PK is awful since TT has been traded
- vabeachbear

Sure, THE LOSS OF TT is not the main reason why our penalt kill is a disaster... But he would have helped. IMO the main reason TT never lived up to his potential on the Hawks because we treated him like a baby. Hawk management when the team drafted him knew that he needed a lot strength training. Instead of letting TT play golf all summer in Findland for three years , management should have send our strength trainer to Findland and get him physically ready . I do have to say TT BECAME ONE OUR BEST DEFENSEMAN unfortunately he never became stronger on the offensive side. I hope he will finally gets his head in order.

IMHO Babcock and management had a process to secure drafting Matthews last year while implementing Babcock's systems and culture. Winning wasn't #'s 1-2 or 3 last year. Besides they have Komorov, more proven, to fill that role.

I really liked the structure and maturity, for the most part, of the Leafs last night. Really solid down the middle with Bozak, Matthews, Kadri, Holland allowing prospects Marner and Nylander to fit in without being overwhelmed.
- Mr Ricochet

if thats what it came down too. panik or matthews. then i am glad the decision was made.

panik i though was a perfect fit for the leafs and i felt we got peanuts for him

And again, all research has shown that faceoff have a minimal impact on possession (which is partially why Vermette hasn't been good in terms of possession in general despite his faceoff prowess). Like sub 40% FO sucks, but they can all be ~alright, even AA.
- L_B_R

While winning faceoffs does not alone mean better possession, players that win more faceoffs are also more likely to control the puck in other situations. But do agree that Vermette is not the answer.

I think Panik has proven himself to be a top 6 caliber winger in this league, at least IMO.

The way i see it, he's been playing a top 6 role on this team for around 20-25 straight games going back to last years playoffs and the end of the regular season. And in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those games he's been one of the if not the most noticeable forward we have, constantly involved with/creating scoring chances(especially in that 7 game series against the Blues i thought he was very impressive). And that's as part of a top 6 that includes stars like Kane, Toews, Panarin, Hossa....and yet Panik has stood out just as much as any of them. Speed, skill, physicality, and net front presence.

I don't see that changing, i think this is who he is. A very legit 25g/50pt caliber top 6 winger(yes, i know he's currently shooting 66%, but still...). If anything he will only improve going forward.

I'm not buying the "he's a glorified 3rd liner" concept any longer. I've seen enough. He's the real deal. And we got him for Morin.
- SimpleJack

Remember it was Babcock who though Panik had no hockey iq. and it was Hossa that alerted the Blackhawks managment about Panik and his fellow country man.

John Jaeckel: Big comeback? Big turnaround?
- John Jaeckel

John, do you think if the Blackhawks have a bleak season this year, they might make some bold move and trade guy like Kane....I just think the trade chip for Kane is at all time high and I just get frustrated watching him being a one dimensiional player.

Couple Random thoughts:
Does Schmaltz have two shots to Stick?? If he is not ready at center do they try him at wing before Rockford? They still seemed to be unsettled at LW.

I know Panik will never be Saad but jeez I am hopeful he can be what they thought they had in Bickell. Physical 40 point scorer

Why noy try Alex Tanguay. Not terrible last year and 2 yeas removed from a pretty good season. I know he is old but still skates well and will not make rookie mistakes and you don't have to give anything up to get him.

While winning faceoffs does not alone mean better possession, players that win more faceoffs are also more likely to control the puck in other situations. But do agree that Vermette is not the answer.
- etchtech

Winning face offs at evens doesn't mean that much because so often the puck turns over on the next pass:

Defense wins the FO below the goal line - they have to make some passes against the offense with all 5 skaters already in forechecking position.

Offense wins the FO - easier to keep possession, but still everyone is (or should be) closely covered.

On special teams, winning the draw means more, I would think.

Defense wins - they need to worry less about making passes - they can just ice the puck.

Offense wins - the defense has to sag back, easier to get it to an open man and set up the attack.

John, do you think if the Blackhawks have a bleak season this year, they might make some bold move and trade guy like Kane....I just think the trade chip for Kane is at all time high and I just get frustrated watching him being a one dimensiional player.
- shidler

Maybe throw in Toews and Seabrook too. Then we can do the Toronto/Cubs rebuild that you apparently crave.

Maybe throw in Toews and Seabrook too. Then we can do the Toronto/Cubs rebuild that you apparently crave.
- BMWChiFan

Seabs sure.

