You want bad goalie play see Chicago..

That's mostly due to a lot of fans who are frustrated just plain don't know what they're talking about. The fact that you use the term veteran favoritism is proof of that. Hakstol has done a strong job developing players under his watch. The proof of that is how they young players are flourishing. Sanheim will also. Sanheim already had a sub par game against Carolina yet he remained in the lineup. The Flyers are not going to expose a young player to anything before they feel he is ready for it. It is a formula and philosophy that is clearly working. The numbers you rely on are not a sound basis for decision making.
- MJL

You've now used ad hominem attacks multiple times, it's not appreciated...

Can you elaborate on this formula the head coach is using? As far as I can tell there's no consistency with how they treat young players. Travis Sanheim played his way onto the starting lineup in pre-season and training camp, but Hak went with the safer option in Brandon Manning and Robert Haag. The phrases "simple" and "quiet" are tossed around when evaluating players. I'm not sure what that even means and it's just so ambiguous when trying to evaluate young players. Hakstol completely mistreated Gostisbehere last season because of his propensity to try and use his skill more often rather than just chip the puck out and have it come right back down into the defensive zone. Did he make mistakes, sure, but the stats show us that he converts these plays into positive results far more often than negative.

Ghost's frustration around this very point:

"I’m going to make plays and I don’t care if I get yelled at but I’m going to play my game and make my plays,” Gostisbehere said at his exit interview. “People can look at is as risky but most of the time it works out for me.”

How's that working out for him this year? I'm glad he didn't fundamentally change the way he approached the game. Also, he continues to make strides in his own end.

I'm not sure Ghost would've even stayed up with the team a few years ago if he hadn't went on that scoring tear because clearly Hakstol had issues with his defensive game. Some of that is founded, but you need to let young players, especially young defenseman, work through those issues. Benching him was not going to solve the problem - allowing him to play through it is the best course.

It's been clear this whole year that Sanheim is playing at another level when he's in the AHL. His play driving numbers are exceptional and some of the best in the league for an AHL defenseman. Don't you think it was odd Hextall took so long back in January to send him back down? I think he was waiting for Hakstol to make the rational decision and insert Sanheim back into the lineup (especially after that abysmal stretch of games for Manning). Sanheim clearly belongs in the top 6 defenseman, but the risk-adverse style of Hakstol prolonged this inevitability (similar to the thought process around scratching Ghost last year).

Why wasn't Patrick scratched at all earlier this year? I'm not advocating he should have been, but his play was similar to that of Konecny a year ago when he was scratched. For the record, I prefer the sane approach they took this season and allowed Patrick to play through it understanding he was too good to go back to juniors and it would've been a waste of development.

Hopefully, you can see what I'm getting at here - there's a inconsistency with how they tend to treat young players. Even Provorov had some absolutely egregious turnovers his rookie season: completely whiffing on passes, falling over as the last man back, etc. Was never scratched...

Veteran favoritism has surfaced with playing Weise, Lehtera, and Filppula in an elevated role. They have absolutely garbage play driving, possession, and traditional hockey numbers this season. Why did it take so long to scratch Weise/Lehtera? I think Laughton should slide into the 3C role based on his numbers and what my eyes tell me regarding Filppula. At least Hakstol has come around on the first two I mentioned. Unfortunately, I think Lehtera will be inserted into the lineup over someone like Leier who has played better, but hasn't been called upon even when the situation warrants it. Nothing will please me more when all 3 of these players are gone. Hell, I'd even rather see Mike Vecchione slide into that 4C role to see how it goes. Filppula's body of work has been horrendous. Remember Chris f'n VandeVelde? Absolutely horrible advanced stats numbers! Surprise, he's not in the league anymore, but yet Hakstol relied on him constantly when he was here... thank God Hextall didn't bring him back.

Now for more on the advanced stats piece. Advanced stats are a great tool to help confirm or to further evaluate on tape misconceptions one might have on a player's performance. If they weren't a useful metric than several NHL organizations wouldn't be hiring people with this mindset in their organization. It seems to be working out quite nicely for the leafs. Notice how they don't really care how old a player is and don't subscribe to the nonsensical "AHL Seasoning" process. Kyle Dubas wouldn't have a job if stats didn't have a place in the game. You might want to read this: https://www.tsn.ca/templa...4-core-four-2016-1.917336

Also, I asked for specific examples of Sanheim's poor play in Carolina; namely, where he was bad away from the puck and you provided nothing. Rather, you dodged the question completely and moved on to another piece of my comment that was a characterization of your analysis. A complete straw man. When the CF% and Fenwick say Sanheim played well and my eyes told me he played well, you have to understand the perplex nature of your comments when you say he played poor and provide 0 tangible evidence. Have a nice night!

