What is Daniil Miromanov?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If your team is spending a majority of its time in the defensive zone (which the Flames were late in the season) and you have a defenceman seeing 21 minutes a night, you're going to see a inflated DZS% as that 21 minute defenceman needs to get those minutes somehow. It sure wasn't playing shorthanded, where Miromanov saw no ice time. A defenceman sitting on the bench when the team is shorthanded, as far as I am concerned, is being sheltered. Or isn't trusted enough by their coach to kill penalties.

Sheltered is a five on five deployment measure by a coaching staff.

Who you play against.
Where you start your shifts.

A player can be a solid five on five player but not play much PK due to style or other players more suited on the roster.

He isn't sheltered at all.

But once again I'm not saying he's a free and clear top 4 defenseman, he likely is not, but there just isn't anything in his small sample size that says he was sheltered or bad defensively.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Except you've been shown all over the place where he did not get sheltered minutes.

By "all over the place" you mean I've been given a DZS% where Hanley is ahead of him? Hanley has 58.9% to Miromanov's 53.4%. Kuznetsov was 66.7%, why did he get sent down if this stat means so much?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Uh ohhhh someones triggered!

I'm flattered that you think you accomplished something here.

[Robbob]

Gio was turning 25 after coming back from that year in Russia. I don't think we know exactly what we have yet with Miromanov. He is a much better player than I originally thought at the time of the trade.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sheltered is a five on five deployment measure by a coaching staff.

Who you play against.
Where you start your shifts.

A player can be a solid five on five player but not play much PK due to style or other players more suited on the roster.

He isn't sheltered at all.

But once again I'm not saying he's a free and clear top 4 defenseman, he likely is not, but there just isn't anything in his small sample size that says he was sheltered or bad defensively.

If you have a stat other than DZS% to demonstrate that, then I'll happily acknowledge it.

Miromanov saw a regular 5v5 shift with Weegar. Kylington, similarly, saw a regular 5v5 shift with Andersson. However, Weegar and Andersson saw additional shifts in the offensive zone as they were the Flames best offensively from the blueline (hence a lower DZS%) and also got a lot of shifts shorthanded.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If you have a stat other than DZS% to demonstrate that, then I'll happily acknowledge it.

Miromanov saw a regular 5v5 shift with Weegar. Kylington, similarly, saw a regular 5v5 shift with Andersson. However, Weegar and Andersson saw additional shifts in the offensive zone as they were the Flames best offensively from the blueline (hence a lower DZS%) and also got a lot of shifts shorthanded.

Sure offensive zone face off starts as a percentage.

Takes out changing on the fly and points directly to deployment by starting the player on a defensive zone face off.

Miromanov was only above Hanley since the trade deadline for offensive zone face off starts. If you want to shelter a player you don't start them in their own zone for a face off if you have the option.

But even putting that aside ... you don't play a player with your best defenseman if you want to shelter him as that best defenseman is doing all the heavy lifting.

I mean sure he could help cover up for mistakes like Tanev does, but it doesn't work long time to put a guy in your top four if he's a 6/7.

For a 20 game sample size Miromanov wasn't sheltered, and was treated like a top four (arguably top two) defenseman.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If your team is spending a majority of its time in the defensive zone (which the Flames were late in the season) and you have a defenceman seeing 21 minutes a night, you're going to see a inflated DZS% as that 21 minute defenceman needs to get those minutes somehow. It sure wasn't playing shorthanded, where Miromanov saw no ice time. A defenceman sitting on the bench when the team is shorthanded, as far as I am concerned, is being sheltered. Or isn't trusted enough by their coach to kill penalties.

Except the actual stats don’t show a team starting more in the defensive zone than usual down the stretch, they show a team that stayed around average overall, with Miromanov and Weegar’s defensive zone starts increasing over the last 20 games while everyone else’s decreased.

March was statistically their second lowest defensive zone starts over the course of the season, while April right in the middle. January and October were the two highest.

So, none of what you’re talking about is actually based on anything real, as usual.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If your team is spending a majority of its time in the defensive zone (which the Flames were late in the season) and you have a defenceman seeing 21 minutes a night, you're going to see a inflated DZS% as that 21 minute defenceman needs to get those minutes somehow. It sure wasn't playing shorthanded, where Miromanov saw no ice time. A defenceman sitting on the bench when the team is shorthanded, as far as I am concerned, is being sheltered. Or isn't trusted enough by their coach to kill penalties.

Or they want to allocate his ice-time more to PP including because they have others that can handle PK.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If your team is spending a majority of its time in the defensive zone (which the Flames were late in the season) and you have a defenceman seeing 21 minutes a night, you're going to see a inflated DZS% as that 21 minute defenceman needs to get those minutes somehow. It sure wasn't playing shorthanded, where Miromanov saw no ice time. A defenceman sitting on the bench when the team is shorthanded, as far as I am concerned, is being sheltered. Or isn't trusted enough by their coach to kill penalties.

