Buppy

It's a simple analysis for sure. I considered doing a rolling sv% as well, to see if it was more predictive. I still might, but it's a bit of work. I suspect it will actually show a tendency towards worse performance following "hot" streaks (and vice versa), since few streaks last more than a few games. But that's fallacious logic as well. I think there's maybe two different arguments going on. Whether or not hot/cold streaks exist, and whether or not identifying one is actually useful in predicting the future. Streaks certainly exist. They're probably not the result of pure randomness. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support using a streak as a predictive tool. Things just change too rapidly. By the time you figure out that player is on a streak, it's likely to change. Maybe my initial comment was just too provocative.

What better options? Nyquist-Helm-Mantha is already a decent scoring line. Swap one of them for Glendening I don't think it does anything. Make the 2nd line (if indeed they are the 2nd) more skilled while making the 3rd less. Sheahan is better, but wasn't everyone just bitching about him being in a scoring role a few games ago? If things aren't working, try something different. Wasn't that more or less the refrain? I think some people are just freaking out seeing Glendening's name above Mantha's, without really thinking about it.

It's not like we're loaded with great scoring options atm. If we were scratching Vanek and AA to put Glendening there, I'd be right with you. Given what we have available though...

Seems more of a demotion for Larkin and Neilson, and maybe an attempt to correct the problem those two have had on defense. I'd hope that third line would play as much or more than the 2nd, with Nyquist and Mantha still getting ample PP time. Is one of those Miller's supposed to be Bertuzzi? Or did he go back to GR?

Regarding the bolded: First, it doesn't appear to be particularly true, at least not to a large degree, nor out of line from what you might see in a random sample. I took the last 100 games (as of Nov. 11) for several goalies (Mrazek, Howard, Price, Lundqvist, Rask, Holtby, and Bobrovsky). I categorized each game as good (.925 or better), bad (below .905), or average. I also generated a random set of 500 games, and categorized them the same way. Overall Good Bad Average Total Good% Bad% Avg% Mrazek 50 38 12 100 50.00% 38.00% 12.00% Howard 43 41 16 100 43.00% 41.00% 16.00% Price 59 29 12 100 59.00% 29.00% 12.00% Rask 50 39 11 100 50.00% 39.00% 11.00% Lundqvist 50 35 15 100 50.00% 35.00% 15.00% Holtby 48 34 18 100 48.00% 34.00% 18.00% Bobrovsky 46 40 14 100 46.00% 40.00% 14.00% Total 346 256 98 700 49.43% 36.57% 14.00% Random 231 223 46 500 46.20% 44.60% 9.20% After Good Good Bad Average Total Good% Bad% Avg% Mrazek 26 17 7 50 52.00% 34.00% 14.00% Howard 17 18 8 43 39.53% 41.86% 18.60% Price 34 17 8 59 57.63% 28.81% 13.56% Rask 25 19 6 50 50.00% 38.00% 12.00% Lundqvist 29 13 8 50 58.00% 26.00% 16.00% Holtby 20 19 9 48 41.67% 39.58% 18.75% Bobrovsky 23 15 8 46 50.00% 32.61% 17.39% Total 174 118 54 346 50.29% 34.10% 15.61% Random 118 91 22 231 51.08% 39.39% 9.52% After Bad Good Bad Average Mrazek 20 15 3 38 52.63% 39.47% 7.89% Howard 19 18 4 41 46.34% 43.90% 9.76% Price 18 8 3 29 62.07% 27.59% 10.34% Rask 19 14 6 39 48.72% 35.90% 15.38% Lundqvist 14 15 6 35 40.00% 42.86% 17.14% Holtby 22 7 5 34 64.71% 20.59% 14.71% Bobrovsky 17 17 6 40 42.50% 42.50% 15.00% Total 129 94 33 256 50.39% 36.72% 12.89% Random 88 112 23 223 39.46% 50.22% 10.31% Difference Good Bad Average Mrazek -0.63% -5.47% 6.11% Howard -6.81% -2.04% 8.85% Price -4.44% 1.23% 3.21% Rask 1.28% 2.10% -3.38% Lundqvist 18.00% -16.86% -1.14% Holtby -23.04% 19.00% 4.04% Bobrovsky 7.50% -9.89% 2.39% Total -0.10% -2.61% 2.72% Random 11.62% -10.83% -0.79% Average -1.16% -1.71% 2.87% The top table is overall games, the second is a breakdowns of games following good games, the third following bad games. (For the first game in each set, I counted the previous game as average. It's only 8 games, so it wouldn't change much. Also, some games are the last game of a season with the next being the first game in the following season. Again though, only a few games.) The last table shows the difference. A negative number shows that result as being less likely following a good game than following a bad game. In most cases you can see there's little difference. Less even than you'd expect from complete randomness. In most cases the numbers are quite close to the overall numbers, which suggests that overall ability is a much better indicator future performance. Secondly: We know hockey isn't exactly a random event, and the stats won't give a perfect picture of how a goalie really played. I don't think there's any question that players can be streaky, hot or cold. The problem is, like I said before, that you just can't know if a particular streak is going to continue. So again, if you're talking about two options that are close to equal it's probably not going to hurt, especially if you're basing it more on actual play than on pure stats. Howard .vs Mrazek, probably not going to hurt. Howard .vs Price, I don't care if Howard has 5 straight shutouts and Price sucks for 5 games...you start Price (assuming he's healthy). Tatar gets "hot", sure, move him ahead of Nyquist. But Glendening gets hot he stays put. So bottom line, recent play should at most be only a small part of the decision of who to play.

