Has Lazar proven he deserves to be in the starting 12 thus far?

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Camronius

I dunno, I saw a few comments in the game threads suggesting both Bart and Brouwer had good games. Did no one else notice that every time we were hemmed in, or there was a chance against, it was the 4th line and the 3rd defensive pairing. I get that, that's effectively our "worst" 5-man unit... but it doesn't really change that they were on for almost every chance against.

Maybe that's more of a coaching issue, that that unit is out there together so much....I don't know. I just can't agree that they had good games. They made desperate exciting plays because they had to, they either turned it over, lost position or otherwise that made for these thrilling spontaneous plays... I wouldn't call that a good game. Hamonic had a GOOD game, he quietly and effectively shut down people all night and didn't cause me to choke on my heart... (same goes for Smith).

I'm not a Brouwer or Bartkowski fan by any stretch (two players I like the least on the team by a country mile) but I will admit Bart had a good game, he was physical and tied up his man in front on at least one occasion that saved a goal. He made a good clear out of the zone after some sustained pressure that I can remember as well.

In regards to Brouwer I don't think he had a terrible game, as he was fairly good defensively, but I do remember the PK pass right to the slot. But to be fair other than that I didn't really notice him in a negative way.

The standards are really low for Brouwer so I can see why some think he had a good game but he doesn't really provide anything that can't be replaced and even upgraded upon by Jagr and Jankowski (outside of being a RH shot).

He really doesn't fit in this group but I don't know how easy it is to offload him.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Camronius

I dunno, I saw a few comments in the game threads suggesting both Bart and Brouwer had good games. Did no one else notice that every time we were hemmed in, or there was a chance against, it was the 4th line and the 3rd defensive pairing. I get that, that's effectively our "worst" 5-man unit... but it doesn't really change that they were on for almost every chance against.

Maybe that's more of a coaching issue, that that unit is out there together so much....I don't know. I just can't agree that they had good games. They made desperate exciting plays because they had to, they either turned it over, lost position or otherwise that made for these thrilling spontaneous plays... I wouldn't call that a good game. Hamonic had a GOOD game, he quietly and effectively shut down people all night and didn't cause me to choke on my heart... (same goes for Smith).

For the stat test.

http://hockeystats.ca/game/2017020038

Well Stajan had the second highest 5 on 5 corsi on the team. Brouwer had the 5th highest corsi among forwards. Bartkowski had the 3rd highest corsi on the defense. Kind of suggests what you noticed what biased. Humans often make very biased observations. It's hard to watch a game from a neutral perspective and notice everything equally. If you're watching for the 4th line to be hemmed in you'll notice that. If you're expecting the 1st line to do well offensively you might not take note of whole shifts they have where they struggle to get established in the offensive zone.

That said as far as my eye test went I personally thought Bartkowski did have a surprisingly good game. I didn't see him turn the puck over much. I thought he moved the puck well and defended well. He deserved the praise, he played his minor role quite well. Those people who praised him noticed him playing well. And likely they aren't huge Bartkowski fans because not many people here are.

Basically when people say Bartkowski had a good night its probably because he did. Because the prevailing bias on this board is to think he sucks. Same goes for Brouwer. I wouldn't say Brouwer was strong but he doesn't look out of place on the 4th line whereas he did further up the lineup.

[Flamenspiel]

I think Brouwer loses his spot to Jagr when he draws in. Lazar then gets moved down to the 4th line and I think that is a good fit. If Lazar falters or there are injuries then you have Brouwer available as a 13th forward.

[PeteMoss]

Re: Stajan - Dominic Moore gets traded every 2nd year for a 2nd round pick. Stajan has a bigger contract but a 3rd or 4th at the deadline wouldn't be shocking.

Today - he's worth less because of the contract, at the deadline he'll be able to fit in for most teams.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

For the stat test.

http://hockeystats.ca/game/2017020038

Well Stajan had the second highest 5 on 5 corsi on the team. Brouwer had the 5th highest corsi among forwards. Bartkowski had the 3rd highest corsi on the defense. Kind of suggests what you noticed what biased. Humans often make very biased observations. It's hard to watch a game from a neutral perspective and notice everything equally. If you're watching for the 4th line to be hemmed in you'll notice that. If you're expecting the 1st line to do well offensively you might not take note of whole shifts they have where they struggle to get established in the offensive zone.

That said as far as my eye test went I personally thought Bartkowski did have a surprisingly good game. I didn't see him turn the puck over much. I thought he moved the puck well and defended well. He deserved the praise, he played his minor role quite well. Those people who praised him noticed him playing well. And likely they aren't huge Bartkowski fans because not many people here are.

Basically when people say Bartkowski had a good night its probably because he did. Because the prevailing bias on this board is to think he sucks. Same goes for Brouwer. I wouldn't say Brouwer was strong but he doesn't look out of place on the 4th line whereas he did further up the lineup.

The confirmation bias and focus on trivial errors by whipping boys is huge peeve of mine. Last night Stajan takes the puck on a breakaway during a PK, gets whacked and doesn't manage to score. To me, a shorthanded breakaway is a great play in and of itself. Yet he was vilified by a bunch of posters for not potting it. As if breakaways aren't about a 33% chance at best. Or where Brouwer was being fainlty praised and posters were on about a couple icings. Count how many guys iced the puck, for various reasons. Now if a guy skates to centre and dumps it in unchallenged from behind centre, fine, it's a dumb play. But icings have a lot of reasons - no one to safely pass it to so - reset; the guy up ice turns the wrong way and doesn't get the pass; and these days I see icings being called when the puck bounces over a teammate's stick (I think they need to revise icing).

The other side of the bias is that anything good is shrugged off - a guy is playing better but it's weaker opposition, or better linemates - or it's just ignored.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Camronius

I dunno, I saw a few comments in the game threads suggesting both Bart and Brouwer had good games. Did no one else notice that every time we were hemmed in, or there was a chance against, it was the 4th line and the 3rd defensive pairing. I get that, that's effectively our "worst" 5-man unit... but it doesn't really change that they were on for almost every chance against.

Maybe that's more of a coaching issue, that that unit is out there together so much....I don't know. I just can't agree that they had good games. They made desperate exciting plays because they had to, they either turned it over, lost position or otherwise that made for these thrilling spontaneous plays... I wouldn't call that a good game. Hamonic had a GOOD game, he quietly and effectively shut down people all night and didn't cause me to choke on my heart... (same goes for Smith).

I noticed. I remember in the first period when the fourth line and third pairing were out and got hemmed into our zone and had to ice the puck. I was convinced that since Anaheim would have the chance to change and get Getzlaf on the ice against our weakest competition they would score.

I'm not saying "Brouwer was so good we should look to put him on the first line!" But he had a 58.33% CF and from the eye test the fourth line had a couple really good chances to score as well.

Sure, they had their gaffs. No one played a perfect game, but he still did better than I expected.