This month a popular topic of conversation among hockey types, as it is every October, was whether or not statistical leaders through the first few games of the season and reach otherwise-unattainable records or benchmarks.
With 5 goals in his first three games and then 9 through his first eight, Alexander Ovechkin was one of the primary focuses. Could he score 50 in 50? Could he be the first to break 70 goals since Alexander Mogilny and Teemu Selanne did it in 1992-93? Two goalless games has seen him cede the buzz to LA's Anze Kopitar, but it was (and perhaps still is) a valid question.
Also garnering critical attention in the early goings, though not as much as that of the goal-scorers, was Nicklas Backstrom. Backie-Star had an impressive 8 assists through the first three games of the year. Since then he only earned one assist in the succeeding seven games, though his nine helpers still has him tied for 8th in the NHL and his 11 points is tied for 22nd best.
Even with a seven-game slump, Backstrom is on track for 74 assists this season if he plays all 82 games, which he did in each of his previous two seasons.
In 2008-09 Backstrom finished with 66 assists, which tied him with Ryan Getzlaf for 3rd in the NHL behind Pittsburgh's Evgeni Malkin (78) and Sidney Crosby (70). At age 21, in only his third full NHL season, there's no reason to believe Backstrom couldn't improve on his numbers once again (his 66 assists and 88 points were a fair increase over his rookie season of 55 assists and 69 points).
What is a reasonable highwater expectation for Backstrom this year? 74 assists on the year works out to .903 assists/game, which is around the rate the NHL leader has kept the past two seasons: Malkin was working at a .951 pace last season and Joe Thornton had 67 assists in 82 games in 2007-08, or a .817 rate. It would require racking up assists at a high rate, but not an unreasonable one.
Number 19, despite owning a pretty nice shot (skip ahead to :35 on this video, for example) and putting 23 shots on net already this year, has always been more comfortable as a traditional pass-first centerman. He gets primo time on the first power play unit with Ovechkin (56 goals in 08-09), Brooks Laich (23), Alexander Semin (34) or Mike Knuble (27), and Mike Green (31). With the way Bruce Boudreau juggles lines, Backstrom could find himself taking a regular shift with any combination of two of the first four players, or Eric Fehr (12 goals in 61 games), Chris Clark (30 goals in 06-07, the last time he played more than 32 games in a season), or Tomas Fleischmann (19 goals in 73 games) once the Czech winger gets healthy.
60 assists in a year has been a pretty good benchmark since the lockout for a first-tier center in the NHL. Fourteen players have earned or surpassed 60 assists 29 times in the four seasons since the lockout. None of the players are flukes, although chances are good some of them won't get near the number again (looking at you, Daniel Alfredsson).
Even another 60+ assists season would puck Backstrom in impressive company. The other players with multiple post-lockout 60+ assist years are Joe Thornton (four), Marc Savard (four), Sidney Crosby (three), Henrik Sedin (three), Pavel Datsyuk (three), and Nicklas Lidstrom (two).
Earning 70 assists would put Backstrom in an even more prestigious club. The only players to equal or surpass that mark since the lockout have been Thornton (twice), Crosby (twice), Malkin, Savard, Sedin and Jason Spezza. Only Thornton and Crosby have topped 80, and Thornton is the only to best 90, putting up back-to-back, spite-filled 96- and 92-assist seasons in 05-06 and 06-07.
A healthy Joe Thornton, more than any specific number, has been the best benchmark of success in the past six seasons. Since 2002-03 Jumbo Joe has finished no worse than 8th in the league in assists, and has led the league in three of those years.
One of the few disappointing things about hockey, if you can even call it disappointing, is that so many of its all-time records are out of reach. Thornton's 96-assist season in 05-06 was the best by any player in over a decade. Wayne Gretzky had eleven straight 100+ assist seasons- the only other players to hit that mark are Mario Lemieux and Bobby Orr, once each. Last season Malkin won the scoring race with 113 points; Gretzky had eight season in which his assist total would have won the 08-09 scoring race. His 163-assist season in 85-86 would have tied for or won outright the NHL scoring title in every season since 89-90. It is simply a different era.
Adjusted stats, which are certainly not recognized by the NHL but provide much better context for players' statistics, and still show that Gretzky's numbers were relatively way beyond how contemporary players are producing. He no longer owns 11 of the top 13 seasons of all time, but 11 of the top 40 still isn't shabby, considering the worst of those season (80-81) still adjusts to 84 assists (by comparison, Thornton's 96 assists in 05-06 adjust down to 92 and Backstrom's 66 assists last year adjust up to 67).
