PBD Points By Defensemen

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Except for the most successful 30 game stretch in Flames modern history (2015 make the playoffs run and 11 playoff games) where with Gio hurt he was the best player on the team out of the LD spot playing 25+ minutes a game with Engelland on his Right side.

Right after that the Flames traded their future for Hamilton and team defense became a tire fire.

Oh good grief. You realize you can talk about the Flames or the Flames defense here without your endless potshots at Hamilton, right? We get it, you don't like him. You've let us all know, many many many times. We get it.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Except for the most successful 30 game stretch in Flames modern history (2015 make the playoffs run and 11 playoff games) where with Gio hurt he was the best player on the team out of the LD spot playing 25+ minutes a game with Engelland on his Right side.



Right after that the Flames traded their future for Hamilton and team defense became a tire fire.

Well your first point is subjective, but point taken. I had forgotten about that. Brodie flipper to LD and still played well when Gio went down.

I won’t bother taking your second point seriously.

Maybe the real driver here for Brodie is systems. Brodie thrived under Hartley’s up tempo, pressure, fast transition game, breaking out as a unit and jumping into the play. Compared with GG’s “retrieval, flip it to center and hope someone can tip it into the O zone so everyone can change” system. Maybe I am putting too much stock in the RD LD thing.

[Classic_Sniper]

In my opinion, I don’t think this team needs to put more emphasis on points by defensemen as I don’t think it’s necessary to become a winning team. In fact, I think in terms of sheer numbers, I actually think we’re fine right now especially when you look at the PBD from the Stanley Cup winners of the last decade starting from 2010-11.


Bruins (10-11) = 149
Kings (11-12) = 142
Blackhawks (12-13*) = 100
Kings (13-14) = 149
Blackhawks (14-15) = 137
Penguins (15-16) = 167
Penguins (16-17) = 177

Looking at our PBD of 16-17 and 17-18. At 176 and 146, we’re actually quite comparable to this decade’s Stanley Cup Champs.


For me, without a question though, this team needs to add considerably more goals, that’s of the utmost importance. But ideally, I think the uptick should come from the forward group especially from the right wing. This team is so incredibly shallow on right shooting forwards it’s almost embarrassing. We had a combined 19 goals from them lead by Troy Brouwer with 6. That’s just so utterly pathetic it’s maddening. It definitely speaks of our lack of talent and how easy it would be for the opposition to defend. Ultimately, more goals need to come, but from our forwards IMO.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I disagree with the bold (at least within the confines of looking at the Flames from year to year). I do not think this team had less talent than the lineups from 2 and 3 years earlier. I think it was much more talented.

I think the lack of scoring from the 2nd through the 4th lines was as much style of play as it was lack of talent.

I would also turn the argument around and say that maybe the lack of scoring from the bottom 9 was because of the lack of support from the D not joining the offense enough.

Also, you tried to argue that scoring was down, which would lead to PBD being down. However, that isn't really true. From 15/16 to 17/18, team scoring dropped 13 goals, or 5.6%. But PBD dropped 28.1% over the same period.

I look at the precipitous drop in PBD and for, that goes a long way in explaining why the forwards aren't scoring as much, other than Johnny's line, which I attribute to him and Monahan continuing to get better. And to which I add: how many points would Johnny be getting if the D were contributing to the offense the way they should?

Nah, I think Flames Draft Watcher is right.

Compare this years top 3 d to last years top 3 d, then compare the bottom 3 d from this year to last.

Team scoring outside of the top line dropped off significantly, and the team added two defensive players who have never consistently put up points. Hamonic has just a single season of 25 points or more in his last 6 seasons, with a career high 5 goals. Even with the wheels falling off, wideman was a better offensive player than Hamonic. Just look at hamonic in the offensive zone and tell me with a straight face you expect that guy to produce offense.

Same story with Stone. Career high 8 goals,one 25 point season in his last 6.

When Gio was putting up 50+ points in a season when he was 30-31 years old. Now he's 34. Had he been drafted in the 2002 draft class with his peers, he would've lead that draft class in defensemen scoring this year. As far as I can tell, only one 34+ year old defender scored more than 30 points this year other than Giordano and that was Duncan Keith who finished with 6 less points than Gio.

Is it really appropriate to expect a 34 year old defender to be a 40+ player anymore?

Brodie finished barely below his 5 season average for points and Dougie had an enigmatic season scoring 4 more goals but 6 less points than last year.

