Does the Devil’s Defensive Unit Have Enough Offensive Talent to Compete in the Playoffs?
by Tom Stivali on Sep 23, 2010 1:26 PM EDT
in Devils Issues, Views & Analysis
Email
PrintOne thing we have heard about this offseason (besides a certain Russian winger who wears #17) is how the loss of Paul Martin, one of the Devils puck moving defensemen, would leave the Devils weaker in an area they already had their struggles with, specifically moving the puck out of their defensive zone and facilitating the start of an offensive rush.
If you are of the opinion that Henrik Tallinder does not qualify as an offensive minded defenseman then not only was Paul Martin lost, he wasn't replaced. This leaves Andy Greene standing alone surrounded by defensive minded defensemen. That is a lot of responsibility to heap onto someone that makes only $737,500 a year, especially someone who has a limited track record of NHL success. Further, as Martin Brodeur has even said, there is a different feeling to the current Devils team:
We’re looking at the playoffs. I think the atmosphere should be a little bit different. We’re going to want to win every game, but I think the big picture is somewhere that we’re going to look at more than the present every day. I know it’s kind of hard with the type of organization we have. We want to win every game. But I think we’re built for the long haul....
Well, if the Devils are looking ahead to the playoffs already they better make sure they have all the necessary weapons to make it a long playoff season. This brought a few questions to my mind including: how did teams that have made deep playoff runs in the recent past structure their defensive pairings and did those teams have ‘offensive defensemen’? I looked at the top six defensemen on each of the Stanley Cup Finals teams for the past two seasons to see how their defensive players stacked up against the current Devils roster. After the jump I will look at each defensive roster to see how those successful teams set up their minute distribution and pairings.
First, we will look at the 2008-2009 Stanley Cup Final teams:
(Editor's note: All stats were found at www.HockeyReference.com)
The Penguins defensive unit had a very even distribution of minutes over the course of the playoffs. The pairings they utilized were Sergei Gonchar/Brooks Orpik, Hal Gill/Rob Scuderi, and Kris Letang/Mark Eaton. Gill/Scuderi was the defensive shutdown pair and neither Eaton nor Orpik would be considered an offensive defenseman. The primary puck movers on the Penguins were Gonchar and Letang and both were paired with more defensive-minded players. Between the two they averaged 44 minutes on the ice per game. If the shutdown pair of Gill/Scuderi was not on the ice there was likely a pairing that could help start an offensive rush.
There was (and still is) a wealth of talent on this unit. The pairings for Detroit were Niklas Lidstrom/Brian Rafalski, Niklas Kronwall/Brad Stuart and Jonathan Erricson/Brett Lebda. The minute distribution ended up creating a top 5 instead of a top 6 in which 3 of their defensemen had substantial offensive abilities. With two shutdown pairings that could quickly turn the tables on the opposition and move from defense to offense the two-way abilities of the Red Wings defenders make me nostalgic for the days when the Devils had Scott Niedermayer, Rafalski and Scott Stevens.
The Flyers (who I personally hate more than the Rangers, in case you cared) took a different approach to minute distribution in last year's playoffs and used a 4-man rotation with Chris Pronger/Matt Carle and Braydon Coburn/Kimmo Timonen as their two primary pairings. Lukas Krajicek and Ryan Parent comprised the 3rd pairing which played limited minutes. As much as I hate to admit it, the Flyers had a very good defense last year that had four players who all added a good amount of offensive and defensive ability to the defensive unit. While I was shocked at the minutes each player logged, benches certainly do get shortened in the playoffs and the Flyers milked their veterans for as many minutes as they could.
The 2009-2010 Stanley Cup Champions used primarily a 5-man defensive rotation in last year's playoffs. Their pairings were Duncan Keith/Brett Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson/Brian Campbell with Brent Sopel taking up some minutes, primarily paired with either Jordan Hendry or Hjalmarsson. The offensive minded defensemen on this team, Keith, Campbell, and while he doesn't have a huge amount of offensive abilities I think you can include Sopel in this group. I think one of the scariest things looking at this lineup is the fact that Kim Johnsson, acquired at the trade deadline from Minnesota couldn't even participate in the playoffs because of injury, which would have helped free up more time for Keith and Campbell in more offensive situations.
Offensive defensemen aren't easy to come by. One of the likely reasons that the Devils have loaded up on defensive prospects the past two years is to try to address this problem through the draft because trading for one or signing a free agent is too large of a drain on a team's resources. They also are loaded up on prospects because by continually picking late in the first round they don't typically have access to the premium defensive prospects..
So why is it important to look at the defensive ice times/depth charts of other teams?
It's important because those teams got to where the Devils think they can get this year. The Stanley Cup Finals. The defense, as currently constituted, does not have the offensive/puck movement talent to make it there. Free agent losses of Scott Niedermayer, Brian Rafalski and now Paul Martin have never been replaced and while the team has some great shutdown defensemen, their only offensive minded defenseman is Andy Greene.
Even before Paul Martin left you could see that the team needed an additional puck moving defenseman besides Martin and Greene. Also, I don't want to shortchange Greene, but he is not in the class with some of the names on the rosters above. If a rookie doesn't stand out (Matt Taormina? Tyler Eckford? Eric Gelinas?) or a serviceable veteran isn't acquired to supplement Greene the Devils will be in trouble. Tallinder can be useful but he is a better compliment in a pairing with a offensive defenseman. Anton Volchenkov, Colin White, Bryce Salvador and Mark Fraser are all defensively focused. Of the players currently under NHL contract only Anssi Salmela (who will be out on LTIR to start the year) might have some offensive upside, but I don't think it is wise to hope that Salmela will be the solution. Like last year you won't see problems in the regular season as the Devils should be OK with their dynamic group of forwards that should help them win many games, and their defense will be stout and should be a lot tougher. The lack of offensive talent, however, will likely be exposed but they may face adversity and another quick first round exit if this problem isn't addressed.
So, as we read previews that talk about how the Devils are improved and are one of the better teams heading into the year this post is a warning that unless some areas on the team are addressed, the team could fall victim to the same fate as last year.
Now it's your turn. Can the Devils be the exeption to the rule of having 2-3 solid offensive defensemen on their team and still make a deep run in the playoffs? How much does this worry you? As always thanks for reading and InLouWeTrust!
114 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
this argument suffers from a correlation: causation problem. just because previous cup teams got offense from the defense doesn’t mean that new jersey can’t win without getting very much. furthermore, since i expect the devils to load up on forwards on their power play, we won’t see defensemen getting a lot of points because they won’t be put into a position to do so.
perhaps a more instructive place to start would be even strength points. even that i don’t really think is that helpful because of the small samples involved, and the questionable role that defensemen end up playing in offense.
Losing the past few years in the first round—especially last year—shows that they can’t win without getting offense from the defense.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
a couple guys carrying the team aside, we weren’t really getting any offense from the offense either…
True enough.
Once again, though, I think the concept of an offensive defenseman is too nebulous. I think there is some confusion amongst Devils’ fans as to what exactly someone means when they say “offensive defenseman.”
