbers alone, last year’s squad (esp with a banged up poti?) didn’t have that type of depth.
by Natty Bumppo on Jul 21, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what I was trying to glean from all these comments. I realize he doesn’t enter into the statistical analysis because he didn’t play until the end of the season. But I thought he looked pretty good most of the time, and I guess I’m allowing for the limited amount of ice time he saw. So what if he comes into camp looking great? I guess that’s the rhetorical question I’m asking; does it have the potential to totally screw up everyone’s thinking?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
