Goal-scorers remain biggest need
The Montreal Canadiens only substantial move on "deadline day" was to move Andrei Kostitsyn and his annual output of 20 to 25 goals per-season. Looking toward next season, the Habs remain an offensively-starved hockey team. In a league that normally requires a team to have at least ten 10-goal scorers and two 30-plus goal-scorers to all but guarantee a playoff berth, the Habs currently have just barely ten potential 10-goal scorers, and only Max Pacioretty with an above-average chance of scoring 30-goals.
My article on ten and thirty-goal scorers available here
After 62 games, the Canadiens have the nineteenth-ranked goal differential in the league (-12). They also have the nineteenth-ranked offense at 2.54 goals per-game, and the twelfth-ranked defense at 2.65 goals-against per-game. They are the fifteenth-ranked team five-on-five, and still have the top-ranked penalty-killing unit.
The season has been lost for a number of reasons. The two largest being an under-achieving powerplay; that currently sits twenty-ninth in the league, and a shootout record of 3 wins, 8 losses.
A playoff spot next season is contingent on the Canadiens ability to bring in offensive-help. Carey Price gives the team what they need in goal; a goalie that consistently produces a save percentage north of .915. This save percentage is key, as it allows a team to give up an average of 30 shots per game and still give up only 210 goals on the season; only 5 teams in the last 4 seasons have given up less than 210 goals and not made the playoffs.
In order for a team to earn a playoff-challenging point-total of 94 during an 82-game schedule it needs to earn an average of 1.15 points per-game. In the last four seasons the average amount of goals needed by a team to earn one point is 2.48. This means that in order for a team to earn 94 points they need to score an average of (1.15 x 2.48) 2.85 goals per-game, for a total of 234 goals.
Two 30-goal scorers will produce 60 goals, while 8 other players scoring more than 10-goals each should produce an average of 15 goals. This would give a team 180 goals from ten players, leaving 52 goals to be scored by the 12 other players on the roster (factoring in injuries); an average of 4 goals each.
Current players on the Canadiens roster who are under contract next season, and have already scored at a pace in the NHL equalling 30 goals over an 82-game schedule include Max Pacioretty (this season), Erik Cole, Tomas Plekanec, Rene Bourque, and Brian Gionta. If we look at factors such as age, injuries, shooting percentage, and number of seasons since a 30-goal pace was achieved, we find the only probable option for 30-goals next season is Pacioretty. Leaving Cole, Plekanec, Bourque, and Gionta as four of the Habs potential 10-goal scorers, leaving the need for five more 10-goal scorers.
In turn, this leaves David Desharnais, Lars Eller, PK Subban, Andrei Markov, and recent arrival Blake Geoffrion as the only players under contract for next season who have scored at a pace in the NHL equalling 10-goals over an 82-game season.
Using this logic, and creating a plan to ensure at least a playoff spot next season, the Canadiens are short one 30-goal scorer next season, as well as offensive-depth to protect against any injuries to the above goal-scorers. Using the off-season to address these needs is the only way to ensure a playoff spot next season. If the plan does not consist of these main objectives, than the only other realistic option may just be a complete rebuild.
THE PLAYER DATA SPECIALIST
MTL 2011-12
- What is Boucher Scouting?
- GOALIE REPORTS
- HABS PROSPECTS
- HABS 2011-12
- HABS 2010-11
- 2012 DRAFT
- ARMSTRONG 2012-13
- BEAULIEU (AHL)
- BOURNIVAL (AHL)
- BOURQUE 2012-13
- DESHARNAIS 2012-13
- DIAZ
- ELLER
- EMELIN
- GALCHENYUK 2012-13
- GALLAGHER 2012-13
- GIONTA 2012-13
- GORGES 2012-13
- KABERLE
- LEBLANC 2011-12
- LEBLANC (AHL)
- MARKOV
- MOEN
- NATTINEN (AHL)
- PACIORETTY
- PLEKANEC 2012-13
- PRUST 2012-13
- RYDER 2012-13
- QUAILER (AHL)
- SUBBAN
- TINORDI (AHL)
- WEBER
- WHITE
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
2012 NHL DRAFT: One-game Scouting Report for Mikhail Grigorenko
Mikhail Grigorenko is a 6'2", 185 lbs left-handed centre playing for the Quebec Remparts of the QMJHL. Grigorenko was the second-ranked North American skater on Central Scouting's mid-term rankings. He is a big centre with soft-hands. This one-game scouting report is from a 4-1 loss to the St. John Sea Dogs on February 17th, 2012.
Please keep in mind that this is only a one-game scouting report and should not be used to determine anything more than the player's performance in this particular game. That said, top-ranked players in last year's draft were producing risk/reward ratings between 1.90 and 2.30, and overall grades in the high 70's and low 80's.
