Unofficial 2013-2014 Armchair GM Thread

[mr grieves]

Except faceoffs aren't really adequate either.

No and I didn't mean to imply that it was a good measurement of possession as a whole but rather that it's a very good statistic and it's  an element of puck possession. So the reason it gets a lot of play is that while it may not be comprehensive it's at the very least accurate and accepted about what it purports to measure.

Fair enough. And I didn't mean to suggest that Corsi was the greatest measure of possession either. And, yes, FO stats do very well in measuring how many faceoffs you win. But it does seems FO Win% is often taken to measure something other than it does -- on the strength of his numbers there, Bozak's thought to be a good fit for third-line defensive center; on the strength of those numbers, Carlyle evidently thought he was the ideal center on the top PP unit -- and that's what I find objectionable.

As far as I can see, he doesn't make it very hard to move through the neutral zone, he doesn't enter or get you into the offensive zone very well, and he doesn't take or make passes in the zone very well. All those deficiencies in his game are elements of possession that count against a center winning a few more than 50 in any 100 faceoffs.

 

[Kin]

Fair enough. And I didn't mean to suggest that Corsi was the greatest measure of possession either. And, yes, FO stats do very well in measuring how many faceoffs you win. But it does seems FO Win% is often taken to measure something other than it does -- on the strength of his numbers there, Bozak's thought to be a good fit for third-line defensive center; on the strength of those numbers, Carlyle evidently thought he was the ideal center on the top PP unit -- and that's what I find objectionable.

I don't know if those two judgments are just about face-off numbers. I think most people who think that about Bozak believe he plays a pretty sound defensive game regardless and I think his presence on the PP was more about Grabo having a terrible year and Bozak's chemistry with the other guys on the top PP unit(that said I think that FO% is pretty important on the PP considering the other team can just ice the puck if the win the draw).

So ideal? No. But the best of a bad group of options maybe.

 

[mr grieves]

Fair enough. And I didn't mean to suggest that Corsi was the greatest measure of possession either. And, yes, FO stats do very well in measuring how many faceoffs you win. But it does seems FO Win% is often taken to measure something other than it does -- on the strength of his numbers there, Bozak's thought to be a good fit for third-line defensive center; on the strength of those numbers, Carlyle evidently thought he was the ideal center on the top PP unit -- and that's what I find objectionable.

I don't know if those two judgments are just about face-off numbers. I think most people who think that about Bozak believe he plays a pretty sound defensive game regardless and I think his presence on the PP was more about Grabo having a terrible year and Bozak's chemistry with the other guys on the top PP unit(that said I think that FO% is pretty important on the PP considering the other team can just ice the puck if the win the draw).

So ideal? No. But the best of a bad group of options maybe.

Except that his chemistry with other top line players is a myth and his inability to take or make a pass while on PP results in as many icings as his faceoff wins prevent.

But, yes, if you need a reliable and accurate stat that has something to do with possession, faceoffs might be the best of a sorry lot. 

 

[Britishbulldog]

Not that I wouldn't love more center depth but I think people are overestimating the value of face offs -- perhaps in part because they are just so easy to measure.  They make a difference but the difference is minor compared in the context of a player's overall skill set.  Again, I'd rather optimize first for other factors, like overall puck possession, which seems to have a bigger impact than just face offs.  Having said that, I'll take face offs as a bonus.

Well, the thing is, faceoffs have a pretty significant impact on puck possession. The more faceoffs you win, the more you start out the play with the puck. I'm not saying they're the end all and be all, but, they are important. One key win late in game 7, and the Leafs would have been playing in the 2nd round. With Bozak out, the team only had one guy they felt confident in on the draw, and that's a problem. I agree that puck possession is an area of concern, but being more proficient at the draw is one way to help address that issue.

What I have noticed is the faceoffs are usually 'won' by the wingers.  With the Leafs, there were various times when the center pulled the puck back, to the side or was in a scrum only to have the other teams forwards win the puck battle with the Leafs.

Even with my son's AAA team, without strong wingers, I have seen many won faceoffs 'lost'. 

 

[sneakyray]

if they are both bought out this summer who would you rather have and why...brad richards or vinny lecavelier?

 

[princedpw]

Not that I wouldn't love more center depth but I think people are overestimating the value of face offs -- perhaps in part because they are just so easy to measure.  They make a difference but the difference is minor compared in the context of a player's overall skill set.  Again, I'd rather optimize first for other factors, like overall puck possession, which seems to have a bigger impact than just face offs.  Having said that, I'll take face offs as a bonus.

