First Half Scoring Chances
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 4:02 PM MDT
Email
PrintI should be up front about my allegiances: I'm a regular writer at the Copper and Blue and a fan of the Edmonton Oilers. Nonetheless, at the start of the season I decided to track scoring chances for all of the Avalanche games. That didn't quite happen, but I did manage to finish the first half, and thought that it would still be worthwhile to post those results.
For those who'd like a definition: a scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area - loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous depending on the amount of immediately preceding puck movement or screens. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score. And, of course, a big thanks to Vic Ferrari for providing a script to make the process much, much easier. The results after the jump.
In that table the EV totals include 5v5 and 4v4 time, but the special teams totals do not include any two-man advantage situations. The typical range for this kind of thing, at least in the larger samples, is about 40% (terrible) to 60% (excellent), so the Avalanche look pretty bad sitting at 45.8% through the first half. Some of that is score effects (i.e. the Avalanche played a lot with the lead), but some of it is just that they didn't have the puck as much as the other guys, which is also why they were so consistently outshot, even if you just look at results with the score tied.
In terms of specifics, I've noticed that caring about Wojtek Wolski has become a bit of a joke here at MHH in recent weeks, but at least for the first half of the season, he was the Avs' best player by this measure, and he did so while taking on the opponents' best players more often than not. I understand that he apparently had "motivation" issues, and I can respect that. Still, trading away one of your best forwards for a player who might turn out to be good usually isn't a good plan. I realize that Peter Mueller played very well after being traded to Colorado, and I think he'll be a pretty good player in the league for many years. But I think Wolski will be quite a bit better.
Another player who took on tough competition almost every night was Paul Stastny who also shows well here. Almost breaking even was, frankly, pretty fantastic on this team last year. I don't know if he catches a lot of flak in this community, but if he does, he shouldn't. The guy is a very good player.
The rookie forwards are fun to look at too. Matt Duchene is clearly the class of the group, and better than the team average (i.e. the Avalanche were better with Duchene out there than they were with him on the bench). His first half was a very good start to his NHL career. Both T.J. Galiardi and Ryan O'Reilly got absolutely shelled, but they tended to get put with lesser quality linemates than Duchene. O'Reilly in particular was just in a very difficult role. There aren't many 18 year-olds who can handle being asked to start a lot in their defensive zone and come out ahead. Of the two, I'd say O'Reilly probably becomes the better player.
On defense, John-Michael Liles was pretty terrible overall, especially since he put up that number against weak opposition. When he was out of the lineup, Kyle Cumiskey was often the guy taking that gig, and the difference in their numbers at EV is rather large. I know that Liles was a healthy scratch later on in the season, and if his play didn't improve, he definitely deserved it. Scott Hannan and Kyle Quincey were consistently taking on tough competition and starting in the wrong end of the rink, so their performance actually looks pretty good to me, especially Hannan. The guy is kind of slow, and not a great passer, but he's strong positionally and can win battles.
I also thought it would be interesting to look at some splits, so here are the results for the Avs at home and on the road:
No surprise here, the Avs were much better at controlling the play at home than they were on the road. This has a lot to do with the Avalanche controlling the match-ups better when they have the last change. A guy like Ryan O'Reilly, for example, looks like he may have been keyed on by opposing coaches when the Avs were on the road. When the Avalanche were at home, they could try to make sure that the defensive zone draws O'Reilly had were against lesser opponents. On the road, not so much.
The home/road split is especially interesting on special teams. On the road the Avalanche were out-chanced 109-88 on special teams, whereas at home they out-chanced their opponents 102-74 (in five fewer games). Some of that is no doubt the result of generating more power play chances at home, while taking fewer penalties. Still, that's a huge difference.
Finally, let's look at team performance in ten-game segments:
The Avalanche were huddled right around 46% for the first thirty games and then fell into a bit of an elevator shaft at the end of the first half. The big difference between the first fifteen games (they were 10-3-2) and the next fifteen games (they were 5-6-4) was percentages at even strength. They were hot, and then, all of a sudden, the team stopped "making its shots" and Craig Anderson's Patrick Roy imitation came to an end (although he was still very, very good, and remains a great goalie). Then the magic was back! They closed the first half by going 8-3-0 despite being outplayed in the majority of those games (although some of these games saw the Avs jump out to an early lead, so playing to the score is the reason for some of that shortfall). This is the worry for the Avalanche heading into next year. Their percentages were, on the whole, very good last year, something that teams tend not to be able to repeat. In order for the Avalanche to make the playoffs again next season, it's very likely that they'll need to do a better job of controlling the play and generating chances.
MileHighHockey.com is a fan community, allowing members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Colorado Avalanche and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editors of MileHighHockey.com.