Of all stats I still can't wrap my head around. If I get the puck it means little in terms of possession following the face off win. I'm not questioning you LBR as I've read this stat but still, so hard to understand. ........ Does it show that dogged pursuit and taking away time, space and options equals winning the face off?
- Mr Ricochet

Think of it like this: faceoffs are really just a puck battle that is a set play, so they are likely only slightly more important than any other puck battle when it comes to possession. More puck battle wins are good, but faceoffs alone are just one type of battle in a sea of lots of other battles. With hundreds of puck battles happening in a game, the 25-35 ones that happen to be faceoffs in the OZ/DZ are too small in number to have a major impact on the whole (NZ faceoffs are blah). Individual faceoffs can have huge impacts, much like individual hits or blocks can, but the research done (by several different people) show the stat overall has minimal impact on possession and even scoring. Their impact is the highest immediately after a faceoff (within seconds) until the puck is involved in the next battle.

There are lots of faceoff 'specialists' that are not good possession players, and a lot of that has to do with them being poor transition players, and the reverse is true as well. It's just not a straight correlation that bad faceoffs = bad possession = bad center. Centers like Anisimov (or Malkin, H.Sedin, Little) can be sub-50% for faceoffs because can contribute to possession in other ways (puck retrieval, cycling, transition, etc), especially if they are primarily deployed in the OZ or NZ. It's also why Toews or Kruger (or Crosby, Bergeron, Seguin) can have a bad game at the dot, but their possession is fine or vice versa. The relationship is not as meaningful as we initially think.

All that said, even if the impact is minimal, it still exists and so the idea of having good faceoff players, especially for key moments, is not to be dismissed. It's just the hyper focus on faceoffs as it relates to possession has little value. Totally worth discussing for certain situations and the esp low low trends that arise, and it's an area that should be improved just for the boost, no matter how small, it could give to help a team win imo.

Ben Smith is on waivers today. PK help from the waiver wire?
- ikeane

Concussion after concussion...

Think of it like this: faceoffs are really just a puck battle that is a set play, so they are likely only slightly more important than any other puck battle when it comes to possession. More puck battle wins are good, but faceoffs alone are just one type of battle in a sea of lots of other battles. With hundreds of puck battles happening in a game, the 25-35 ones that happen to be faceoffs in the OZ/DZ are too small in number to have a major impact on the whole (NZ faceoffs are blah). Individual faceoffs can have huge impacts, much like individual hits or blocks can, but the research done (by several different people) show the stat overall has minimal impact on possession and even scoring. Their impact is the highest immediately after a faceoff (within seconds) until the puck is involved in the next battle.

There are lots of faceoff 'specialists' that are not good possession players, and a lot of that has to do with them being poor transition players, and the reverse is true as well. It's just not a straight correlation that bad faceoffs = bad possession = bad center. Centers like Anisimov (or Malkin, H.Sedin, Little) can be sub-50% for faceoffs because can contribute to possession in other ways (puck retrieval, cycling, transition, etc), especially if they are primarily deployed in the OZ or NZ. It's also why Toews or Kruger (or Crosby, Bergeron, Seguin) can have a bad game at the dot, but their possession is fine or vice versa. The relationship is not as meaningful as we initially think.

All that said, even if the impact is minimal, it still exists and so the idea of having good faceoff players, especially for key moments, is not to be dismissed. It's just the hyper focus on faceoffs as it relates to possession has little value. Totally worth discussing for certain situations and the esp low low trends that arise, and it's an area that should be improved just for the boost, no matter how small, it could give to help a team win imo.
- L_B_R

I hit the Google when you wrote that earlier and found this article: http://statsportsconsulti.../FaceoffAnalysis12-12.pdf

It looks at the impact of face-offs on goals and, by extension, wins. Moving from 50% to 60% increases the number of goals by 12 and wins by 2.

To your point, they see a face-off as just another puck battle. (BTW: teams average between 54 and 67 face-offs per game this season.) They say that anything 20 seconds after a specific event in a hockey game is statistical noise, so they looked at how many goals are scored in the 20 seconds after a face-off. Interesting approach. It follows that FOs in the neutral zone are less important.