OVERALL GRADE
Grigorenko produced a below-average overall grade of 63. He struggled in the defensive-zone, and while on the powerplay. His events per-minute played were also quite low. This could be explained by the quality of opposition, and also by Grigorenko's perimeter play during the game scouted.
OVERALL RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko produced a below-average overall risk/reward of 0.86, and an overall ratio of only 1.62 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. His play on the powerplay substantially hurt his overall rating; particularly his inability to complete some simple, short passes during the game scouted. Most of Grigorenko's events during the game occurred in the neutral-zone.
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko's even-strength offensive-zone risk/reward rating was also below-average, as was his o-zone ratio of 1.67 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won only 1 of 3 offensive-zone puck-battles, recovered 2 loose-pucks, and completed 8 of 9 pass-attempts. He was successful with 2 of his 4 attempts to beat opposition players 1on1 (deke), while 1 of his 2 attempted shots made it through to the net.
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko did not produce above-average numbers in the defensive-zone. His defensive-zone risk/reward rating was only 0.14, while his d-zone ratio of 1.33 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play was equally below-average. He lost 1 of 3 d-zone puck-battles, and completed 2 of 3 defensive-zone pass-attempts. He blocked 1 shot, and intercepted 2 opposition passes.
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko's best numbers occurred in the neutral-zone. He produced an above-average neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.47, and a solid n-zone ratio of 2.40 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost both his neutral-zone puck-battles, but recovered 4 loose-pucks. He completed 3 of 4 neutral-zone pass-attempts, and was successful with 1 of his 2 attempts to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone.
POWERPLAY RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko struggled on the powerplay during the game; producing a powerplay risk/reward rating of 0.00, and a PP ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He completed only 2 of 5 offensive-zone passes while on the powerplay, and only 1 of 3 neutral-zone passes on the powerplay.
Please keep in mind that this is only a one-game scouting report and should not be used to determine anything more than the player's performance in this particular game. That said, top-ranked players in last year's draft were producing risk/reward ratings between 1.90 and 2.30, and overall grades in the high 70's and low 80's.
OVERALL GRADE
Grigorenko produced a below-average overall grade of 63. He struggled in the defensive-zone, and while on the powerplay. His events per-minute played were also quite low. This could be explained by the quality of opposition, and also by Grigorenko's perimeter play during the game scouted.
| 25 | ||
| WINS | 44 | WINS |
| EVENTS | 70 | EVENTS |
| GRADE | 63 | GRADE |
| PLAYER | 25 |
OVERALL RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko produced a below-average overall risk/reward of 0.86, and an overall ratio of only 1.62 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. His play on the powerplay substantially hurt his overall rating; particularly his inability to complete some simple, short passes during the game scouted. Most of Grigorenko's events during the game occurred in the neutral-zone.
| 25 | ||
| POS | 42 | POS |
| NEG | 26 | NEG |
| RATIO | 1.62 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 18.55 | MIN/G |
| 25 | ||
| MINUTES | 19 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 2.26 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 1.40 | NEG/MIN |
| 25 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 3.67 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.86 | RISK/REWARD |
| 25 |
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko's even-strength offensive-zone risk/reward rating was also below-average, as was his o-zone ratio of 1.67 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won only 1 of 3 offensive-zone puck-battles, recovered 2 loose-pucks, and completed 8 of 9 pass-attempts. He was successful with 2 of his 4 attempts to beat opposition players 1on1 (deke), while 1 of his 2 attempted shots made it through to the net.
| 25 | ||
| OZ POS | 15 | OZ POS |
| OZ NEG | 9 | OZ NEG |
| GAMES | 1.67 | GAMES |
| MIN/G | 14.8 | MIN/G |
| 25 | ||
| MINUTES | 25 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.61 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.36 | NEG/MIN |
| 25 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 0.97 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.24 | RISK/REWARD |
| 25 |
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko did not produce above-average numbers in the defensive-zone. His defensive-zone risk/reward rating was only 0.14, while his d-zone ratio of 1.33 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play was equally below-average. He lost 1 of 3 d-zone puck-battles, and completed 2 of 3 defensive-zone pass-attempts. He blocked 1 shot, and intercepted 2 opposition passes.
| 25 | ||
| DZ POS | 8 | DZ POS |
| DZ NEG | 6 | DZ NEG |
| ratio | 1.33 | ratio |
| MIN/G | 14.8 | MIN/G |
| 25 | ||
| MINUTES | 15 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.54 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.41 | NEG/MIN |
| 25 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 0.95 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.14 | RISK/REWARD |
| 25 |
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko's best numbers occurred in the neutral-zone. He produced an above-average neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.47, and a solid n-zone ratio of 2.40 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost both his neutral-zone puck-battles, but recovered 4 loose-pucks. He completed 3 of 4 neutral-zone pass-attempts, and was successful with 1 of his 2 attempts to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone.