When some people say the Devils need an offensive defenseman, they’re not necessarily referring to a Green or Kaberle who are practically forwards… they’re usually referring more to a defenseman who isn’t a lead-footed pylon like Colin White. Someone who can move the puck up the ice and pitch in with a half-way decent shot to keep defenses honest.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Urbom’s got 2 assists, Corrente’s got one, Eckford scores in the rookie game 16 seconds in. There’s been 2 D on point of some PPs, JMac has been stressing zone outs, first passes, dmen up on offense. It’s a different looking team so far. And it’s looking really good.
The offensive side of the puck for the forwards is solved. There has been no acquisition of a much needed offensive defenseman after Paul Martin departed. This is a position that hasn’t been filled.
Unless the Devils sign someone (after they clear cap space) at around the minimum cap hit, or get a player of this type in a trade, a lot depends on the prospects. The prospects will be great if they adapts quickly, but not very good if they take longer than expected to adapt to the the NHL and the Devils style of play.
In Lou We Trust: SBN Blog of the New Jersey Devils
"Hockey is the only job I know where you get paid to have a nap on the day of the game." - Chico Resch
by Matthew Ventolo on Sep 23, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
i think the devils really expect tallinder to fill martin’s role, and besides the power play, i don’t think they’re wrong in thinking that he’s capable of doing it.
He’s good at making that first pass. But he only took 53 shots last season with a 7.5% shooting percentage(4 goals), and had a 0.20 assist per game average. Martin was double that at 0.41 assists per game and a 9.5% shooting percentage.
In Lou We Trust: SBN Blog of the New Jersey Devils
"Hockey is the only job I know where you get paid to have a nap on the day of the game." - Chico Resch
by Matthew Ventolo on Sep 23, 2010 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I defer.....
to Andy Boron’s assessment of Tallinder. Maybe he does play the power play in NJ, but you think after all the time he spent in Buffalo they would have utilized him there.
How so? They lost, in large part, because they couldn’t clear the puck out of the zone against an aggressive forecheck.
The best way to deal with that in the future is to have defenseman that can clear the puck out of the zone against an aggressive forecheck. No?
Should they instead stick with the same formula that hasn’t worked and hope that four times is the charm?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
this was not their problem in 2010:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/4/30/1451313/first-round-corsi-percentages-by
the best solution is to have the devils’ forwards stop shooting 4% collectively.
I’ve been thinking about this, and I think a lot of what we try and use as explanation in small sample (confidence, playoff choker/hero, chemistry) is just luck. The best teams will make their own luck and give themselves the best chance to win. Over a big sample, the Devils would have beaten the Flyers. But over a best-of-7, maybe another puck mover would have stopped that bad luck.
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree on this for the most part, stats are great tools, but I think sometimes they cloud judgment. That said, I think matchups are huge. I don’t think the Devils would have won over a larger sample vs the Flyers. Not the way the two teams were setup last year. Now the Penguins, I think they could have beaten.
Considering Leighton vs Brodeur and NJD’s shot advantage, I think NJD wins slightly in the end (kind of like how Philly was clearly outclassed in the SCF—I was surprised it took all of 6 games). But that’s off topic…
The important thing is definitely to not misinterpret stats (which admittedly I do sometimes).
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Technically, no, it’s the population size.
But I defer to the shooting percentages. The Devils, as a team, got cold & didn’t score as many as one would expect.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 23, 2010 3:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh John……..
Shooting percentages in a short series are hard to take seriously, especially when we all remember that a lot of those shots were of poor quality.
Ha! Well selection bias infers that there were other samples to choose from.
Honestly, you think the forwards poor shooting had more to do with the first round loss to the Flyers than the play of the defense?
Yeah, I do. Though, the shooting percentage is across the whole team – not just forwards.
Look at this summary by Gabe of the first round. A team would have shot an expected 6% at even strength where they shot the puck. They shot just under 3%, the worst at even strength among all 16 playoff teams. Gabe even figured out that’s about 5 fewer goals than average. That would have made a much bigger difference in the games, than if the Devils had another puck moving defenseman.
Don’t mistake me, it’s definitely a position of need. But it’s not the main reason they lost the series. The offense as a whole didn’t provide enough offense – they got cold.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 23, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
The part I disagree with is the inference that the entire team “got cold” for no reason.
That’s the problem with stats sometimes: they’re taken as evidence instead of as indicators. In this case, I think the team wide drop in shooting percentage isn’t the problem, but rather a symptom of the problem.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
the problem here is that no doubt drops like this can be easily seen in the regular season over 5 game stretches. and there’s really no way to disprove what you are saying – if the shooting percentage goes up, the team ‘must’ be doing the right things. like that montreal canadiens team that is sure to light up the league this year.
The point isn’t that the drops happen or don’t happen, it’s that there are contributing factors that are ignored when one only looks at the statistic.
If the shooting percentage goes up, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re doing the right things, but it does strongly suggest that some circumstance or circumstances have changed for the better.
like that montreal canadiens team that is sure to light up the league this year.
No need to be pedantic about it; that’s not what I’m saying at all.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
The point isn’t that the drops happen or don’t happen, it’s that there are contributing factors that are ignored when one only looks at the statistic.
On the other hand, we’ve seen that such things are not sustainable. Trying to explain why the Devils lost is essentially trying to explain how the team got unlucky (in the statistics sense).
You just try and build the best team you can and hope nothing bad happens.
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t even think it was luck. As Tom says below, they just got outplayed and their performances reflected that.
If it were luck, a longer run of matches would result in a more balanced result, or even tipped toward the Devils favor… but I think if they played 100 games the stats would be similar.
In other words, it wasn’t a statistical anomaly that would have corrected itself… it was actually indicative of their performance against that particular team for whatever reason or reasons.
I too would be interested to see how the regular season numbers compare to the postseason numbers. I suspect they’re similar.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
wow so you actually think it’s possible for one team to shoot 2.9% against another over 100 games. pure hilarity. yes, let’s compare that huge 5 game sample to the other enormous 6 game sample.
I think it’s possible for a team to under-perform expectations against an opponent over a larger sample size, yes.
Why is that so hilarious?
Your continued condescending tone is irritating, as are your continual misrepresentations of my statements.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
yeah, that’s fair (re: arrogance). i’ll knock it off.
to underperform by that much over a large sample size, imo, we would see much larger gaps in NHL talent levels than we actually do. there are teams across sports that seem to ‘have one another’s number’, but besides an overall talent gap, there’s little proof that it’s anything more than one team being lucky and one team being unlucky. another issue is that rarely do the same teams play one another in great enough samples to really judge.
i’d be surprised if the devils had similar results against the flyers next season. likewise with the penguins. it’s hard to cast either of these results from last season as anything but extreme chance.
Next season is a different animal… too much turnover.
I sincerely would like to see a comparison between the regular and post seasons. Unfortunately, I lack the time and ability to undertake such a study.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
i’m not able to do that, but you already know the answer, because you know the devils did poorly against the flyers last season.
That’s my point. If it goes beyond a 5 game series played over a week and a half and also continues in 6 prior meetings spread out over a six month period, then it strongly suggests that it isn’t just luck that would be corrected over a larger sample size but rather/also something(s) else.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
it doesn’t suggest that. 11 games is a nothing sample size in the NHL. plus there are lots of roster changes, injuries, and so forth within last year’s sample, but we can’t count this coming year’s results, for some reason.
the rangers beat the devils 6-0 during the regular season in 1994, outscoring them 24-9. meanwhile during the playoffs, they outscored new jersey 18-16. toronto outscored new jersey in 2000, but did not do so in the playoffs. and so on. it’s chance. no reason for it to continue in the playoffs, no reason for it to continue game to game.
