Systems Analyst: Wings score because Sens line changes were hilarious

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I've linked to this blog from time to time because I think Justin Bourne does a great breakdown on some of the finer points of defensive responsibility in hockey. Things that happen so fast they're often easy to miss watching realtime.

He shows that it's usually not just because of the goalie or last D-man that the other team scored a goal. It often involves multiple breakdowns earlier in the play.

Anyway, this one breaks down a couple Wings goals against the Senators, and basically mocks the Senators because they all started by making a line change when they shouldn't have.

The Ottawa Senators gave up three even-strength goals to the Detroit Red Wings (as well as an empty-netter to Daniel Alfredsson in his return), and each one of those three can be traced back to the exact same issue: line changes. Yes, in an NHL game. Multiple times.

The second goal nicely highlights a bad turnover by Karlsson followed by Tatar pulling a nice drag move on Karlsson, who makes a half-assed effort at defense.

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/12/02/systems-analyst-the-ottawa-senators-line-changes-against-the-red-wings-were-hilarious/#more-87877

[dobbles 252]

i do enjoy his posts.

however, i think the 3rd goal is not really valid. sure a change happened, but the goal was because of the atrocious 1 on 3 defense the sens played. even with that slow change, they still had 3 back to cover helm, smith, and miller if they needed to. not to mention, it should have never even gotten that far.

i just think the change was a scapegoat in that sequence.

[rrasco 1,312]

I like this guy's posts. I don't have time to read all of that right now, but it really does give you the down and dirty on why things happened.

Edited December 5, 2013 by rrasco

[wings87 1,290]

I think it's an oversimplification. While saying that though, if every game is analyzed a pattern will emerge that points to most goals being scored when you take advantage of your opponents mistakes.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

i do enjoy his posts.

however, i think the 3rd goal is not really valid. sure a change happened, but the goal was because of the atrocious 1 on 3 defense the sens played. even with that slow change, they still had 3 back to cover helm, smith, and miller if they needed to. not to mention, it should have never even gotten that far.

i just think the change was a scapegoat in that sequence.

Agreed. And he stops just short of saying as much. It's probably that implicating the line change made three goals fit neatly under one topic.

But on that third goal the line change would've been fine had they pressured Helm at all instead of giving him the redline and a crazy amount of room to work. If Borowiecki steps up to doubleteam Helm with Neil, this goal never happens. If Corvo wasn't hypnotized by the puck and actually looked for trailers, this goal probably never happens.

This is my favorite image from the breakdown.

You'd think Helm was flying and pulled a crazy move to burn three guys in a row. Then you watch the replay and realize how lazy that coverage was. Helm wasn't even skating that hard.

[thegerkin 189]

I read the article. He obviously understands the game from ice-level, which is great. His presentation is nice too.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I read the article. He obviously understands the game from ice-level, which is great. His presentation is nice too.

Agreed. He played hockey in college and in the minors.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=77536

I think he breaks it down pretty well and is usually pretty funny too.