But is that really a massive statistical difference in defensive output from Calgary's top 3 minute eaters? Is that a sign that the 'system' varied significantly from one year of Gulutzan to another year of Gulutzan? Giordano ended up scoring one less point than he did last year. Is that the system, age, or group of players?

For me it comes down the decline in specific players as they age, and the decline of the roster in terms of the amount of time they spend per game killing penalties.

2015/2016 the Flames top PK player was Brodie at 2:36 per game, while this year Giordano and Hamonic were playing more than that per game. Combine that with the wheels falling off Backlund (29), Frolik(30), Stajan(34) and Brouwer (32) without any real additions to the roster save Janko more than explains away the decline in offense from this team relative to last year, two years ago and three years ago.

You can say it's 'style of play', but I really don't see how the team was playing any differently this year as compared to last year that would see their bottom 9 roster forwards being essentially without offense for half of the year. If you're going to dismiss it as 'style of play', I think it behooves you to at least pay lip service to why or how that was.

What was the change in a single season in the style of play that caused the top end of the roster to explode and the bottom half to fizzle out? What was the coaching adjustment that contributed to Backlund and Frolik scoring 17 less goals than last year but also saw Ferland add 16 points to his totals? Was Sam Bennett who finished with 26 points both seasons somehow immune to these coaching changes? Why did it impact Stajan so adversely that he'd decline by nearly 50% in offensive output?

FDW's explanation seems to make the most sense, Injuries and age took a middling offensive group and transferred them to the bottom of the league in offense.

Last year the Flames got 34 points out of Engelland and Wideman in 138 games. This year, they got 21 points out of Hamonic and Stone in 156 games. How does the discrepancy in those specific totals impact PDB?

Do you really think that is coaching?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by heep223

Well your first point is subjective, but point taken. I had forgotten about that. Brodie flipper to LD and still played well when Gio went down.

I won’t bother taking your second point seriously.

Maybe the real driver here for Brodie is systems. Brodie thrived under Hartley’s up tempo, pressure, fast transition game, breaking out as a unit and jumping into the play. Compared with GG’s “retrieval, flip it to center and hope someone can tip it into the O zone so everyone can change” system. Maybe I am putting too much stock in the RD LD thing.

Do you see Hamilton being able to be successful playing an up temp pressure fast transition game?

When he joined Hartley's team he looked like he never played hockey at the NHL level before.

The Flames adapted to Hamilton's skill set. When you bring in a guy to be the franchise d-man you really want him to succeed.

He was immediately paired with Gio and Gio played his worst hockey in the last 7 years. Then he rotated through every other D-man on the Flames with very limited success. Then the Flames slowed down the game that their D-man were playing and put Hamilton back with Gio under a simplified less demanding system.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Oh good grief. You realize you can talk about the Flames or the Flames defense here without your endless potshots at Hamilton, right? We get it, you don't like him. You've let us all know, many many many times. We get it.

when did Brodie start his decline from a top 10 d-man in the league?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I'm not going to derail a very good discussion any further going back and forth with you over such a ridiculous agenda you have. Like I said, we get it, you don't like him, everything's his fault. We've all heard it a million times.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Good work, Enoch! Love it, very interesting.

Trying to help you with the data ...

Here is the top ten points by defensemen by team in the last 5 years with I caveat that I'll summarize at the end.

NSH 764
CGY 706
SJS 704
NYI 657
MIN 655
STL 654
WSH 653
LAK 648
TBL 644
PIT 642

Top ten teams in terms of rank in the NHL Standings (average) in those 5 years

Anaheim Ducks 5.4
Washington Capitals 7.2
Pittsburgh Penguins 7.4
St. Louis Blues 8
Tampa Bay Lightning 8.8
Chicago Blackhawks 9.4
Boston Bruins 10
Minnesota Wild 10.4
New York Rangers 11
Nashville Predators 11.2

Only 5 of the top ten total defense production teams are in the top ten in standings over that time period.

Caveat was traded defenseman. The site that would pull the data all at once assigned traded defenseman to the team "Total", instead of their breakdown. So I painstakingly went back and assigned the vast majority of them to the team where they produced the most in those seasons.

The summary above is only one way to look at it, and there may be better ways that are more revealing.

Thank you Bingo, but honestly, I don't think taking 5 years of data is the right way to go - too much noise. What you want to do is take one year of data, over and over, for multiple years.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

In my opinion, I don’t think this team needs to put more emphasis on points by defensemen as I don’t think it’s necessary to become a winning team. In fact, I think in terms of sheer numbers, I actually think we’re fine right now especially when you look at the PBD from the Stanley Cup winners of the last decade starting from 2010-11.