68 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I remember you and I going back and forth on Liles near the start of the year and just wanted to note a point of encouragement for him. His ten game splits are as follows:
G 1-10: 6 GP 34.6% EV Chance %
G 11-20: 4 GP 20.7% EV Chance %
G 21-30: 8 GP 48.7% EV Chance %
G 31-41: 10 GP 45.9% EV Chance %
Those last 18 games still aren’t all that good, but he did improve substantially after getting back from injury. Basically, I still don’t like him, but a lot of his poor performance early on seems to be due to dealing with injuries, so his first half numbers make him look worse than he really is.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 5:52 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m not too concerned about the first half info as his second half stats I know improved. Regardless, I’ve stopped commenting on my boy as it’s caused a lot of strife around here. lol.
I just like the fights.
by Cheryl Bradley on Aug 16, 2010 6:11 PM MDT up reply actions
Though I do appreciate you taking the time to list out the breakdown of his personal info. That’s very cool of you and quite telling of how the injuries affected him and of his classic issue of inconsistency.
I just like the fights.
by Cheryl Bradley on Aug 16, 2010 6:14 PM MDT up reply actions
Yeah, this is just me watching games and making judgment calls. I have each game done individually here, so if you have Gamecenter or some other way to review games, you can look at all of the individual scoring chances, or track a game and compare your results with mine. Some of the games have already been scored twice (against the Leafs, Canadiens, Oilers, Flames, or Wild), so you could use those to compare as well.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 5:46 PM MDT up reply actions
The thing is, the Corsi stuff is helpful. It obviously doesn’t tell us who wins the game, but it’s a very good indication of where the game is being played, and your chances of winning improve if you’re playing more of the game in the offensive zone.
It will be interesting to see how this community’s attitude to the shots-based stats changes (if at all) as the young Avalanche team improves. This season had a lot of the “Corsi people” saying that the Avs were lucky and would regress and blah blah blah (I’m not dismissing it, I was one of them). Next season could well see the Avs finish with a worse record and the “Corsi people” saying that the team showed marked improvement at EV hockey. It will be interesting to see if people here stay skeptical and say, “No! You idiots! We’re losing more, and therefore are worse! You guys don’t get it!” or if the attitude changes as the message becomes more hopeful. I actually have no idea which it will be.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 6:05 PM MDT up reply actions
Let me first say, I agree. I think Corsi is a great tool to help analyzing what/who is working for your team. I have no problem with Corsi. None. Numbers don’t lie. Sometimes they don’t tell the whole truth, but they never lie. My ONLY Corsi problem is Corsi Fanatics. “Your team sucks because your Corsi sucks and I don’t care if you made the playoffs or you win games yahhhhh!!!!!!” It’s like going outside with a printout of todays weather and screaming how it’s going to be sunny and clear while the hail and rain pelts you in the face. Ya, everything points to it being warm and nice outside, but guess what, it’s freakin raining. My head is not stuck in the sand, I know were are getting knocked around, pushed around, massively out shot and all signs point to us getting our floor sweeping asses kicked. But sometimes, it’s just gonna rain.
PS. Again, thanks for doing this. This really is a great read. Please feel free to do a crap pile of work and stop by and show us the results again, just don’t ask me for help, cuz, I’m lazy, and I like commas.
Me no like da Wings.
Yeah, I can see how last season was frustrating. I think the problem comes when people are making predictions about future results. The thing about past winning is that it happened for a reason. If the reason is, “our team is beating up opponents territorially,” there’s evidence that it’s something that tends to be repeatable. If the reason is “opponents had an .880 save percentage against us,” there’s evidence that doesn’t tend to be repeatable. So even when the Avs were winning a lot games early in the season, they were doing so in a way that didn’t make them seem likely to win a lot in the future. That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t win in the future, it just makes it less likely, and I think that last point is often where the “Corsi people” tend to not communicate well. “The Avs are bound to regress in the future” is a substantially different statement than, “the Avs are likely to regress in the future.” The language of certainty that was sometimes used in those discussions was clearly unhelpful.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 7:37 PM MDT up reply actions
I think you hit the nail on the head for me. As I sit here and think about what made me mad the most, it was the nose in the air “certainty” people who “knew” better. I’m just a common man… working hard with his hands….
Again, I’ll repeat, I think Corsi is a great tool.
So, what do you think, Hall Vs Duchene?
Me no like da Wings.
Both guys are still very young so it’s hard to say at this point, especially with regard to how they’ll turn out. I think that both will be good all-around players, but you never know until the dust settles a bit more. Overall, I think Hall will be the better offensive player; he was after all the better offensive player in junior:
Hall 2009-10 – 1.86 PPG and 0.75 GPG
Hall 2008-09 – 1.52 PPG and 0.65 GPG
Duchene 2008-09 – 1.35 PPG and 0.58 GPG
Both Hall and Duchene were in their second OHL season in 2008-09, but even comparing those seasons, Hall is ahead, albeit by a smaller margin than if we compare their draft seasons. The thing in Duchene’s favour is that we already know that he had an outstanding rookie year. If Hall has an identical rookie year in terms of point totals, I’d be very pleased. This has kind of gone in circles a bit, but to sum up, I think that both players will be very good, but if I had to give one the edge, I’d give it to Hall.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 10:25 PM MDT up reply actions
Well, Duchene is a center so comparables aren’t going to be … comparable.
