Backlund's defensive results have deteriorated significantly over the last few years... still a good offensive player but I'd be wary of a Frolik or Nielsen-type regression in the next couple seasons.
Huh?
Looked it up as I haven't seen that and the numbers say otherwise.
His CA60 this year is his best in ten seasons. Same with his xGA60.
Not good results this year, but his on ice save percentage is terrible ... not getting a save when he's on the ice. Only Sam Bennett and Brett Ritchie have had worse goaltending while on the ice.
There's a reason that Sutter speaks about Giordano, Tanev and Backlund glowingly all the time.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Looked it up as I haven't seen that and the numbers say otherwise.
His CA60 this year is his best in ten seasons. Same with his xGA60.
Not good results this year, but his on ice save percentage is terrible ... not getting a save when he's on the ice. Only Sam Bennett and Brett Ritchie have had worse goaltending while on the ice.
There's a reason that Sutter speaks about Giordano, Tanev and Backlund glowingly all the time.
Backlund is in the midst of a season that is slightly bucking his recent trends. But it's not a big enough improvement to convince me his results since around 2017 aren't still in decline.
Per Evolving-Hockey, here are Backlund's even-strength defensive Goals Above Replacement results since the lockout.
2012-13: 1.6 goals above replacement (5th on CGY)
2013-14: 3.2 goals above replacement (3rd on CGY)
2014-15: 1.3 goals above replacement (8th on CGY)
2015-16: 3.3 goals above replacement (1st on CGY)
2016-17: -2.5 goals above replacement (22nd on CGY)
2017-18: 0.4 goals above replacement (12th on CGY)
2018-19: -1.5 goals above replacement (19th on CGY)
2019-20: -0.9 goals above replacement (21st on CGY)
2020-21: 0.9 goals above replacement (8th on CGY)
Backlund was once consistently an excellent defensive play-driver. He has regressed in his own end and is now being propped up by his largely positive offensive results (although those, too, have declined). That is also reflected in his expected goals against results, which actually paint him as generally mediocre defensively even at his perceived peak. But GAR is a lot more nuanced than raw xGA.
(rankings min. 10 GP)
2012-13: 2.05 xGA/60 (5th on CGY)
2013-14: 2.06 xGA/60 (10th on CGY)
2014-15: 2.21 xGA/60 (10th on CGY)
2015-16: 2.08 xGA/60 (6th on CGY)
2016-17: 2.18 xGA/60 (13th on CGY)
2017-18: 2.13 xGA/60 (8th on CGY)
2018-19: 2.3 xGA/60 (21st on CGY)
2019-20: 2.43 xGA/60 (14th on CGY)
2020-21: 1.9 xGA/60 (7th on CGY)
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
The Following User Says Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
First off, Backlund: Yes, change is needed, but IMO you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Still the best centre (forward!) in terms of 2-way play. There is no single forward right now that helps this team win more than they lose. Tough season for sure. Take Backlund out, and this team suddenly gets notably slower too.
As for who to protect on defence.. that's a tough one.
Giordano: Yeah, the popular answer is "Expose Gio", but he has been good for a while now. He only has another season as well left on his deal.
Tanev: I hated signing Tanev - didn't like his contract - but he has been rock-solid defensively. However, he doesn't move the needle at all offensively or even in the transition.
Hanifin moves the puck well in transition and is defending well, but he doesn't seem to have very much offensive ability suddenly - his shot isn't great or even accurate, and he is sometimes having issues of tunnel-vision out there in not creating anything with a pass.
Andersson hasn't taken a step forward anywhere in his game, but he signed a longer term deal - nice shot, but somehow it is not working. He is also being exposed defensively as well at times with his lack of footspeed.
Kylington: Great tools, but no runway on this team at all. Either let him go try his luck on greener pastures, or give him opportunity.
Stone: One of the few people on this site that likes Stone. However, he is a 6th defencemen at best.
Gone are the days of having an elite top pairing on defence in all situations and zones. Able to defend exceptionally well, able to transition extremely well, able to generate exceptionally well. This season has seen one elite defensive pairing, but that's it. Giordano continues to be this teams' best 2-way defencemen.
My opinion, you protect Giordano, and expose Tanev (and obviously Kylington). Why? Giordano's contract will expire after next season. Tanev will have 2 more after that. I would rather shorten the window there and expose a guy that is too 1-dimensional. I like Tanev, and he is a steadying influence, but there isn't enough offence defencemen on this team left to warrant having a defensive defencemen in your top 4. The team doesn't create enough from the defensive corps any longer, and this needs to be addressed. Yeah, I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I would rather have a combined 11 million in cap space freed-up by the end of next season.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
These placements are all based on my own opinion, of course. Essentially, this is about how much are we paying for what we are using vs where they should be used.
Cost
T6: Paid to play on the first or second line.
M6: Paid to play on the third line and fill in on the second line.