Bruins (10-11) = 149
Kings (11-12) = 142
Blackhawks (12-13*) = 100
Kings (13-14) = 149
Blackhawks (14-15) = 137
Penguins (15-16) = 167
Penguins (16-17) = 177

Looking at our PBD of 16-17 and 17-18. At 176 and 146, we’re actually quite comparable to this decade’s Stanley Cup Champs.


For me, without a question though, this team needs to add considerably more goals, that’s of the utmost importance. But ideally, I think the uptick should come from the forward group especially from the right wing. This team is so incredibly shallow on right shooting forwards it’s almost embarrassing. We had a combined 19 goals from them lead by Troy Brouwer with 6. That’s just so utterly pathetic it’s maddening. It definitely speaks of our lack of talent and how easy it would be for the opposition to defend. Ultimately, more goals need to come, but from our forwards IMO.

It's interesting to look at Stanley Cup champs for sure. So I looked as far back as the first lockout. 12 seasons. In those 12 seasons, there were 3 teams that didn't fit the 'need to be top half of the league to make the playoffs' argument, but did and went on to win the cup. They were:

PIT 2009
LAK 2012
CHI 2015

Pitt in 2009 is interesting because their top 3 Dmen in PPG were all hurt for significant amounts of time (especially their top PPG guy, Gonchar). In the playoffs, they produced at a 170 point pace.

In 2015, Chicago had a crappy year, snuck into the playoffs, and then had a veteran run and won the cup. In the playoffs, the D produced at a 160 point pace. It should also be noted that that same D produced 193 points the year before, 222 points the year they won their first cup, and at a 171 point pace in 2012, the strike-shortened season. So it is pretty clear that they consistently produced big numbers and just had one bad year (which they managed to fix in the playoffs).

That leaves the Kings. They were pretty average most of the year in 2012, but put it together late, and then were lights out in the playoffs. They were also the 2nd best team defensively in the regular season, and the best team defensively in the playoffs (1.70 and 1.50 GAA respectively). I think we can all agree that if you are the best team in the league defensively, that is a good recipe for success, and you don't have to be a great team offensively to win.

Those were the outliers (an injury-plagued regular season, an off-year in the regular season, and one of the best defensive teams we have seen in a long time).

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

when did Brodie start his decline from a top 10 d-man in the league?

When a dogs*** coach utilized him completely wrong.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nah, I think Flames Draft Watcher is right.

Compare this years top 3 d to last years top 3 d, then compare the bottom 3 d from this year to last.

Team scoring outside of the top line dropped off significantly, and the team added two defensive players who have never consistently put up points. Hamonic has just a single season of 25 points or more in his last 6 seasons, with a career high 5 goals. Even with the wheels falling off, wideman was a better offensive player than Hamonic. Just look at hamonic in the offensive zone and tell me with a straight face you expect that guy to produce offense.

Same story with Stone. Career high 8 goals,one 25 point season in his last 6.

When Gio was putting up 50+ points in a season when he was 30-31 years old. Now he's 34. Had he been drafted in the 2002 draft class with his peers, he would've lead that draft class in defensemen scoring this year. As far as I can tell, only one 34+ year old defender scored more than 30 points this year other than Giordano and that was Duncan Keith who finished with 6 less points than Gio.

Is it really appropriate to expect a 34 year old defender to be a 40+ player anymore?

Brodie finished barely below his 5 season average for points and Dougie had an enigmatic season scoring 4 more goals but 6 less points than last year.

But is that really a massive statistical difference in defensive output from Calgary's top 3 minute eaters? Is that a sign that the 'system' varied significantly from one year of Gulutzan to another year of Gulutzan? Giordano ended up scoring one less point than he did last year. Is that the system, age, or group of players?

For me it comes down the decline in specific players as they age, and the decline of the roster in terms of the amount of time they spend per game killing penalties.

2015/2016 the Flames top PK player was Brodie at 2:36 per game, while this year Giordano and Hamonic were playing more than that per game. Combine that with the wheels falling off Backlund (29), Frolik(30), Stajan(34) and Brouwer (32) without any real additions to the roster save Janko more than explains away the decline in offense from this team relative to last year, two years ago and three years ago.

You can say it's 'style of play', but I really don't see how the team was playing any differently this year as compared to last year that would see their bottom 9 roster forwards being essentially without offense for half of the year. If you're going to dismiss it as 'style of play', I think it behooves you to at least pay lip service to why or how that was.