Well, the thing is, faceoffs have a pretty significant impact on puck possession. The more faceoffs you win, the more you start out the play with the puck. I'm not saying they're the end all and be all, but, they are important.

We both agree that faceoff percentage of a center lies somewhere between insignificant and end all, be all. 

When searching for a center, I would not make it a major criterion.  All other things being equal, I'd use it to break a tie but that is about it.  I've heard it's effect on puck possession is relatively small because the difference in faceoff percentages is typically small so that over the course of an entire game, there may be a 1 to 2 faceoff difference between great and average faceoff players.  Moreover, where the faceoff is and what the players do after it is won or lost is more important.

One key win late in game 7, and the Leafs would have been playing in the 2nd round.

Or not because the leafs suck at clearing the defensive zone. 

And on the other hand, one key anything else could have won it too.

 

[princedpw]

Except faceoffs aren't really adequate either.

No and I didn't mean to imply that it was a good measurement of possession as a whole but rather that it's a very good statistic and it's  an element of puck possession. So the reason it gets a lot of play is that while it may not be comprehensive it's at the very least accurate and accepted about what it purports to measure.

See, I think the reason it gets a lot of play is that it is easy to measure and there is a good story as to why it is important.  I think people make more of it than it is -- make more of it than what it is:  a tiny differential in who starts with possession for a few seconds or less.

 

[Kin]

Except that his chemistry with other top line players is a myth and his inability to take or make a pass while on PP results in as many icings as his faceoff wins prevent.

But, yes, if you need a reliable and accurate stat that has something to do with possession, faceoffs might be the best of a sorry lot.

Just for the record when i said the best of a bad group of options I was referring to Bozak's role on the first PP unit, not the face-off statistic.

I think you're exaggerating Bozak's deficiencies. Even if you want to call it a familiarity with Kessel/Lupul as opposed to chemistry, Bozak still produced at a rate that would work out to 21 goals and 50 points over an 82 game season. Considering his play on the PK and his ability to win face-offs I don't think you're anywhere close in thinking a player like that is only worth 2-2.5 million on the open market.

 

[Kin]

See, I think the reason it gets a lot of play is that it is easy to measure and there is a good story as to why it is important.  I think people make more of it than it is -- make more of it than what it is:  a tiny differential in who starts with possession for a few seconds or less.

I don't agree. You say that what the players do after the face-off is more important and while there's an element of truth to that I think it ignores the basic reality that when the other team has the puck you're put in a reactive position and there's really only so much your play controls matters. If you've got a key face-off on a powerplay and you lose it you can do your best to play the boards but a good defenseman will clear the puck and you can lose up to 1/6th of a powerplay on one play.

And, when I say there's an element of truth, I mean...nobody's saying otherwise. Nobody is saying that David Steckel, if he were back near the top of the league on face-offs, is a better choice for the first line than a guy like Malkin on the strength of that. But being good at face-offs makes a center, I think, significantly more versatile and valuable than one of relatively equal skill who isn't.

 

[bustaheims]

And, when I say there's an element of truth, I mean...nobody's saying otherwise. Nobody is saying that David Steckel, if he were back near the top of the league on face-offs, is a better choice for the first line than a guy like Malkin on the strength of that. But being good at face-offs makes a center, I think, significantly more versatile and valuable than one of relatively equal skill who isn't.

That's really what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the team should focus solely on guys that win draws above all else, but, rather, than it is probably to their advantage in terms of actually winning games on the ice to choose to slightly less "skilled" player who is highly proficient on the draw than the slightly more skilled guy who is not. For instance, between, a 50ish point guy with a ~55% faceoff winning percentage and a 60ish point guy with a ~45% faceoff percentage, I'd take the 50 point guy, because those faceoff are likely to have a larger impact on the team's record at the end of the season than the 10ish points would.

 

[Kin]

Also, if I may, there are two quotes here that I think are interesting here:

I've heard it's effect on puck possession is relatively small because the difference in faceoff percentages is typically small so that over the course of an entire game, there may be a 1 to 2 faceoff difference between great and average faceoff players.

 

See, I think the reason it gets a lot of play is that it is easy to measure and there is a good story as to why it is important.

I wrestled with the first one for a while too. The difference between the best centre in the league on the draw(Bergeron at 62.1%) and the worst(Stephan Gionta at 35.1%) isn't small but at 27 possessions per 100 draws you're probably only talking about 5 or so possessions per game. Not in and of itself a massive difference.