| 25 | ||
| NZ POS | 12 | NZ POS |
| NZ NEG | 5 | NZ NEG |
| ratio | 2.40 | ratio |
| MIN/G | 14.8 | MIN/G |
| 25 | ||
| MINUTES | 15 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.81 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.34 | NEG/MIN |
| 25 | ||
| EV/ MIN | 1.15 | EV/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.47 | RISK/REWARD |
| 25 |
POWERPLAY RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko struggled on the powerplay during the game; producing a powerplay risk/reward rating of 0.00, and a PP ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He completed only 2 of 5 offensive-zone passes while on the powerplay, and only 1 of 3 neutral-zone passes on the powerplay.
| 25 | ||
| POS | 6 | POS |
| NEG | 6 | NEG |
| RATIO | 1.00 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 3.25 | MIN/G |
| 25 | ||
| MINUTES | 3 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 1.85 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 1.85 | NEG/MIN |
| 25 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 3.69 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.00 | RISK/REWARD |
| 25 |
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Gomez's Defensive-zone Struggles Quantified
The below graph is a visual representation of each Montreal Canadiens player's success-rate when engaging in defensive-zone events that require him to either remove or obtain puck-possession from the opposition. Events used in this calculation only take place in the defensive-zone and include puck-battles, loose-puck recoveries, blocked-shots, blocked-passes, poke-checks, and missed defensive-zone assignments (d-zone coverage).
DEFENSEMEN
It was surprising to find that former Hab Jaroslav Spacek actually has the lowest success-rate in this category among all defensemen who have played with the Habs this season. Among current d-men, rookies Alexei Emelin and Raphael Diaz have the lowest success-rate. Other d-men with below average success-rates include Yannick Weber and Tomas Kaberle.
Josh Gorges has the top rating, followed in order by current Hamilton Bulldog Frederic St. Denis, former Hab Hal Gill, and current Canadiens Chris Campoli, and PK Subban.
FORWARDS
These numbers paint a much clearer picture of Scott Gomez's play in the defensive-zone. By not including plays where Gomez has possession of the puck, we actually see just how much he struggles in the defensive-zone. Number 11 has the lowest success-rate on the entire team for plays in the defensive-zone that require him to obtain or remove puck-possession from the opposition, and is the only player with a success-rate below 65%.
Other players with success-rates below 70% include, Michael Blunden, Aaron Palushaj, and Andreas Engqvist. The top success-rate among forwards belongs to Max Pacioretty (78.9%), followed closely by Mathieu Darche (78.8%). Lars Eller is the only other forward with success-rates above 75%.
The biggest challenge in Boucher Scouting's player tracking system has been, and will always be quantifying defensive-play. Hopefully, by focusing only on plays in the defensive-zone where players do not have possession of the puck we can paint part of the defensive-play picture.
DEFENSEMEN
It was surprising to find that former Hab Jaroslav Spacek actually has the lowest success-rate in this category among all defensemen who have played with the Habs this season. Among current d-men, rookies Alexei Emelin and Raphael Diaz have the lowest success-rate. Other d-men with below average success-rates include Yannick Weber and Tomas Kaberle.
Josh Gorges has the top rating, followed in order by current Hamilton Bulldog Frederic St. Denis, former Hab Hal Gill, and current Canadiens Chris Campoli, and PK Subban.
FORWARDS
These numbers paint a much clearer picture of Scott Gomez's play in the defensive-zone. By not including plays where Gomez has possession of the puck, we actually see just how much he struggles in the defensive-zone. Number 11 has the lowest success-rate on the entire team for plays in the defensive-zone that require him to obtain or remove puck-possession from the opposition, and is the only player with a success-rate below 65%.
Other players with success-rates below 70% include, Michael Blunden, Aaron Palushaj, and Andreas Engqvist. The top success-rate among forwards belongs to Max Pacioretty (78.9%), followed closely by Mathieu Darche (78.8%). Lars Eller is the only other forward with success-rates above 75%.
The biggest challenge in Boucher Scouting's player tracking system has been, and will always be quantifying defensive-play. Hopefully, by focusing only on plays in the defensive-zone where players do not have possession of the puck we can paint part of the defensive-play picture.
David Desharnais; By the Numbers
Habs best forward when the puck is on his stick
In the span of 12 months David Desharnais has gone from a small centreman seeking his first one-way contract, to the Montreal Canadiens number one offensive-centre. Desharnais is a great puck-distributor, who has been helped by both the emergence of Max Pacioretty, and the arrival of Erik Cole. Desharnais' risk/reward is carried by his play when he has possession of the puck. He has the top success-rate for events requiring him to maintain puck-possession, as well as the top offensive-zone passing-percentage.