What was the change in a single season in the style of play that caused the top end of the roster to explode and the bottom half to fizzle out? What was the coaching adjustment that contributed to Backlund and Frolik scoring 17 less goals than last year but also saw Ferland add 16 points to his totals? Was Sam Bennett who finished with 26 points both seasons somehow immune to these coaching changes? Why did it impact Stajan so adversely that he'd decline by nearly 50% in offensive output?

FDW's explanation seems to make the most sense, Injuries and age took a middling offensive group and transferred them to the bottom of the league in offense.

Last year the Flames got 34 points out of Engelland and Wideman in 138 games. This year, they got 21 points out of Hamonic and Stone in 156 games. How does the discrepancy in those specific totals impact PDB?

Do you really think that is coaching?

We have been through this before. But I disagree with you about the team being less talented. When you go down the lineup, there is simply no way you can make that case. Here are the lineups from the 15/16 season, compared to this year. Obviously, players can be slotted into different spots, but I went with games played (for the bottom 6) in order to be objective. This is how they compare:

Gaudreau-Mony-Hudler * * * Gaudreau-Mony-Ferland
Bouma-Backlund-Frolik * * * Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik
Colborne-Bennett-Jones* * * Bennett-Jankowski-Hathaway
Ferland-Stajan-Jooris * * * * Lazar-Stajan-Brouwer
Bollig, Granlund, Raymond * Versteeg, Jagr, Glass, Mangiapane
Hathaway

Giordano - Hamilton * * * * Giordano - Hamilton
Brodie - Wideman * * * * * Brodie - Hamonic
Russell - Engelland * * * * *Kulak - Stone
Jokipakka * * * * * * * * * Bartkowski

I don't see any spot on the 2015 roster that is better than the current roster, other than the third D pairing.

Let's look at the top line. Before Hudler got traded, their PPG were 1.00, 0.69 and 0.66. Over the same 53 games, the line this year (with Ferland) was 1.17, 0.90 and 0.62. Advantage 2017/18

Second line: clear advantage to this year, due to Tkachuk

Third line: slight advantage to this season IMO, though some inconsistent play on all fronts in both years.

Fourth line: a wash. Ferland is better than Lazar but Brouwer is better than Jooris.

Extras: Versteeg > Granlund, Jagr > Raymond, Glass > Bollig, Hathaway > Mangiapane (for now)

On D, you think Giordano isn't as good as he was at 32. I disagree. I think he carried the team this year, along with Gaudreau, and was every bit as good as he has ever been. Hamilton is better than he was 2 years ago.

We will have to agree to disagree on Wideman. Hamonic is significantly better, IMO.

Third pair: Russell-Engelland was better than Kulak-Stone. But it's close, as Kulak got better and better throughout the year.

As for Stone, seasons of 21, 18 and 36 points. Then 15 and 10 in the last 2. Maybe he is losing it, but at 27, that seems highly unlikely to me.

Bottom line is pretty clear IMO: the team has more talent, but the goals are drying up.

2015/16: 229 (10th)
2016/17: 222 (17th)
2017/18: 216 (27th)

Yes, I think it is primarily coaching and style of play because the team has been getting more talented over the past 2 years, but the offense is producing less.

Maybe it's just luck. Maybe they have collectively lost the ability to shoot. But those seem pretty unlikely to me. Style of play is far more plausible. And that is what I see.

Oh, one more thing: regarding the: "Gaudreau, Monahan and Ferland are doing well, so how can it be style of play?" argument, I think the thread talking about the Royal Road and forcing the goalie to move is a really important piece of the puzzle.

Despite the system, Gaudreau makes a lot of cross-ice passes, and he shifts a lot as well. To put it simply, Gaudreau is so creative, he is getting the goalie moving, even when the defense is set.

The other forwards, excluding Tkachuk, simply aren't able to do that - they can't overcome the system and the defenses.

[Flash Walken]

...ok.

But what is the difference between last year's team that made the playoffs and their PDB this year where they didn't? Same coach, presumably similar system, right?

What caused the 30 point decline in PDB in a year with the same coaching staff and an offensive explosion from the forward group most likely to share ice with the teams 3 best offensive defenders?

[Enoch Root]

Hard to say, could be a lot of things, and probably was several of them. I think the confidence just continued to erode, for one.

All else equal, a team should get better under the same coach for a second year, as the players get more comfortable with the system, and the coach learns what players can fulfill what roles.

But they went the other way. It's a team of 20+ players and an 82 game schedule. There are lots of currents at the same time.

