Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 168 of 168 FirstFirst ... 68118158166167168
Results 2,506 to 2,520 of 2520
  1. #2506
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    What exactly has Pulock done to make you think that, though? He has 16 games of NHL experience.

    I know he was a favorite of yours at the draft but....

  2. #2507
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,873
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    What exactly has Pulock done to make you think that, though? He has 16 games of NHL experience.

    I know he was a favorite of yours at the draft but....
    I mean, he got hurt in game 1 in the NHL last year and then he just recovered the year in the AHL ... the islanders were conservative with him ... 15 goals and 46 points in 55 games ... 100mph shot and right handed. Will be a top 4 on the islanders and will be a baller this year. Played well in the playoffs when called up. I am OK if he is average on defense.

    Provorov Pulock
    Sanheim Myers
    Ghost Hagg

    Would be absurd

  3. #2508
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    Im not all that impressed with Pulock, we'll see. Still not a great skater. Certainly dont see him as a top pair guy. I like Myers and Sanheim significantly more.

    To me his best attribute will end up being his PP ability and Id take Provorov, Ghost and Sanheim over him in that areas as well.

  4. #2509
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,873
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    Im not all that impressed with Pulock, we'll see. Still not a great skater. Certainly dont see him as a top pair guy. I like Myers and Sanheim significantly more.

    To me his best attribute will end up being his PP ability and Id take Provorov, Ghost and Sanheim over him in that areas as well.
    I agree with me wanting Provorov, ghost, Myers, and Sanheim before anything is 100% ... but if we have hakstol for 3 more year, the more shooters on the back end the better ... know what I mean? I'd load it up with defenseman that can shoot because the better they are the more we will theoretically score. Morin still can't get it on net consistently. And having a cannon of a right handed shot, Provorov having proven he can carry around the worst defensive partner for the money in the league ... that is where I go with it.

  5. #2510
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    Probably the last free article Charlie is gonna have now that he's with the Athletic.

    Great stuff as always, and he makes some interesting points, specifically how the low-to-high system is not a terrible system if used properly.


    Give it a read (btw some of the charts have a scroll bar at the bottom of them so make sure to scroll over to see the full data):

    https://theathletic.com/93906/2017/0...es-in-2017-18/

  6. #2511
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,721
    Quote Originally Posted by castan_b View Post
    I agree with me wanting Provorov, ghost, Myers, and Sanheim before anything is 100% ... but if we have hakstol for 3 more year, the more shooters on the back end the better ... know what I mean? I'd load it up with defenseman that can shoot because the better they are the more we will theoretically score. Morin still can't get it on net consistently. And having a cannon of a right handed shot, Provorov having proven he can carry around the worst defensive partner for the money in the league ... that is where I go with it.
    Right, but this is essentially throwing good money after bad.

    Let's assume that having Pulock, Ghost, Provorov, Sanheim, Myers, etc. on the point increases your Low-To-High shooting percentage by something like 200% over the league-wide average, so you're shooting something like 0.95%*3 = 2.85% from a low-to-high shot. That's an insanely high, unsustainable shooting percentage from that area, but whatever.

    The Flyers took (thank, Charlie) about 1,000 unblocked shot attempts from that area last season (including low-to-high, NZ, miscellaneous, other, etc.), which would mean that instead of ~9.5 goals, we'd get 28.5.

    However, if you just reduced those point shots by 50% (so we're down to ~500) and converted them into chances within the box (home plate, behind the net, circles, etc.) via smarter passing and less emphasis on the Low-To-High, you'd realize 500*.05 = 25 goals assuming even average performance from those areas. Hell, if you assume that those kind of shots generate more rebounds (they do) or that the players getting to those areas (Voracek, Giroux, Patrick, Konecny, Weal, etc.) are better than average (they are), those numbers are even more impressive.

    The difference is that generating higher quality shots is sustainable; shooting ~3% from unblocked point attempts is not, even with Pulock, Ghost, Provorov & Sanheim blasting away. Fix the structural issue with the offense and a lot of our problems will go away.

  7. #2512
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    Right, but this is essentially throwing good money after bad.

    Let's assume that having Pulock, Ghost, Provorov, Sanheim, Myers, etc. on the point increases your Low-To-High shooting percentage by something like 200% over the league-wide average, so you're shooting something like 0.95%*3 = 2.85% from a low-to-high shot. That's an insanely high, unsustainable shooting percentage from that area, but whatever.