It’s a larger sample, spread out of a longer period of time, than a 5 game series. It’s not an ideal sample, but it’s larger.
And if, in a larger sample, the “luck” is the same, then it’s got to be something in addition/besides luck.
If I challenge a friend of similar age, build and shape to a 1-on-1 basketball game and soundly defeat him, you can say it was luck. If I beat him again, you can still say it’s luck, but the argument becomes weaker. If I beat him 4 out of 5 times, it’s even less likely that it’s luck but rather some other combination of factors.
If I beat him 9 out of 11 times spread out over a six month period, the possibility of it just being luck that would get sorted out with a larger sample size becomes even less likely.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
it’s chance. no reason for it to continue in the playoffs, no reason for it to continue game to game.
Unless there’s something more to it than mere chance. Just the right combination of personnel match-up or scheming or strength vs. weakness… whatever.
I’m not disagreeing that luck doesn’t have something to do with it, nor that it isn’t often the case… I just don’t think that it is in this particular case.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I just see a disconnect in the thought process that they should have scored 3% more, but the only reasoning is luck (and you can’t really have bad luck, can you?). Why can’t they have been outplayed and that a good shutdown defense shut them down? Why is it not OK to admit that?
I understand I am being more subjective than most would like, but I will go to my grave saying that the lack of defensive talent hurt them worse than their shooting.
lack of defensive talent hurt, but the devils were gifted a ton of power plays that they didn’t score on, not to mention that philadelphia’s goaltender is a well-established below-average goalie. the devils were outplayed on the power play and the penalty kill, but they were not outplayed at even strength. that should have been a longer series had the devils gotten a modicum of good fortune.
shooting below and above average happens all the time in the regular season.
the devils were gifted a ton of power plays that they didn’t score on
That’s the disconnect, though. Why does the explanation have to be “luck?”
Occam’s Razor. They just plain got outplayed. Their poor shooting percentage was symptomatic of that, not the cause.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
how is ascribing something to a concept that’s totally nebulous ’occam’s razor’?
i suppose the habs really outplayed pittsburgh and washington.
Occam’s Razor is accepting the simplest explanation, like that they were outplayed. That’s not nebulous, it’s pretty clearly defined by the final scores, the win:loss ratio and other varied stats one might gauge the series on.
You continue to bring up Montreal as if their miracle run and goalie playing the best hockey of his life somehow negates the common sense that the Devils were simply outplayed by a Flyers squad that showed all year that they had their number.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
the problem is you are artificially limiting the sample, and you know the contents of the sample. the other problem is that 1 on 1 basketball has far, far less chance than a game of NHL hockey, and the edges in the game are far greater.
you are still having a correlation: causation problem with these posts. you don’t seem to understand that even if someone were to find that in the 6 games, the devils had a shooting percentage problem, it makes it somewhat more likely, but it’s still far from anything particularly relevant. the only way to really do anything reasonable with this is to look at samples we don’t know the contents of – look at first round playoff matchups against divisional teams over the last 10 years and see if shooting percentages between the regular season and the playoff have any correlation. i doubt you’d find any.
But the point remains the same. There’s as much luck in shooting a basketball into a hoop as there is shooting a puck into a net.
If I won one game, one could perhaps say that I got lucky and sunk a few I probably shouldn’t have. If I win again the next game, that argument loses strength. And so on.
I fail to see how looking at past match-ups of teams that aren’t the NJ Devils and Philadelphia Flyers as currently constituted would give any usable information as to why the series between those two teams turned out the way it did. That might give an “expected” result or projection, but that’s a disconnect in my mind, because one can’t predict, even in hindsight, the results of a sporting contest based on the results of other teams at other times.
We don’t have a larger sample size. We have a 5 game playoff series and 6 regular season games. I get that if one were to find a similar result in the previous 6 games it doesn’t prove anything conclusively, but it is actual evidence to support the theory, which is more than any other theory has at this point.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
But the point remains the same. There’s as much luck in shooting a basketball into a hoop as there is shooting a puck into a net.
If I won one game, one could perhaps say that I got lucky and sunk a few I probably shouldn’t have. If I win again the next game, that argument loses strength. And so on.
luck in 1 on 1 basketball converges way quicker than luck in the NHL. your extraordinarily simplistic comparison is fully worthy of the condescending attitude i showed earlier. i don’t have any 1 on 1 basketball statistics to show you, but it should be self-evident. hockey has all sorts of chance events – bounces of the puck, ice conditions, penalty calls, the goalie, rebounds, positions of the defensemen, positions of the forwards, and i can go on and on. the variables in 1 on 1 basketball are far, far, far fewer.
We don’t have a larger sample size. We have a 5 game playoff series and 6 regular season games. I get that if one were to find a similar result in the previous 6 games it doesn’t prove anything conclusively, but it is actual evidence to support the theory, which is more than any other theory has at this point.
the devils made a huge blockbuster trade. philadelphia used 3 different starting goalies this year against NJ (iirc). philadelphia changed coaches. yet somehow these are all part of the same sample, because they support your point. you don’t understand how information is gleaned from statistics – according to your method, we’d get lies or damned lies.
your extraordinarily simplistic comparison is fully worthy of the condescending attitude i showed earlier.
I’m pretty sure I can speak for the group in saying that was completely unnecessary.
hockey has all sorts of chance events – bounces of the puck, ice conditions, penalty calls, the goalie, rebounds, positions of the defensemen, positions of the forwards
The list goes on. There are types of luck that allow, say, Sidney Crosby to shoot 17% from decent average distance, or for Henrik and Daniel Sedin to suddenly go 1.3 points per game when all along they’d been point per game players (but not more), or to allow Jonathan Cheechoo to have 55+ and ~40 goal seasons, or for Jose Theodore to have a simply outstanding 2002 (?) season. You can say it’s this, or that, but there’s tons of examples to show that that sort of season-long performance, let alone 11 game performance, can easily be unsustainable. I have zero doubt over more games the Devils would have shot better than ~4%, since we’d expect regression to the mean.
by red army line on Sep 25, 2010 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions
In other words
I think elesias is trying to look at what constitutes this random variation in statistics that in short we call “luck.” I guess that’s fine and all, and certainly makes for good discussion fodder, but these things have a way of evening themselves out over time.
I guess the issue with hockey stats is that over small sample these random variations in, say, confidence, hot/cold streaks, broken sticks, etc, is important, but in too small a sample to really be quantified with any confidence. We can’t be confident that it would happen again because these things are kind of unpredictable as it is.
As a counterexample, Montreal swept Boston in 8 games in 2008, then won the first 3 games of their first round playoff series before squeaking out in 7 games. Entering the playoffs and other significant events seem to have a way of causing a change in your luck.
by red army line on Sep 25, 2010 6:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I have zero doubt over more games the Devils would have shot better than ~4%, since we’d expect regression to the mean.
