Re-thinking What You Thought You Thought About Line-Matching
If EA Sports' series of hockey video games has taught us anything, it's that, given the chance, a rational coach would opt to play his checking line against the opponent's top trio of forwards. Sure, it might cost his own number one line minutes overall, but playing defensive-minded forwards against the opposition's big guns provides a measure of containment and allows virtual Bruce Boudreau to unleash the virtual fury of virtual Ovechkin-Backstom-Anyone on weaker competition when their shift comes up. In theory (and the theory, or a slight variation thereof, is well-conceptualized over at The Hockey Rodent), the result is a greater goal disparity per shift which, of course, means a greater chance at victory. Huzzah.
You'd think, then, that, in the interest of self-preservation (i.e. winning), all coaches would aggressively line-match in some similar fashion when given the opportunity. You'd be wrong.
One easy (but admittedly imperfect) way to figure out who's line-matching and who's just playing his guys regardless of whom the opposing coach is putting out there is to take a look at individual players' Quality of Competition for a given team: for the line-matching bench boss, there will be a wide spread here (as he tries to hide certain skaters by only playing them against weak opponents, play others against the best opposition, etc.), and for the line-roller, a much smaller differential (since he's not going to let the other guy dictate who he plays and when).
So who's matching lines? For the 2008-09 regular season, the teams with the top five largest QualComp spreads among forwards with at least forty games played were Anaheim, Chicago, Calgary, San Jose and Pittsburgh (who might be even higher if they'd had Dan Bylsma behind the bench all season) and the bottom five were Boston, Phoenix, Columbus, the Rangers and the Islanders. But take enforcers out of the equation (since they're in a somewhat special situation when it comes to line-matching) and the top five are Chicago, Calgary, Anaheim, Ottawa and Pittsburgh, with Columbus, the New York teams, Washington and Boston bringing up the rear. In other words, Randy Carlyle and Joel Quenneville are big-time matchers, Boudreau (as we've previously noted) and Claude Julien are not.
That, in and of itself, doesn't tell us much - there were successful and unsuccessful teams at both ends of this spectrum and everywhere in between - these are just different coaching philosophies. But the inquisitive Caps fan and armchair bench boss is probably asking two questions right now: 1) Why doesn't Bruce Boudreau match more aggressively, and 2) Should he match more? We'll take these questions in turn after the jump.
As to the "why," you'll read a lot more about it in his book (you have ordered it, right?), but it suffices to say that when you have Alex Ovechkin at your disposal, you play him when you can - get too caught up in matching your checking line against the other team's top trio and you might look at the stat sheet post-game and realize that the League's best player was only on the ice for 17 minutes. Why let the opposing coach essentially dictate when you can utilize your best weapons?
Moreover, with few exceptions, over time top checkers are going to lose out to top scorers - match Boyd Gordon against Sidney Crosby and eventually you're going to be outscored. Skate Ovechkin against Crosby and Gordon against, say, Maxime Talbot's line and you've got a better chance to win or tie every shift (and win or tie every shift and you've gone a long way towards winning the game).
Further to that last point, matching a scoring line against a scoring line forces the opponent's top forwards to do something they may not love or be particularly adept at doing - backcheck and play defense. Whomever lines up opposite AO is going to have their hands full all night - why not give the other guy's stars something else to think about rather than letting them focus solely on how they're going to get around a few pesky grinders in the offensive zone? Of course, this cuts both ways - Ovechkin and his mates have to be committed to playing both ends of the ice when they're out against offensively gifted opponents. But it's always better to dictate the play than have it dictated to you.