I'm sure a lot of coach's do believe in it, just like a lot of coach's and players have superstitions. Doesn't mean the logic isn't faulty. I was just saying that recent play alone (much less recent results, which is a bit different) shouldn't be the determining factor, and it seems you agree, you're just arguing that "hot hand" really means more than just that. If used to help choose between two good, basically equal, options, fine. Likely no worse than any other method of choice. Which is why I added the part about Mrazek and Howard being close enough that it probably wouldn't matter.

That year Osgood posted a .914 sv% to Hasek's .902, each with 40 starts. I would argue that Hasek never should have started in the first place, and only did so because he had a couple good games at the end of the regular season while Osgood had a couple poor games. I would also argue that Osgood was successful because he was an excellent goalie, and not because he was "hot". I might also point out that this "hot hand" logic would suggest that we should have gone back to Hasek after 3 straight somewhat weak games against Dallas. To repeat what I said earlier, "the determination of who is better needs to be a far more in-depth analysis than just looking at the results of their most recent few games". So what does tonight's game tell us? Is Howard no longer "hot" because he had one statistically poor game? Is Mrazek no longer "cold" because he stopped a few shots at the end of a blowout game? Who's going to be better next game?

Don't get too caught up in names. It's the fallacious logic that's important. Sports also isn't just the last handful of games. You need to focus on more than that to make good decisions.

Same basic principle applies. Past performance does not influence future results. Mental status and confidence may play a big role, but the fact is you never know when those things are going to change. You can't tell if a goalie is "hot" until after the fact. That a goalie has played well in any number of past games is not of any value in predicting whether or not he will play well in the next game. With allowances for fatigue and keeping your backup in game shape, starting the better goalie is the better option. And the determination of who is better needs to be a far more in-depth analysis than just looking at the results of their most recent few games.

"Playing the hot hand" is something of a gambler's fallacy. Fortunately, the difference between Howard and Mrazek is fairly small so it probably doesn't matter.

Hilarious

Well, actually, since signing his big contract he has been markedly below average overall. Before his contract he was exceptional, arguably even top 5 in the league, so I can't really hate the contract. Just the price you have to pay when you have to buy at a high point. I still think he's a good goalie, and he probably hasn't been as bad as his stats suggest, but he really hasn't been playing up to his contract.

The thing is, we kind of are getting the results we should probably expect with our roster. Overall at least. Maybe there's some merit to the Tortarella-style coaching, but I don't think so. I would hope Blashill is doing whatever talking is needed in the locker room, and that's where I think it belongs. Of course I don't know if he is or not, or if he is that whatever he's saying is getting through. Like I said, he might be a mediocre (or even bad) coach, and I can understand why some people might think so. But I think it's a bit early to make that determination. (For us fans at least. Someone with knowledge of what's going on behind closed doors probably has a better idea.) Bottom line for me so far is last year we finished more or less right around where we expected to. And so far this year more of the same. The longer things go with this poor possession, lack of offense, and players under-performing the more likely I am to change my opinion. But for now I'm inclined to believe that Blashill isn't really the problem.