I expect they would have also, but I have my doubts that it would have gotten as high as “normal”, or that the rise would have been enough to allow them to win the series, even if it were a best of 50 or 100 series.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Well, yeah. I guess since you’re arguing the opposite case I’m probably been arguing my position more strongly than it merits. The series should have been closer. I don’t think 5 games is representative of the balance between the teams at all—we’re not having this conversation if it goes 7 games.
I still think that in the long run the Devils barely edge out the Flyers.
by red army line on Sep 25, 2010 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
that’s how regression to the mean works. it just says that over time, a chance outcome will tend towards its naturally occurring probability. if i decide to flip a coin 10 times and record my results, and i start by flipping 4 heads in a row, there’s little chance that i will end up with the most likely outcome before i start (5 tails). however, if i kept flipping, i would expect the ratio of tails to heads to APPROACH 1:1.
luck in 1 on 1 basketball converges way quicker than luck in the NHL.
Luck is luck.
your extraordinarily simplistic comparison is fully worthy of the condescending attitude i showed earlier.
It’s a simplistic comparison because it’s a simplistic concept.
If you’re going to be a jerk about it, that’s on you.
i don’t have any 1 on 1 basketball statistics to show you, but it should be self-evident. hockey has all sorts of chance events – bounces of the puck, ice conditions, penalty calls, the goalie, rebounds, positions of the defensemen, positions of the forwards, and i can go on and on. the variables in 1 on 1 basketball are far, far, far fewer.
And yet the concept remains the same. If my win is attributed to luck, that argument is weakened if I do it again. And weakened further if I do it again. Does it matter that there are more variables that luck could effect in one example over another? I say no because the likelihood of luck factoring in becomes smaller and smaller with each reiteration.
the devils made a huge blockbuster trade. philadelphia used 3 different starting goalies this year against NJ (iirc). philadelphia changed coaches. yet somehow these are all part of the same sample, because they support your point.
It’s what we have to work with. There is more the same than different… quite unlike comparing different teams under different circumstances over multiple years.
you don’t understand how information is gleaned from statistics – according to your method, we’d get lies or damned lies.
I understand, I just don’t always agree with the findings when they conflict with common sense. Contrarily, you don’t understand that statistics are a tool to help explain and understand things, not a be all, end all defining function.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
i am fully aware that statistics are not a be-all account. you are unaware of how they function by saying ‘luck is luck’ when applying concepts from 1 on 1 basketball to a game that involves 19 players, only 6 of whom are out on the ice at a given time. if we had two random men play 1 on 1 basketball for 7 games to 10, we could probably figure out who is better pretty easily. i imagine there are enormous skill gaps between NBA players if they played each other 1 on 1. if we had two random NHL teams play 7 hockey games at a neutral site, we’d have a much harder time figuring out which one is actually better than the other. just look at playoff results from recent years, and make believe that you have no idea about teams’ regular season records.
It’s what we have to work with. There is more the same than different… quite unlike comparing different teams under different circumstances over multiple years.
you are arbitrarily limiting the sample because you know its contents and it supports your point. so you understand, intuitively, that there’d be absolutely no reason why those results would continue this season. alternately, they COULD continue this season. it’s just unlikely that they will.
‘having one’s number’ as an account just shows the extraordinary limitations of occam’s razor. it’s a journalist’s conclusion that makes a good story, like curses on particular teams, a baseball manager being responsible for wildly divergent results, or one player being responsible for wildly divergent results. occam’s razor has the very same correlation: causation problem that i’ve been bleating about since the first post i made in this comments section. it only makes sense when we don’t have other facts to substantiate things, but fortunately we do.
I’m not “applying concepts”, I was attempting to show that the concept of luck being the reason for one side winning over another becomes less and less likely the more iterations there are.
I’m fully aware there are more variables in a hockey game than a 1-v-1 basketball game. Would it help if I changed the example to a normal 5-v-5 game?
The point isn’t about the differences between hockey and basketball or the number of players, but the idea of luck as an explanation for the results when the results don’t line up with statistical projections.
you are arbitrarily limiting the sample because you know its contents and it supports your point.
We have a 5 game playoff series and a 6 game regular season series… how is that arbitrary? I’m not cherry-picking individual games… that’s what they played.
What I’m doing is rejecting your suggestion to look at previous divisional match-ups at other times as relevant, because they’re not.
so you understand, intuitively, that there’d be absolutely no reason why those results would continue this season. alternately, they COULD continue this season. it’s just unlikely that they will.
How do I know that, intuitively or not? There’s no guarantee that a regression to normal shot percentage for the Devils would change the overall outcome of the games or the series.
‘having one’s number’ as an account just shows the extraordinary limitations of occam’s razor.
Passing off results that disagree with statistical projections as luck just shows the extraordinary limitations of using statistics to predict sporting events.
Occam’s Razor is about dismissing just such fantastical, romantic explanations for events when there are simpler, more logical explanations available. Simple is a subjective term in this case, so I’ll rescind the usage, but not the point that “having one’s number” as an explanation when a team that by all rights should be about equal shows over the largest sample size available that they have an advantage is just as viable an explanation as “it’s just luck that will sort itself out later.”
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I’m fully aware there are more variables in a hockey game than a 1-v-1 basketball game. Would it help if I changed the example to a normal 5-v-5 game?
no. i believe since the current 7 game 1st round NBA format was instituted, there is one example of an 8 seed beating a 1 seed in the first round. that’s because basketball, as a game, has much less chance involved. you can also see this in the spread of best to worst teams in the NBA.
The point isn’t about the differences between hockey and basketball or the number of players, but the idea of luck as an explanation for the results when the results don’t line up with statistical projections.
chance (i hate the word luck in this context because it gets people all in a tizzy, it’s an extremely loaded word) is ALWAYS an explanation whether things line up with the ‘statistical projections’ or not. shutouts in the NHL, for instance.
What I’m doing is rejecting your suggestion to look at previous divisional match-ups at other times as relevant, because they’re not.
this is where i get angry, because you can prove anything by looking at arbitrary 11 game samples in any sport. the only way you learn anything through looking at numbers is to look at a lot of them, otherwise you end up begging the question, which is exactly what you are doing here. there is nothing special about the 2010 devils or the 2010 flyers, nothing intrinsically different about them as teams that shouldn’t apply to other teams. their players aren’t wearing rockets on their skates, they’re not of superhuman strength, they’re playing the same game as other teams in other years.
Passing off results that disagree with statistical projections as luck just shows the extraordinary limitations of using statistics to predict sporting events.
right. there can’t be any chance involved with a game played on ice by 19 different people at the whims of the referees and coaches. that’s why the best team in the league wins every single game. or 90%. or 80%. or, actually, less than that.
but not the point that "having one’s number" as an explanation when a team that by all rights should be about equal shows over the largest sample size available that they have an advantage is just as viable an explanation as "it’s just luck that will sort itself out later."
there are larger sample sizes when teams played 8 games against one another in the division, as red line army helpfully pointed out. regardless, it isn’t an easy concept to wrap one’s mind around, and a lot of people choose to ignore it even if they kind of see it. but just because ‘the largest sample size possible’ shows certain results doesn’t mean those results are particularly meaningful.
no. i believe since the current 7 game 1st round NBA format was instituted, there is one example of an 8 seed beating a 1 seed in the first round. that’s because basketball, as a game, has much less chance involved. you can also see this in the spread of best to worst teams in the NBA.