REFERENCE POINTS
These averages have been calculated over hundreds of games and approximately 2000 individual scouting reports:
Average grade: 67
Average ratio: 2.03
Average risk/reward: 1.31
Average offensive-zone risk/reward: 0.30
Average defensive-zone risk/reward: 0.62
Average neutral-zone risk/reward: 0.30
Desharnais has the fourth-best overall grade (69) among Canadiens forwards. His overall risk/reward rating of 1.26 is fifth-best among forwards, while his even-strength ratio is actually thirteenth among forwards and equal to the team average. Desharnais has produced an above-average overall risk/reward in 26 games this season, and has shown a slight improvement as the season has worn on. In fact, he has produced above-average ratings in 10 of the last 16 games.
He has a success-rate of 69% when engaging in plays the require him to obtain or remove puck-possession from the opposition; these plays in include puck-battles, blocked passes, etc. As previously mentioned, he is the Habs best forward when in possession of the puck, as his success-rate for plays involving him to maintain puck-possession is a team-best 65%; these plays include passes, dekes, and shots on-net.
POWERPLAY
Desharnais has the second-best powerplay risk/reward (2.16) among forwards with substantial powerplay time. He wins only 50% of his powerplay puck-battles in the offensive-zone, but is successful with an incredible 80% of his PP passes. He also gets 67% of his shot-attempts on-net.
PENALTY KILL
Desharnais only has 29 minutes of short-handed ice-time this season. In those minutes he has produced a solid PK risk/reward rating of 0.73. He has won only 50% of his PK puck-battles, but has completed 80% of his short-handed pass-attempts, and 83% of his attempts to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone.
OFFENSIVE-ZONE
Desharnais has the seventh-best offensive-zone risk/reward rating (0.40) among forwards at even-strength, and an o-zone ratio of 1.69 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He wins only 45% of his o-zone puck-battles, and is successful with 64% of his offensive-zone pass-attempts; best among forwards. He is successful with 54% of his attempts to beat opposition players 1on1 (deke), and gets 61% of his attempted shots on-net.
DEFENSIVE-ZONE
Desharnais has the seventh-best defensive-zone risk/reward rating (0.40) among forwards at even-strength; exactly the same rating as he has in the offensive-zone, and a d-zone ratio of 2.12 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He wins 54% of his defensive-zone puck-battles, which is equal to the team-average. He is successful with 72% of his d-zone pass-attempts, but only 50% of his attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke). He has the third-most blocked shots (33) among forwards, and the third-most intercepted passes (63) among forwards.
NEUTRAL-ZONE
Desharnais has only the fourteenth-best neutral-zone risk/reward rating (0.22) among forwards at even-strength, and has a neutral-zone ratio of 2.03 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He is successful with 54% of his neutral-zone puck-battles, and 70% of his neutral-zone pass-attempts. His rating is hurt by a below-average success-rate (74%) when attempting to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone. He has recovered 81 loose-pucks in the neutral-zone, and has intercepted 63 opposition passes.
In the span of 12 months David Desharnais has gone from a small centreman seeking his first one-way contract, to the Montreal Canadiens number one offensive-centre. Desharnais is a great puck-distributor, who has been helped by both the emergence of Max Pacioretty, and the arrival of Erik Cole. Desharnais' risk/reward is carried by his play when he has possession of the puck. He has the top success-rate for events requiring him to maintain puck-possession, as well as the top offensive-zone passing-percentage.
REFERENCE POINTS
These averages have been calculated over hundreds of games and approximately 2000 individual scouting reports:
Average grade: 67
Average ratio: 2.03
Average risk/reward: 1.31
Average offensive-zone risk/reward: 0.30
Average defensive-zone risk/reward: 0.62
Average neutral-zone risk/reward: 0.30
Desharnais has the fourth-best overall grade (69) among Canadiens forwards. His overall risk/reward rating of 1.26 is fifth-best among forwards, while his even-strength ratio is actually thirteenth among forwards and equal to the team average. Desharnais has produced an above-average overall risk/reward in 26 games this season, and has shown a slight improvement as the season has worn on. In fact, he has produced above-average ratings in 10 of the last 16 games.
He has a success-rate of 69% when engaging in plays the require him to obtain or remove puck-possession from the opposition; these plays in include puck-battles, blocked passes, etc. As previously mentioned, he is the Habs best forward when in possession of the puck, as his success-rate for plays involving him to maintain puck-possession is a team-best 65%; these plays include passes, dekes, and shots on-net.
POWERPLAY
Desharnais has the second-best powerplay risk/reward (2.16) among forwards with substantial powerplay time. He wins only 50% of his powerplay puck-battles in the offensive-zone, but is successful with an incredible 80% of his PP passes. He also gets 67% of his shot-attempts on-net.