B6: Paid to play on the third or fourth line.
Use
T6: Has played multiple games on the first or second line.
M6: Hasn't played below the third line.
B6: Hasn't played above the third line.
Actual
T6: Shouldn't be playing below the second line.
M6: Should play on the third line and fill in on the second line.
B6: Shouldn't play above the third line.
Summary
Note that these are all based on this season, and therefore neither future potential nor past accomplishments are factored in.
Value Add (Cost is below Use and Use is equal to or below Actual.)
Lindholm
Mangiapane
Even (Cost, Use and Actual are all equal.)
Gaudreau
Monahan
Tkachuk
Nordstrom
Talent:Use Detriment (Use is above Actual.)
Lucic
Dube
Leivo
Rinaldo
Ritchie
Robinson
Ruzicka
Simon
Cost Detriment (Cost is above Use, but Use is equal to Actual)
Backlund
Ryan
Edit: I made a mistake with Backlund, his Actual should be M6. He and Ryan should be in their own category, where their Talent to Use comparison is fine, but they cost too much.
Backlund has 2 more pts than Monahan, 3 more EVP.
Backlund has 3 fewer pts than Tkachuk, but 3 more EVP.
Backlund has 6 fewer pts than Gaudreau, but 3 more EVP.
Backlund is 2nd on the team in EVP, only 3 fewer than Lindholm.
Best FO% on the team after Ryan (who's taken nearly 400 fewer).
With the highest D zone start %.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
First off, Backlund: Yes, change is needed, but IMO you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Still the best centre (forward!) in terms of 2-way play. There is no single forward right now that helps this team win more than they lose.
Just saying... this is a statement muddled by observation bias and a lack of recognition of Backlund's age-based regression. This season, looking at Evolving-Hockey's metrics, Backlund has the sixth-worst expected goals above replacement mark on the team. He has been the fifth-worst offensive play-driver on the team.
In terms of xGAR, only Kylington, Ritchie, Nesterov, Bennett, and Andersson have been more deleterious to the Flames' overall game.
When Backlund stops scoring (and outperforming his underlyings), that contract is probably going to look really bad.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
Just saying... this is a statement muddled by observation bias and a lack of recognition of Backlund's age-based regression. This season, looking at Evolving-Hockey's metrics, Backlund has the sixth-worst expected goals above replacement mark on the team. He has been the fifth-worst offensive play-driver on the team.
In terms of xGAR, only Kylington, Ritchie, Nesterov, Bennett, and Andersson have been more deleterious to the Flames' overall game.
When Backlund stops scoring (and outperforming his underlyings), that contract is probably going to look really bad.
I like your posts for the most part, but you shouldn't really tell someone that their opinion is muddled with observation bias - that's not the right way to disagree with someone if you want to have an actual conversation.
I can agree with GAR, but if you are only looking at GAR, then I think it can give you misleading information. Want me to use confirmation bias to change your mind? Ok, put Gawdin in Backlund's role (and I mean ALL situations) and tell me that he will basically replace Backlund. Right?
Look, I am aware of Backlund's contract risk, but I don't think it is going to be much of an issue. Looking at the post above, Backlund is out-producing Monahan. Now, do you think this because Monahan is regressing even faster than Backlund, or perhaps do you think that there is an overall issue with the team that is seeing almost the entire team experiencing some regression? Backlund is still the 4th highest points producer on this team, while getting the toughest minutes on the team in which to produce.
I don't think my argument is based so simply on confirmation bias.
I like your posts for the most part, but you shouldn't really tell someone that their opinion is muddled with observation bias - that's not the right way to disagree with someone if you want to have an actual conversation.
I can agree with GAR, but if you are only looking at GAR, then I think it can give you misleading information. Want me to use confirmation bias to change your mind? Ok, put Gawdin in Backlund's role (and I mean ALL situations) and tell me that he will basically replace Backlund. Right?
Look, I am aware of Backlund's contract risk, but I don't think it is going to be much of an issue. Looking at the post above, Backlund is out-producing Monahan. Now, do you think this because Monahan is regressing even faster than Backlund, or perhaps do you think that there is an overall issue with the team that is seeing almost the entire team experiencing some regression? Backlund is still the 4th highest points producer on this team, while getting the toughest minutes on the team in which to produce.
I don't think my argument is based so simply on confirmation bias.
Everyone's opinions are influenced by observation bias. Mine included. But do you have any evidence to support your argument that Monahan appears to be regressing faster than Backlund?
Monahan is in the midst of his worst production season ever and he's basically neck-and-neck with Backlund. He's six years younger and signed for a million dollars more. I think there's a lot more evidence to support the idea that Monahan could easily rebound (and provide good value) than there is to reinforce Backlund's case.
I think, with Monahan, a lot of people's disillusionment has been borne out of what he's been in the past and the expectations that have come with that. But, in terms of points, Backlund's best offensive seasons have only really matched Monahan's worst output. And we're getting to the point where Backlund's underlyings have regressed, suggesting his production might not be long for this league.