By the way, I know Hall is the more talented player of the two but I just can’t believe Edmonton didn’t take a center. It’s very rare/difficult to find a quality 1st line center.
One thing that gives me hope for the Avs in the longer term is that they are rock solid down the middle.
Hall actually played center quite often last season in the OHL, and the Oilers may decide to try him in that spot at some point this year. Personally, I’m pleased that they chose Hall over Seguin because I think Hall is the more talented player.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 18, 2010 5:21 PM MDT up reply actions
I enjoyed reading this different perspective. Kyle Cumiskey is one of my favorite players. His numbers are pretty consistant too.
He was one of my favourite players as well. His speed is amazing, and especially impressive when he’s skating with the puck. He’s just a really fun player to watch.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 16, 2010 5:54 PM MDT up reply actions
I just wish he was a little taller, a little heavier, and named Drew Doughty.
Me no like da Wings.
by i2strange97 on Aug 16, 2010 6:42 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Me too.
Though being a man of reason, I’d be happy if he were much heavier, much taller and named McIlWRATH!
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
The effect of Stastny
I’m not sure if this is the right conclusion to draw from the data here and elsewhere, but it seems like Stastny has the effect of improve pretty much whoever he plays with. I would argue that this is the case in regards to Wolski also. Stastny by the end of the season had played against harder opposition than Wolski with worse teammates, yet he pushed the puck in the right direction more often than Wolski did.
You would expect that Wolski and Stastny’s scoring chances would co-vary significantly in the first half scoring chances that you recorded – as Wolski and Stastny spent about 63% of their even-strength time together before Wolski left.
I’m curious as to whether this parsing together of data is in anyway consistent with what you saw…
Firstly, I definitely recall Stastny and Wolski playing a lot together, and I’d also agree that Stastny played slightly more difficult ice time when they were apart. There’s no question that they were also more effective together than apart. Good players do better when they’re playing together and all players do better when they play with good players. Pretty much everyone improves their outshooting numbers when they were playing with either Stastny or Wolski. To illustrate, I’ll list out the players with at least 250 Corsi events with either Stastny or Wolski and look at how they did with each of those guys versus how they did overall. The first number will be overall Corsi % on the season, followed by Corsi % with Stastny on the ice, followed by Corsi % with Wolski on the ice:
Liles – 44.1%, 44.0%, 46.4%
Clark – 45.8%, 47.6%, 52.9%
Wolski – 47.6%, 48.1%, N/A
Cumiskey – 47.3%, 51.6%, 52.1%
Hannan – 43.3%, 45.4%, 44.2%
Hejduk – 44.7%, 46.8%, 48.3%
Stewart – 45.0%, 47.9%, 47.6%
Stastny – 46.6%, N/A, 48.1%
Quincey – 43.4%, 45.4%, 44.7%
Galiardi – 43.0%, 45.4%, N/A
Wilson – 43.8%, 47.5%, 47.8%
Foote – 43.3%, 45.0%, 47.9%
As you can see, everybody on the team was able to get the puck into the offensive zone more often when they were playing with either Stastny or Wolski. Both forwards also did better when they were together than when they were apart. Keep in mind that the first number is a season total too. If we were instead comparing the number to “without Wolski or Stastny” the discrepancy would be much wider. Basically, those guys are both very good players.
In terms of which guy moved the puck the right way more often, the difference isn’t as large as it seems. Bruce McCurdy demonstrated that defenders move toward 50% hard in terms of ZoneShift and I suspect that will be the same for forwards too. So we’d expect Stastny’s ZoneShft to be better than Wolski’s simply because he started more in the defensive zone.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 17, 2010 11:36 AM MDT up reply actions
Bruce McCurdy demonstrated that defenders move toward 50% hard in terms of ZoneShift and I suspect that will be the same for forwards too. So we’d expect Stastny’s ZoneShft to be better than Wolski’s simply because he started more in the defensive zone.
This sounds reasonable – I see the (now) obvious bias that is built into the statistic – that D-zone starts can’t get worse and O-zone starts can’t get better.
I do find the Corsi% numbers interesting – it appears that they both took a hit when Wolski left Colorado. Whether this is an actual effect however is questionable – as much of the variance could be due to the significant down-turn in the overall play of the Avs in the back-side of the season (and that Wolski’s relatively minor drop can be accounted for by Phoenix’s strong finish to the season). This being said – I have no doubt that Wolski is a good player and is definitely a more rounded player than Mueller is.
Also, thanks for the analysis and Vic’s numbers – as I don’t particularly know how to use his site, so typically I stick to behindthenet.
If you’re interested in learning how to use Vic’s site, he gives a bit of a tutorial on some of the functions here and here. If you’ve got any specific questions, I can try to answer them (I use his site quite often).
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 17, 2010 6:49 PM MDT up reply actions
Tyler Dellow looked at Nicklas Backstrom, and found him to be very comparable to Paul Statsny, for what that’s worth.
