2297Re: [hockeydisk] did anyone notice him last year
- Sep 1, 2003I wasn't going to jump into the fray because it seems
pointless since my
opinion doesn't count in the end, but I'll bite and
put my 2 cents in. I've
commented on Herb statements below. And thanks to
Herb on his wonderful job
on the scouting reports, once again!!
--- Herb Garbutt <herbgarbutt@...> wrote:
> I'm not the definitive word on scouting but havingHannan led his team in ice time per game @ 24:15.
> done the scouting report I learn a lot about a lot
> of players.
> Here's my two cents.
> Scott Hannan
> Hannan definitely improved this season, both
> offensively and defensively. A couple things I look
> for in a 4 defenceman
> (there are others, though these are important).
> -Does he play against the opposition's best lines:
> Hannan is still not the Sharks' go-to guy to shut
> down the opposition (Rathje fills that role and
> Hannan wasn't teamed
> with him last season despite the departure of Marcus
> Ragnarsson). So even though Hannan was even and
> Rathje was -19,
> I'd be more inclined to give Rathje a 4 because he
> was playing against other team's top. (Although even
> in that role
> -19 is pretty ugly and I might hesitate to give
> Rathje a 4 as well).
> -Is he teamed with an offensive defenceman.
> Teams rarely put two offensive Dmen together,
> instead they pair their good defensive Dmen with
> their offensive guys to
> serve as a defensive conscience. Hannan did this
> last year. He played with a wide variety of partners
> but most were
> more offensive guys (Fibiger, McGillis, Stuart).
> He is a stay-at-home guy, which helps although not a
> very well known or appreciated one. The even on a
> bad Sharks team
> might help Hannan. I'd have likely given him a 3.5
> but a lot of raters put a lot of stock in
> plus/minus. I'd give
> Hannan a 50% of getting a 4 but it is by no means a
> guarantee yet.
Slightly better than
Rathje. I'd think that it would be difficult to log
that much ice time and
not face the other teams top lines at some point
during the game. Rathje
had more PK ice time 3:46 to 3:25, but I've found that
PK duty leans more to
defensemen that clear the crease than pure defensive
ability, but it is an
indicator. Rathje had more PP time at 3:16 to 2:19,
leaving Hannan with an
edge in even strength ice time 18:31 to 17:04. This
leads me to believe
that the coaches had a little more faith in Hannan
overall defensively. I'm
not saying this is true. That's why I didn't grade
the Sharks because I
didn't see too many games played by them. The Sharks
allowed a little more
than average shots per game so I'd think that they'd
only get one or two 4
d-rate on defense at most if any at all. Just because
you play against an
opponents top line doesn't mean you are any good at it
and you should
automatically should get a good rating. Rathje may
still get a 4. His
plus/minus looks bad, but the Sharks' goaltending was
below average too.
I'd definitely give Hannan a 4. Even if he was lining
up against 2nd
liners, some 2nd lines are still very good and he did
> Dan BoyleBoyle got almost no PK ice time. But like I said
> Boyle did improve defensively last season but the
> fact of the matter was that prior to last season he
> was brutal in
> his own end. He was an offensive specialist. The
> improvement probably only brought him up to a 2 but
> given that he was
> a 2 last year, he could easily become a 3. Reality
> is he improved his passing which cut down on his
> turnovers but he's
> still small and easy to outmuscle in his own end.
> But judging by last year when Dmen like Phil Housley
> and Patrice
> Brisebois (who both are simply awful in their own
> end) got 3s based on improved offensive numbers, I'd
> give Boyle an
> 85% chance of getting a 3.
before, PK time is more of
an indicator of crease clearing and Boyle's not strong
enough to do this
effectively. Boyle is far from being a PP specialist
logging 18:19 of ES
ice time. Combined with TB's slightly less than
average shots allowed per
game tell me that Boyle probably was not hurting his
team defensively. He
also posted a +9 on a team full of minuses so I would
give him a 3, which is
> Adrian AucoinThe question is Aucoin actually deserving of all that
> Aucoin is a tough one. He's still primarily an
> offensive guy, though his numbers never seem to
> match his skills.
> He certainly qualifies on the criteria I mentioned
> for Hannan. You simply don't get 29 minutes of ice
> no matter how
> good you are offensively. My only hesitation is, is
> Aucoin in this role because he deserves it or simply
> because the
> Isles don't have anyone else? I lean toward the
> latter. The Isles simply don't have anyone you would
> call a defensive
> defenceman, at least none who could log top-4
> minutes. Fairly or not (in this case not) his -5
> might hurt him.
> I'd give Aucoin a 65% chance of moving up to a 4.
ice time (IT).
Initially, I look at who else is on the team...
Hamrlik, Niinimaa, Jonsson..
Some good players and Jonsson has received good
ratings in the past. To me
Niinimaa is always underrated defensively so this
tells me that yes, Aucoin
must be doing something good to deserve the IT. The
Isles were smack dab
right at average for shots allowed per game. I look
at the players and
stats and nothing really sticks out except for
Hamrlik's +21 and Martinek's
+15. If we give Aucoin a 4 d-rate with all those
minutes played, then we
have to assign a 1 or 2 to one or more other players
to balance out an
average defense. Given this, my first inclination is
to give all the Isle
d-men a 3 d-rate, except Cairns. But, let's dive into
the numbers a little
PLAYER IT ESIT PPIT PKIT PTS
+/- PPPTS SHPTS
Hamrlik 26:34 17:44 4:58 3:51 41
+21 21 3
Aucoin 28:53 17:29 5:27 6:03 35 -
5 20 1
Niinimaa 26:08 18:02 4:58 3:08 34 -
9 17 1
Jonsson 23:11 15:41 3:14 4:16 26 -
8 10 2
Timander 17:29 14:37 0:59 1:53 16 -
2 4 1
Martinek 17:14 15:19 0:52 1:04 13
+15 1 0
Cairns 11:50 11:31 0:02 0:16 5 -
7 0 1
First I should note that Niinimaa played most of the
season for Edmonton.