What conclusions can we draw about Nicklas Backstrom? First, with seasons of 55 and 66 assists under his belt he is already one of the NHL's elite set-up men, with similar production as Savard, Sedin, Datsyuk, and Malkin but without the lengthy track record since he's early in his third season.
Chances are no one will hit 100 assists in a season over the course of Backstrom's career. If anyone does, Backstrom probably has the best chance. Assuming he re-ups with the Capitals for a significant amount of time, he'll have Ovechkin on his wing and Green on his point. If the Caps are serious about a Stanley Cup run Backstrom will have to play a starring role.
90 assists is out of the question this year as well, as is 80 realistically. Mid-70s would give him one of the top 5 post-lockout assist totals. That aforementioned 74 assists certainly seems possible, especially given Backstrom's propensity for multi-assist games (30 in 174 career games, including three 4-assist nights). At age 21 Backstrom's best years are still ahead of him, and while a large part of his maturation will come in terms of defensive responsibilities, there's no reason to think that he's already capped out in terms of assists or points.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Hockey Lexicon 2 - Hat-Flipper, Pearly Gates
Last night my hockey vocabulary expanded quite a bit again. First Mike Knuble introduced me to a new term, and then I picked another one up from the Detroit announcing crew, via NHL on the Fly on the NHL Network.
First up, Hat-flipper: a high clearing attempt or pass launched at a severe angle. Used by Mike Knuble to describe the pass from Brendan Morrison that set up Alexander Ovechkin's second goal.
Usage: Describing his assists, Knuble credited his second one of the night to "a hat-flipper by Brendan, you know, you just got to throw it to that side of the ice, just something good is gonna happen a lot of the time."
The second was pearly gates, used by play-by-play announcer Ken Daniels of FSN Detroit to describe the five-hole. Usage: "Right through the pearly gates!" on a shot that slipped between Chris Osgood's legs.
First up, Hat-flipper: a high clearing attempt or pass launched at a severe angle. Used by Mike Knuble to describe the pass from Brendan Morrison that set up Alexander Ovechkin's second goal.
Usage: Describing his assists, Knuble credited his second one of the night to "a hat-flipper by Brendan, you know, you just got to throw it to that side of the ice, just something good is gonna happen a lot of the time."
The second was pearly gates, used by play-by-play announcer Ken Daniels of FSN Detroit to describe the five-hole. Usage: "Right through the pearly gates!" on a shot that slipped between Chris Osgood's legs.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Statistics Lie to You
At Verizon Center for tonight's game between the Caps and the Devils, while flipping through the Game Notes, I saw a couple numbers that reminded me not to put undue stock in the team's special teams performance through the first five games of the season.
At the moment, Washington is 6 for 24 on the power play, an even 25%. That would have been good enough for 3rd place overall in the NHL last year, right behind the Red Wings (25.5%) and the 08-09 Caps (25.2%). Through 1 1/2 weeks of the 09-10 season, it's only good for T-12th. Last season's 12th place team was Chicago, converting at 19.3%.
Conversely, the Caps have allowed 6 goals on 27 penalty kills, giving them a 77.8% success rate, tied for 13th in the NHL. That same percentage in 2008-09 would have placed them at 27th in the league, right behind Tampa Bay (78%) and just ahead of Edmonton (77.5%). [As an aside, Detroit was only 25th with a 78.3% kill rate] Again, on the flip side, the 13th best penalty kill last season was Columbus at 82.1%...a full 1.5 percentage points ahead of where the Caps finished, in 17th at 80.6%.
At the moment, Washington is 6 for 24 on the power play, an even 25%. That would have been good enough for 3rd place overall in the NHL last year, right behind the Red Wings (25.5%) and the 08-09 Caps (25.2%). Through 1 1/2 weeks of the 09-10 season, it's only good for T-12th. Last season's 12th place team was Chicago, converting at 19.3%.
Conversely, the Caps have allowed 6 goals on 27 penalty kills, giving them a 77.8% success rate, tied for 13th in the NHL. That same percentage in 2008-09 would have placed them at 27th in the league, right behind Tampa Bay (78%) and just ahead of Edmonton (77.5%). [As an aside, Detroit was only 25th with a 78.3% kill rate] Again, on the flip side, the 13th best penalty kill last season was Columbus at 82.1%...a full 1.5 percentage points ahead of where the Caps finished, in 17th at 80.6%.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Mildly interesting post by Brian Costello over at The Hockey News on the topic of Ovechkin's and Crosby's production.