Theoretically, the two sides of this argument - to match or not to match - could go back and forth all day. But to answer our second question - should Bruce Boudreau match lines more often - let's take a look at some data. Below are the cumulative plus/minus numbers (via HockeyAnalysis.com) for four Caps when matched at even strength against the top ten non-Cap scorers in the Eastern Conference from a season ago (note: data is only available for the top 75 individual opponents in terms of ice time against for each player, so stats do not represent each of the top ten non-Cap scorers for each of the Caps players below):
Now, obviously these are small samples, and a save here or a lucky bounce there and the numbers might look a little different. But behind these numbers are a few points worth noting:
- Since you're no doubt curious as to the combined numbers against the two Pens, Semin was +9.13, Ovechkin +4.82 (note: does not include Crosby data, due to a lack of head-to-head minutes), Steckel +1.75 and Gordon didn't have enough minutes against either to make his data available. In 39.43 minutes of combined even strength time against the Malkin and Crosby (which may include some overlap), Semin was on the ice for seven goals for and one against.
- Of the ten opponents we're looking at here, Gordon only had a positive plus/minus against Patrik Elias (one goal for, none against). Elias, Ray Whitney, Jeff Carter and Zach Parise were the only four of these opponents against whom Gordo played enough minutes to qualify.
- Ovechkin's best plus/minuses came against Vincent Lecavalier and Martin St. Louis, Semin's against Malkin and Dany Heatley. Their worst differentials came against Chris Drury and Ryan Callahan for AO and Marty Reasoner and Whitney for Semin. This says, "play your best against their best," no?
- Steckel played within one goal of all opposing forwards with the exceptions of Scott Gomez, Markus Naslund and Reasoner (minus-two against each) and Brandon Dubinsky (minus-three in just 15.75 minutes). Gordon played within one goal of all opposing forwards with the exceptions of Carter and Scott Hartnell (minus-two against each).
So what's the big payoff? Well, for one, David Steckel seems (again, small samples) much more able to play against top competition than Boyd Gordon. And why do I single out Steckel and Gordon and not attribute a fair share of this to their respective linemates? Because each of them skated most often with Donald Brashear, Matt Bradley and each other. In other words, the linemates were virtually a wash (though Gordo did have a slightly lower QualTeam).
More to the point of this post, however, is the fact that Boudreau's reluctance to line-match is validated by the fact that his two top snipers have outplayed even the top competition they've faced - there's no need to sacrifice their minutes in hopes that a lower line can contain the opponent's top unit. Instead, fire at will... and Marc-Andre, and Tim, and Martin...
66 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow, that basically means that no matter whom the Caps are playing, we basically want to see the superstars play against the superstars, because our superstars are better than their superstars.
I like it.
by DrinkingPartner on Aug 31, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions
Exactly what I see. Just keep playing it like you’ve never seen a video game coach.
by HateOffSeason on Aug 31, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Says a lot for David Steckel, no question. Also indicates that Boyd Gordon is expendable if his salary wafts much above $761K.
The one thing the data doesn’t address is the value of line-matching in the last minute of a period depending on where a faceoff is or in the last, say, three or four minutes of a game. I suspect that matching in those circumstances has real benefits, that having a second faceoff guy on the ice allows your first faceoff guy to be more aggressive, etc.
Also indicates that Boyd Gordon is expendable if his salary wafts much above $761K.
unless steckel disappears because another team outbids the caps.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 31, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it would be hard to outbid the Caps at this point, unless they just offer him a ridiculous amount. Hes a pretty integral piece right now who isnt easy to replace, as we can see from the article
Fehr is fair, but I like Laich
i wouldn’t be so sure. he is a UFA this next summer, and the caps do have others to pay.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 31, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
But Bruce and McPhee are loyal to Steckel, and he’s just as loyal to them (Bruce in particular). I wouldn’t be surprised to see him take a below-market contract to remain a Cap.
Fans often hope such, grinder-level players almost never, ever, never take below-market deals. They have less opportunity to provide for their families than stars, so they’ve gotta grab the ring when they can.
That said, No one’s going to offer Stecks 3/$4M in the off-season. I’d expect his multi-year deal to get done during the season at a Bradley-esque level.
that’s my bet too, but i’m not ruling out another team overvaluing steckel based on a few straight stellar postseasons. it’s happened before. thank goodness al davis doesn’t own a hockey team.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 31, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d be shocked if GMGM can lock him up for 1 mill. per. Unless Steckel regresses this year I think he gets 1.5-2 over 3-4 years.