If you want content, go to the Copper and Blue. If you want numbers, go to Behind the Net. If you want humor, go to Pension Plan Puppets. If you want discussion, go to Broad Street Hockey. If you want bravery, go to Five For Howling.
If you want all of the above, go to Japers' Rink.
My blog (now featuring two Penguins fans as co-authors) and Twitter.
by red army line on Aug 19, 2010 5:26 AM MDT up reply actions
Interesting stuff
And more proof that TJ Hensick sucks. As if we needed it. And why did they re-sign Koci instead of Hendricks again? I am shocked by the numbers for Durno, however. Guess the Avs did a good job of making sure he was matched up against other scrubs?
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Aug 18, 2010 12:46 PM MDT reply actions
Both Hensick and Durno didn’t play much in the first half, so I don’t think the results tell us a lot about them. But yeah, Hensick was pretty terrible whenever he played this year. Durno was alright, but I’m sure that his number tracked toward the team average in the second half.
Koci is awful. He was in the line-up almost every night in the first half before getting injured, which was one of the reasons I didn’t think Joe Sacco deserved to win the Jack Adams. Matt Hendricks isn’t great by any means, but he’s a clear step up from Koci at EV, and (I thought) a pretty darn effective PK guy as well.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 18, 2010 5:30 PM MDT up reply actions
thanks for posting Scott. it’s nice to give these dullards some informative info from time to time!
The 8th month is the month for Wolskis
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Aug 18, 2010 6:41 PM MDT reply actions
Hey!
Who you calling a dullard?
They play hockey on ice right?
"That F******* sandwich had it coming!" -Mike@MHH
You obviously have us confused with Excluding Zetterberg.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Aug 19, 2010 9:53 AM MDT up reply actions
Why all this pining for Wolski?
MHH- A drinking site with a hockey problem
Hockeytown was a marketing invention to draw fans to a team that had less gate than the atlanta thrashers.
it’s basically people that don’t watch Wolski much, they just see his strengths when they do, and see his stats otherwise. Sort of like how people had that huge hard-on for Tanguay for all those years. Anyone who actually watches either of them consistently will realize the gaping holes in their game, and that they’re dependent on linemate play for their successes.
Wolski and Tanguay are fine players…just complimentary players, with bigger flaws than the stats indicate. That exactly the player you get rid of before they get paid based on over-inflated stats. Just like Tanguay.
MHH- A drinking site with a hockey problem
Hockeytown was a marketing invention to draw fans to a team that had less gate than the atlanta thrashers.
My sarcasm meter goes to 11.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Aug 23, 2010 12:34 PM MDT up reply actions
I understand that Wolski’s become a bit of a joke around here, but I honestly don’t get it. Through the first half of last season he was one of very few players on the Avalanche who was able to drive results. Like most players who handle the puck a lot, he sometimes overhandles it, which results in turnovers, and I understand that can be frustrating. But that’s something people will need to deal with when the player in question is able to make wonderful plays a lot of the time. I’m curious about anything specific that you’ve seen in his game that makes you think he’s only a complimentary player. What are some of the “bigger flaws” that you think the stats miss?
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 27, 2010 1:19 AM MDT up reply actions
We’ve talked about it before, but one of his biggest knocks is effort. He’d take games off and expect his linemates to have all the hustle. Three different coaching departments bagged on him and his effort over the last three seasons. He was a decent defensive player, but he didn’t get the accolades that SoS or others got for playing PK minutes or exhibiting obvious team-first metrics like shot-blocking or playmaking. He wasn’t great in corners and was not known to use his size to his advantage. He was consistent overall, but had streaky vibe to him that went back over several seasons. Yes, he had a great season last year, but he was a highly touted prospect who broke into the league with a bang and then seemed to settle into mediocrity at times. His over-handling of the puck tended to happen in crucial situations, but that is likely a perception issue more than a reality. It’s the same “Big Game vs. Choke” argument used against goalies that I think is full of BS.
Part of the sour grapes on him was his automatic-to-non-existent shootout performance over the last two seasons. But I think the bigger knock is that people were comparing him to Hejduk, Forsberg and Sakic for the early years of his career, which ultimately isn’t fair.
At the end of the day, he was traded due to money issues. He was due a big raise and as evidenced by managements do-nothing offseason, they didn’t want to pay him. They took a flier on a cheaper option during a rebuild. It wasn’t shocking to me personally. The joking here lately has been all in good fun and there are plenty of us who are still Baron fans and have stated that he would likely flourish in another system as he didn’t seem to click 100% here.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
1) Consistently and inexplicably lost 50/50 battles for the puck.
2) Never in the right place without the puck. More than anything, this is the problem. If he just went to the net without the puck, he could be dominant.
3) As you mentioned, has a penchant for turnovers, and not just turnovers, turnovers that ruin good deep offensive possession (twss). For a player that loves possession and the puck on his stick, his touches always seemed to end in turnovers and low percentage shots, not actual production. His production itself was always so closely linked to the other players on his line, more so than other players.