Edit: The more I think about this, the more I think I'm back to thinking face-offs do matter. If FOs impact the next 20 seconds of a game, a 35% FO% (about what AA did last year) means that 65% of time time, the other team is going to get possession for up to 20 seconds after that. Do you really want Kane and Panarin chasing 2/3 of the time after a FO? Yes, I agree, there are other factors that impact possession time but which of those things does AA excel at? Is it anything that, say, Kruger doesn't do? There are a lot of factors in a hockey game, while we shouldn't over rate the impact of face-offs, we shouldn't under-rate it either.

I hit the Google when you wrote that earlier and found this article:

It looks at the impact of face-offs on goals and, by extension, wins. Moving from 50% to 60% increases the number of goals by 12 and wins by 2.

To your point, they see a face-off as just another puck battle. (BTW: teams average between 54 and 67 face-offs per game this season.) They say that anything 20 seconds after a specific event in a hockey game is statistical noise, so they looked at how many goals are scored in the 20 seconds after a face-off. Interesting approach. It follows that FOs in the neutral zone are less important.

Edit: The more I think about this, the more I think I'm back to thinking face-offs do matter. If FOs impact the next 20 seconds of a game, a 35% FO% (about what AA did last year) means that 65% of time time, the other team is going to get possession for up to 20 seconds after that. Do you really want Kane and Panarin chasing 2/3 of the time after a FO? Yes, I agree, there are other factors that impact possession time but which of those things does AA excel at? Is it anything that, say, Kruger doesn't do? There are a lot of factors in a hockey game, while we shouldn't over rate the impact of face-offs, we shouldn't under-rate it either.
- matt_ahrens

That aligns pretty well with hockey-graphs' numbers I posted in a past thread on this subject. So if a team were to win 60% of their faceoffs for a season, they'd get about 2 more wins out of it. How many teams actually win 60% on average, though? Since the lockout, the highest is 56.4%. If you notice that in the particular cases they looked at (San Jose - good FO, Edmonton - bad FO), the difference for both teams was only 1 win on the season and they were on the high / low ends of the normal team FO numbers. That's not a lot (though could be important in a close season). As I said, there is an impact from faceoffs, but it is minimal. Even if you look at it for individual games, teams don't typically win many games by 10% swings, much less the 20% it would take to make 60% to happen.

Also, just for the record, the faceoff number I referenced per game were for non-neutral zone even strength only, as I noted. Of course they go 50-60 per game in all situations, but NZ faceoffs are not useful as they have little impact (as the paper you linked says as well) and special teams are weighted differently. And that paper also confirms what I and STL have said - that individual/specific and/or special teams faceoffs as a singular event can have higher importance than a sum total percentage of faceoff wins.

Outside of the 20 seconds thing, that paper confirms that faceoffs are not without importance, but that they are not as critical as people would expect. Again, was never arguing they were meaningless, just not necessarily warranting the focus given at times.

Edit to add: the 20 seconds thing is interesting, though the common belief in the stats community is that the impact of a faceoff is limited to 5-10 seconds after it, depending on the zone in which it's won. If it were 20 seconds, I'd probably be fine with a loss because it does not translate enough into won possession for it matter, especially for teams that retrieve and transition well. hockey-graphs and ArcticHockey have some good info on their timed approach + impact on other factors, if you're interested.

Edit again: And as everyone should know by now, I think Kruger is great, but the main problem I have with moving him between Kane-Panarin is that there is no one on the team that can do what he does elsewhere - shutdown and gain possession so well when deployed in the DZ so much. Rasmussen may be able to do it, but he hasn't been tried in that role enough for it to be anything more than a fancy thought and Desi isn't nearly as effective (he's much more effective at wing). Kruger in his current role is what allows Kane-Panarin the OZS they get. Anisimov is a solid low 2C/high 3C player who typically plays well down low, good at puck retrieval, and net front presence. He's a fine pivot between the wonder twins, even at his cost, and Kruger is most valuable in the role he's currently playing. I'd feel differently if say Danault was still here (also not as good as Kruger in that role, but is a known quantity that could compensate somewhat), but that's not the case. I too would like AA to get better at FO (would settle for 46-48% range), though I'd steer clear of him taking PK FOs if possible.

Last edit I promise: It will be interesting to see if the faceoff rule change will impact these numbers. GMs introduced it to try to increase goal scoring and it might work – home/away rules did influence how much a team benefited from a faceoff win.

