Improved D?
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2007 7:06 PM MST
in NHL News
Email
PrintThere's been a lot of talk lately about the improved play of the Avalanche defensemen. I've commented a few times lately that the blueliners have been steadier and more physical, while finding a way to join the rush far more often. During the San Jose game on Monday, Peter McNab raved about the offensive output of the defensemen in recent games. This week, I thought I'd take a look to see if I could find numbers to support these observations.
In the month of October, the Avs defensemen combined for:
67 GP, 2G, 14A, 16PT, +7, 77 Shots, 57 Hits and 99 blocked shots.
In November (plus the one December game):
84 GP, 5 G, 16A, 21PT, -13, 104 Shots, 75 Hits and 116 BS.
To make those numbers comparable, I converted each to an 82 game pace:
OCT: 2G, 17A, 20PT, +9, 94 ST, 70 HT, 121 BS
NOV: 5G, 16A, 21PT,-13,102 ST, 73 HT, 113 BS
For the most part, not a huge statistical improvement from the first month to the last month. There's been an up tick in goals, but shots and assists have been rather steady. Obviously, that +/- was a big swing to the negative. While I'm not a big fan of that stat, it does tell me the unit did drop off after the first month.
I have to admit, I expected to see more of an improvement in the numbers. It does seem like the defensemen are becoming more of an offensive and defensive factor on the ice. But, it's not showing up in the score sheet yet.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And
It's not showing up in the Northwest standings, either. I don't give a crap what the defense's +/- is if the Avs win games. All that matters is winning.
The defense is not winning games. That's all that matters.
(Not to diminish the significance of your post in any way, of course.)
+/- a cause/effect?
I have to wonder if the drop in +/- is due to the offensive "jump". I seem to notice that on more than one occasion when the defense man jumps in deep, we get a bad bounce/rebound and then an odd man rush for our opponent. If more and more of the odd man rushes result in goals, you'd have to question the practice. Though I don't have a problem with defense man being offensive minded I sometimes cringe when one of our defense man is behind the opponent's net along with the 3 forwards. We just don't seem to be jumping in at the "right times" thus the very slight change in points. With every offensive d-man you need a good stay at home guy, and our sour called stay at home guys too often aren't cutting it.
Hey DD
quick question that may shed a little bit of light on our opinion that the D SEEMS to be better:
How many shots were TAKEN by defensemen in Nov. vs Oct.?
Methinks there might be a more significant uptick that what was observed in the G, A, Pts. If they are taking more shots, but they aren't getting through, then you can argue that they are contributing more offensively rather than just passing the puck and then getting back on D.
Inquiring mind(s) want to know!
Shots Taken
The numbers for October and November (again adjusted to 82 games)
(MS = Missed shots, A/B = attempted shots blocked)
OCT: 27 MS, 42 A/B for 69 total missed
NOV: 42 MS, 56 A/B for 98 total missed
add those to the shots that do get on net, and we're looking at 163 in OCT and 199 in NOV
definitely and increase, Mike. good call.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 5, 2007 1:48 PM MST up reply actions
That's what I figured
The D is ATTEMPTING to contribute more to the offense, but the shots aren't getting through and the rebounds that do aren't getting potted either, or we'd see an upswing in assists and +/-.
PP total shots for the D for those two months might be even further enlightening.
Re: Shots taken
For the love of god somebody get those bastards some contact lenses. They obviously can't see the net at all!
What does it all mean?!
For me, +/- has always been about forwards in front of the defensemen. You could put Danyenko and Foote behind Gretsky & Co. and they would have fantastic +/-. You could put Skoula and Chris McAllister behind Gretsky & Co. and they would have the same awesome +/- numbers. Then again, if you put Lidstrom and Stevens behind Shantz, Wyatt Smith and Scott Parker you're not going to have great +/-, at best you'll have a lower minus than you would with lesser defensemen. The reason Finger has a better +/- for the most part is because he's on the second rotation that plays behind Stastny's line, while Hannan plays on the first rotation behind the Sakic line. If Sakic's line has scoring down in the first quarter of the year then the best you can hope for is that Hannan plays well enough on his own end that his minus numbers are reasonable. When both go south you get big minus numbers.
Unless you know the forward situation with a club, the defensemen +/- numbers mean very little.
Great point
And I think Hannan's low +/- just confirms what we already know about Sakic and Brunette, who usually sit atop the first offensive line: their numbers are way down from last season. That's not helping Hannan, obviously, even though he has been observably weak overall.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