PENALTY KILL
Desharnais only has 29 minutes of short-handed ice-time this season. In those minutes he has produced a solid PK risk/reward rating of 0.73. He has won only 50% of his PK puck-battles, but has completed 80% of his short-handed pass-attempts, and 83% of his attempts to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone.
OFFENSIVE-ZONE
Desharnais has the seventh-best offensive-zone risk/reward rating (0.40) among forwards at even-strength, and an o-zone ratio of 1.69 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He wins only 45% of his o-zone puck-battles, and is successful with 64% of his offensive-zone pass-attempts; best among forwards. He is successful with 54% of his attempts to beat opposition players 1on1 (deke), and gets 61% of his attempted shots on-net.
DEFENSIVE-ZONE
Desharnais has the seventh-best defensive-zone risk/reward rating (0.40) among forwards at even-strength; exactly the same rating as he has in the offensive-zone, and a d-zone ratio of 2.12 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He wins 54% of his defensive-zone puck-battles, which is equal to the team-average. He is successful with 72% of his d-zone pass-attempts, but only 50% of his attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke). He has the third-most blocked shots (33) among forwards, and the third-most intercepted passes (63) among forwards.
NEUTRAL-ZONE
Desharnais has only the fourteenth-best neutral-zone risk/reward rating (0.22) among forwards at even-strength, and has a neutral-zone ratio of 2.03 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He is successful with 54% of his neutral-zone puck-battles, and 70% of his neutral-zone pass-attempts. His rating is hurt by a below-average success-rate (74%) when attempting to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone. He has recovered 81 loose-pucks in the neutral-zone, and has intercepted 63 opposition passes.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Habs: Loose-puck Recoveries First Step in Pacioretty's Success
First on puck equals first in goals
Recovering loose-pucks in the offensive-zone is a key ingredient in creating offense. Loose-pucks can be recovered following a dump-in, after a shot on-net, and even after a shot wide-of-the-net. Being the first player on the puck allows teams to maintain puck-possession in the offensive-zone. Maintaining possession allows teams to engage the cycle, and engaging the cycle is a large part of every NHL teams' offensive-game.
At the moment, the Habs most productive line of Erik Cole, Max Pacioretty and David Desharnais is the only line truly built for the cycle game. That said, when reviewing the Canadiens season, there is a direct correlation between the number of pucks recovered in the offensive-zone, the number of shots on net, and the number of goals scored. The Canadiens have won only 1 game when they have recovered less than 50 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone, and have recovered more than 65 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone in every game where they've scored 3 or more goals.
The below graph is a visual representation of the average number of loose-pucks each Montreal Canadiens player recovers each minute they are on the ice. The event is broken down by ice-time in order to make the results easier to understand, and compare. Only events taking place at even-strength are used in this calculation. Each colour on the graph represents a different zone. Our focus here is the offensive-zone (green).
Max Pacioretty recovers the most offensive-loose pucks per-minute played. Pacioretty recovers 0.41 loose-pucks per-minute of ice-time. Expressed differently, this shows that if Pacioretty plays 15 minutes at even-strength in one game, he will recover 6 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone. By extension, this means that Pacioretty allows the Canadiens to maintain puck-possession in the offensive-zone (after a shot or dump-in) more often than any other player.
Other players that recover more than 0.30 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone per-minute of ice-time include, Scott Gomez (0.33), Rene Bourque (0.37), Andrei Kostitsyn (0.32), Mathieu Darche (0.32), Ryan White (0.38), Aaron Palushaj (0.35), Louis Leblanc (0.32), Erik Cole (0.32) and Lars Eller (0.34).
Obviously, recovering loose-pucks in only the first step toward creating offense. The next requirement is for the player recovering the puck to maintain puck-possession.
The below graph is a visual representation of each Montreal Canadiens player's success-rate for plays that occur when they have puck-possession in the offensive-zone. Plays included in this calculation only take place at even-strength, and include; passes, dekes and shots on net. The number expressed is the success-rate of each player when attempting either of these 3 plays in the offensive-zone.
As we can see, this is where players like Pacioretty and Cole make each recovered loose-puck count, while players like Bourque, Gionta and Kostitsyn are far less successful. Pacioretty is successful with 62% of his attempted plays while in possession of the puck in the offensive-zone, while Cole is successful with 56% of his plays. Kostitsyn is successful with 54%, while Bourque is only successful with 52% of his plays.
Combining the two graphs it is easy to understand that if Pacioretty recovers more loose-pucks in the offensive-zone, and is successful with a higher percentage of attempted plays once in possession of the puck, he should create more offense than other players (and he does!). If Kostitsyn and Bourque recover fewer pucks, and are less successful once in possession of the puck, they will create less offense (and they do!).