Don't over-generalize. That I disagree that one specific issue needs any attention, or that one specific solution is the right one, should not taken as thinking that nothing anywhere needs attention now or in the future. For one, I don't think our 4th is a problem at all, and I would even say they have been a net positive for the team thus far. I think replacing one of them with Jurco (or even worse, Bertuzzi) is likely to do more harm than good. Secondly, I don't think that replacing Sheahan with Mantha is all that likely to be an improvement. Not getting worked up at all. You're the one calling me twisted, absurd, and foolish; incredulous that I don't think Mantha for Miller is a slam dunk move. Sure, every team wants to get as many points as possible. But the fact is in the vast majority of circumstances, it's not going to matter. Maybe it's taboo to acknowledge that fact, but it is a fact. And for the record, if I thought Mantha was such a certain upgrade I'd be all for it. I'm not, so I don't care. It's obvious that we disagree on Mantha. No need to pursue that any further. To turn the topic back to Blashill, I don't think player usage has been a problem this year. He might be a good coach just stuck with a mediocre roster. Or maybe a mediocre coach with one. I think we can get better production and possession from our scorers, but I think that's something the players themselves need to do better, more than something systemic. I don't think Blashill is a problem.

Yeah, sorry my world view doesn't conform perfectly to yours. One of these days maybe I'll try to plug my mind into the hive so we can all just get along. You're confusing "big deal" and "big difference". I already admitted that a small difference can have a big impact in certain circumstances. In other circumstances they have no impact. What difference would 1 point have made to Washington, Pittsburgh, Rangers, Florida, TB, Wings, Islanders, Philly, Carolina, Ottawa, NJ, Montreal, Buffalo, Columbus, Toronto, Dallas, St. Louis, Chicago, Anaheim, SJ, Nashville, Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, or Edmonton? In some cases, even 5, 10, or 27 points wouldn't have mattered. And beyond that, you're acting like I am as sure as you are that Mantha would make us better. What I think is more like: Maybe 20% chance we end up in a circumstance where a small difference will matter, maybe 10% chance that Mantha would have enough of an impact to make that difference, and maybe 5% chance that he actually makes us worse. Not something I think is worth getting worked up about. Sorry if that offends you.

Glendening-Sheahan-Jurco isn't likely to be much of a scoring threat. Nor is it really accurate to say that the OMG line isn't ever going to score. We have never needed Miller, but we should stop acting like he, or the 4th line in general, is the biggest (or even a significant) problem with our team. Yeah, it's always easy to say things. Far harder to actually be right about what you're saying, and harder yet to be right often and impactfully enough to make any difference. Is there really a linear relationship between minutes played and Zetterberg's fatigue level? Cut his ice time by 5 minutes, is he actually going to be any better at the end of the year? Was it even fatigue that caused his slow-down? He's had plenty of slumps before, some early, some late. How does cutting his ice time impact the team in the meantime? In the end will it be a net positive? You're right, there are a lot of small issues that can be cleaned up and improved, but no one truly knows exactly how to do that. All you can do is try something that seems like it will work. And that's what we are doing. Some things work, some things don't. Things will keep changing, whether intentionally or not. You seem to be making an assumption that all your ideas are perfectly right, and since we haven't made every change you would make in exactly the same way we're not trying to "clean up". In the end, a good coach is going to be right more often than not, and will get a little more out of the roster. I don't know that Blashill is a good coach, but I don't think I'd say he's a bad coach either. I think the results he's gotten are about what we should expect. And I don't think that any level of coaching or minor roster tweaks are going to produce much change.

Maybe it's defeatist, maybe just realistic. I don't believe any amount of line juggling or minor changes are going to make a mediocre roster a good one. No, it's not complicated to say things on the internet. I was referring to the ice time/player usage thing. You say yourself, "win a few more games". I don't think that is a big difference. Sure, in one specific circumstance a small difference could have a big impact, but it's still a small difference. If you think that's twisted and absurd, so be it.

Good one, Bill. If Mantha was 1/100th the player Lemieux was, he would have been on the team 4 years ago. Miller's a plug, and no one has ever suggested otherwise. That he's playing ahead of Mantha says more about what some think of Mantha than it does about anyone's opinion of Miller. I could flip that around and say Mantha has snowed over a bunch of fans into thinking he's the next big thing.

