First line player out is pretty much an ideal scenario for us to trade Sutter. But does he have any form of a NTC? Or is Edmonton going to offer a good return?


Realistically, this is a good situation for getting a higher return for him.
- Guile

No ntc

Idk about trade value... sutter for yak straight up.. idk. They NEED a center

No ntc

Idk about trade value... sutter for yak straight up.. idk. They NEED a center
- nh4442

I don't think Sutter can swing a 1st overall pick, even though he fills a fairly dire need in their lineup. At least, not Sutter doing nothing special so far this season. 4 points, and he had time as the 2nd line center, and a -2. I know theres lots of other stats, but with all the goals the Penguins has, I don't think thats helping his trade value too much.

No ntc

Idk about trade value... sutter for yak straight up.. idk. They NEED a center
- nh4442

They also need a skilled winger to stop gap for Hall so I don't think that Yak will be moved.

Anyone happen to catch the Yotes and Caps game? Caps look horrible. A virtual turnover machine. it's everyone, but particularly the forwards lazily passing it out of the zone with no clear target except the opposition's sticks. Really pathetic. They have fallen far from their heyday.

Anyone happen to catch the Yotes and Caps game? Caps look horrible. A virtual turnover machine. it's everyone, but particularly the forwards lazily passing it out of the zone with no clear target except the opposition's sticks. Really pathetic. They have fallen far from their heyday.
- powerhouse

Yeah I watched some of it. Watch the Caps frequently.

They really have poorly managed that team since the Ovie heyday of 08-10.

I kind of feel bad for him. Talented player playing for a clueless organization. I guess you have to give the new coach some time though right?

So the boys look great. Not too much to complain about!

I'll be curious to see what they look like when the PP comes back down to sea level.

So the boys look great. Not too much to complain about!

I'll be curious to see what they look like when the PP comes back down to sea level.
- 87_71_11_29

Yah, I'm not so sure it isn't going to challeng the 30% mark this season. It is just that damn good.

So the boys look great. Not too much to complain about!

I'll be curious to see what they look like when the PP comes back down to sea level.
- 87_71_11_29

Yup! Averaging over 4 goals a game and giving up under 2. That's certainly a recipe for winning.

I was thinking the other day...

Hats off to HCMJ. Head coaches were turning down this job down and MJ comes in and has done nothing but run with the opportunity. What a great story so far!

Yup! Averaging over 4 goals a game and giving up under 2. That's certainly a recipe for winning.

I was thinking the other day...

Hats off to HCMJ. Head coaches were turning down this job down and MJ comes in and has done nothing but run with the opportunity. What a great story so far!
- madmike71

I understand all the talk of coaches turning the job down because of really high expectations, but also PIT is such a great opportunity for any coach it seemed dumb (if true) that coaches would rather go to Vancouver or Carolina. Oh well, very pleased with Johnston so far.

Yeah I watched some of it. Watch the Caps frequently.

They really have poorly managed that team since the Ovie heyday of 08-10.

I kind of feel bad for him. Talented player playing for a clueless organization. I guess you have to give the new coach some time though right?
- 87_71_11_29

As someone that lives in DC, it isn't the coach. Their former GM was a complete moron in terms of asset management.

I understand all the talk of coaches turning the job down because of really high expectations, but also PIT is such a great opportunity for any coach it seemed dumb (if true) that coaches would rather to Vancouver or Carolina. Oh well, very pleased with Johnston so far.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

I think it had more to do with the short-term & low dollars offered. Penguins are still paying Bylsma and i remeber reading they were not looking to pay another coach big money long term.

According to EK Loui Eriksson is available from Boston.

Such a promising player, wrecked by concussions. He has a friendly cap for a few more years. Doubt it's worth the risk though. I remember him having a solid 2 way game as well.

According to EK Loui Eriksson is available from Boston.

Such a promising player, wrecked by concussions. He has a friendly cap for a few more years. Doubt it's worth the risk though. I remember him having a solid 2 way game as well.
- sammy87

I don't know if I would call his $4.25M/yr Cap Hit this season & next "cap friendly" for his level of production. If it was, Boston wouldn't be trying to move him.

I think it had more to do with the short-term & low dollars offered. Penguins are still paying Bylsma and i remeber reading they were not looking to pay another coach big money long term.
- s0rcerer1984

I think there were multiple things going on at the time, but it was a perfect opportunity for someone confident in their abilities. If money or security was a coaches priority maybe they weren't the right candidates.