However, if you think about it, the reason I think it's a bigger deal than you're making it out to be lies in the second quote. It's not easy to measure. Or, rather, the measurement we have doesn't necessarily do a good job of expressing the ability that we're looking for because it doesn't factor in things like who they're facing.

Take a guy like Sidney Crosby. How many times this season did the other team have him shadowed by their best defensive centre? How many draws, therefore, did he take against someone who's likely to be among the better face-off guys on the other team? If he can do that and still win them at the percentage he does the impact of it can't just be measured by the few possessions per 100 it creates but also by the improved odds every other centre on the team has to win a draw if they're facing someone who's less good.

The mirror of that is someone like Kadri. If Kadri is going up against someone who's bad on the draw he might win 5 or even 6 out of 10 but if he's losing 7 or 8 out of ten against someone who's good that can create a significant disadvantage for his line on a game by game basis.

Where this all has it's real impact, I think, is on certain crucial situations. Let's say you have a centre who's bad at them. Well, if we're labouring under the impression that coaches care about winning face-offs think then having a player that you can't put out there for important face-offs puts pressure on every other centre on the team. If a coach thinks he needs to win a face-off and has to choose between someone who's 2-8 on the night or someone who's 8-2 but is also dead tired what does he do? It's easy enough to say just play without the puck but 30 seconds at the end of the game while a man down can be crucial.

 

[mr grieves]

Except that his chemistry with other top line players is a myth and his inability to take or make a pass while on PP results in as many icings as his faceoff wins prevent.

But, yes, if you need a reliable and accurate stat that has something to do with possession, faceoffs might be the best of a sorry lot.

[...]

I think you're exaggerating Bozak's deficiencies. Even if you want to call it a familiarity with Kessel/Lupul as opposed to chemistry, Bozak still produced at a rate that would work out to 21 goals and 50 points over an 82 game season. Considering his play on the PK and his ability to win face-offs I don't think you're anywhere close in thinking a player like that is only worth 2-2.5 million on the open market.

First, the difference between familiarity and chemistry is something my ex-girlfriends could tell you about. Mistaking one for the other is to be avoided, as it can lead to all sorts of terrible investments. You know, like Tyler Bozak.

Second, on pace for 50 points this season isn't nothing. But in previous seasons where 82 games were actually played, and with the same elite scorer on the wing, Bozak managed 32 and 47 points. If we assume the 50 points this season, that's an average of 43 points. And that production makes him about as appealing a center as Matt Stajan in the contract year the Leafs traded him (cap hit on his next contract: $3.5m).

Whether Bozak can be had for it or not, a player who can manage around 45 points with Phil Kessel on his wing surely can be had for $2-2.5m. Heck, we had someone doing it at a $1.5m cap hit for the last two seasons.

I don't doubt that Tyler Bozak will likely command more than $3.5m on the open market, which is why the Leafs will sign him by early July or won't sign him at all.

 

[Jalili]

if they are both bought out this summer who would you rather have and why...brad richards or vinny lecavelier?

Lecavalier for certain.. in part because of the allure of having a skilled 6'4 center.

But also because of how lousy Richards was this year - which his numbers don't quite reflect how bad he was.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

See, I think the reason it gets a lot of play is that it is easy to measure and there is a good story as to why it is important.  I think people make more of it than it is -- make more of it than what it is:  a tiny differential in who starts with possession for a few seconds or less.

I don't agree. You say that what the players do after the face-off is more important and while there's an element of truth to that I think it ignores the basic reality that when the other team has the puck you're put in a reactive position and there's really only so much your play controls matters. If you've got a key face-off on a powerplay and you lose it you can do your best to play the boards but a good defenseman will clear the puck and you can lose up to 1/6th of a powerplay on one play.

And, when I say there's an element of truth, I mean...nobody's saying otherwise. Nobody is saying that David Steckel, if he were back near the top of the league on face-offs, is a better choice for the first line than a guy like Malkin on the strength of that. But being good at face-offs makes a center, I think, significantly more versatile and valuable than one of relatively equal skill who isn't.

Exactly

 

[Kin]

First, the difference between familiarity and chemistry is something my ex-girlfriends could tell you about. Mistaking one for the other is to be avoided, as it can lead to all sorts of terrible investments. You know, like Tyler Bozak.

Again, I'm just putting forth why Bozak was probably the best choice to be the centre on the #1 PP unit. Kudos on the joke though.

Second, on pace for 50 points this season isn't nothing. But in previous seasons where 82 games were actually played, and with the same elite scorer on the wing, Bozak managed 32 and 47 points. If we assume the 50 points this season, that's an average of 43 points. And that production makes him about as appealing a center as Matt Stajan in the contract year the Leafs traded him (cap hit on his next contract: $3.5m).