Most of these boil down to one thing: great talent, poor mental game. Wolski’s physical talent is on par with the best players in this league, yet his mental game is weak, especially offensively. He’s just…stupid on the ice. People, including myself, have dogged him for not having enough effort, but after watching him more closely, I’ve changed my tune. He’s definitely trying hard. It’s just at the wrong times, in the wrong way, and sandwiched by times when a couple extra strides without the puck would have made his effort redundant.
Wolski’s a good player. I’ll even say he’s probably going to produce more in his career than Mueller, despite all those issues I list above. And if he ever figured some of them out, especially the play without the puck issue, look out. He showed some signs of this in Phx. I also really like their idea of moving him to center — he’s better there, imo. His defense is criminally underrated and it will come to the fore in that role, and it should hide/eliminate some of his other flaws (battling along the boards, play without the puck, etc).
But until he shows this isn’t just another of his spurts, i think he showed clearly he needs other people with him that do those things, and so I rate him a complimentary player.
All this would have been fine if we’d needed a guy like Wolski to possess the puck, play center, etc., but we didn’t. Wolski’s over-handling of the puck on a team with Duchene and Stastny was clearly a detriment. We needed a finisher, a big shot on the PP point, and Mueller does exactly that. I think the trade will be a rare win for both clubs.
That’s all valid, but on the other hand, on average, Wolski was good. So if he had all these bad moments, that means he had lots of good moments too. I can sympathize, though, since Alexander Semin drives me crazy and I’d love a guy who is more consistent even if on average he’s not as good.
by red army line on Aug 27, 2010 1:32 PM MDT up reply actions
On average, he was a ~50 point guy. I mean, that’s pretty good, but everyone acts like that’s irreplaceable. Really, the only times he produced better than that mark were on Stastny’s wing…and everyone gets a huge bump on his wing.
As I said, I feel Wolski is a complimentary player, and he didn’t compliment our centers well here, so he was merely another ~50 point top 6 interchangeable type. Nor could he play as a top 6 center position with our center depth. In the right situation with the right players to compliment, he’s a top line player.
The comparison to Semin is pretty good, I think — just Semin has had the luck to be with the right players to compliment. It could happen for Wolski in Phx (I have my doubts), but I feel safe saying CO was a pretty bad fit for him. And conversely Mueller has been a great fit so far, so I’m pretty happy.
I don’t think Wolski was “interchangeable,” at least not with anyone on the Avalanche. Everyone seemed to perform better when they played with Wolski (the same is true of Statsny, whom you already mentioned). He and Stastny actually seemed to complement one another quite well. I actually liked his offensive game too. I don’t recall him generating “easy” or “low percentage” shots more often than most players, quite the opposite actually. The reason he handled the puck so much was to create plays, and while he sometimes made a poor decision, he also often made good decisions that resulted in the Avs generating a scoring opportunity. I didn’t notice him losing (or winning) an inordinate amount of puck battles, but that’s perhaps something to watch for the next time I see the Coyotes. At any rate, thanks for answering my question!
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 27, 2010 6:05 PM MDT up reply actions
Not that he needs it, but I have to back up Doc here.
I believe that the Baron’s issues were mental / motivational. It was patently obvious that he had the talent, as he would exhibit just often enough to keep the peasants’ pitchforks and torches at bay. Far too often though, he blew golden breakaway opportunities, lost battles on the boards that he had no business losing, etc. When he’s on, he’s very, very good defensive center and he has offensive talent to spare. It just seemed that for long stretches of games, he either couldn’t be bothered to exhibit those skills on the wing (backcheck? me? corners? what are those?) or that his mind just wasn’t keeping up with his body as he seemed to think through the play about 2 seconds more slowly than his body played it.
I like the Baron – a lot. I just think that for one reason or another, most probably because there really wasn’t ever room for him as a top 6 center (save for that awful stretch in 08-09 when both SuperJoe and SoS were out with injury and we had pissed away our top LWs anyway) as he was always trying to break into lines centered by SuperJoe, SoS and later, Dutchy. Baron is good, but I really don’t think he’s better than any of those guys. I wish him all the best in PHX for 78 regular season games a year, but he just didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t fit on the Avs. I hope he pounds the hell out of the Pacific with the Dogs, though.
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
I agree with you that Wolski’s not as good a player as either Sakic or Stastny and that Duchene will probably end up being better (though he certainly wasn’t last season, which is to be expected), but I’m a bit confused about why Wolski would needed to play center to fit on the Avs’ roster. Hasn’t he played left wing for most of his career? Why couldn’t he play wing going forward? And if he really does need to play center, is it really so bad having three high quality centers? The 2001 Avs, for instance, were blessed with Sakic, Forsberg, and Drury up the middle, and it was one of their key strengths. It’s been a tremendous strength for a lot of other clubs too (the Hawks, for instance, used Toews, Sharp, and Bolland up the middle during the playoffs this year, and the Penguins used Crosby, Malkin, and Staal the year before that).