A man must have a code.
According to EA Sports’ NHL 09, Steckel will decide that my offer of $1.5m per over 3 years is a lowball, and that he doesn’t feel that he can, in all good conscience, play for this club in the future.
He then signed with LA for $4.5m for 6 years.
I hate that game so much.
by DrinkingPartner on Aug 31, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a man-crush on David Steckel. But if he thinks he will get $6-8M as a defensive specialist for 3-4 years under what may/likely be a contracted cap, I wish him luck.
I don’t see how he settles for only 1 mill. If he does it’s a hometown discount. 6-8 is really the high end. Based on the numbers I suggested it’s really 4.5-8 which sounds a lot more reasonable.
A man must have a code.
It’s going to be tough to have these kinds of salary conversations this year I think. If the cap drops $4-5 million — and it might — that’s going to render a lot of projections moot.
True. The projections will generally have to be adjusted down for FAs but IIRC arbitrators aren’t allowed to consider the cap and economy and all that. I’m not saying that directly applies to Steckel (don’t know if he can go to arbitration after this year) but the point is that for at least some players the salaries they make the next couple years will be based on pre-economic-downturn figures.
A man must have a code.
I don’t mean to divert the discussion, but part of me has a hunch the cap dip isn’t going to be as bad as presumed. I think that HRR in many locations is picking up, the Canadian dollar is rebounding nicely, and more competitive parody will help with attendance as well.
That said, I’m basing this on little more than random observations, and wondering what the PA will say today re: the Kelly firing, and whether or not they’ll be more combative with the league.
http://wewintrophies.com/ - 12 major trophies in national and international competitions. Be a part of the next one.
by Bald Pollack on Aug 31, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree that the cap-fall is probably overstated. But nobody really knows so I didn’t want to rest my argument on that speculation. Regardless of the cap drop any arbitration awards are going to be based on contracts signed in the last couple years before the cap drop so some Steckelesque players are going to get 1.5-2 mill.
A man must have a code.
I see Steckel signing a 3 year deal on the order of 4-4.5M in the February time frame assuming he’s having a fair to good year… if he’s having a great year i see hiom and hios agent wanting to play through the rest of the season and playoffs and testing the UFA waters….
by markbona-capsfan99 on Aug 31, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Gordo’s got one more RFA year; his birthday’s in October, after the filing period ends (not completely sure).
http://wewintrophies.com/ - 12 major trophies in national and international competitions. Be a part of the next one.
by Bald Pollack on Aug 31, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Good work J.P., have you looked at how the numbers look when comparing the D pairs to the forward lines? I suspect BB was more careful about which D he had on the ice against opposing stars than he was about matching forward lines.
A man must have a code.
I haven’t, and while I would suspect that to be the case to an extent, with Green’s TOI he clearly was being played often and against just about anyone.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right. But I think Poti probably saw more Crosbalkin than Erskine and Juice did; and probably handled the assignment better as well.
A man must have a code.
Here’s the list of Geno’s top 75 opponents. The Caps D, in order of ice time against: Schultz (30:51), Green (22:51), Jurcina (22:31).
Geno wasn’t on the ice for aa ES goal for against any of them. Schultz for Norris!
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 31, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s the list of Geno’s top 75 opponents. The Caps D, in order of ice time against: Schultz (30:51), Green (22:51), Jurcina (22:31).
Geno wasn’t on the ice for aa ES goal for against any of them.
Pfft, like that matters. How many times did they hit him, that’s what I want to know.
by David Getz on Aug 31, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Watching Schultz entangle Malkin, shift after shift after shift, is how I came to realize that Schultz is Good. Sometimes it’s a bit like watching Clouseau solve a case, but I noticed Geno wasn’t laughing. Ever.
by redlineblue on Aug 31, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The thing I noticed (or rather failed to) was Geno’s presence on the ice during Caps-Pens games when Schultz was playing. Excellent work by 55.
by red army line on Aug 31, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
And here’s Sid’s list: Schultz (26:41), Morrisonn (20:54). Sid was on the ice for one goal at ES against each (could be the same goal, though unlikely).