    The Flyers took (thank, Charlie) about 1,000 unblocked shot attempts from that area last season (including low-to-high, NZ, miscellaneous, other, etc.), which would mean that instead of ~9.5 goals, we'd get 28.5.

    However, if you just reduced those point shots by 50% (so we're down to ~500) and converted them into chances within the box (home plate, behind the net, circles, etc.) via smarter passing and less emphasis on the Low-To-High, you'd realize 500*.05 = 25 goals assuming even average performance from those areas. Hell, if you assume that those kind of shots generate more rebounds (they do) or that the players getting to those areas (Voracek, Giroux, Patrick, Konecny, Weal, etc.) are better than average (they are), those numbers are even more impressive.

    The difference is that generating higher quality shots is sustainable; shooting ~3% from unblocked point attempts is not, even with Pulock, Ghost, Provorov & Sanheim blasting away. Fix the structural issue with the offense and a lot of our problems will go away.

    Exactly, which is the point Charlie made in his first article for the Athletic.


    Having offensive defensemen is great, but not so they can fire away from the point at will; it's great, because they can make plays from the blue line aside from firing away at will. Guys like Ghost, Sanheim, Provorov, Myers and even Hagg to an extent have the ability to make things happen from the blue line, whether it be running give and go's with forwards, sneaking backdoor into those HD areas, deking at the blue line and shooting or passing from HD areas or walking the line to find a shooting lane.


    In essence, it's gives you more "forwards" AKA skill players on the ice to make plays and make things harder on the opponent. Teams can't just collapse on your forwards, because now they have one or two other dangerous players on the ice to worry about, and if they still decide to collapse, your defensemen can make a play.



    As Charlie says in his article, and this is an important point: the Low-High system isn't something that can't work. PIT, CBJ, TOR, CHI, MIN all used it and were among the top scorers in the league at 5v5. BUT it shouldn't be your primary means of shooting. These teams were also creating chances and shots from behind the net and the home plate area. So if the majority of your shots are coming from the point, you're doing it wrong. Low-High systems are good for relieving pressure down low on the forwards, as a safety valve if you will, and a way to spread out the opponent to create passing and shooting lanes. In other words, use it to open up the behind-the-net plays and home plate plays, because, as Charlie noted, these are the areas from which the most quality shots and chances occur.



    I'm not saying never shoot from the point. Luck still plays a role, and yes, certain players like Ghost who has a bomb or Provorov/Sanheim/Myers who are better than average at getting pucks on net and creating rebounds can still create goals that way. It shouldn't be completely abandoned, it just shouldn't be your PRIMARY way of creating shots and chances.



    Hakstol and the coaching staff have had a LONG off-season to think over this issue. I really hope they've looked at this data or even just used common sense and come to the conclusion that a much greater emphasis must be placed on getting to and creating from the more dangerous areas on the ice. Tell the defensemen to stop bombing away from distance so frequently and work on getting to the areas that give you more bang for your buck. There's more than enough skill on this team to accomplish this now.

  8. #2513
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    Scott Cullen with his top 300 scorer projection for this coming season:

    http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-spea...orers-1.848975


    I'd hope for more out of Couts, TK and Patrick. I'd be satisfied with the rest. Not overjoyed, but satisfied.


    In all honesty, though, I'm more interested in how they produce at 5v5 than their raw totals. Can G and Jake produce at top line rates, top 6 rates at the very least? That's the more important question to me.


    Raw totals matter, but 5v5 production carries more weight IMO.

  9. #2514
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    Right, but this is essentially throwing good money after bad.

    Let's assume that having Pulock, Ghost, Provorov, Sanheim, Myers, etc. on the point increases your Low-To-High shooting percentage by something like 200% over the league-wide average, so you're shooting something like 0.95%*3 = 2.85% from a low-to-high shot. That's an insanely high, unsustainable shooting percentage from that area, but whatever.

    The Flyers took (thank, Charlie) about 1,000 unblocked shot attempts from that area last season (including low-to-high, NZ, miscellaneous, other, etc.), which would mean that instead of ~9.5 goals, we'd get 28.5.