As for the comments about effort, I suppose it’s possible that Wolski doesn’t always try hard, but it doesn’t seem at all likely to me. I think that most NHL players are consistently trying to play their best (they have huge incentives to do so, and are usually extremely competitive people), and Wolski’s “consistency” didn’t strike me as being any different from any other player. Most of the evidence you cite for it seems like a complaint about how good he is at hockey, rather than his effort level. Guys sometimes lose battles, or miss on breakaways, or make bad passes, or muff a shot. It seems like, in this community, Wolski is a victim of his successes. Because sometimes his play results in an amazing goal (he scored one against the Oilers last year that I still remember), it sometimes seems like he should be able to do it more often if he just put his mind to it. Ales Hemsky deals with the same kind of expectations in Edmonton and it’s always confusing when people see him play well and say, “He was so good tonight. If he can pull this level off ten nights a year, he should be able to do it all the time. What a bum.” It seems like a similar sentiment here with Wolski, and I have the same confused reaction.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 27, 2010 9:57 PM MDT up reply actions
He’s fine as a wing, but many around here considered him a better center. And we have 3 quality centers already. 4 counting Galiardi.
As for your observations vs. ours, well, agree to disagree. All we can do is spout opinions at each other here. I will say that you seem to really place a high value on a guy that’s never scored more than 23 goals in a year (and that’s with being a very healthy player (insert avoiding the body joke here)). I mean, that’s not bad, but seriously, I think you might be overvaluing him.
Look, most here don’t think he’s “bad,” quite to the contrary, I think most would simply lament he never was able to reach his potential here. It’s a fair point people get a little more worked up at him (much like Hemsky), but I think that’s natural when you see a guy of his talents not producing at a level consistent with that talent.
I mean, you’ve watched him. Viewing his talents in a vacuum, would you think he’s a ~50p, 20g guy? Hell no. But that’s exactly what he’s been for his whole career, barring some spurts last year. Something is wrong when a guy like him — especially given his linemates — is only putting up those numbers. He’s just maddening to watch as a bad fit, call that lack of effort or stupidity. That’s all.
FWIW, I agree about the effort thing. He does care, he does try. He just doesn’t do it at the right times or in the right ways very often. His mental game, hockey sense, whatever you want to call it — it sucks. I think it’s why so many coaches get mad at him.
Are the three centers you have in mind are Stastny, Duchene, and O’Reilly? If so, I think O’Reilly has a ways to go before I’d consider him a decent player. No shame in that; he’s coming off his rookie year at 18 y/o, and most players look pretty overwhelmed at that time. Sacco didn’t protect him much either, so it’s not like one ought to expect tremendous results. Still, he’s got a long way to go before he’s within spitting distance of Wolski (or Stastny). Galiardi is more of the same, though between him and O’Reilly I’m much more bullish on the latter turning into a player. At any rate, dismissing Wolski who’s already a fine player in favour of a 19 y/o who may or may not pan out doesn’t seem like a fantastic call. It’s not as though Wolski is old.
And that, for me, is another important part of the discussion. When we talk about “his whole career,” it’s important to recall that it’s only four years in. That’s a big reason the goal and point totals don’t bother me in the slightest. I’m not sure why you’re focus is on goals (“only 23 goals”) when Wolski often looks to pass (it’s what causes so many of the turnovers). In terms of points, there just aren’t a lot of players who score at least 60 points in a season before turning 25 (there have been 46 different players to do that since the lockout, or about ten new players per season), and fewer still who have multiple seasons over 40 points. That Wolski had his big season while taking on reasonably difficult competition (which Wolski did this past year in Colorado) and starting more in the DZ than the OZ is further reason for optimism. The idea that his mental game “sucks” seems preposterous to me, only because his vision on the ice is often so good. He needs to work on making the right decision more often, but that’s pretty normal for young players. That’s the rub, really. He’s already established himself as a good player, and he’s young enough that some improvement is still likely.
Which brings us back to expectations. Do I think something between 40 and 65 points per season is reasonable for a player of Wolski’s skill level between age 20 and 24? Absolutely. Nothing about that seems “off” to me. That’s the kind of production one expects from a first (if it’s 65ish) to second (if it’s 40ish) line winger, which is exactly what people saw in him when he was drafted (the slam-dunk stars don’t last until 21st overall). What do you think would be reasonable for a player of his talent and pedigree through four NHL seasons? I think the answer there is probably one of the key differences that leaves you feeling frustrated by his play (and me enjoying the hell out of it).
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 28, 2010 3:50 AM MDT up reply actions
I love to recap discussions when they get to this point:
Scott: What are Wolski’s flaws outside the stats? How can you guys be ok with losing such a key player?
Doc, others: (List Wolski’s flaws, especially play away from the puck and mental, and point out that Wolski’s production was never great)
Scott: But how can you say that? I saw players playing better with him, and he does great thing with the puck!
Hopfen: But that’s not what Doc said, it’s about mental issues and play away from the puck.
Scott: Well, I disagree with those statements because I never saw it, and it seems to me it’s all about you guys’ overinflated expectations.