In other words, Schultz played more than 57 combined minutes of ES hockey against Sid and Geno (though there’s no doubt some overlap there) and was on the ice for one goal against.
Yeah, he sucks.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Aug 31, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
now you’re getting it!
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Aug 31, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You forgot to say “Chara” , and “Dubinsky”. Schultz can’t possible be a Good D, because Chara, remember?
Do “roll lines” coaches try to match their D to opposing O, or is that not considered matching?
He certainhly doesn’t suck but he’s not a lot of fun to watch either and it sure seems when he does blow it – he blows it big…of course I have to admit the data would suggest he doesn’t blow it often….that said why does it seem he always does it while I’m watching?
by markbona-capsfan99 on Aug 31, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Schultz IS fun to watch. Thrice a night you’ll see an attacker who just knows he has 55 beat. Then the lanes for puck and attacker get tiny, and fracture. It’s perversely elegant (or vice versa).
I'm gonna go get the papers get the papers.
http://wewintrophies.com/ - 12 major trophies in national and international competitions. Be a part of the next one.
by Bald Pollack on Aug 31, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s Poti’s list of opponents, FYI. A lot of minutes against intra-divisional big guns, of course. 16:08 (one goal against) vs. Sid and 14:30 (0 GA) opposite Geno.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Interesting post. Just curious, why was data for these four profiled over other forwards? Are they most productive members of their respective lines? Are they the most stable members of their respective lines? It would be interesting to see how the likes of Backstrom, Laich, etc. faired against top opponents.
by Laich It Or Lump It on Aug 31, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions
I chose the guys I chose b/c I thought the top two snipers and top two checkers made the most sense, as the point was basically, “Do you play scorers or checkers against the other team’s scorers?” I didn’t look at Backstrom, for example, but I bet his numbers were pretty close to AO’s, since they played together so often.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks JP.
by Laich It Or Lump It on Aug 31, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Many coaches may not line match as much as ensure a specific player is shadowing a superstar versus matching line for line, i.e., putting Hal Gill on Jagr, Zetterberg vs Crosby, Mark Staal vs Ovechkin in the Rangers’ series, etc.
The D examples you used are D pair matches. The match up is driven by the one D you named, but it was a paired match. Hank is the closest thing you’ll find to a true shadow anymore in the league; it’s extremely hard to shut down an all star by shadowing them and most teams don’t really employ a true shadow defense.
A man must have a code.
Nice assessment! Rec’d, first off. I hadn’t thought to look at it in quite this way.
One thing, though, about line-matching … does Ovi’s goal against Montreal hve anything to do with either line- or D-pair matching, or was that simply a product of a bad line change on the Habs’ part?
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
I think it was largely the result of a really awful, embarrassing, and lazy line change, and Ovechkin took full advantage of that.
I think it’s more that we had Alex Ovechkin, the game’s greatest showman, utterly embarrass a certain team from Montreal.
by DrinkingPartner on Aug 31, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
http://wewintrophies.com/ - 12 major trophies in national and international competitions. Be a part of the next one.
by Bald Pollack on Aug 31, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
O’Byrne got beaten on two of the top 5 goals from last season. Ouch.
by red army line on Aug 31, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know where this is coming from I never thought Brash was worthless and I certainly don’t think Bradley is – why would you say such things? What are you thinking about pointing to?
by markbona-capsfan99 on Aug 31, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
These numbers just go to show how important face-offs are. If you win faceoffs, you don’t have have goals scored against you. No matter how good they are, Richards, Carter, Ovie, Semin, Geno and Crosby aren’t going to score if their teams don’t have the puck. People were talking about Steckel getting paid this year, his FO win% seems to be his best bargaining chip.








