You've now used ad hominem attacks multiple times, it's not appreciated...


- flyers20032002

False. I have not once attacked you personally. What I've done is no different than your accusation that I have used confirmation bias in my opinions. Now you're complaining about the same thing. The difference is that I can actually point out how you're wrong, which I will do below.

Can you elaborate on this formula the head coach is using? As far as I can tell there's no consistency with how they treat young players. Travis Sanheim played his way onto the starting lineup in pre-season and training camp, but Hak went with the safer option in Brandon Manning and Robert Haag. The phrases "simple" and "quiet" are tossed around when evaluating players. I'm not sure what that even means and it's just so ambiguous when trying to evaluate young players. Hakstol completely mistreated Gostisbehere last season because of his propensity to try and use his skill more often rather than just chip the puck out and have it come right back down into the defensive zone. Did he make mistakes, sure, but the stats show us that he converts these plays into positive results far more often than negative.


- flyers20032002

Player development by it's nature is not consistent. The situation with every player is different as is how he should be handled based on his level of play and where he he is in his development. It is clear that Hakstol is not going to be completely forthcoming to the media when dealing with players like a lot of coaches aren't. Nor should comments on one player be applied across the board to every player. Your comment that Hakstol mistreated Gostisbehere is completely false. Gostisbehere was scratched simply because his fundamental defensive play completely broke down. The detail in his defensive play was missing. His stick position, body position, spacing on the ice, etc. That is why he was removed from the lineup. Nothing to do with the type of player or his skill level. Interesting to note that Gostisbehere remains the same type of player today, and was moved up to the top pairing by Hakstol. Hakstol didn't mistreat him.LOL, he took steps to make him a better player. To Gostisbehere's credit he has done so because his all around game has never been better.
As far as Sanheim is concerned, making the team out of camp does not ensure that a player remains there nor does it guarantee ice time. Sanheim was given 35 games before being sent down. It was clear that there were a number of areas that Sanheim needed to get better at, which is why his minutes were kept low and sheltered, removed from the lineup because at the time Manning was the better player, and ultimately sent to the AHL. Now Sanheim has come back and for the most part looks like a different player. To the point where the coach who mistreats young players was willing to play him for 20 minutes against some good player on the division leading Caps in a big game. Go figure! You mean a players level of play on the ice actually dictates how much he plays and when? How revolutionary!

Ghost's frustration around this very point:

"I’m going to make plays and I don’t care if I get yelled at but I’m going to play my game and make my plays,” Gostisbehere said at his exit interview. “People can look at is as risky but most of the time it works out for me.”


- flyers20032002

No doubt that Gostisbehere was frustrated. He was dealing with physical issues and it affected his play to the point where his game broke down completely.

How's that working out for him this year? I'm glad he didn't fundamentally change the way he approached the game. Also, he continues to make strides in his own end.

I'm not sure Ghost would've even stayed up with the team a few years ago if he hadn't went on that scoring tear because clearly Hakstol had issues with his defensive game. Some of that is founded, but you need to let young players, especially young defenseman, work through those issues. Benching him was not going to solve the problem - allowing him to play through it is the best course.


- flyers20032002

You're wrong here on many levels. It is clear that your judgment is affected by an emotional attachment to a player rather than attention to detail in looking at a player backed by rational insight into the game of hockey. There are certain things that you don't let young players play through and taking away ice time is an effective tool in player development that pretty much every coach uses. I mentioned those issues above. A coach can't allow a defenseman to continue to play when his stick is consistently in the wrong position, especially for a defenseman like Gostisbehere who is not as physical and does not have a lot of size.

It's been clear this whole year that Sanheim is playing at another level when he's in the AHL. His play driving numbers are exceptional and some of the best in the league for an AHL defenseman. Don't you think it was odd Hextall took so long back in January to send him back down? I think he was waiting for Hakstol to make the rational decision and insert Sanheim back into the lineup (especially after that abysmal stretch of games for Manning). Sanheim clearly belongs in the top 6 defenseman, but the risk-adverse style of Hakstol prolonged this inevitability (similar to the thought process around scratching Ghost last year).


- flyers20032002

I think you're correct on that point. I think Hextall was hoping Sanheim would earn his way back in but it didn't happen. Sanheim clearly did not belong in the top 6 when he was up earlier and it had zero to do with the risk adverse style of Hakstol. Why do you continue to ignore the direct evidence of that? AHL play does not automatically translate to the NHL. Manning was an all star in the AHL. If Sanheim continues to play as well as he has overall, he will stay in the lineup and continue to get minutes.

