One of the overplayed storylines of the summer, in terms of the Caps, was the addition of power forward Mike Knuble to bring grit, net presence, or whatever you want to call it…a big body to sit in front of the net. George McPhee called the free agent signing a no-brainer, and the underlying narrative was that Knuble brought a necessary aspect to the Capitals roster that was heretofore missing.
The unsaid aspect of that story, of course, is that Washington’s other power forward-type players weren’t getting the job done. Chris Clark was hurt and Eric Fehr had a pair of bum shoulders, but wither Brooks Laich? For a fair amount of the season Laich split his time on the first two lines, though he found great success in the playoff on a checking line with David Steckel and Matt Bradley.
Statistically Laich had a pretty damn good season: 23 goals, 53 points (both career highs), and appeared in every single regular season and playoff game for the second straight year. His average time on ice (ATOI) increased significantly for the fourth straight year.
On the power play, Laich jumped from 10th amongst Caps forwards in power play time, with 1.22 minutes per 60, to 5th at 2.43 min/60, and his when he did get on the power play in 2008-09 it was frequently on the first unit. While his production was almost the same as Knuble’s (27 goals, 47 points), the perceived difference between the two was Knuble’s willingness to put his big frame in front of the net (Knuble is just an inch taller than Laich, but listed at 23 pounds heavier).
In any case, the point is that coming into Thursday’s season opener the expectation was that when Washington fielded a full lineup Knuble would be on the right wing on the first line with Alexander Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom while Laich would be on the left wing with Brendan Morrison and Mike Knuble, and the first power play unit would be Semin, Backstrom, and Knuble with Ovechkin and Mike Green on the points.
If you watched the game, you’d know that what we actually got was a first line of Ovechkin-Backstrom-Semin and a second line of Laich-Morrison-Knuble, and a first power play unit of Laich-Backstrom-Semin with Ovechkin and Green (when I refer to the first unit in the remainder of the article, this five-man unit is what I mean).
If you were watching even closer, you would have noticed something else about the power play unit. While Laich was the man in front of the net, he also took all three single first unit faceoffs.
This struck me immediately as requiring further research, so I took a look at the faceoff report to see what was going on.* [Note 1: This image is courtesy of flickr user clydeorama. Note 2: It was obviously not taken at Thursday's game.]
Washington had 3:25 of power play time over the course of four power plays (they scored 15 and 16 seconds into two Boston penalties, and had a third power play cut short by a Green penalty). During that time, there were three faceoffs for which the Caps’ first unit was on the ice: at 13:22 of the first period, 17:00 of the first, and the opening faceoff of the third.
Not only did Laich take all three faceoffs, he was the primary centerman. That’s an important distinction, as this analysis doesn’t hold much weight if Backstrom had been kicked out of the dot at any point, necessitating Laich as the only other player with experience as center on the ice to take the faceoff.
Why was Laich, who is a natural center but plays primarily on the left wing, taking those faceoffs? During the offseason Laich’s name has been batted around as a possible second-line center with Sergei Fedorov’s departure, but after Morrison’s acquisition that possibility was basically squashed. Laich appeared in four preseason games, appearing as a wing during five-on-five play.
When you take a look at the faceoff reports from those four games, though, Laich actually took twelve faceoffs. Every single faceoff was in a special teams situation—four on the power play, eight on the penalty kill. That corresponds with the data from the Boston game, in which all three of his faceoffs taken were on the power play.
Laich and Backstrom only appeared in two preseason games together, September 23rd against Chicago and the 27th against the Rangers. They were both on the power play together, and if you look at the eight power play faceoffs for which they were on the ice, responsibility was split 50-50.
Here’s the funny thing: Brooks Laich was pretty terrible in the faceoff dot throughout the preseason. He was 4-of-12, a pretty rough 33% success rate (with an admittedly puny sample size). Out of the four power play faceoffs Laich took, all in the offensive zone with Backstrom on the ice, the Canadian was 1-of-4. His other eight faceoffs were on the penalty kill, which makes a lot more sense considering he was paired with Knuble, Clark, or other non-centers.
By comparison Backstrom was much better at the faceoff dot with a larger sample size, finishing 31-of-56, or 55%. On the power play he was 8-of-13, more specifically in the offensive zone he was 5-of-8, and even more specifically in the offensive zone with Laich on the ice he was a perfect 2-for-2.