    However, if you just reduced those point shots by 50% (so we're down to ~500) and converted them into chances within the box (home plate, behind the net, circles, etc.) via smarter passing and less emphasis on the Low-To-High, you'd realize 500*.05 = 25 goals assuming even average performance from those areas. Hell, if you assume that those kind of shots generate more rebounds (they do) or that the players getting to those areas (Voracek, Giroux, Patrick, Konecny, Weal, etc.) are better than average (they are), those numbers are even more impressive.

    The difference is that generating higher quality shots is sustainable; shooting ~3% from unblocked point attempts is not, even with Pulock, Ghost, Provorov & Sanheim blasting away. Fix the structural issue with the offense and a lot of our problems will go away.
    Welcome back ace.

    Point still remains, it does help to have shooters from the point. And that fixing the offensive problems in the system is harder than I think it looks. That does need to happen too. They are mutually exclusive.

    I didn't say it is the end-all, be-all but I did say that it would be useful to facilitate the objectives of the system. Based on the above, you'd have to agree with that fundamental sentiment. Right?

  10. #2515
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    It helps, but what Ace and I were trying to say is you shouldn't be facilitating that kind of offense in the first place. You shouldn't be placing a premium on shots from the point. I don't care if you have Al MacInnis, Shea Weber, Zedeno Chara, Al Iafrate, Sheldon Souray and Ryan Pulock as your D corps; you shouldn't want to have guys blasting away from the point at will.

    That's not offense; that's praying for rebounds, deflections and seeing eye pucks.

    Look at the great scoring defensemen in this league. Do they score from the point? Outside of Shea Weber, no, not really. Burns, Karlsson, Ghost, Shattenkirk, Hedman, Subban, Ellis; these guys score due to their ability to skate and put themselves in high danger areas. I'm not saying they never score on point shots, but many times they're finding ways to either shoot from or pass into high quality areas on the ice. That's what makes them so dangerous.


    Making tweak to the system may be a bit harder than just getting defensemen that can shoot, but you'd still be facilitating a poor strategy. In the long run, it's better to tweak the system and make it emphasize a higher quality offense than it is to facilitate a poor quality offense.


    You're just enabling a bad habit, you're not correcting the core issue. The system needs to change.

  11. #2516
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,873
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    It helps, but what Ace and I were trying to say is you shouldn't be facilitating that kind of offense in the first place. You shouldn't be placing a premium on shots from the point. I don't care if you have Al MacInnis, Shea Weber, Zedeno Chara, Al Iafrate, Sheldon Souray and Ryan Pulock as your D corps; you shouldn't want to have guys blasting away from the point at will.

    That's not offense; that's praying for rebounds, deflections and seeing eye pucks.

    Look at the great scoring defensemen in this league. Do they score from the point? Outside of Shea Weber, no, not really. Burns, Karlsson, Ghost, Shattenkirk, Hedman, Subban, Ellis; these guys score due to their ability to skate and put themselves in high danger areas. I'm not saying they never score on point shots, but many times they're finding ways to either shoot from or pass into high quality areas on the ice. That's what makes them so dangerous.


    Making tweak to the system may be a bit harder than just getting defensemen that can shoot, but you'd still be facilitating a poor strategy. In the long run, it's better to tweak the system and make it emphasize a higher quality offense than it is to facilitate a poor quality offense.


    You're just enabling a bad habit, you're not correcting the core issue. The system needs to change.
    I have been saying the system needs to change too, since last year ... it didn't. I hope it does, but that doesn't take away the fact that you need defenseman that can shoot to force the other team's wings to defend the point shot and soften them up in the high danger area.

    It isn't just a band-aide, it is why ghost caused such a turnaround on our team during his rookie year ... no one even came out to defend our defense at the point. They dared us to shoot.

    I'm failing to see why you wouldn't want both

  12. #2517
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    Quote Originally Posted by castan_b View Post
    I have been saying the system needs to change too, since last year ... it didn't. I hope it does, but that doesn't take away the fact that you need defenseman that can shoot to force the other team's wings to defend the point shot and soften them up in the high danger area.

    It isn't just a band-aide, it is why ghost caused such a turnaround on our team during his rookie year ... no one even came out to defend our defense at the point. They dared us to shoot.

    I'm failing to see why you wouldn't want both


    Teams will still dare you to shoot point shots, because 99% of them don't go in. Teams don't care if you have defensemen that like to shoot, they care if you have defensemen that will make you pay if you give them time and space. Again, guys like Burns, Karlsson, Letang, Hedman, etc. aren't dangerous because they can score from the point. They're dangerous, because they will make you pay with time and space. It's about having dynamic defensemen that can score/make plays from areas other than the point, not loading up on guys who like to shoot from the point.