A few problems there. One, it's a little misleading about Bozak's career numbers. That season of 32 points was his first full season in the league and those 43 points came in 73 games. For his career, Bozak's scored at a .56 PPG pace which puts him at 46 points per 82 games for the course of his career including what looks to be a fairly aberrant first full year/sophomore slump and we all know that guys tend to get paid on what they just did.

Secondly, I think it ignores the very legitimate growth Phil Kessel has also seen during that time period. The Phil Kessel of Bozak's 32 point season scored 32 goals, 64 points(he also wasn't joined at the hip to Bozak as he played a good stretch of that season with Tim Brent/Joey Crabb although that has quite a bit to do with Bozak's struggles that season). By contrast this year's Phil Kessel scored at a 89 point pace. So he's not really the same elite scorer.

Thirdly, I'd argue that Bozak is a significantly better face-off guy/defensive player than Matt Stajan and a touch better of a goal scorer. So when you add that up combined with the natural inflation of salaries as the cap increases then I still think the math says Bozak is "worth" 4 million or more on the open market. Again, I'm not saying I necessarily think the Leafs should give him that money, just that I don't think you're going to be able to get another player, absent growing one yourself, to contribute what Bozak does for less than that. 

Whether Bozak can be had for it or not, a player who can manage around 45 points with Phil Kessel on his wing surely can be had for $2-2.5m. Heck, we had someone doing it at a $1.5m cap hit for the last two seasons.

But that's just not real. That's like saying that you can find a guy who can score 80+ points for 3.75 million because Philadelphia had Claude Giroux do it for the last few years. RFA salaries are artificially low.

Now, if what you're saying is that the Leafs can replace Bozak internally then, you know, fair enough although I think that's not accurate.

I don't doubt that Tyler Bozak will likely command more than $3.5m on the open market, which is why the Leafs will sign him by early July or won't sign him at all.

Well, I suppose where we got tangled is that when you said that 4 million dollars is almost twice as much as any measure suggests he's worth I didn't realize the one measure we weren't considering is what a player of his skill level/production will fetch as a UFA.

 

[Corn Flake]

And, when I say there's an element of truth, I mean...nobody's saying otherwise. Nobody is saying that David Steckel, if he were back near the top of the league on face-offs, is a better choice for the first line than a guy like Malkin on the strength of that. But being good at face-offs makes a center, I think, significantly more versatile and valuable than one of relatively equal skill who isn't.

That's really what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the team should focus solely on guys that win draws above all else, but, rather, than it is probably to their advantage in terms of actually winning games on the ice to choose to slightly less "skilled" player who is highly proficient on the draw than the slightly more skilled guy who is not. For instance, between, a 50ish point guy with a ~55% faceoff winning percentage and a 60ish point guy with a ~45% faceoff percentage, I'd take the 50 point guy, because those faceoff are likely to have a larger impact on the team's record at the end of the season than the 10ish points would.

Agree and to me it's not about comparing your 50% guy vs. the rest of the league. The big advantage for the team with the better faceoff man is when they go head to head. As we saw in the Leafs vs. Bruins series, you take a 65% faceoff guy and put him up against a 45% faceoff guy and the 65% guy is going to do far better than just 65%.

in game 7, Boston's faceoff %'s were:
Campbell: 60%
Kelly: 86%
Bergeron: 73%
Krejci: 64%
Peverly: 78%
Lucic: 50%

That is complete domination. Only Komarov got to 50% for the Leafs, and he only took two faceoffs.

Kadri is normally a 43% faceoff man and was reduced to 22% in that game and 31.6% over the course of the series.  Being a little bit weak on faceoffs over the course of a season becomes a massive disadvantage in an isolated 7 game series.

 

[Tigger]

Seems the Richards buyout rumours are still percolating, wonder what it would take to get him in Blue and White if he's free?

 

[louisstamos]

Seems the Richards buyout rumours are still percolating, wonder what it would take to get him in Blue and White if he's free?

A Connolly-esque contract? (2 x $4.75)

 

[Deebo]

I wonder if they would wait to see how he does next season before making a decision on a buy out.

I think they can re-sign their RFAs to fill the roster with the cap room they have for next season and I expect the cap to go up significantly after next season. As bad as people are saying Richards was this season, he still was close to top 50 in points this season.

 

[Big Daddy]

Here is too hoping Joe Thornton plays his last game tonight as a Shark and that he winds up being Kessel's center for the next few years.