He doesn't say a single new thing, but it's a point worth reiterating: Statistically-speaking, hockey players peak at the age of 24. There are certainly notable outliers as he points out, like Lemieux's 69-goal seasons at age 28 and 31 and some outstanding seasons by Gretzky and Brett Hull in their mid-20s, but as a general rule NHL players will realize their greatest statisical output at the age of 23 or 24.
That does not mean players don't get better as they age. While goal-scoring and point-production might go down, often players improve defensively as well as in those intangibles like 'leadership' and 'ice vision.
So enjoy Ovechkin's goal-scoring while it lasts, for at age 24 history suggests his highest-scoring years have either past or will pass in the next few seasons. He'll no doubt be a productive player, barring injury, for the entire length of his current monster contract, but the numbers may not get any higher.
He doesn't say a single new thing, but it's a point worth reiterating: Statistically-speaking, hockey players peak at the age of 24. There are certainly notable outliers as he points out, like Lemieux's 69-goal seasons at age 28 and 31 and some outstanding seasons by Gretzky and Brett Hull in their mid-20s, but as a general rule NHL players will realize their greatest statisical output at the age of 23 or 24.
That does not mean players don't get better as they age. While goal-scoring and point-production might go down, often players improve defensively as well as in those intangibles like 'leadership' and 'ice vision.
So enjoy Ovechkin's goal-scoring while it lasts, for at age 24 history suggests his highest-scoring years have either past or will pass in the next few seasons. He'll no doubt be a productive player, barring injury, for the entire length of his current monster contract, but the numbers may not get any higher.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Reflections on the TAking of Faceoffs, Redux
A couple days ago I undertook a brief analysis of some faceoffs taken by Brooks Laich on the power play in Thursday night's game against the Boston Bruins.
The main question was simply- why did Laich take a pair of offensive zone faceoffs with the Capitals on the power play, when a) center Nicklas Backstrom was on the ice, b) Backstrom performed well in the dot in the pre-season, and c) Laich quite did not.
Previously I came to the conclusion that Laich's presence in the circle was based on perceived good matchups against Boston's two primary penalty-killing centers, Marc Savard and Patrice Bergeron. Laich and Backstrom are both left-handed, so there was no advantage putting having one or the other take a faceoff depending on which side of the ice.
I was curious to see what the 1st unit PP faceoff statistics looked like Saturday night at home against the Maple Leafs, and they did not disappoint. Washington's #1 unit was on the ice for four faceoffs, all in Toronto's end. Laich took all four of them.
So obviously there isn't a specific player-matchup reason for Laich taking these faceoffs. Against Toronto he took two each against Jamal Mayers and Matt Stajan, the former who shoots right and the latter left.
Also of note is the fact that Laich has been consistently weak in the dot. If you include the one short-handed draw he took last night he was 1-5, giving him a two-game result of 2-8. An overall 25% success rate, up to 33% if you look specifically at offensive-zone draws while on the power play, is just plain bad.
That returns us again to the original question from the first post: Why?
It's not a matchup thing, and it's also not a success-rate thing. It's also definitely not an accident. Alexander Semin lines up on the left wing instead of his usual right just so he has the immediate wrist shot if Laich wins the draw directly behind/the puck is loose after the drop.
Once possession is established, Washington likes to run a type of umbrella formation on the power play, with Ovechkin and Mike Green or Brian Pothier on the blue line, Semin and Backstrom on the half-boards, and Laich or Mike Knuble in front of the net. As my friend Craig Stone (formerly of Beltway Sports Beat and DC Sports Box) suggested, the Caps positioning on the faceoff corresponds with where they'll be on the ice.
It seems too simplistic to suggest that Laich takes the draws simply because he'll be in the center anyway. A lost faceoff (and Laich loses most of them) could very quickly and easily turn into a cleared puck and a Caps breakout. Of course the simplest way to answer this question would be to ask Laich directly, but he's a hard man to get a word in with after the game when he scores a goal, adds an assist and earns the hard hat. Next Caps game I cover, if this trend continues, I'll try to get an answer from the many himself.
The main question was simply- why did Laich take a pair of offensive zone faceoffs with the Capitals on the power play, when a) center Nicklas Backstrom was on the ice, b) Backstrom performed well in the dot in the pre-season, and c) Laich quite did not.
Previously I came to the conclusion that Laich's presence in the circle was based on perceived good matchups against Boston's two primary penalty-killing centers, Marc Savard and Patrice Bergeron. Laich and Backstrom are both left-handed, so there was no advantage putting having one or the other take a faceoff depending on which side of the ice.