It's also noteworthy that the Islanders' goaltending
was below average so
the minus ratings actually aren't that bad at all
given the ice time of the
players. The thing that really stands out is Aucoin's
PKIT. Now is that
because he's that great defensively or is it because
he's more physical than
the others? Hamrlik actually posted the highest ESIT
and combined with his
+21 you would award HIM a 4 d-rate if anyone was to
get it. It's
interesting to note the difference in +/- between
Hamrlik and Aucoin since
you would think that they both would have to play in
same pairing with all
those minutes. It actually reflects that each played
half the game opposite
of each other. Aside from Cairns, I don't see another
d-rating I'd lower to 2 and Cairns didn't rack up
enough minutes to allow
one of those high minute guys to be a 4. My final
anaysis is that Hamrlik
had a ton of luck last season and I would award Aucoin
and everyone else a 3
d-rate, just like I originally had thought.
> Filip KubaKuba is in a similar situation as Aucoin. He played
> A solid arguement could be made for Kuba being a
> four. He fits the two criteria I mentioned but he
> may suffer from
> lack of exposure. It could take him another year to
> earn his four. My only knock (and it's not a big
> knock, more of a
> backhanded compliment) is that yes Kuba gets the job
> done but does he really excel at it. The same could
> be said of
> Aucoin. To get a four, I feel you not have to only
> do the job but do it really well. Granted I didn't
> see a lot of
> Minnesota until the playoffs so Kuba may already fit
> this bill.
> From past experience, some guys it takes the ratings
> a year to catch up to them and I'm afraid this will
> be the case
> with Kuba--although I was wrong once back in 1987 :)
> I'd give Kuba a 25% chance of moving up to a 4.
the most minutes on a
team with a 23:55 average. However, despite their
defensive reputation, the
Wild allowed an average number of shots per game.
Their low GAA can be
attributed mostly to their stellar goaltending
performances. Unlike Aucoin,
the Wild do have some candidates to have their d-rates
lowered to a 2
leaving room to give out some 4's.
PLAYER IT ESIT PPIT PKIT PTS
+/- PPPTS PKPTS
Kuba 23:55 18:17 2:52 2:46 29
E 12 2
Zyuzin 21:36 16:09 3:14 2:13 17 -
8 8 3
Bombardir 22:01 17:50 1:05 3:05 15
+15 1 0
Mitchell 21:28 18:16 0:14 2:58 14
+13 0 1
Sekeras 18:52 14:56 2:25 1:29 11
-12 5 0
Schultz 18:28 15:29 1:14 1:43 10
+11 0 0
Given the performances of Zyuzin and Sekeras along
with Brad Brown and other
d-men not listed, you could lower them to a 2 d-rate,
leaving room to raise
2 or 3 players to a 4. Zyuzin actually didn't have a
bad year at all so
giving him a 3 d-rate is not out of the question
leaving less room to raise
others. Now the question is who? Initial analysis
would be Mitchell,
Bombardir and Kuba in that order. This is where
Herb's scouting reports
come in handy. Unfortunately, not a whole lot of
information for the past
season. Kuba is mentioned to have a slow start, which
is bared out in the
stats as he lags behind in +/-. Also, the report
infers that Kuba replaced
Bombardir suggesting that he was behind Bombardir in
the scheme of things.
Since the ratings are based on the whole season of
play and not just the
best parts, Kuba will have to take the hit for this.
Based on the coach's
decision to use Mitchell and Bombardir in defensive
situations more, I'd
give them a d-rate of 4 and Kuba a 3 rating.
Bombardir only played 58 games
so there's possibly room to adjust Zyuzin or Kuba.
> David Scatchard, Martin Havlat, Wade Redden, MarcoI'm gonna stick with the defenseman since I don't have
> Sturm and Mike Knuble.
> Are you asking about these guys becoming/keeping 4s?
> Sturm already is one, and should defnitely keep it,
> although not 5 (Selke) material just yet.
> Havlat's still a 3. His +20 is a benefit of playing
> with two better defensive linemates, he's still
> primarily an
> offensive guy although improving in his own end.
> Wade Redden. Was a 4 last year, had a better year
> but is not 5 material (unless you're giving him an
> overall offensive
> and defensive ratings--which we're not).
> David Scatchard. Should be a 4. Was dropped to a 3
> last year, victimized unfairly by a bad offensive
> Mike Knuble. Doesn't hurt his team defensively but
> is not what you would call above average
> defensively. He's a 3.
> Well, that's my take given my opinion and past
> experience with ratings. Good luck and may all your
> ratings dreams come
time to do every
player. And like I said before, I didn't see most of
these guys very much last
year so I am going mostly on stats and not what I've
seen. I agree with
Herb's assessment of the forwards although I haven't
looked at their stats.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>