The cycle starts with a single loose-puck. (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Recovering loose-pucks in the offensive-zone is a key ingredient in creating offense. Loose-pucks can be recovered following a dump-in, after a shot on-net, and even after a shot wide-of-the-net. Being the first player on the puck allows teams to maintain puck-possession in the offensive-zone. Maintaining possession allows teams to engage the cycle, and engaging the cycle is a large part of every NHL teams' offensive-game.
At the moment, the Habs most productive line of Erik Cole, Max Pacioretty and David Desharnais is the only line truly built for the cycle game. That said, when reviewing the Canadiens season, there is a direct correlation between the number of pucks recovered in the offensive-zone, the number of shots on net, and the number of goals scored. The Canadiens have won only 1 game when they have recovered less than 50 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone, and have recovered more than 65 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone in every game where they've scored 3 or more goals.
The below graph is a visual representation of the average number of loose-pucks each Montreal Canadiens player recovers each minute they are on the ice. The event is broken down by ice-time in order to make the results easier to understand, and compare. Only events taking place at even-strength are used in this calculation. Each colour on the graph represents a different zone. Our focus here is the offensive-zone (green).
Max Pacioretty recovers the most offensive-loose pucks per-minute played. Pacioretty recovers 0.41 loose-pucks per-minute of ice-time. Expressed differently, this shows that if Pacioretty plays 15 minutes at even-strength in one game, he will recover 6 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone. By extension, this means that Pacioretty allows the Canadiens to maintain puck-possession in the offensive-zone (after a shot or dump-in) more often than any other player.
Other players that recover more than 0.30 loose-pucks in the offensive-zone per-minute of ice-time include, Scott Gomez (0.33), Rene Bourque (0.37), Andrei Kostitsyn (0.32), Mathieu Darche (0.32), Ryan White (0.38), Aaron Palushaj (0.35), Louis Leblanc (0.32), Erik Cole (0.32) and Lars Eller (0.34).
Obviously, recovering loose-pucks in only the first step toward creating offense. The next requirement is for the player recovering the puck to maintain puck-possession.
The below graph is a visual representation of each Montreal Canadiens player's success-rate for plays that occur when they have puck-possession in the offensive-zone. Plays included in this calculation only take place at even-strength, and include; passes, dekes and shots on net. The number expressed is the success-rate of each player when attempting either of these 3 plays in the offensive-zone.
Combining the two graphs it is easy to understand that if Pacioretty recovers more loose-pucks in the offensive-zone, and is successful with a higher percentage of attempted plays once in possession of the puck, he should create more offense than other players (and he does!). If Kostitsyn and Bourque recover fewer pucks, and are less successful once in possession of the puck, they will create less offense (and they do!).
The cycle starts with a single loose-puck. (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Habs: Updated Player Risk/reward Ratings
Subban and Eller still leading their respective positions
Risk/reward is a rating used to express how well a player is playing in a specific zone, or manpower situation. The number represents the difference between the number of unsuccessful plays a player makes subtracted from the number of successful plays a player makes per-minute of ice-time. The higher the number, the more a player helps, rather than hurts a team's ability to maintain or acquire puck-possession. Traditional plus/minus, as well as goals and assists are not included in the calculation.
Events used in this calculation can be found here.
Even-strength risk/reward rating is a quantified expression of how well a player is performing at even-strength. Only those events that take place at even-strength are used in this calculation.
PK Subban has the top even-strength risk/reward rating among players with enough ice-time to create a reflective rating. Subban is among the leaders in all three zones, while his best-numbers are produced in the defensive-zone. His rating is also carried by the fact that he is involved in more events per-minute of ice-time than any other defensemen.
Lars Eller leads all forwards with an impressive even-strength risk/reward ratings. Eller is among the leaders in both the offensive and defensive-zones, and produces more events per-minute played than any other player; including Subban.
Even-strength offensive-zone risk/reward rating is a quantified expression of how well a player performs in the offensive-zone while playing at even-strength. Forwards normally have much higher offensive-zone risk/reward ratings than defensemen, as they engage in far more o-zone events than their defensive-teammates.
Although Ryan White has the top offensive-zone risk/reward rating, he has not played enough minutes to allow us to accept this as anything more than a measurement of his play over a short period of time. As such, it an not be used to determine his potential play over the course of an entire season.
Max Pacioretty has the top offensive-zone risk/reward rating on the Canadiens. His rating is helped by both his ability to win puck-battles, and recover loose-pucks. Other current players with o-zone ratings above 0.40 include, Scott Gomez, Tomas Plekanec, David Desharnais, Erik Cole, Louis Leblanc, and Lars Eller.
Thanks to his offensive-zone passing-percentage and ability to get even-strength shots through to the net, Tomas Kaberle has the top o-zone risk/reward rating among defensemen.