I always enjoy watching people taking a risks.......then succeeding. A long way to go certainly, but I think we can all acknowledge the changes in personnel and system have been refreshing.

2,000 shifts per year, 162 extra offensive zone faceoffs being the difference between 60% and 40% at an average of 10 non-neutral zone faceoffs a night = 8%. Yeah, I'd say 8% of total shifts is pretty negligible.

And my main point is that coaches are rarely (end of game, end of period, after icing) deploying players based on zone starts, and that OZS is massively skewed by how much PP or PK time that player gets.
- hardnosed

I completely disagree, I full believe that a coach will make a decision on what line to put out there based on the location of a faceoff. 100%. To me, zone starts/line matching go hand in hand. I actually disagree with your assessment that head coaches generally "roll the lines 1-2-3-4, and occaisonally skip the 4th line." I think that is the farthest thing from the truth. If that was the case than the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines time on ice per game would be much more even, when they really are not. At even strength... Steve Downie on the 3rd line averages around 11 minutes per game, while Geno on the 2nd line averages around 14 minutes per game.. that's a big difference, IMO. Why though? Because Malkin is a better hockey player... so you want him on the ice more often, so you find times to put him on the ice, especially in the offensive zone, because thats where he earns his cheddar.

I completely disagree, I full believe that a coach will make a decision on what line to put out there based on the location of a faceoff. 100%. To me, zone starts/line matching go hand in hand. I actually disagree with your assessment that head coaches generally "roll the lines 1-2-3-4, and occaisonally skip the 4th line." I think that is the farthest thing from the truth. If that was the case than the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines time on ice per game would be much more even, when they really are not. At even strength... Steve Downie on the 3rd line averages around 11 minutes per game, while Geno on the 2nd line averages around 14 minutes per game.. that's a big difference, IMO. Why though? Because Malkin is a better hockey player... so you want him on the ice more often, so you find times to put him on the ice, especially in the offensive zone, because thats where he earns his cheddar.
- j.boyd919

I always thought the ideal or maybe old school of thought was your top 2 lines scored goals, bottom lines were your shutdown/checking lines. Players that were really good a faceoffs and would stick to opponents like glue and not let them get any space and they would not take any unnecessary risk. If they can chip in some goals here and there great, but their role was to be on the ice against the top lines. That's why I always wonder why everyone wants so many goals from the bottom 6....Do we really need 20g scorers down there?

Ah, favorable zone starts. Geez, that's one useless statistic.

It assumes that a head coach is going to to interrupt the way he's rolling his lines just so he can put a certain player or players out for a faceoff that your team basically has a 50/50 chance of winning.

I'd say about 1% of all faceoffs include such thinking - end of game, end of period, after an opponent's icing, stuff like that. Otherwise, coaches are rolling their lines first, trying to get matchups second, and worrying about which zone their players are in third.
- hardnosed

Or, or, it assumes that a coach rolls his lines in order instead of factoring in match ups and zone starts. And if the coaches didn't look at that, then why do the stats show that he protects certain players and trusts others in the same regard as to where they start? Or is that all just random despite the trends showing that.

Or, or, it assumes that a coach rolls his lines in order instead of factoring in match ups and zone starts. And if the coaches didn't look at that, then why do the stats show that he protects certain players and trusts others in the same regard as to where they start? Or is that all just random despite the trends showing that.
- usethe1-2-2

Yeah I mean.. what's the point of having a head coach if he isn't going to use strategy and try to COACH his team to victory? Why don't we just hit he B button the xbox controller to roll through our lines.. much easier that way.

I always thought the ideal or maybe old school of thought was your top 2 lines scored goals, bottom lines were your shutdown/checking lines. Players that were really good a faceoffs and would stick to opponents like glue and not let them get any space and they would not take any unnecessary risk. If they can chip in some goals here and there great, but their role was to be on the ice against the top lines. That's why I always wonder why everyone wants so many goals from the bottom 6....Do we really need 20g scorers down there?
- sammy87

I think that may have worked in the past (ie, the 90's and such), but i just don't see it as being a good model in the current NHL. You need to be able to generate offense from your 3rd line & have your 4thline play more than 6min a night. Teams are too deep & goalies are too good to sustain a Cup run on just your top-6 scoring.

I'm not saying that you need 60G between your 3rd line. Given that most 3rd line players do not play significant PP time that seems a bit unrealistic. But if you can get between 30G from your 3rd line over the course of a season, most of which are at 5v5, that's a major plus.