I was curious to see what the 1st unit PP faceoff statistics looked like Saturday night at home against the Maple Leafs, and they did not disappoint. Washington's #1 unit was on the ice for four faceoffs, all in Toronto's end. Laich took all four of them.
So obviously there isn't a specific player-matchup reason for Laich taking these faceoffs. Against Toronto he took two each against Jamal Mayers and Matt Stajan, the former who shoots right and the latter left.
Also of note is the fact that Laich has been consistently weak in the dot. If you include the one short-handed draw he took last night he was 1-5, giving him a two-game result of 2-8. An overall 25% success rate, up to 33% if you look specifically at offensive-zone draws while on the power play, is just plain bad.
That returns us again to the original question from the first post: Why?
It's not a matchup thing, and it's also not a success-rate thing. It's also definitely not an accident. Alexander Semin lines up on the left wing instead of his usual right just so he has the immediate wrist shot if Laich wins the draw directly behind/the puck is loose after the drop.
Once possession is established, Washington likes to run a type of umbrella formation on the power play, with Ovechkin and Mike Green or Brian Pothier on the blue line, Semin and Backstrom on the half-boards, and Laich or Mike Knuble in front of the net. As my friend Craig Stone (formerly of Beltway Sports Beat and DC Sports Box) suggested, the Caps positioning on the faceoff corresponds with where they'll be on the ice.
It seems too simplistic to suggest that Laich takes the draws simply because he'll be in the center anyway. A lost faceoff (and Laich loses most of them) could very quickly and easily turn into a cleared puck and a Caps breakout. Of course the simplest way to answer this question would be to ask Laich directly, but he's a hard man to get a word in with after the game when he scores a goal, adds an assist and earns the hard hat. Next Caps game I cover, if this trend continues, I'll try to get an answer from the many himself.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Heard at the Rink - Caps v. Toronto October 3rd
Couple quick quotes and thoughts from the post-game press availability:
-Brooks Laich, on playing with more poise this season:
For a guy who left the Caps hanging for a few weeks before signing with the KHL, Fedorov still had a noticeable presence in the Verizon Center Saturday night. Beyond Laich's shoutout, which was completely unprompted, his series-winning goal from last season's series against the Rangers drew one of the louder cheers during a pre-game montage shown on the big screen immediately prior to the championship banner raising.
-Bruce Boudreau was asked if Laich would keep pace with Alexander Ovechkin for the NHL scoring lead (both are part of a pack sitting with 3 goals through 2 games). Boudreau is usually a joker, but he played it straight this time:
"No. He has no chance."
-Brendan Morrison is extremely happy to be a member of the Caps, and to say he's excited about the season is an understatement. I used part of this quote in my article, but bears repeating and expanding. When asked if it was tough to play with such a big lead (five goals after two periods), Morrison replied:
-Brooks Laich, on playing with more poise this season:
"A big influence on myself was Sergei Fedorov. That guy never seemed to be in a hurry. If he was 15 minutes late for the plane, he would just show up and roll onto the plane. He was just very calm and poised and I watch him like a hawk day in and day out."
For a guy who left the Caps hanging for a few weeks before signing with the KHL, Fedorov still had a noticeable presence in the Verizon Center Saturday night. Beyond Laich's shoutout, which was completely unprompted, his series-winning goal from last season's series against the Rangers drew one of the louder cheers during a pre-game montage shown on the big screen immediately prior to the championship banner raising.
-Bruce Boudreau was asked if Laich would keep pace with Alexander Ovechkin for the NHL scoring lead (both are part of a pack sitting with 3 goals through 2 games). Boudreau is usually a joker, but he played it straight this time:
"No. He has no chance."
-Brendan Morrison is extremely happy to be a member of the Caps, and to say he's excited about the season is an understatement. I used part of this quote in my article, but bears repeating and expanding. When asked if it was tough to play with such a big lead (five goals after two periods), Morrison replied:
It is tough. When you’re up in the game 6-1 it is tough, but the great teams learn how to play consistently, and I think this team has the ability to do that, there’s no question, we haven’t shown it so far, from what I’ve heard it’s kind of been a bit of a problem in the past. I can tell you there’s going to be a lot of games this year where we’re going to get out, and we’re gonna get a lead, and we’re gonna have probably a substantial lead in some games, and it’s what we do from there, it’s something that we have to get on early. [Emphasis mine]
Friday, October 2, 2009
Reflections on the Taking of Faceoffs
Thursday night was a huge night for Brooks Laich. The 26-year-old left wing/center had two power play goals and an even strength assist in a pretty dominating victory over the reigning regular season Eastern Conference champions Boston Bruins.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