Doc: I mean, you’re right that we expect a lot of him, but have you seen his talent? There’s a huge disparity between it and his production. Doesn’t that point to issues in his game?
Scott: Young guys drafted at 21 overall and below 24 shouldn’t have expectations above what he’s done. (Snide comments about RoR).
So, if I follow this correctly, you think the talent/production disparity is due to the fact that he’s young, and that he didn’t have this kind of talent in the first place, that this is exactly what we should be expecting?
I think we’re done here. I could repeat myself about his flaws, the poor fit here, the talent/production disparity and lack of improvement, but it comes down to that we just disagree. You’re didn’t see his flaws, we don’t share your optimism for his future.
One final point: if Wolski had been under contract at a cheap price for another couple years, he would absolutely still be an Av. Paying 3.8m (and he wanted more) for ~50 point talent seems preposterous to me, and I daresay to the Avs as well. Phx agrees with you, and is clearly paying based on some optimism for the future.
As I’ve said I think both takes could be right: Colorado was a spot where Wolski had plateaued, Phx may be the place he can grow. We’ll see. I’m glad to not be paying him extravagantly based on optimism though.
Thanks for the discussion. Oh, and you’re oh so wrong on RoR. Definitely a decent NHLer already, best 3rd line center the Avs have had in years.
I appreciate the discussion as well, and yeah, disagreeing about players is nothing new. I should clarify my position on O’Reilly, because I really wasn’t trying to be snide. I actually like Ryan O’Reilly, and think he could become a very good player. In the first ten games of the year, I thought he looked more comfortable in the NHL than Duchene. He was put in a very tough situation by Sacco (taking a lot of DZ draws without much help), partly because he’s already a pretty good FO guy (very unusual for someone his age, which bodes well for the future). It’s just that he’s very young and isn’t able to push results forward quite yet, so his line got beat up a bit in terms of the possession metrics (Corsi, ZoneShift, that kind of thing). He might get there (I think it’s likely), but like with any young player, it’s not a sure thing, and for next season, he’ll probably still be learning the game more than driving results.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 28, 2010 1:40 PM MDT up reply actions
Re: Radar
I agree that his line got itself pushed around quite a bit, but I’m putting that down to his linemates, which included Tucker and Svatos for most of the season, in some cases, both at the same time. Tucker is just plain awful and Svatos his an offensive talent with neither the size nor the defensive skills to be anything put a one dimensional triggerman on an all star center’s wing (though he can be highly effective in that position).
With 2 of Gali, Yip & Jones on his line, Radar will absolutely explode this year.
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
Dead on. RoR’s line did get pushed around…after he lost good linemates. RoR himself looked just fine to me. He could use faceoff work and skating work, but the way he anticipates play is enough to cancel out those flaws imo.
I thought O’Reilly looked a little lost later in the season. I’ve chalked it up to rookie wall, but There was a month or two (Jan-Feb) where he really looked a step slow out there
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Aug 29, 2010 1:24 AM MDT up reply actions
offensively maybe, but that’s par for the course for 3rd liner, I would say. I thought he brought it defensively every night.
Everytime RoR and Gally were teamed together (lots of PK work) magic seemed to happen. It’s one of my hopes for next season that the two of them get welded together…
And They Shall Know No Fear.
Yeah
That PK team-up was money. Imagine what could happen if they’re teamed up together for a full game…
/drool
Dear Colorado Avalanche: Thank you for the excitement, see you in October.
Yeah, he sucks.
And They Shall Know No Fear.
by i2strange97 on Aug 29, 2010 10:53 PM MDT up reply actions
That shark with the noose
Greatest. Stuffed Animal. Ever.
Dear Colorado Avalanche: Thank you for the excitement, see you in October.
Wolski has the potential to be a good winger, but he always played better (and was obviously more comfortable) as a center.
I’m not convinced that the issue was always effort – though that’s how it always seemed to manifest itself – it may have been that his mental game / hockey sense / ability to see 3 moves ahead / call it what you may was impaired for long stretches. You’d see flashes of Forsbergian brilliance one period and then you’d see beer league boneheadedness for the next two periods. Frustrating as all hell and part of the reason that he catches so much hell around here. If you have that kind of potential, not living up to it, especially when that seems to come in the form of just not trying hard enough, will put you in the fans’ and coaches’ doghouse real quick.
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
Scott, is it OK with you if, after 4 seasons of watching Wolski, some of us disagree with your statement that “in this community” it seems like he’s a victim of his past success? Because I don’t hold any of his past middling success against him. You asked what some of us don’t like, and you got different answers, but you skipped over the first answer which is where Mike pointed out that Granato, Quenneville, and Sacco, all hard-working “honest” ex players, benched his ass, either by healthy scratch or, even worse, by giving another guy his minutes as a game goes on. And it wasn’t because they were dying to see more of Jaroslav Hlinka or Darcy Tucker, either. It was because these coaches, who have seen thousands of games in their combined careers, decided that Wolski lack of hustle/physicality/ice awareness/fitness (my own speculation)/whatever was too much to take, despite his obvious physical talents.