Last year Laich was several percentage points better than Backstrom at the faceoff dot in the regular season, 51.1% to 48.7%, though Backstrom took over twice as many faceoffs in the same amount of games. Their faceoff stats on the power play were both good, with Laich winning 82-of-154 (53.2%) and Backstrom 101-of-201 (50.2%).
However you look at it Backstrom was statistically superior as a center throughout the preseason and the two were basically indistinguishable last year. The question at the heart of this inquiry is: Why? As in why the hell would Boudreau have Laich take every offensive zone faceoff against Boston when he was so much worse than Backstrom? The faceoff at center ice to start the third period isn’t all that key, but both offensive zone draws took place late in the first period with the game scoreless—crucial faceoffs for a team on the road.
There are a litany of reasons a different player than the center might take a draw, some valid in this situation and some not, as to why Laich was in the circle:
First, the normal center got kicked out of the dot. Obviously this wasn’t the case.
Second, the normal center would do a better job in front of the net screening in case of a shot right off the draw. Not in this instance either—Backstrom and Laich are basically the same size, and there’s no argument Laich has better technique of the two in the net.
Third, Laich was preferred because he could draw to a specific player. Laich and Backstrom are both left-handed in terms of their stick, which would have both drawing back to the same guy, Ovechkin.
Fourth, Laich was preferred because a win from the right faceoff circle would send the puck to Ovechkin in the center of the ice for an immediate shot. Again, Backstrom and Laich shoot from the same side.
Fifth, Laich has a better matchup against the opposing center. Here we have something. Looking back to last year, in four games against the Bruins Laich was a fantastic 19-for-31 (61.3%) against the Bruins in the faceoff circle, and he fared by far the best against Marc Savard (9-for-14 [including one night where he was 6-of-7] or 64.3%). By comparison he was 3-for-7 (42.9%) against Boston's other primary penalty-killing center, Patrice Bergeron. [Note: image courtesy of flickr user Dan4th.]
Save asking Boudreau directly (and him actually giving a straight answer), a matchup based on the expectation that Savard would be taking the faceoff is a reasonable expectation. When we consider Boston’s complete penalty killing unit, and the situation Thursday night, that reasoning doesn’t hold up. Savard and Bergeron play together as a penalty-killing pairing.
Furthermore, home teams get the last change, and the road team’s center has to be at the faceoff dot first. Therefore Boston knew who Washington would send to the dot, in this case Laich, before making the decision of whether Savard or Bergeron took the faceoff. It was a conscious decision to send Savard. He only took two drops against Laich, those two in Boston's defensive end. Bergeron took three of Boston's other short-handed faceoffs, with Steve Begin taking the one to open the third period.
Therefore, it's almost certain Boudreau had the information about Laich's success against Savard, and Bruins coach Claude Julien either ignored the same information or was not aware (not covering the Bruins, I don't know which is more likely). So Laich's presence in the faceoff circle was a calculated move based on past percentages.
Of course, in all of this we lose sight of the big picture that Laich’s actual performance in the dot was irrelevant to the ensuing play. After his first faceoff, and one win, the Caps controlled the play and Laich himself managed a shot 12 seconds later before Green eventually took a penalty later in the shift.
The two faceoffs Laich lost, one in offensive zone late in the first frame and one at center ice to kick off the third period? He scored within sixteen seconds on each, from what he called maybe “a combined two feet out from the goal line,” after some slick passing from his teammates freed him up to set up at the weakside post.
The real lesson, if there is one, to take from Laich’s offensive zone power play faceoffs is that whether Boudreau has a well thought out strategy or is going with his gut instinct, in one game actual success in the faceoff circle on the power play was unrelated to the ensuing play.
As the regular season continues and we see more of what the Caps' strategy is in certain situations, we'll have a clearer idea if this was a one-game lark or something we should expect to see more frequently.
*The faceoff sheets for the games discussed are as follows:
9.17: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/FC010018.HTM
9.21: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/FC010051.HTM
9.23: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/FC010071.HTM
9.24: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/FC010076.HTM
9.27: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/FC010100.HTM
10.1: http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/FC020001.HTM
0 comments:
Post a Comment