Even-strength defensive-zone risk/reward rating is a quantified expression of how well a player performs in the defensive-zone while playing at even-strength. Defensemen usually have much higher defensive-zone risk/reward ratings than forwards, as they engage in far more d-zone events than their offensive-teammates.
Subban has the highest defensive-zone risk/reward rating on the Canadiens. Subban's rating is the product of his ability to recover loose-pucks in the defensive-zone, and his 72% success-rate when attempting passes from the defensive-zone. Other players with d-zone ratings above 1.00 include Chris Campoli, Josh Gorges and Kaberle. Like Subban, Kaberle and Campoli have high ratings because of their ability to recover loose-pucks and complete d-zone passes, while Gorges' rating is the product of his high success-rate in d-zone puck-battles, and his willingness to block shots.
Lars Eller has by-far the top defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards. Eller completes a higher percentage of passes, wins a higher percentage of puck-battles, and recovers more loose-pucks in the defensive-zone than any other forward. Mathieu Darche, Petteri Nokelainen, and Plekanec have also produced solid d-zone ratings.
Risk/reward is a rating used to express how well a player is playing in a specific zone, or manpower situation. The number represents the difference between the number of unsuccessful plays a player makes subtracted from the number of successful plays a player makes per-minute of ice-time. The higher the number, the more a player helps, rather than hurts a team's ability to maintain or acquire puck-possession. Traditional plus/minus, as well as goals and assists are not included in the calculation.
Events used in this calculation can be found here.
PK Subban has the top even-strength risk/reward rating among players with enough ice-time to create a reflective rating. Subban is among the leaders in all three zones, while his best-numbers are produced in the defensive-zone. His rating is also carried by the fact that he is involved in more events per-minute of ice-time than any other defensemen.
Lars Eller leads all forwards with an impressive even-strength risk/reward ratings. Eller is among the leaders in both the offensive and defensive-zones, and produces more events per-minute played than any other player; including Subban.
-----------------------------------------------------
Even-strength offensive-zone risk/reward rating is a quantified expression of how well a player performs in the offensive-zone while playing at even-strength. Forwards normally have much higher offensive-zone risk/reward ratings than defensemen, as they engage in far more o-zone events than their defensive-teammates.
Although Ryan White has the top offensive-zone risk/reward rating, he has not played enough minutes to allow us to accept this as anything more than a measurement of his play over a short period of time. As such, it an not be used to determine his potential play over the course of an entire season.
Max Pacioretty has the top offensive-zone risk/reward rating on the Canadiens. His rating is helped by both his ability to win puck-battles, and recover loose-pucks. Other current players with o-zone ratings above 0.40 include, Scott Gomez, Tomas Plekanec, David Desharnais, Erik Cole, Louis Leblanc, and Lars Eller.
Thanks to his offensive-zone passing-percentage and ability to get even-strength shots through to the net, Tomas Kaberle has the top o-zone risk/reward rating among defensemen.
-----------------------------------------------
Even-strength defensive-zone risk/reward rating is a quantified expression of how well a player performs in the defensive-zone while playing at even-strength. Defensemen usually have much higher defensive-zone risk/reward ratings than forwards, as they engage in far more d-zone events than their offensive-teammates.
Subban has the highest defensive-zone risk/reward rating on the Canadiens. Subban's rating is the product of his ability to recover loose-pucks in the defensive-zone, and his 72% success-rate when attempting passes from the defensive-zone. Other players with d-zone ratings above 1.00 include Chris Campoli, Josh Gorges and Kaberle. Like Subban, Kaberle and Campoli have high ratings because of their ability to recover loose-pucks and complete d-zone passes, while Gorges' rating is the product of his high success-rate in d-zone puck-battles, and his willingness to block shots.
Lars Eller has by-far the top defensive-zone risk/reward among forwards. Eller completes a higher percentage of passes, wins a higher percentage of puck-battles, and recovers more loose-pucks in the defensive-zone than any other forward. Mathieu Darche, Petteri Nokelainen, and Plekanec have also produced solid d-zone ratings.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Habs: One-game Scouting Report for Blake Geoffrion
Blake Geoffrion was picked up in a trade that sent Hal Gill to the Nashville Predators. The 6'2", 190 lbs forward can play both the wing and centre, and was sent to the Hamilton Bulldogs immediately following the trade. This scouting report is from a November 12th, 2011 game between the Predators and the Montreal Canadiens.
REFERENCE POINTS
These averages have been calculated over hundreds of games and approximately 2000 individual scouting reports:
Average grade: 67
Average ratio: 2.03
Average risk/reward: 1.31
Average offensive-zone risk/reward: 0.30
Average defensive-zone risk/reward: 0.62
Average neutral-zone risk/reward: 0.30
OVERALL GRADE
Geoffrion had a slightly above-average grade of 68. His best work was produced in the defensive-zone; both at even-strength and on the penalty-kill. He had an even traditional plus/minus and 2 shots on net.