It’s not just about losing battles – he avoids them at all possible costs. He’s a guy with above-average size who dances around the outskirts. I don’t need him to be the second coming of Cam Neely, but I’d love it if he wasn’t such a gigantic, fucking pussy.
You compare Wolski to Ales Hemsky – seems like you’re spot on. If you were a coach, would you bet your job or your team on a guy like Hemsky? I don’t understand why you’re confused about a guy you define as playing up to his level only a handful of games each year.
To sum up, his lack of consistent effort is what frustrates me the most. I don’t think he’s the most fit guy on the team. He’s been benched at times during his career by all his NHL coaches. The hardest hit he’s ever thrown is probably the one in the bar fight he had in his junior days. He’s quite possibly (speculation alert!) one of a handful of players who was laughing with buddies outside the locker room during a late-season 7-0 home drubbing two seasons ago that so infuriated a couple of the veterans. In their first game against him, several Avs, including Cody McLeod, went out of their way to be pretty aggressive against him, and to get right in his face.
Center’s his favored position, by the way, he said that many times in his Colorado days. But he’s not fit enough, by far, to be a No.1 center on a team that asks for even marginal defensive responsibilities from its center, and it seems to me that Tippett asks for a whole lot more than that.
When you watched Wolski last season hop in and out of the doghouse on a team that desperately needed top 6 forwards, didn’t you ask yourself why that was happening? When he went 18 or so games without a goal and only one or two significant assists, didn’t you happen to ask yourself, as so many of us did, what the eff is wrong (again) with Wolski?
You'll see all your favorite soccer stars. Like Adiaga! Adiaga two! Badiaga! Aruglia! And Pizzoza!
by Dan Winkler on Aug 29, 2010 7:24 AM MDT up reply actions
When I say Wolski’s a victim of his successes, I mean in specific games and plays, not large periods of time. I think every player has good games and bad games, good plays and bad plays, and that Wolski is no different. But you can’t expect that level on every play or in every game. It’s just not realistic. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Matt Greene, but his first NHL goal is a perfect case in point. Now, after watching that I could get on Matt Greene for not doing that kind of thing more often, but realistically, he’s just not talented enough to make that kind of play regularly. Now, Wolski is more talented, and so he makes more truly amazing plays than Greene, but that still doesn’t mean he can do it all the time. And I think that’s what gets people frustrated. They think his top level should be his average level.
As for the coaches, I don’t know the specific circumstances behind Wolski’s benchings, but the first time it happened last season, it sure wasn’t based on results. This is what I said after the first ten games:
Wojtek Wolski is the runaway leader in scoring chance percentage at even strength. I find that particularly interesting because coach Joe Sacco seems to have not been impressed with Wolski so far this year. In addition to benching him for a period and a half, Wolski was also removed from the top line.
I suppose there must have been some reason for Sacco to have him riding pine, but the reason wasn’t obvious from the results with Wolski on the ice. Basically, I think coaches sometimes make bad choices. God knows I watched a lot of them last year in Edmonton. That said, it’s also possible that Wolski is an absolute ass (this isn’t supposed to be sarcastic; based on your anecdotal evidence it seems quite possible).
With Hemsky, I think he’s one of the best right wingers in the league, certainly in the top 15, and his contract is excellent value. You’re probably not going to win a lot if he’s your best player, but he’s definitely a guy I’d want on my team. He’s gifted offensively, can play against good players successfully, and can carry a line. I don’t know if that answers the “bet my job” question positively or negatively, but I do think very highly of the guy.
As for Wolski’s cold patches, I’m not sure what you’d counts as a significant assist and what doesn’t, but I think his longest dry spell (no points) was six games. That was probably a frustrating patch of games for everyone, but then, the six-game stretch where he scored nine points isn’t his true level either. It’s somewhere in the middle. So no, I didn’t really think anything was wrong. It just looked like the normal fluctuations that most players have during the season. I’m curious what the expectation was in terms of point-scoring. Did most folks here expect an 80-90 point guy?
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 5:56 PM MDT up reply actions
That said, it’s also possible that Wolski is an absolute ass
Folks around here have heard this before, but I’ve been told from a friend who knows people within the Avs organization that his personality wasn’t a “fit” within the locker room and this, along with the salary issue, went into the decision to trade him. The insinuation leaned towards what you are saying. I hope that it was a personality clash and that he is successful in Phx and meshes well with the team there as I really like the guy as a player, though.
I just like the fights.
by Cheryl Bradley on Aug 30, 2010 9:19 PM MDT up reply actions
This may be applicable here—why the Caps seem to have mental lapses on D. Maybe some players just don’t have games that are suited for those 5 minute lulls, especially if your game is heavily dependent on skill and not effort.
I have no stats to back up that hypothesis though.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 2:21 PM MDT up reply actions
Thanks for the write up.
MHH- A drinking site with a hockey problem
Hockeytown was a marketing invention to draw fans to a team that had less gate than the atlanta thrashers.
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.