No, the attitude has nothing at all to do with where the Wings are at. We are what we are because eventually all good things come to an end. The whole system is designed very specifically to cause this situation. Literally, not one single team - in any sport - at any time in history - in any system - has stayed great forever. GMs can't just s*** out star players when they want to, no matter how badly the team needs one. That's not how the world works. Deal with it. It's easy to sit on a message board posting ideas you think would be better, making judgements in hindsight based on pure speculation and often false facts. But the truth is there is no right way. There is no secret formula. It's a game of educated guesswork. You list a bunch of things you think will make it all better, and 10 other fans would say 10 different things. Optimal line combos? What exactly are those? You say we should have changed line combos, and in another thread someone else is saying there's too much line juggling. Play the hot hand, you say? Who is that in the next game? You think Howard will be hot forever? Does he have a fire icon next to his name somewhere so we know we should start him? Why is "next game" any less likely than any other to be the one where he goes cold? Lessen Z's icetime when he's still probably our best player, and producing atm? More time to AA? His average icetime is up about 3 minutes his last 5 games. He's played 5 games with 12:59 TOI or more, has 1g and a -3 and the team is 1-3-1 in those games. Stop the dump and chase? How much do we dump and chase, how effective is it and what can we do with our personnel that works better? Stop having Glendening take those faceoffs? Sure, Helm took one last game and we still lost. Let's face facts, we're all just a bunch of assholes who really don't know s***, acting like we have all the answers while we vent because our team isn't as good as we want it to be. We don't have the answers. There likely isn't an answer at this time. The team is just not that good. So if I were to say we shouldn't play Mantha because it seems to me like he's not even scoring in the AHL, you wouldn't point out that the "fact" I'm basing that opinion on is incorrect? I know you're joking about Lashoff, but you know what? It actually wouldn't make much difference, and that's actually a situation where we could be certain that we'd be worse. I'd bet some fans would actually welcome a move like that, in the hopes of getting a higher draft pick. And there is some merit to that philosophy. What you seem to be missing is that I am not as convinced as you are that Mantha would make us better. Why are you getting so bent out of shape because I have a differing opinion? Nor am I convinced that we are particularly likely to finish 9th. Probably won't win our division, or finish as one of the top few teams in the conference, or the bottom few. Anywhere in between maybe. So a relatively small chance that we'll be in a position that a relatively small improvement will be the difference in making the playoffs or not, and uncertainty that Mantha would actually be a small improvement. To me we have much bigger issues to worry about, primarily whether or not Blashill can get the best (or at least better) out of the rest of the roster. If he can, I think we'll be in good shape for the playoffs. If not, I doubt Mantha would help even if he did make us a little better.

But the question then becomes: "Does Mantha change your probability of winning, and to what degree?". Do you have the ice time logs? You say yourself, "seemed like". And I wasn't just talking about the Griffins. You also admitted to being surprised that our 4th line was being used as little as it is. Your ideas are based on how things seemed to you, rather than actual data. And it doesn't make any real difference. Not in terms of how good a team we are. Sure, maybe, if we happen to be on the playoff bubble again, a small difference could mean being in or out of the playoffs. But that isn't really a big difference. I even think our streak is important, but I'm not going to say there's some big difference between 8th or 9th place. Would you be so upset if you thought we were going to be a 12th place team, and Mantha would push us up to 11th? If we're good enough to be on the bubble, we are good enough to get in. There will be 1000 different things over the season that could make a difference between being in or out. Literally one play (like giving up a breakaway with a minute left in a tied game) could make a difference. But I'm not going to get bent out of shape about any one of them. And it's a two-way street. He could actually make us worse. I know it's pretty much impossible for you to imagine anything worse than Miller or Ott, and I even understand that, and maybe in terms of individual comparison it's not worth talking about, but in terms of net impact on the team there is a very real possibility that we would be worse. But not only are you convinced that Mantha would make us better, you're also convinced that being that whatever-amount-better will actually mean something. But whatever. I guess I shouldn't try to talk you out of fandom. Personally, I think we should be a lot more concerned with Blashill getting the most out of what he has than whether or not some kid would be a marginal upgrade.

I assume most people outside the more dedicated Wings fans don't know who most of the players are. I'd expect the lists (for all teams) to get more accurate over time. Though we don't really have any D besides Dekeyser really worth protecting. Fair chance Green would be taken, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing since our cap situation could be tight next year. Smith I think might be gone regardless. I don't think any of the young guys would be taken over Sheahan or Helm. It's looking like the available D around the league will be much better than the available forwards. I'd protect Sproul anyway, just because we get 3. DD, Sproul, ?... Unfortunately it looks like there will be too many good goalies available for Howard to go. But a lot can change between now and then.