OVERALL RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had a below-average overall risk/reward, and an overall ratio of 1.89 successful plays for every unsuccessful play. He was involved in an unimpressive 2.20 events per-minute played. As already mentioned, his best work was produced short-handed.
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.00, and an o-zone ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won only 2 of 5 offensive-zone puck-battles, and completed only 2 of 4 o-zone pass-attempts. He recovered 1 loose-puck, and was successful with his only attempt to beat an opposing player 1on1 (deke).
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion's best work was produced in the defensive-zone. That said, his defensive-zone risk/reward was still low due to a significant lack of events. He produced a defensive-zone ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only defensive-zone puck-battle, completed his only d-zone pass-attempt, and recovered 1 loose-puck.
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had a below-average neutral-zone risk/reward of 0.17. Again, this was due to a lack of events. He also produced a neutral-zone ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He was successful with all 3 of his attempts to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone, and won 1 of his 2 n-zone puck-battles.
SHORT-HANDED RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had an impressive short-handed risk/reward rating of 1.13. This was the result of both a solid performance, and a significant increase in events. His short-handed ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play was equally impressive.
REFERENCE POINTS
These averages have been calculated over hundreds of games and approximately 2000 individual scouting reports:
Average grade: 67
Average ratio: 2.03
Average risk/reward: 1.31
Average offensive-zone risk/reward: 0.30
Average defensive-zone risk/reward: 0.62
Average neutral-zone risk/reward: 0.30
OVERALL GRADE
Geoffrion had a slightly above-average grade of 68. His best work was produced in the defensive-zone; both at even-strength and on the penalty-kill. He had an even traditional plus/minus and 2 shots on net.
| 5 | ||
| WINS | 19 | WINS |
| EVENTS | 28 | EVENTS |
| GRADE | 68 | GRADE |
| PLAYER | 5 |
OVERALL RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had a below-average overall risk/reward, and an overall ratio of 1.89 successful plays for every unsuccessful play. He was involved in an unimpressive 2.20 events per-minute played. As already mentioned, his best work was produced short-handed.
| 5 | ||
| POS | 17 | POS |
| NEG | 9 | NEG |
| RATIO | 1.89 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 11.82 | MIN/G |
| 5 | ||
| MINUTES | 12 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 1.44 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.76 | NEG/MIN |
| 5 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 2.20 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.68 | RISK/REWARD |
| 5 |
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.00, and an o-zone ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won only 2 of 5 offensive-zone puck-battles, and completed only 2 of 4 o-zone pass-attempts. He recovered 1 loose-puck, and was successful with his only attempt to beat an opposing player 1on1 (deke).
| 5 | ||
| OZ POS | 6 | OZ POS |
| OZ NEG | 6 | OZ NEG |
| RATIO | 1.00 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 11.82 | MIN/G |
| 5 | ||
| MINUTES | 12 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.51 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.51 | NEG/MIN |
| 5 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 1.02 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.00 | RISK/REWARD |
| 5 |
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion's best work was produced in the defensive-zone. That said, his defensive-zone risk/reward was still low due to a significant lack of events. He produced a defensive-zone ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only defensive-zone puck-battle, completed his only d-zone pass-attempt, and recovered 1 loose-puck.
| 5 | ||
| DZ POS | 4 | DZ POS |
| DZ NEG | 1 | DZ NEG |
| RATIO | 4 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 11.82 | MIN/G |
| 5 | ||
| MINUTES | 12 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.34 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.08 | NEG/MIN |
| 5 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 0.42 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.25 | RISK/REWARD |
| 5 |
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had a below-average neutral-zone risk/reward of 0.17. Again, this was due to a lack of events. He also produced a neutral-zone ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He was successful with all 3 of his attempts to dump the puck deep into the offensive-zone, and won 1 of his 2 n-zone puck-battles.
| 5 | ||
| NZ POS | 4 | NZ POS |
| NZ NEG | 2 | NZ NEG |
| RATIO | 2 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 11.82 | MIN/G |
| 5 | ||
| MINUTES | 12 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.34 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.17 | NEG/MIN |
| 5 | ||
| EV/ MIN | 0.51 | EV/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.17 | RISK/REWARD |
| 5 |
SHORT-HANDED RISK/REWARD RATING
Geoffrion had an impressive short-handed risk/reward rating of 1.13. This was the result of both a solid performance, and a significant increase in events. His short-handed ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play was equally impressive.
| POS | 4 | POS |
| NEG | 1 | NEG |
| RATIO | 4.00 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 2.65 | MIN/G |
| 5 | ||
| MINUTES | 3 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 1.51 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.38 | NEG/MIN |
| 5 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 1.89 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 1.13 | RISK/REWARD |
| 5 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)