Again, it isn’t the differences that are important, but the similarities. How about if we change the example to me and my friends playing pond hockey with another friend and his team? The basic point is that, all things being about equal, which is essentially what you’re saying the two teams, and all pro hockey teams are, if one continues to win then there is more to it than luck. Or chance. Or the alignment of the stars. Or whatever you want to call it.
this is where i get angry, because you can prove anything by looking at arbitrary 11 game samples in any sport.
Again I ask you, what’s arbitrary about it? They played 11 games. That’s the sample size.
the only way you learn anything through looking at numbers is to look at a lot of them, otherwise you end up begging the question, which is exactly what you are doing here.
Like begging the question, why does “chance” have to be the only possible explanation?
Or, why does a regression to the mean of Devils’ shooting percentages mean that the result of the series would have been any different?
Or, why are you so stubbornly denying the possibility of other, external contributing factors like, oh, say that the people involved in the games are human beings and not robots, and therefore susceptible to things like pressure or illness or intimidation or injury, etc.?
there is nothing special about the 2010 devils or the 2010 flyers, nothing intrinsically different about them as teams that shouldn’t apply to other teams. their players aren’t wearing rockets on their skates, they’re not of superhuman strength, they’re playing the same game as other teams in other years.
They aren’t those teams, that’s why you can’t use those results to arrive at expectations for the 2010 Devils or Flyers.
Why should the average results of different teams over different periods of time have any bearing whatsoever on a series being played between different teams here and now?
right. there can’t be any chance involved with a game played on ice by 19 different people at the whims of the referees and coaches. that’s why the best team in the league wins every single game. or 90%. or 80%. or, actually, less than that.
Here you go misrepresenting what I’m saying again. You do love your straw men, don’t you?
I never said or even implied that it wasn’t possible. Quite the opposite. My stance is that it isn’t the only explanation just because the Devils happened to undershoot their normal percentages. It may be a part of it, and as I said before, I expect that in a larger sample they’d regress to the mean, but I maintain that it isn’t the only reason and that that regression doesn’t mean that the series would have turned out any differently.
there are larger sample sizes when teams played 8 games against one another in the division, as red line army helpfully pointed out.
That doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have a larger sample size that involves these two teams.
regardless, it isn’t an easy concept to wrap one’s mind around, and a lot of people choose to ignore it even if they kind of see it. but just because ‘the largest sample size possible’ shows certain results doesn’t mean those results are particularly meaningful.
Well, thankfully we have the superior intellect of Triumph44 to explain to us ignoramuses how the Devils lost the regular and post season’s series because they just had a case of bad luck instead of how they just got outplayed by a team they should have had a good shot at beating.
Hey, I also have a hard time wrapping my head around the sheer arrogance of some people who feel superior to others because they can’t imagine being wrong about something… perhaps you could explain that one to me also?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Like begging the question, why does "chance" have to be the only possible explanation?
Or, why does a regression to the mean of Devils’ shooting percentages mean that the result of the series would have been any different?
Or, why are you so stubbornly denying the possibility of other, external contributing factors like, oh, say that the people involved in the games are human beings and not robots, and therefore susceptible to things like pressure or illness or intimidation or injury, etc.?
you’re misinterpreting my point, which isn’t surprising, because i haven’t really made one that isn’t an attempted refutation up until now. yeah, the devils probably lose that series playing like they did, a large-ish portion of the time. it could’ve gone 6 or 7, though, it could’ve very easily been a closer series, had the devils gotten even one break.
That doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have a larger sample size that involves these two teams.
sure. we have a smaller sample, because of the kovalchuk deal, the coaching change in philadelphia, the different goaltenders, and all of the various injuries that both teams had suffered over the season. but wait, those things count!! these other things do not count!
They aren’t those teams, that’s why you can’t use those results to arrive at expectations for the 2010 Devils or Flyers.
then you have no way of doing it at all. why bother? why would you even seek to investigate such a thing unless you thought that there was a correlation between regular season results and post-season results? and why would you expect this to only apply to two teams? this is so rigorously unscientific and thoughtless. you can’t derive ANYTHING from what you’re asking.
sure. we have a smaller sample, because of the kovalchuk deal, the coaching change in philadelphia, the different goaltenders, and all of the various injuries that both teams had suffered over the season. but wait, those things count!! these other things do not count!
Again, misrepresenting my statements. My rejection of previous seasons and match-ups between different teams has nothing to do with deliberately choosing specific circumstances that prove my point. I have no idea what those results might be… it might even be that they help my argument. I reject them because I don’t feel they’re relevant because too much changes between seasons, and certainly between teams, to glean much usable data from them in this context.
If you want to argue that even the small sample size we have from last season is tainted by those things, I don’t refute that. The coaching change in Philly was a pretty big deal, as was the acquisition of Kovalchuk.
That the results before and after these things were largely the same points to some fundamental issue being the reason the Flyers dominated both series.
then you have no way of doing it at all. why bother?
I don’t. I haven’t. It was your suggestion. I’m explaining why I don’t think the data would be relevant.
why would you even seek to investigate such a thing unless you thought that there was a correlation between regular season results and post-season results?
Because I’m genuinely curious to see if there is a correlation. I don’t know for fact that there is or isn’t and I’m not so close-minded as to not have my opinion changed by actual evidence I feel I can trust.
and why would you expect this to only apply to two teams?
Why should I expect that the results from two different teams at a different time should apply here?
this is so rigorously unscientific and thoughtless.
What, not relying on outdated, unrelated information?
What difference does it make to the Devils and Flyers in 2010 how the 1984 Bruins performed in 8 games against the Canadiens? Why should an average of information gathered from previous divisional match-ups in any way predict or otherwise share anything in common with a playoff series happening now in any way?
you can’t derive ANYTHING from what you’re asking.
What am I asking? For a look at how the Devils performed against the Flyers during the regular season to be compared to how they performed in the post season? Your previous objections aside, I don’t see how it’s an unrealistic, unscientific or thoughtless method of trying to determine if it was, indeed, just some bad luck that lost the Devils the series or if it was rather a consistent, repeatable series of events with the same predictable results.
It beats looking to previous match-ups that have nothing to do with this one to determine… what, I don’t even know.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
What difference does it make to the Devils and Flyers in 2010 how the 1984 Bruins performed in 8 games against the Canadiens?
Just as an FYI, I had referred to the 2008 series between Montreal and Boston, ECQF. Montreal swept the first 11 (8+3) games, Boston then took three, and Montreal won Game 7.
It beats looking to previous match-ups that have nothing to do with this one to determine… what, I don’t even know.
I had used the example as a counterexample to something, not exactly sure what at this point. It might have been just trying to downplay how much we can look at the regular season series with one team for playoff predictor, and trying to suggest that the fact that the regular and playoff series between NJD and PHI correlated nicely was coincidence since things can easily turn the other way (also see 2009 Caps-Pens).
by red army line on Sep 25, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Understood, I was going for hyperbole anyway to attempt to show my disdain for the relevancy of stats from only superficially related examples… it wasn’t a jab at you or the information you provided. I apologize if it seemed that way.