That aligns pretty well with hockey-graphs' numbers I posted in a past thread on this subject. So if a team were to win 60% of their faceoffs for a season, they'd get about 2 more wins out of it. How many teams actually win 60% on average, though? Since the lockout, the highest is 56.4%. If you notice that in the particular cases they looked at (San Jose - good FO, Edmonton - bad FO), the difference for both teams was only 1 win on the season and they were on the high / low ends of the normal team FO numbers. That's not a lot (though could be important in a close season). As I said, there is an impact from faceoffs, but it is minimal. Even if you look at it for individual games, teams don't typically win many games by 10% swings, much less the 20% it would take to make 60% to happen.

Also, just for the record, the faceoff number I referenced per game were for non-neutral zone even strength only, as I noted. Of course they go 50-60 per game in all situations, but NZ faceoffs are not useful as they have little impact (as the paper you linked says as well) and special teams are weighted differently. And that paper also confirms what I and STL have said - that individual/specific and/or special teams faceoffs as a singular event can have higher importance than a sum total percentage of faceoff wins.

Outside of the 20 seconds thing, that paper confirms that faceoffs are not without importance, but that they are not as critical as people would expect. Again, was never arguing they were meaningless, just not necessarily warranting the focus given at times.

Edit to add: the 20 seconds thing is interesting, though the common belief in the stats community is that the impact of a faceoff is limited to 5-10 seconds after it, depending on the zone in which it's won. If it were 20 seconds, I'd probably be fine with a loss because it does not translate enough into won possession for it matter, especially for teams that retrieve and transition well. hockey-graphs and ArcticHockey have some good info on their timed approach + impact on other factors, if you're interested.

Edit again: And as everyone should know by now, I think Kruger is great, but the main problem I have with moving him between Kane-Panarin is that there is no one on the team that can do what he does elsewhere - shutdown and gain possession so well when deployed in the DZ so much. Rasmussen may be able to do it, but he hasn't been tried in that role enough for it to be anything more than a fancy thought and Desi isn't nearly as effective (he's much more effective at wing). Kruger in his current role is what allows Kane-Panarin the OZS they get. Anisimov is a solid low 2C/high 3C player who typically plays well down low, good at puck retrieval, and net front presence. He's a fine pivot between the wonder twins, even at his cost, and Kruger is most valuable in the role he's currently playing. I'd feel differently if say Danault was still here (also not as good as Kruger in that role, but is a known quantity that could compensate somewhat), but that's not the case. I too would like AA to get better at FO (would settle for 46-48% range), though I'd steer clear of him taking PK FOs if possible.

Last edit I promise: It will be interesting to see if the faceoff rule change will impact these numbers. GMs introduced it to try to increase goal scoring and it might work – home/away rules did influence how much a team benefited from a faceoff win.
- L_B_R

Interesting discussion, thanks. I learned some things and can't really disagree with any of what you've written.

I think Panik has proven himself to be a top 6 caliber winger in this league, at least IMO.

The way i see it, he's been playing a top 6 role on this team for around 20-25 straight games going back to last years playoffs and the end of the regular season. And in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those games he's been one of the if not the most noticeable forward we have, constantly involved with/creating scoring chances(especially in that 7 game series against the Blues i thought he was very impressive). And that's as part of a top 6 that includes stars like Kane, Toews, Panarin, Hossa....and yet Panik has stood out just as much as any of them. Speed, skill, physicality, and net front presence.

I don't see that changing, i think this is who he is. A very legit 25g/50pt caliber top 6 winger(yes, i know he's currently shooting 66%, but still...). If anything he will only improve going forward.

I'm not buying the "he's a glorified 3rd liner" concept any longer. I've seen enough. He's the real deal. And we got him for Morin.
- SimpleJack

Ya it was a great pick up ,he wasn't going to get the chance here,we don't have a center like that,so some guys given the opportunity to play make the most of it !I'm sure he'd look good with McDavid too!oh and we got him for nothing 😨 but nice to see him doing well,

Remember it was Babcock who though Panik had no hockey iq. and it was Hossa that alerted the Blackhawks managment about Panik and his fellow country man.
- shidler

Not true,

Remember it was Babcock who though Panik had no hockey iq. and it was Hossa that alerted the Blackhawks managment about Panik and his fellow country man.
- shidler

Oh😨