If Hakstol has such a risk adverse style, how do you explain how Gostisbehere continues to play the same style of game offensively? How do you explain how Gostisbehere and Provorov, MacDonald and even Hagg routinely move in deep in the offensive zone and play aggressively offensively? The fact that you ignore the actual on ice evidence is an indictment on your ability to analyze what is actually going on out there and have such a need to over rely on stats.

Why wasn't Patrick scratched at all earlier this year? I'm not advocating he should have been, but his play was similar to that of Konecny a year ago when he was scratched. For the record, I prefer the sane approach they took this season and allowed Patrick to play through it understanding he was too good to go back to juniors and it would've been a waste of development.


- flyers20032002

Patrick wasn't scratched because his all around game and play away from the puck was solid. His play was no where near being similar to Konecny's a year ago. Konecny had a lot of issues with puck management, and playing an individual junior level game and continuing to try and make ill advised low percentage plays as well as issues with taking bad penalties. Konecny is another player who has made great strides under Hakstol, improved his puck management and finally it is starting to click on where offense comes from at the NHL level. Another example of a young player who was guided by Hakstol to correct his weak points and is not starting to flourish in the NHL.

Hopefully, you can see what I'm getting at here - there's a inconsistency with how they tend to treat young players. Even Provorov had some absolutely egregious turnovers his rookie season: completely whiffing on passes, falling over as the last man back, etc. Was never scratched...


- flyers20032002

Provorov was exceptional for a 19 year old to the point where his level of play dictated that he was used as the Flyers top defenseman straight out of juniors. A perfect example of this coach letting the players level of ice time dictate minutes and deployment. Provorov never deserved to be scratched and illustrates that scratching is not just about making mistakes.

I don't see what you're getting at simply because every point you've made except one, has been completely wrong.

Veteran favoritism has surfaced with playing Weise, Lehtera, and Filppula in an elevated role. They have absolutely garbage play driving, possession, and traditional hockey numbers this season. Why did it take so long to scratch Weise/Lehtera? I think Laughton should slide into the 3C role based on his numbers and what my eyes tell me regarding Filppula. At least Hakstol has come around on the first two I mentioned. Unfortunately, I think Lehtera will be inserted into the lineup over someone like Leier who has played better, but hasn't been called upon even when the situation warrants it. Nothing will please me more when all 3 of these players are gone. Hell, I'd even rather see Mike Vecchione slide into that 4C role to see how it goes. Filppula's body of work has been horrendous. Remember Chris f'n VandeVelde? Absolutely horrible advanced stats numbers! Surprise, he's not in the league anymore, but yet Hakstol relied on him constantly when he was here... thank God Hextall didn't bring him back.


- flyers20032002

Nothing to do with veteran favoritism. You're wrong again. Without Fillpula the Flyers wouldn't be where they are today. Coaches routinely use veteran players to take a lot of the heavy lifting to shield and shelter the younger players to give them a better chance to develop and not over burden them at the NHL for things they are not ready for. You're completely wrong on your points with both Fillpula and Vandevelde. Both were and are role players that helped the Flyers while they developed better players. When the coach is presented with a better option, we'll see the veterans reduced and young players elevated. Just as it is happening now.

Now for more on the advanced stats piece. Advanced stats are a great tool to help confirm or to further evaluate on tape misconceptions one might have on a player's performance. If they weren't a useful metric than several NHL organizations wouldn't be hiring people with this mindset in their organization. It seems to be working out quite nicely for the leafs. Notice how they don't really care how old a player is and don't subscribe to the nonsensical "AHL Seasoning" process. Kyle Dubas wouldn't have a job if stats didn't have a place in the game. You might want to read this: https://www.tsn.ca/templa...4-core-four-2016-1.917336


- flyers20032002

I've never stated that stasts don't have a place in the game. It's pretty clear you're hung up on analytics with no idea on how to apply or use them in the correct context. I don't need to read anything. I'm well versed on analytics and their use in the NHL. Why aren't the Arizona Coyotes doing much better under John Chayka?

Also, I asked for specific examples of Sanheim's poor play in Carolina; namely, where he was bad away from the puck and you provided nothing. Rather, you dodged the question completely and moved on to another piece of my comment that was a characterization of your analysis. A complete straw man. When the CF% and Fenwick say Sanheim played well and my eyes told me he played well, you have to understand the perplex nature of your comments when you say he played poor and provide 0 tangible evidence. Have a nice night!
- flyers20032002

There were multiple break downs by Sanheim in the game in losing his check, making poor reads in the neutral zone and getting beat, as well as some soft clears that hurt the team. Just part of the growing pains of a young defenseman. Corsi and Fenwick are teams stats, not individual player stats.