It might have been just trying to downplay how much we can look at the regular season series with one team for playoff predictor, and trying to suggest that the fact that the regular and playoff series between NJD and PHI correlated nicely was coincidence since things can easily turn the other way (also see 2009 Caps-Pens).
I don’t mean to suggest that I think finding a correlation between the regular season results and the post-season results would definitively prove anything…. merely that it would, in my opinion, weaken the argument that it was due to luck by virtue of being repeated over a larger sample and time period.
As Triumph pointed out, though, there were some significant changes to both squads throughout the year and so even that potential correlation (or contrariness) is questionable.
I guess it’s really moot at this point… the new season is afoot and fresh hope for the new season abounds.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Passing off results that disagree with statistical projections as luck just shows the extraordinary limitations of using statistics to predict sporting events.
Of course, because one game, or 5, or 7, is small sample. There’s a lot of similar discussion about Habs-Caps. In the words of R O, paraphrased: the Caps dominated the repeatable-over-long-periods trends like scoring chances and shots, while the Habs dominated repeatable-over-short-periods like hot goaltending, hot shooting, and hot PK.
At the crux of this I think it’s just we’re all just having a semantics issue. If they play the series again we all probably bet on a 6 or 7 game series (hence the series had significant non-repeatable trends).
Unfortunately for all of us, hockey results take a lot of weight from these non-repeatable-over-long-term trends.
Out of curiosity, how exactly do you explain why NJD lost? Any long-term trends there? (even in their regular season matchups, by the way, simply assuming that the series was even puts us at 3-3 and the Flyers getting lucky twice gives us 5-1, and not all those games were with Kovalchuk)
by red army line on Sep 25, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Out of curiosity, how exactly do you explain why NJD lost?
Simply put, I believe their lack of size and puck moving ability at the back end was the determining factor that doomed them to struggle against the heavy (literal and figurative) forecheck of the Flyers.
Their drop in shooting percentage and miserable special teams may have been largely, or even entirely, the result of their inability to simply clear their zone when they needed to.
That’s not to say that they didn’t get some bad breaks, or that the referees didn’t have an impact (because they most certainly did) or even that other, immeasurable things like nervousness (how else to explain the huge increase in penalties against from the regular season to the post season?) or intimidation, or Lemaire’s constant line changing or a carryover from some divisive force in the locker room didn’t have an effect… but if I had to trace it back to one defining reason, I’d say that it was the inability to break up their forecheck.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I’m just confused how the Flyers supposedly exposed that weakness (sorry, didn’t see any of that series) while the Penguins, another strong fast forechecking team, couldn’t at all.
how else to explain the huge increase in penalties against from the regular season to the post season?
Hard forechecking forwards (like Dustin Brown) tend to draw lots of penalties. Considering Philly is loaded with such forwards, I’d say it’s that.
by red army line on Sep 25, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
The Devils struggled against strong fore checking teams all year, but usually figured out a way to win anyway.
The outliers, on opposite sides of the spectrum, are the Flyers and the Penguins. There were obviously other contributing factors as to why the Devils swept Pittsburgh but struggled so mightily against Philadelphia, but I think those were smaller, less repeatable things.
Hard forechecking forwards (like Dustin Brown) tend to draw lots of penalties. Considering Philly is loaded with such forwards, I’d say it’s that.
And Carcillo is one of the best divers in the business at drawing but not taking penalties, but it was uncharacteristic for the Devils (even compared to the regular season games with the Flyers) that they were so undisciplined and took so many penalties.
They instantly went from one of the least penalized teams to one of the most penalized teams overnight.
Around game 2 or 3 I did a quick study and found that the Devils were taking something like 75% more penalties than they averaged in the regular season and the Flyers were taking about 25% less. I had a theory that that was playing into their hands as they were not only used to, but better at playing larger chunks of games on special teams.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. I’m not necessarily talking about luck as in hitting the post, but luck as in shooting 3% when on average you shoot 10%. Over 100 games the Devils would have made adjustments, etc, and everything should approach true talent levels.
by red army line on Sep 24, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Cold? They didn’t play great, but they also didn’t have a fair chance to generate offense either. What would be interesting to see is if those shot percentage numbers translated over to the Devils/Flyers regular season games.
Plus, let’s be realistic here. The Flyers destroyed us. I don’t like the idea saying that the team was unlucky, that’s a cop out. The Devils got outplayed and their strength killed our weakness. They had a good gameplan, executed it and the Devils lost. Even if they should have had those 5 goals they certainly didn’t deserve it.
The shot counts for each game:
Game 1: 24-14 NJ, 2-1 loss
Game 2: 33-29 NJ, 5-3 win
Game 3: 34-19 PHI, 3-2 OT loss
Game 4: 31-28 NJ, 4-1 loss
Game 5: 28-21 NJ, 3-0 loss
I think the Devils generated offense; but they didn’t produce it like Philly did. Essentially, the Flyers destroyed the Devils largely in part because the Devils’ shooting percentage tanked for some reason. If it didn’t tank, the Devils would have scored more and that would have made worlds of difference in each game where there would be Devils goals: changes in momentum, boosts of confidence, etc.
Short of a tangible explanation for it tanking, I’m left with luck. Since the Devils got so cold, the Flyers realized that all they had to do was keep pressuring and struck gold. Yeah, they pinned the Devils back a few times with their forecheck. That’s not a big of a deal as the Devils, regardless of position, not getting goals on Boucher/Leighton.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 23, 2010 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
there are other samples to choose from, namely the scoring chances that the devils did not score on, that you’ve forgotten. there is just no way that boucher’s play at even strength was ‘expected’ from the devils’ shot quality. the devils could’ve shot from the blueline only and would’ve expected better results.
i think the forwards’ poor shooting had as much to do with it, sure. when you get both things combined, that’s when your team loses 4 out of 5 games.
I haven’t forgotten, I just don’t think the shooting percentage was a bigger factor to the loss than the defensive unit of the team was. Was it a factor? Of course. Just-to me-not a bigger one than the defense.
Here is a question: Would you rather have had a player like Brian Rafalski in the lineup OR had the safe guarantee that the Devils would shoot at the expected average per their location?
Expected average (especially if the guarantee is just that the team doesn’t undershoot, but can still overshoot).
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Here is a question: Would you rather have had a player like Brian Rafalski in the lineup OR had the safe guarantee that the Devils would shoot at the expected average per their location?
The safe guarantee. Brian Rafalski can come in and may not have any real effect.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 23, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
It was most definitely their problem. One of many.
I maintain that if they were better able to get the puck out the forwards would have been more productive because they wouldn’t have been as worn down from chasing and fighting for the puck.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
This is the way to do it. High pressure in the offensive zone, and when the puck comes out, mobile defensemen with puck-moving capabilities cut off the attack quickly and move it up the ice again. Works for Detroit and Chicago.
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not about points, it’s about ability. Martin never scored a lot of points right? An argument about point correlation wouldn’t pound home the fact that you need 2-3 ‘puck movers’ to succeed in the playoffs. It’s a matter of the talent of those teams had on the ice.
20-24 games is a small sample? That’s a quarter of the normal regular season.
20-24 games is a small sample? That’s a quarter of the normal regular season.