    Of course you'd like both, but the emphasis needs to be placed on changing the system, not getting volume shooters from the point to further the flawed system.


    I'm not excited for guys like Sanheim and Myers because they can score on point shots, I'm excited because they can make things happen in the offensive zone with their skating and creativity. If you tell them to just continuously bomb away from the point, you're taking away part of what makes them great players, especially Sanheim.



    That's my point.

  13. #2518
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,873
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    Teams will still dare you to shoot point shots, because 99% of them don't go in. Teams don't care if you have defensemen that like to shoot, they care if you have defensemen that will make you pay if you give them time and space. Again, guys like Burns, Karlsson, Letang, Hedman, etc. aren't dangerous because they can score from the point. They're dangerous, because they will make you pay with time and space. It's about having dynamic defensemen that can score/make plays from areas other than the point, not loading up on guys who like to shoot from the point.

    Of course you'd like both, but the emphasis needs to be placed on changing the system, not getting volume shooters from the point to further the flawed system.


    I'm not excited for guys like Sanheim and Myers because they can score on point shots, I'm excited because they can make things happen in the offensive zone with their skating and creativity. If you tell them to just continuously bomb away from the point, you're taking away part of what makes them great players, especially Sanheim.



    That's my point.
    Teams absolutely care if you have a defense that can shoot. It softens up everything and forces the wings up higher. It allows for the other defenseman to slide lower for triangle advantages.

    I'm excited for guys that can both shoot (and hit the net) and that can drift down and play like a 4th or 5th forward in the zone or during the cycle.

    It is absolute madness to say 99% of teams don't care. You're dead wrong on that.

    No one is saying that you generate all your offense from the point. Not even close. You diminishing what a hard and accurate shot from the point does and saying that there are only minimalistic gains from having that available is an understatement to say the least.

    Stats on goals scored don't take into account the prescense of the threat of that cannon shot ... it is why we saw the ice open when Ghost came up.

    You're looking at the results of shots from the point and making assumptions - the ends don't always justify the means.

    Again, our forward have to be primarily responsible for creating offensively at 5 on 5 - no one is saying anything different. But saying that no one is going to defend shots from the point anymore based on their goal % of unblocked shots from the point is no way to interpret stats rationally.

  14. #2519
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,726
    We're basically saying the same thing, castan, but you're misinterpreting what I'm writing and getting hung up on some of the minor things.

    I said 99% of shots from the point don't go in, not 99% of teams don't care.

    I said teams don't care if you like to shoot, not that teams don't care if you can shoot. There's a difference. If a team had guys filled with Gudas's and Coburn's, guys who just fire away at will, no one would have much respect for that D corps and they'd stay collapsed. We witnessed that first hand for a while here.



    There's no assumptions here. The facts are that point shots are low percentage shots, so if you put less emphasis on them as a team and more emphasis on behind the net and home plate plays, you'll be more successful as an offense. I think that's a point we agree upon.



    I don't want the first instinct of the defensemen to be to shoot the puck as soon as they receive it from the point, and I don't want the system to be predicated on point shots and rebounds, let me put it that way.



    Maybe that's where the miscommunication is here. Is that more clear?

  15. #2520
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,873
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    We're basically saying the same thing, castan, but you're misinterpreting what I'm writing and getting hung up on some of the minor things.

    I said 99% of shots from the point don't go in, not 99% of teams don't care.

    I said teams don't care if you like to shoot, not that teams don't care if you can shoot. There's a difference. If a team had guys filled with Gudas's and Coburn's, guys who just fire away at will, no one would have much respect for that D corps and they'd stay collapsed. We witnessed that first hand for a while here.



    There's no assumptions here. The facts are that point shots are low percentage shots, so if you put less emphasis on them as a team and more emphasis on behind the net and home plate plays, you'll be more successful as an offense. I think that's a point we agree upon.



    I don't want the first instinct of the defensemen to be to shoot the puck as soon as they receive it from the point, and I don't want the system to be predicated on point shots and rebounds, let me put it that way.



    Maybe that's where the miscommunication is here. Is that more clear?
    Yah. Gotcha. I read it wrong. Sorry bro!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •