Buppy

That's the fun thing about hockey. No matter how wrong you are about a player, if you just keeping saying it long enough you'll become right. Larkin is awful and doesn't belong anywhere near the NHL.

Actually, the year Suter and Parise were signed we were giving Howard, Ericsson, Tootoo, and Sammy $10.4 million combined. Weiss wasn't signed until the next year. Regardless, having those two at $7.5 per until they're 40 would've been tough enough. $10 would be even moreso, and you can't even say for sure that would have been enough. And seriously, Nyquist equivalent to Eriksson? He's barely close right now. When that trade was made Nyquist was still a prospect. 40 games played, 4 goals, 13 points. Another 2g, 5p in 18 playoff games. That and the Kronwall thing prove just how irrational you're being.

Wouldn't really say Eriksson was "aging" or "old". He was only 28 when that trade was made. He was coming off a down year, but prior to that had 3 straight 70+ point seasons. Zetterberg or Datsyuk would have been our only comparable players. Still would have been worth it the way Seguin has developed, but that wasn't exactly a given.

I want to argue with you, but I suspect it would be useless. I get a real anti-Franzen-style-irrationality feel about your opinion of Holland. Like he's your Drew Miller of management.

In my opinion, there's still a lot of work to be done on quality of competition metrics. It's widely considered that over a significant period of time, competition will balance out. Looking at stats like CF% of competition seems to confirm that, since the range is pretty narrow. But I don't think it's comprehensive enough. If better players are playing against better players, you'd expect it to negatively impact the stats of both. For instance, Kronwall and Smith have a similar level of competition based off the common measurements. But I looked at some matchups on war-on-ice (all games this year against, Boston, Buffalo, and Carolina). In those games, Kronwall spent about 35% of his ice time against players with 20+ points, 27% against players between 11-19 points, and 38% against players with under 10. Smith was 24% against the top scorers, 25% against the middle, and 50 against the bottom. Seems to be much more significant than suggested by the usual QoC metrics. However, no matter how you look at it, Kronwall has not been particularly good so far this year.

22 million on two guys until they're 40+. Stupid even if we can juggle the roster (based mostly on hindsight) to fit it in. Hasn't exactly been raining playoff wins in Minnesota since they signed those two. No real reason to think they'd have much more impact here. Put Suter in that blank spot and that defense is still worse than what we have now, and you'd be making it difficult to afford raises for the young guys when they come due.

I'm sure that's part of the reason Helm is up there, but I think Blash is also determined to keep Nyquist and Tatar together to try to have 3 dangerous lines. Helm and Richards are just what's left. Before Pulks was hurt, Helm was mostly on the 4th line. In theory, Datsyuk could make a line dangerous by himself, but it's really starting to look like that's not the case. Also looking like Helm just can't be Abby, and Richards can't add much either. Z-Pav-Abby Tats-Larkin-Sheahan Nyq-Richards-Jurco Helm-Glenny-Nosek/Andy

I think maybe you did make that up. Not going to get into Franzen, but Kronwall has had 3 of his best years since getting his big deal and taking over as number 1. Ericsson is in the second year of his, and while not much offense he hasn't been worse either. Maybe over-matched when on the top pair, but he's been greatly effective defensively this year. Nyquist is in the first year of his deal, a little off his pace from last year but not by much. Been slumping lately, but prior to that he was on a better pace than last year. And for all those hoping for a big trade/shakeup...remember that as often as not (more really) trades can have a negative impact or just no real impact at all. Sure, Dallas is doing great so far this year, but the last two years weren't really any better than where they were at for years prior to the Seguin deal. Not to say that we shouldn't look at making a trade or three, but just that we shouldn't expect anything we do to make some huge difference. Two of our top scorers have been slumping lately. None of the rest have been particularly hot. Not coincidentally, we've had trouble scoring and winning games because of it. No player in the league is immune to slumping, and few teams in the league have better scoring depth. We need to play better much more than we need better players.

The over-hyping of Mantha certainly played a part in the criticism, which is why we should be tempering ourselves rather than starting threads re-hyping him and saying he's dominating after a handful of good games. You're basically saying he's going to be the next Wings star when he's not even a star in the AHL yet. He's playing well recently, which is great. I'm sure we all hope that continues. But maybe you need some patience. Mantha (and Svechnikov!) on the Wings top line in a couple years? He hasn't even proven that he deserves to be on the team at all yet. All you're doing is setting the kid up for more criticism if he doesn't become a star right away. Go ahead and praise him for his good play lately, just ease back on the hype. This thread probably doesn't deserve to be outside the Griffins/prospect section. Should at least wait until he's actually dominating the AHL for a prolonged period.

Yep, almost in the top 50 in scoring and almost top 70 in goals. Look out world.

I've been looking at the numbers behind this, trying to figure out what's going wrong. The biggest thing that stands out so far is nothing stands out. Statistically, it doesn't look like there is any formula for success. Sure, we have a terrible shooting% when we have a 3rd period lead, but Minnesota isn't much better and they're 11-0-1. Florida has the best sh% in the league, and they're 10-2-2, not much better than us. We're not sitting back as people seem to think. We maintain our shot rate much better than the league average. Every team in the league shoots less when they have a lead in the 3rd period (data from the 12-13 season through this year as of a few days ago, may not be true if looking at just this year), and allows more shots against. Literally every team. Analytics sites even give score-adjusted shot metrics to account for it. On average, the league shoots 82% as often when they have the lead as opposed to all situations. Wings are at 89%, 95% when up by one as opposed to 84% league average. Both marks are among the best in the league. Shots against also increase less than average, though not by as much. But neither of those seem to be a factor, as there are both good and bad teams at both ends of the spectrum. Teams that have done well at protecting leads tend to be slightly above average teams, but in terms of how they play with the lead relative to in all situations, they conform almost perfectly to league averages. (And though I didn't actually do the full comparison, I suspect it's the same for the poor teams.) My conclusion is that's there's just so many close games, where literally one mistake can be the difference between a win and a loss (or at least OT), that's it's not something that can be measured with current data. Nothing seems to be wrong systemically, nor is there any roster deficiency that can be noted. I can't find player usage data specific to 3rd periods, but usage doesn't change much when leading overall, so I doubt it would change by too much late in games (a little more than 40% of our total lead time was in the 3rd period, so if there was a difference it would be visible I think). I have to say it's just a case of a few too many mistakes at crucial times. Call it killer instinct or clutch-ness or intangibles or whatever, it's just something we seem to lack. Costs us a bit over 3 points a year over average, almost 6 compared to the good teams. Can make a big difference in seeding or even be the difference between making the playoffs or missing. So far, this year is looking worse, but it's early still. Unfortunately, being that it's so difficult to define, it'll be difficult to correct. I doubt we can single out any players that are particularly good or bad. "Get better overall" is probably the easiest way to go. At least if that doesn't correct the problem, it should lessen the impact. Maybe look to swap some of our replaceable players with similar or better players from teams that have been good at holding leads (like the Rangers...94-1-3).

Canucks are even worse than we are at holding a 3rd period lead, and we're near the top in 3rd period comebacks. I almost hope we're behind after 2 tonight.

He was 20 last year, and no, 6 weeks injured does not excuse 6 months of mediocre performance. Laziness is an over-used criticism, but it was hardly the prevailing opinion anyway. His season last year was disappointing, whether due to laziness or something else. Furthermore, 5 goals in 18 games and a bit under a point/game is hardly anything to get excited about (nor is at as good as Nyquist was). He's been good lately with 3g, 8p in his last 4 games, but he also had just 2g, 7p in his first 14. He needs to keep up his play for considerably longer before we re-annoint him our future superstar. Assuming he stays healthy and plays 70-ish games, anything less than around 30g should be considered just as disappointing as his first year. And I wouldn't bother getting excited unless he starts putting up Pulkkinen-type numbers.

Over the last 5 games, since Tatar and Nyquist have been together on the 3rd line, our 5v5 scoring was a full goal higher than it was over the first 19 games. Overall scoring half a goal higher. And that's with only scoring 1 against FLA. Tatar and Nyquist had 4 goals in those games. From their history, I don't think you can expect much better. Not to say they shouldn't be in the top 6, but having them on the third line hasn't been hurting. Could even say it's helped.

I think making the nets bigger would open up the ice. Thing is, you're talking many, many millions of dollars in renovations plus millions in lost ticket revenue all in the hope that TV revenue increases enough to recoup that cost. Changing goalie equipment is the best place to start, but if it doesn't work I think changing the nets is the next option.

I don't think anyone's looking for high-flying offense and 7-6 games. Even in the 80s teams were averaging less than 4 gpg. If they do some things to bump up scoring a little, from 2.5 to say around 3.5, I don't think it makes anything gimicky or makes the goals any less special. And looking at it the other way, it would make good goaltending performances a little more special. These days a goalie can allow just 1 goal or even post a shutout without even playing that well. Changing the size of the rinks isn't feasible. Moving the zone lines around I don't think would be enough. But change the nets a bit, make perimeter shots more dangerous, it forces defenses to be more aggressive and opens things up. Defenses would have to focus more on skill and quickness over structure and discipline. I think it would make things more exciting. But then, the pessimist in me thinks it would just increase the prevalence of neutral-zone trapping...

For the record, no one needs to be waived once Jurco comes back. Players on conditioning assignment are still part of the active roster. We only need to move someone when Quincey comes back, or if Franzen does.

More or less what I was thinking as well. I'd prefer Larkin at center, but Richards should work too. I thought the Shea-Glen-Helm line was good the few games it was together.

I hate it. The D and the slash look so minor league or arena football to me. To each his own I guess.

Pulkkinen isn't on the team to have an above average % of shot attempts on net. Score goals maybe would be more accurate, and so far he's doing that pretty well. I don't want to turn this into a "Pulkkinen deserves to be unfairly criticized because he isn't as good overall as Larkin" debate. First you gave Larkin a pass because "he hits the net like 6 times a game" (which is a stat, btw, just a vague and incorrect one), now he gets a pass because of his 200ft game. I'm saying we shouldn't be nitpicking BS at all, especially not for players who are producing fairly well. And no, stats say what they say. What you mean is you can try to interpret them in a way that supports the conclusion you want. Like dismissing all of Pulkkinen's positive metrics. They don't fit your conclusion, so obviously it must be because of everything else other than Pulkkinen himself.

I was going to bring up WPG goaltending in the goalie thread, Pavelec hasn't been very good anyway. I think it does create a nice potential match, but I think the Hamonic situation is going to get most of the Jets situation. Not sure Buffy would be something NYI would want, they'd probably want Trouba, maybe Myers. Crazy over-payment. Maybe I'd consider it if they added Ladd, though I'd push for Wheeler.

You're right, he's definitely not the only one. Half the team it seems sometimes. Your comment on Larkin is a great illustration. Larkin has 11 more shots on goal, in ~95 minutes more ice time. Missed 23 and had 22 blocked out of 100 attempts. Pulks has missed 26 and had 21 blocked on 91 attempts. It's not really that big a difference. Pulkkinen actually gets shots on net at a higher rate than Larkin, just a bit lower a percentage of shot attempts hitting the net. Likely the only reason anyone's talking about him missing the net is the one game where he missed like 5 and Mickey made a comment about it. Looking back at last year he missed 30 of 135. He doesn't have any real problem with accuracy, it's just faulty perception. May never be among the most accurate shooters, but he isn't particularly bad and makes up for it in volume. The bolded above is just an over-used cliche people tend to resort to when stats don't agree with them. Vague enough to be practically non-falsifiable. Same thing people did with Franzen. I would argue that offensive pressure and being a threat to score has value, even if he doesn't make the scoresheet, and that his corsi stats suggest that he is contributing to keeping pucks out of our net.

The flaw in your argument, Frank, is assuming that advanced stats and "the eye test" are different things. All of it is just information. Some information is more easily quantified and represented numerically, but it's still all just information. There is no competition between the two. More information is always better. I understand you not wanting to see a bunch of graphs and tables, but if the information is relevant to the discussion then it belongs in the discussion, regardless of how much it may annoy you.

My data was pulled from war-on-ice game summaries. From last season only and includes playoffs. Generally have two forwards with him at a time which is why his linemate's total time is about double. Works out to roughly 700 minutes of 5v5 time. I didn't pull the breakdowns for his linemates during his PP time, but I think we can safely assume that almost all of that would count as a scoring role. All-in-all it accounts for about 771 of the 785 total minutes he played last year. I don't remember your numbers off the top of my head, but I think they were somewhat close to mine. 32% with Sheahan, 30 with Miller, 27 with Glendening, 23 with Tatar...

No, not really. Usually about 10-15 players get picked up off waivers every year. It's normal player management.