I wish it weren’t, but yes, unfortunately it is. The regular season isn’t even an adequate sample for a lot of things.
I agree it’s about ability – I think it’s about territorial ability, which the Wings and Hawks had in spades. We’ll see if what MacLean implements is able to keep the puck out of the defensive zone – I think it will. Getting goals from defensemen is big – it’s hard to be a top offensive team without getting very many – but the Devils just may be that team, with the offensive firepower they have at forward.
Depends what you are looking at. Obviously stuff like zone starts, advanced stats can’t be analyzed with a small sample. That said, by picking the Stanley Cup teams I was looking at what teams suceeded and how their defensive corps was setup.
The only issue I have with the offensive firepower leading the way is that technically the only thing that changed was the addition of Arnott. The rest of the personel is the same.
personnel is the same, but the coach is different. maclean ran the best PP in the league down in lowell, and while he no doubt had a lot of help from the personnel there, PP failure was the key to the devils’ ruination in the playoffs, both last year and the year before. small sample sizes and all of that, but if the devils could perform average on the power play and actually shoot above like 3% at even strength, they might win actually win a round.
yeah, but the devils also shot horribly unlucky on it in 09. from behindthenet.ca, the devils shot 6.2% on the PP in the playoffs. in 08, that’s actually where they got all their offense. they also have better personnel now.
Watching camp...
The preseason activities seem to be well focused on defenseman’s contribution to offense, break out, point work, etc. The recaps at F&I are making me feel better and better about the D pairs. I would absolutely not be shocked if Urbom and Tallinder were the #2 pair on opening night.
I just don’t think the appearant lack of scoring form the D is going to be that big of a deal. The offense got a hell of an upgrade, many of the rookies on both sides of the line are really playing hard, and even some of the “bubble” players, most notably Zubrus, have been playing like they are daring management to move them.
Honestly, we could debate it either way for days, but until we know who’s going to make the team, who’s getting moved someplace to make the roster cap-compliant, and know what the lines/pairs are going to be, anything we talk about is speculative anyways.
Some ideas:
The best solution would be for Scotty to come out of retirement and play another year. He i s one of the best defenders and based on his statistics last year he could easily fill that roll. It may be unlikely he comes out of retirement but it is always a possibility.
A trade could later in the season. Most likely Kaberle.
Marc-André Bergeron is still out there. He is not too good in the defensive end but he has a beast shot and can put up some points, he can play some time on the fourth line, and we could probably get him for not much over min,
The best solution would be for Scotty to come out of retirement and play another year. He i s one of the best defenders and based on his statistics last year he could easily fill that roll. It may be unlikely he comes out of retirement but it is always a possibility.
That assumes he’d get himself into shape mid-year, spend 3-4 months on the opposite coast from his family, give up his special assignment/front office gig in Anaheim, AND play for at or near league-minimum. Even at 400 years old, his talent and reputation would have commanded at least $3-4M on the open market. That’s a $2.5-3.5M pay cut. Maybe if Rob were still in NJ, but I just don’t see it happening.
A trade could later in the season. Most likely Kaberle.
THAT assumes there’s anything left in the cupboard after Koval-dump and there’s enough space to take on Kaberle’s cap hit, which isn’t trivial.
Marc-André Bergeron is still out there. He is not too good in the defensive end but he has a beast shot and can put up some points, he can play some time on the fourth line, and we could probably get him for not much over min,
Unless you’re willing to give him INCREDIBLY soft non-PP minutes and run basically a 5-man rotation on D he isn’t worth it. Putting 4 forwards on the PP is absolutely doable given the glut of talent up front; I’d rather have Tallinder-Urbom and Greene/Forward X at the point on the PP than add Bergeron and bite my nails every time he’s on he ice at even-strength.
Or…7D? It’s what Montreal did. I think MAB was literally getting 5-6 minutes of TOI per game after Game 4 against Washington, 90% or so of that on the PP.
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m certainly not in favor of adding Marc-Andre Bergeron, but I think adding him as the 7th defenseman would be the way to do it.
There would still be 6 D to play defense, and Bergeron could also be used for limited minutes as a winger on the 4th line to avoid too much double-shifting of someone from the top-9.
by HockeyWeasel on Sep 23, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
the devils don’t have the cap room to run with 7 defensemen like this, because they can’t add an 8th easily. bergeron is just so bad at even strength, and it’s the reason why, yet again, he’s not signed. why jacques martin played him with andrei markov for a ton of minutes agains the caps is one of life’s great mysteries.
If Zubrus and Salvador are removed from the roster, it absolutely can be done under the cap.
The numbers below are from CapGeek.com
CAPGEEK.COM CAP CALCULATOR
FORWARDS
Zach Parise ($3.125m) / Travis Zajac ($3.887m) / Ilya Kovalchuk ($6.666m)
Patrik Elias ($6.000m) / Jason Arnott ($4.500m) / Jamie Langenbrunner ($2.800m)
Brian Rolston ($5.062m) / Jacob Josefson ($0.900m) / David Clarkson ($2.666m)
P-L Letourneau-Leblond ($0.525m) / Rod Pelley ($0.550m) / Vladimir Zharkov ($0.850m)
DEFENSEMEN
Anton Volchenkov ($4.250m) / Andy Greene ($0.737m)
Colin White ($3.000m) / Henrik Tallinder ($3.375m)
Mark Fraser ($0.500m) / Matt Corrente ($0.821m)
Tyler Eckford ($0.550m)
GOALTENDERS
Martin Brodeur ($5.200m) /Johan Hedberg ($1.500m)
BUYOUTS: Jay Pandolfo ($0.833m) / Andrew Peters ($0.166m)
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled using the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $59,400,000; CAP PAYROLL: $58,467,501; BONUSES: $905,000
CAP SPACE (21-man roster): $1,837,499
That leaves around $1.8 million to add 13th and 14th forwards, or a 13th forward and a PP specialist like Bergeron. And I doubt that Bergeron, or any of the candidates for a 13th forward spot would get much, if anything, over the minimum.
by HockeyWeasel on Sep 23, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
why jacques martin played him with andrei markov for a ton of minutes agains the caps is one of life’s great mysteries.
I think the Habs were dressing 6D a night and trying to protect Bergeron but every chance he got Boudreau put out Ovechkin against Bergeron in the first four games. After that Martin started using MAB exclusively on the PP.
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
we have to remember too that this was all during the playoffs, when benches get shorter anyway. It’s easier to protect a guy like Bergeron when you’re only rolling 8 forwards and 4 D the whole game to try and hang in there against a superior opponent. That kind of strategy just won’t work for an 82-game season.
You run down and get fatigued after a while (see 2010 PHI) but yeah, first few rounds it works, especially if your team is full of great and/or economical skaters.
by red army line on Sep 24, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I believe injuries were involved in M-A Bergeron getting regular shifts outside of the PP.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 23, 2010 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Even at 400 years old, his talent and reputation would have commanded at least $3-4M on the open market. That’s a $2.5-3.5M pay cut.