And I would never suggest Gawdin could replace Backlund. I'm not really a fan of Gawdin's NHL potential.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
Last edited by TheScorpion; 04-23-2021 at 06:16 PM.
not sure why people want to give away players...probably the same posters that will then post every time he scores a goal, almost gets an assist, or draws a penalty for another team.
Do everything you can to leave Seattle with nothing
Do everything you can to entice Seattle to take on one of our 5M+ price tags.
This current group doesn't work and there's a really good UFA pool of highly useful players soon to be available. No one is trading for Milan, Gio, or Backlund without heavy retainment. Return unlikely to be worth the lingering salary to pay them to play elsewhere. Seattle however might just take one of those salaries clean off your hands and open up avenues and flexibility for you moving forward.
Wait... if the Flames can get anything at all for Lucic at 50%, they shouldn't hesitate.
Clearing up $2.625 million of cap space for the next two seasons (without any penalty beyond that) would be massive in helping the Flames to sign Tkachuk.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
Wait... if the Flames can get anything at all for Lucic at 50%, they shouldn't hesitate.
Clearing up $2.625 million of cap space for the next two seasons (without any penalty beyond that) would be massive in helping the Flames to sign Tkachuk.
That's ...... depressing.
I'm more inclined to deal Tkachuk for a blue chipper and picks and sign Landeskog (over a PPG this season). We need significant change here.
Wait... if the Flames can get anything at all for Lucic at 50%, they shouldn't hesitate.
Clearing up $2.625 million of cap space for the next two seasons (without any penalty beyond that) would be massive in helping the Flames to sign Tkachuk.
I really don’t see salary cap being much of a problem for this team going forward. Who else are they going to be paying big money to outside of Tkachuk? Definitely no one in the system today.
...though, I suppose I shouldn’t underestimate their ability to take on bad cap via trades or free agency.
You always want to remain flexible, though. Asset-rich teams are going to need teams to help them with their cap space. With Calgary languishing right now, they should be looking to weaponize cap space as an asset. They shouldn't be looking to spend for the sake of it — they should keep their options open for when the right guys get squeezed out of the top systems.
It always hurts your leverage in trade when you have to send back salary to add anybody. Maybe the Flames should stop overpaying for vets and instead do a better job of keeping their options open, financially.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
You always want to remain flexible, though. Asset-rich teams are going to need teams to help them with their cap space. With Calgary languishing right now, they should be looking to weaponize cap space as an asset. They shouldn't be looking to spend for the sake of it — they should keep their options open for when the right guys get squeezed out of the top systems.
I’d love to see us be able to cash-in on the flat cap by using cap-space. Either by retaining on players, or taking on players.
Back in the early days of his time here, it was reported/rumoured that Tree was working on a deal to take Cam Ward’s $6M contract for a pick.
Wait... if the Flames can get anything at all for Lucic at 50%, they shouldn't hesitate.
Clearing up $2.625 million of cap space for the next two seasons (without any penalty beyond that) would be massive in helping the Flames to sign Tkachuk.
Still need a replacement player, so it's at most 1.925M freed cap space.
Once his 2.5M bonus is paid, he's only owed $6.5M cash for the final two years. I don't necessarily think you'd need to retain a full 50% to move him to an internal cap team, but whether he'd waive is the question.
He submits an 8 team go-to list, which would be very easy to game (VGK, TBL, STL, TOR, COL, BOS, PIT, EDM - lol)...the first 7 being teams it wouldn't suck to get traded to, anyways.
The way this organization rolls, there’s no way they’re letting their Norris trophy winning captain (who the head coach signed back in 2004) go to an expansion team.
Especially when he’s still good.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
The way this organization rolls, there’s no way they’re letting their Norris trophy winning captain (who the head coach signed back in 2004) go to an expansion team.
Especially when he’s still good.
They will if they're smart.
Nostalgia has no place in this business if you're intent on doing big things.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
Everyone's opinions are influenced by observation bias. Mine included. But do you have any evidence to support your argument that Monahan appears to be regressing faster than Backlund?
Monahan is in the midst of his worst production season ever and he's basically neck-and-neck with Backlund. He's six years younger and signed for a million dollars more. I think there's a lot more evidence to support the idea that Monahan could easily rebound (and provide good value) than there is to reinforce Backlund's case.
I think, with Monahan, a lot of people's disillusionment has been borne out of what he's been in the past and the expectations that have come with that. But, in terms of points, Backlund's best offensive seasons have only really matched Monahan's worst output. And we're getting to the point where Backlund's underlyings have regressed, suggesting his production might not be long for this league.
And I would never suggest Gawdin could replace Backlund. I'm not really a fan of Gawdin's NHL potential.
No, but I bet you want to protect Phillips over Backlund.