I think that may have worked in the past (ie, the 90's and such), but i just don't see it as being a good model in the current NHL. You need to be able to generate offense from your 3rd line & have your 4thline play more than 6min a night. Teams are too deep & goalies are too good to sustain a Cup run on just your top-6 scoring.

I'm not saying that you need 60G between your 3rd line. Given that most 3rd line players do not play significant PP time that seems a bit unrealistic. But if you can get between 30G from your 3rd line over the course of a season, most of which are at 5v5, that's a major plus.
- s0rcerer1984

I know it has changed from the 90's, but having a shutdown lines still seems a bit necessary in todays NHL. And if that's how teams deploy a 3rd line, their zone starts might be skewed a bit. Malkin isn't the greatest at faceoffs, I wouldn't put him on the ice at the end of a game/period with a 1 G lead. What about when Staal was a Pen? He always took those draws and his large body was good in those situations. Wouldn't that skew the stats a bit?

I actually disagree with your assessment that head coaches generally "roll the lines 1-2-3-4, and occaisonally skip the 4th line." I think that is the farthest thing from the truth.

- j.boyd919

There's nothing to "disagree" with, because it's not an opinion. I went through game play by plays for the Penguins this year, and that's what I found. Shuffling of the order lines are sent out is nearly entirely limited to after icings, end of games, starts of periods, and after TV timeouts.

If that was the case than the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines time on ice per game would be much more even, when they really are not. At even strength... Steve Downie on the 3rd line averages around 11 minutes per game, while Geno on the 2nd line averages around 14 minutes per game.. that's a big difference, IMO. Why though? Because Malkin is a better hockey player... so you want him on the ice more often, so you find times to put him on the ice, especially in the offensive zone, because thats where he earns his cheddar.
- j.boyd919

Malkin averages 9 more seconds per shift than Downie. 9 seconds X 23 shifts/game = almost 4 minutes difference in TOI overall, which more than makes up for the disparity. Which makes sense also because Downie is averaging only 3 fewer shifts per game overall (ES/PP/PK) than Malkin, despite Malkin getting more PP time.

Or, or, it assumes that a coach rolls his lines in order instead of factoring in match ups and zone starts. And if the coaches didn't look at that, then why do the stats show that he protects certain players and trusts others in the same regard as to where they start? Or is that all just random despite the trends showing that.
- usethe1-2-2

What players is he protecting? Crosby? Hornqvist?

The stats don't show that, people bastardize statistics to make it look like they do. And it's not random at all - go look at the current OZS stats - really, go look at them. The guys with the most PP time get the most O starts, the guys with the most PK time get the most D zone starts. Pretty simple stuff, no reason to over-complicate it.

Yeah I mean.. what's the point of having a head coach if he isn't going to use strategy and try to COACH his team to victory? Why don't we just hit he B button the xbox controller to roll through our lines.. much easier that way.
- j.boyd919

Because it's a made-up stat that NHL coaches could care less about, and it only applies to about 8% of the action in a hockey game?!?

Coaches are far more concerned about continuity and flow of the game than about getting Zach Sill closer to the opponents' goal a couple times a game.

Because it's a made-up stat that NHL coaches could care less about, and it only applies to about 8% of the action in a hockey game?!?

Coaches are far more concerned about continuity and flow of the game than about getting Zach Sill closer to the opponents' goal a couple times a game.
- hardnosed

Yeah most coaches aren't there to read into stats, but they are there to form strategies, and the reason he is putting Sill closer to the opponents goal is because he is a terrible hockey player and that limits the amount of mistakes he can make in his own end, therefore leading to an opposing goal. They aren't concerned with continuity and flow of the game, they are focused on giving their team the best opportunity to win the game.

Because it's a made-up stat that NHL coaches could care less about, and it only applies to about 8% of the action in a hockey game?!?

Coaches are far more concerned about continuity and flow of the game than about getting Zach Sill closer to the opponents' goal a couple times a game.
- hardnosed

I feel most advanced stats are useful when drafting a fantasy team. Outside of that, not sure the benefit. In a close game, at the end you put your best faceoff guy to take the draw that has energy in the D zone. Simple as that. Same on a PP.

Billy Bean made advance stats more common in the book and movie. But the end result was taking a team with a small budget and make them marginally above average, but completely un interesting to watch. Cant sell out playoff games.