He is 37 and last year put up 10 goals and 48 points. He is easily equal if not better than a guy like Chris Pronger. He has already shown he is willing to take pay cut (Leaving NJ despite a max salary offer). And it is not like he left Anaheim when his brother did. He is athlete and wants to leave the best legacy possible. If he comes back he could easily win a cup hand have his 27 guaranteed to be hanging up at the rock. I stated it may be unlikely but Nieds was my favorite player so I like the thought.
THAT assumes there’s anything left in the cupboard after Koval-dump and there’s enough space to take on Kaberle’s cap hit, which isn’t trivial
If we don’t assume that there is no point in even talking about getting a puck moving defense men.
Unless you’re willing to give him INCREDIBLY soft non-PP minutes and run basically a 5-man rotation on D he isn’t worth it. Putting 4 forwards on the PP is absolutely doable given the glut of talent up front; I’d rather have Tallinder-Urbom and Greene/Forward X at the point on the PP than add Bergeron and bite my nails every time he’s on he ice at even-strength.
That is exactly what he is for. Mostly offensive zone face-offs, a little on the 4rth line and the power play. He put up 34 points last year playing 60 games and very few minutes.
Tallinder-Unborn won’t work on the pp. You got a 19 year old 3rd round rookie and a guy who barely played any pp time. Andy Boron said in an interview with John “Tallinder probably should not play on any sort of power play that wants to be good. He almost never saw PP time for the Sabres, and we had an awful PP unit.”
He is 37 and last year put up 10 goals and 48 points. He is easily equal if not better than a guy like Chris Pronger.
…and Pronger has a $5M cap hit. Philadelphia’s preposterous contract notwithstanding, I doubt Nieds would be willing to take even close to the league minimum after making $6M last year, nostalgia or not. The guy already has 3 cups and is a first-ballot hall of famer – what else does he have to prove? I’m not saying bringing him back into the fold would be a bad thing, but it’s exceedingly unlikely.
If we don’t assume that there is no point in even talking about getting a puck moving defense men.
Yup.
That is exactly what he is for. Mostly offensive zone face-offs, a little on the 4rth line and the power play.
The problem with that is it throws Fraser – who was HEAVILY protected last year – and whatever rookies get called up to the wolves while Bergeron rides the pine waiting for a PP opportunity. Not to mention that the reason we’re looking for a puck-moving defenseman in the first place is to help get the puck out of the defensive zone – overloading Bergeron with offensive-zone starts doesn’t do anything to accomplish that, and if nobody is willing to give him some time against tough competition all he is good for is some shots from the point on the PP, which isn’t nearly as pressing of an issue.
I’ll concede Urbom and Tallinder aren’t PP specialists, but I’d rather have two players on the point who can pinch and keep the puck in the zone – which the Devils have had trouble doing – than someone with a bomb from the point. If Mac really wants to change the angle of attack on the PP he can always move Kovy or Rolston to the point and let Parise/Elias/Arnott/Zajac work the puck in the corners.
Niedermayer really got no help last year playing tough minutes, if memory serves. I wouldn’t put too much stock into how bad he looked (like with plus minus) since he was the best defenseman on a bad defensive team.
by red army line on Sep 24, 2010 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
The Devils will dump excess salary and at the trade deadline, they will acquire Tomas Kaberle. Mark my words.
"Potential means you ain't done it yet" - Bill Parcells
Kaberle’s NTC is back in effect, and if he hasn’t been willing to waive it to uproot himself mid-season before now, why would he change his mind right before he becomes UFA, and he can move on his own schedule?
I would think Joni Pitkanen, Anton Babchuk, Ian White, or James Wisniewski are more realistic possibilities.
by HockeyWeasel on Sep 23, 2010 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s a few problems with your suggestions. a) Carolina isn’t going to be a pushover this year. They will contend for the 8th spot. b) Burke said he thought the Devils would try to get Kaberle had the Kovy saga not lasted as long as it did c) I think Kaberle would come here, he and Elias are friendly, and he would likely not re-sign here (although if Lou were buy out Rolston after next year, anything’s possible, but I doubt it).
"Potential means you ain't done it yet" - Bill Parcells
by DownGoesAvery on Sep 23, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Carolina may not be a pushover, but they’re working under a very strict budget, and Pitkanen is most likely out of their price range as a UFA.
by HockeyWeasel on Sep 23, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Carolina is going full on youth movement. They’ll be fast and fun and have a few stretches of strong play, but I think by the trade deadline they’re going to be sellers.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Pitkanen and McBain at this point though are their only good defensemen, it looks like. I think they’d like to keep him around.
by red army line on Sep 23, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Tim Gleason is far and away their #1 D-man. He and McBain are the only untouchables on their D.
Pitkanen’s age, ability, and expiring contract make him a great trade chip, so if they start to fall out of the race, he could easily be dealt.
by HockeyWeasel on Sep 23, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, I forgot Gleason. Good call. Yeah, that changes things.
by red army line on Sep 24, 2010 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
I did a similar analysis in July but looked at the last 5 Cup winners. I found that their defensive goal scoring was about 25% below the average of the past 5 Cup winners. Assists, on the other hand were way below recent history. Doesn’t mean they can’t win the Cup with this defense, it just means past history shows better scoring defenses were the eventual Cup winners.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Going through the numbers for the last two post-seasons as shown way above, what strikes me is that each of the four teams in question only had two defensemen who averaged as much as 0.5 points/game. Extrapolate that to an 82-game regular season, and you’re really only asking for about 40 points — not unreasonable for a guy who plays 20 minutes and the PP with this club, if our projections about the offense are somewhere in the neighborhood of what reality will provide.
If that’s what we’re judging to be sufficient, I don’t think the Devils are in as much trouble as everyone seems to think they are. Andy Greene can be the first guy to satisfy those numbers. As for the second, I think it’s still up in the air. It could be one of the prospects, although personally I doubt it based on history. It could end up being someone like Kyle Cumiskey, who we’ve discussed ad infinitum in other threads as being a good fit if we send someone to Colorado in a salary dump. It could be Scott Niedermeyer, if he comes out of retirement — contrary to richer44’s comments above, I think it is in the realm of possibility that Scott gets the itch, is willing to relocate, and even give up his “front office job” in Anaheim. If Lou leaves himself enough wiggle room under the cap (say, $2 million), I think it is quite possible since you’d be asking Nieds to sign a pro-rated contract whose full-season value would be in the $4 million range. It could also be a pickup at the trade deadline.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
Related FanShots on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Devils try to even series with Rangers; watch the ‘Sandley Cup’ get built (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Sean Avery: Not in NHL playoffs, getting a handle on semi-nude modeling (PHOTO)
- No lion: KCBS angers Bailey, LA Kings mascot, after confusion with Slamson, Sacramento Kings mascot
- Ratings down for conference finals; Ted Nugent backs David Booth; NHL 13 teaser (Puck Headlines)
- Chris Chelios and Eddie Vedder form karaoke super-band, sing ‘The Weight’ in Chicago bar (VIDEO)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Frattin scores twice, including winner, as Marlies defeat Barons 5-3 in Game 3
- Buffalo Sabres give defenceman Alexander Sulzer a one-year deal to dodge free agency
- Sabres sign defenseman Sulzer for one year
- Devils make lineup change for Game 4 vs. Rangers; Jacob Jacobson in, Petr Sykora out
- Josefson replaces Sykora in Devils' lineup Monday