Actually, shooting percentages above 13 are quite common among top goal scorers. 46 out the 64 30g seasons the last three years in fact. But even if you believe they're only 20ish goal players, they wouldn't be 3rd liners. It's a theory based on what you thought you saw, largely it seems to avoid accepting the possibility that Blashill isn't the upgrade you thought he'd be. I am ok with how our 4th line is used. Based on actual usage, actual performance, and what could reasonably be expected from the alternatives, everyone should be. I don't really care if you or anyone else accepts our 4th line or not, but if people are going to throw out crazy theories or inaccurate facts, I'll call them on it. The truth is that it's not the big deal you make it out to be. The best we could reasonably expect is a small improvement, which wouldn't make any real difference. It could also be a small downgrade (which also wouldn't make any real difference). But people act like there's no chance at all that the team could actually be worse. Like it's such an absolute certainty that not only would he make us better, but so meaningfully better that they genuinely believe our team management is stupid for not calling him up. 10g would not likely be an upgrade over Sheahan or Helm. Nor would I expect our 4th line to be any better with one of them than it has been so far. I too would actually expect a bit better than that from Mantha, but if he did perform like that (or worse), which is certainly possible, it probably makes us worse. Furthermore, injuries happen almost every year. I'd be surprised if we make it through the year healthy enough that Mantha doesn't get in 25 or so games anyway.

Getting a bit off the original topic. To re-clarify: You started out saying Blashill's system and approach was fine, with player usage his only problem, and suggested it must be Holland dictating usage. But the player usage isn't what you think it is, or all that different from most teams, nor has our 4th line been causing any problems for us. Not this year, and not last year. So regardless of what you believe might happen in the future, or what the stats say is likely to happen, it is not what has happened and does not explain Blashill's mediocre results. Sheahan-Glendening-Helm was a line for a while last year. They were not that good. Better than what I'd expect from Miller-Glendening-Ott maybe, but not enough better to make any real difference. Maybe Mantha could step in and be a star right away, have an Ovie-level impact. But I'd say the odds of that are extremely small, and anything less than that just isn't going to make any real difference either. No doubt something needs to change, but that something goes so far beyond Miller and Ott that it is silly to even mention them, much less constantly harp on them like they're the biggest issue. Even if the OMG line stays together all year, and continues to be a wreck possession-wise, it will likely be less of a problem and cost fewer games than we have already suffered because of Tatar and Abdelkader not scoring.

Possession metrics are valuable because there is a general correlation with winning. But it is not an absolute correlation. You don't win a game because you out-possess the other team. A poor possession line is usually unlikely to be effective over a given period, but that doesn't mean they can't be. We are the worst possession team in the league, but we're tied for the 9th best record, and have the 7th best goal differential. Overall, we've been effective despite our poor possession. Our 4th line has been awful in possession, despite that, they haven't been getting scored on much and have chipped in a few goals. They have been effective. Will they continue to be? Probably not, or least not as effective as they have been. But it's unlikely that any 4th line we put together will be much better. What is an extra few shifts going to do that the other 15 or so in a game don't? It's not like anyone we have is out there dominating every shift. AA has poor possession numbers as well (and like most of our team, he's still been effective despite that). Same goes for Helm. Sheahan not much better. Tatar is 2nd on the team in icetime, and our best possession player, but he hasn't been scoring. The team has scored at a better rate with Ott, Glendening, and even Miller on the ice, and allowed fewer against as well. The idea that giving AA a bunch more time or calling up Mantha is going to make any real difference is a fantasy. AA was criticized because someone specifically asked about AA. People make way too big a deal out of criticisms aimed at players they like.

Miller and Ott are 12th and 13th respectively. Glendening is 9th in total, 10th at ES. Unfortunately, I don't know of a site that gives situational breakdowns of icetime. Hockeyviz does show that Miller and Glendening get more ice time when we have a lead. As do Holland, Martin, and Smith in TO. I'm not real familiar with the Pk/defensive forwards around the league, but looking at some other teams, I'd guess it's a fairly common practice. It could well be an "old-school" mentality that we'll see change as advanced metrics gain influence, but that's getting a little far from the original topic. And our 4th line has not been a problem. Despite the terrible possession, they've been effective. Should be much less of a concern than Larkin and Neilson getting scored on too often, or Tatar and Abdelkader not scoring. The idea that Holland is dictating usage is patently ridiculous. As is the notion that line combos or a minute or three of icetime here or there is going to make any real difference. And this tendency to form opinions based on what we want to be true, or what our fantasies say is true, then jumping through whatever logical hoops are necessary to maintain those fantasies. Our team just isn't all that good, and it's because we're lacking star power at the top. That's really our only problem. I guess that doesn't leave much to talk about, but that doesn't mean we need to resort to wild theories to explain why Blashill isn't the superhero you'd hoped he'd be.