I'm just trying to have a discussion about one of them here. I think points by D is important, and it clearly correlates strongly with winning. I think the Flames' D is much better than 24th in the league and I think most would agree with me.

Getting them back to where they should be (top 10) would go a long way to improving the goal differential and thus their record.

[Flash Walken]

If you're putting it down to confidence I don't think you're having as a honest a conversation about stats as you think you are.

The Flames made the playoffs last year and had what I assume in your mind was a respectable PDB total. They didn't make the playoffs this year and had a less than respectable PDB total. They had largely the same variables as last year except for 2 key variables in my mind: They lost offensive production from the backend by replacing Wideman and Engelland with Hamonic and Stone. A clear step up defensively in my opinion, but also a clear step down offensively.

Can you address how getting the same points per game from Hamonic and Stone as the team got from Wideman and Engelland would've impacted the team's final PDB stats?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We have been through this before. But I disagree with you about the team being less talented. When you go down the lineup, there is simply no way you can make that case. Here are the lineups from the 15/16 season, compared to this year. Obviously, players can be slotted into different spots, but I went with games played (for the bottom 6) in order to be objective. This is how they compare:

Gaudreau-Mony-Hudler * * * Gaudreau-Mony-Ferland
Bouma-Backlund-Frolik * * * Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik
Colborne-Bennett-Jones* * * Bennett-Jankowski-Hathaway
Ferland-Stajan-Jooris * * * * Lazar-Stajan-Brouwer
Bollig, Granlund, Raymond * Versteeg, Jagr, Glass, Mangiapane
Hathaway

Giordano - Hamilton * * * * Giordano - Hamilton
Brodie - Wideman * * * * * Brodie - Hamonic
Russell - Engelland * * * * *Kulak - Stone
Jokipakka * * * * * * * * * Bartkowski

I don't see any spot on the 2015 roster that is better than the current roster, other than the third D pairing.

Let's look at the top line. Before Hudler got traded, their PPG were 1.00, 0.69 and 0.66. Over the same 53 games, the line this year (with Ferland) was 1.17, 0.90 and 0.62. Advantage 2017/18

Second line: clear advantage to this year, due to Tkachuk

Third line: slight advantage to this season IMO, though some inconsistent play on all fronts in both years.

Fourth line: a wash. Ferland is better than Lazar but Brouwer is better than Jooris.

Extras: Versteeg > Granlund, Jagr > Raymond, Glass > Bollig, Hathaway > Mangiapane (for now)

On D, you think Giordano isn't as good as he was at 32. I disagree. I think he carried the team this year, along with Gaudreau, and was every bit as good as he has ever been. Hamilton is better than he was 2 years ago.

We will have to agree to disagree on Wideman. Hamonic is significantly better, IMO.

Third pair: Russell-Engelland was better than Kulak-Stone. But it's close, as Kulak got better and better throughout the year.

As for Stone, seasons of 21, 18 and 36 points. Then 15 and 10 in the last 2. Maybe he is losing it, but at 27, that seems highly unlikely to me.

Bottom line is pretty clear IMO: the team has more talent, but the goals are drying up.

2015/16: 229 (10th)
2016/17: 222 (17th)
2017/18: 216 (27th)

Yes, I think it is primarily coaching and style of play because the team has been getting more talented over the past 2 years, but the offense is producing less.

Maybe it's just luck. Maybe they have collectively lost the ability to shoot. But those seem pretty unlikely to me. Style of play is far more plausible. And that is what I see.

Oh, one more thing: regarding the: "Gaudreau, Monahan and Ferland are doing well, so how can it be style of play?" argument, I think the thread talking about the Royal Road and forcing the goalie to move is a really important piece of the puzzle.

Despite the system, Gaudreau makes a lot of cross-ice passes, and he shifts a lot as well. To put it simply, Gaudreau is so creative, he is getting the goalie moving, even when the defense is set.

The other forwards, excluding Tkachuk, simply aren't able to do that - they can't overcome the system and the defenses.

Btw, this comparison suggests that Treliving hasn't really improved the roster in a significant way, despite spending plenty of draft picks. Really the only significant upgrade is drafting Tkachuk, plus the further development of Gaudreau and Monahan who were already here.

I think you have to include Smith when comparing improvements to the roster. But it still doesn't really make him look that good :/

[heep223]

Bill Peters just highlighted first and foremost the need to get offence from the D. Good sign

[flameester]

Yes Peters did say that but as I recall GG said in his hiring interview that he wanted the D to be in on the rush and keep playing like they did under Hartley.