My goodness, you continue to step on rakes there Sideshow Bob, haha!

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Or they want to allocate his ice-time more to PP including because they have others that can handle PK.

Or the coach thinks he has at least four better penalty killers?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except the actual stats don’t show a team starting more in the defensive zone than usual down the stretch, they show a team that stayed around average overall, with Miromanov and Weegar’s defensive zone starts increasing over the last 20 games while everyone else’s decreased.

March was statistically their second lowest defensive zone starts over the course of the season, while April right in the middle. January and October were the two highest.

So, none of what you’re talking about is actually based on anything real, as usual.

Citation?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Or the coach thinks he has at least four better penalty killers?

Even if that was the case it wouldn't change his top four (two) standing in five on five deployment, nor his actual underlying numbers offensively and defensively, which were very good relatively speaking.

Why not just say uncle on this?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sure offensive zone face off starts as a percentage.

Takes out changing on the fly and points directly to deployment by starting the player on a defensive zone face off.

Miromanov was only above Hanley since the trade deadline for offensive zone face off starts. If you want to shelter a player you don't start them in their own zone for a face off if you have the option.

Ok, so more zone start percentages...

Originally Posted by Bingo

But even putting that aside ... you don't play a player with your best defenseman if you want to shelter him as that best defenseman is doing all the heavy lifting.

That is sheltering. You don't put a guy with your worst defenceman to shelter him, do you?

Guess we're working with entirely different definitions of sheltering...

Before he was traded, Tanev was the guy the Flames played guys with to shelter them, cover for mistakes, etc. Not sure how you can claim that this doesn't work long term, but will happily accept any statistics to support that assertion.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Ok, so more zone start percentages...

Nope.

Zone face off percentages point more to a coach's intent, so they're not the same as overall percentages.

Originally Posted by cannon7

That is sheltering. You don't put a guy with your worst defenceman to shelter him, do you?

Guess we're working with entirely different definitions of sheltering...

Before he was traded, Tanev was the guy the Flames played guys with to shelter them, cover for mistakes, etc. Not sure how you can claim that this doesn't work long term, but will happily accept any statistics to support that assertion.

Yeah I'm using the NHL one!

You don't put a guy in your top four period to shelter him. Ever.

And the Tanev example proves my point, not yours. He played 743 minutes with Hanifin this year, next closest was Gilbert at 64.

They didn't, and you can't, play a 6-7 with a top four and shelter him. Tanev proved that out.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Even if that was the case it wouldn't change his top four (two) standing in five on five deployment, nor his actual underlying numbers offensively and defensively, which were very good relatively speaking.

Why not just say uncle on this?

Because no one has made a convincing case. Better question is why are all you so desperate to get me to just accept your assertions? If the stat exists, provide it.

Perhaps the reason Miromanov didn't see any shorthanded minutes is because in the minutes he did see he was -12.6% CFR and a GA/60 of 50. If small sample sizes are on the table...

[Roof-Daddy]

Playing Miromanov with your best defenseman and giving him high defensive zone starts relative to his peers and playing him over 20 minutes per game

"He's being sheltered"

LMAO

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah I'm using the NHL one!

Appeal to authority fallacy aside. Do you actually have a link to this supposed NHL definition?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Appeal to authority fallacy aside. Do you actually have a link to this supposed NHL definition?

It's not an appeal to authority. It's a jab at someone who suggested we have different definitions.

People have had the courtesy of actually working with your questions and providing answers.

Only someone stubbornly wanting to hold a position and keep arguing would still be in this mess.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not an appeal to authority. It's a jab at someone who suggested we have different definitions.

People have had the courtesy of actually working with your questions and providing answers.

Only someone stubbornly wanting to hold a position and keep arguing would still be in this mess.

He has a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" going on with his argument. All in baby! I respect it.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sure offensive zone face off starts as a percentage.

Takes out changing on the fly and points directly to deployment by starting the player on a defensive zone face off.

Miromanov was only above Hanley since the trade deadline for offensive zone face off starts. If you want to shelter a player you don't start them in their own zone for a face off if you have the option.

But even putting that aside ... you don't play a player with your best defenseman if you want to shelter him as that best defenseman is doing all the heavy lifting.

I mean sure he could help cover up for mistakes like Tanev does, but it doesn't work long time to put a guy in your top four if he's a 6/7.

For a 20 game sample size Miromanov wasn't sheltered, and was treated like a top four (arguably top two) defenseman.

I think it is all moot anyway. This team had a decimated D core after the trades and had extremely limited deployment options to begin with. Whatever we saw down the stretch was a result and is unlikely to be the way anything looks again when the team takes the ice in September.

Miromanov looked okay at times and looked bad at times. If the point of the stretch run was to give him runway to grow by playing a ton I would say Huska achieved that and then some against what I saw was some pretty quality minutes and he showed enough from what I saw to be confident that he's an everyday NHLer with #4/#5 upside.