I look at the Manning signing this way. You've got Keith, Oesterle, Gustafsson and now Manning and left handed dmen. Keith can defend well still, but after that Manning is next most reliable and you've bumped Gustafsson and Oesterle down the depth chart in terms of preventing goals.
- breadbag

meh. would rather live with the growing pains of young guys with potential than watch Manning poop all over the ice getting worse.

Oesterle isn't going to be with Hawks either way is my guess. Gustafsson can at least create some offense.

I look at the Manning signing this way. You've got Keith, Oesterle, Gustafsson and now Manning and left handed dmen. Keith can defend well still, but after that Manning is next most reliable and you've bumped Gustafsson and Oesterle down the depth chart in terms of preventing goals.
- breadbag

But Manning isn't a top 4 d-man and Gus was better in a 3rd pairing role than Manning was.



And Oesterle wasn't used on the left by the Hawks - he was Keith's partner primarily, so Manning doesn't bump him at all. The only player this signing probably bumps is Forsling.[/img]

meh. would rather live with the growing pains of young guys with potential than watch Manning poop all over the ice getting worse.

Oesterle isn't going to be with Hawks either way is my guess. Gustafsson can at least create some offense.
- Elbows15

Why play young guys who aren't ready and potentially hurt their development when you can sign a low risk guy to add that depth though?

xGF is still in it's infancy of being a stat and it's not a good tool for every player. It shouldn't be dismissed, just put into the context of every other stat.

One thing some do is look at the discrepancy between CF and xG of a player, which is exactly what that author did, and what he found was that Manning had the highest discrepancy for d-men in the last 3 seasons. Quote from the article:

"Over the past three seasons — in other words, since Manning has become a full-time defenseman at the NHL level — his Corsi For Percentage at 5-on-5 is a perfectly solid 51.39%. On the other hand, his results by xG drop all the way to 47.75 percent, a 3.64% discrepancy. Not a single regular NHL blueliner holds a larger gap between his Corsi and xG over that span than Manning.

In addition, Manning’s actual on-ice goal differential over this three-season span is 47.64 percent, which is nearly identical to his xG (47.75%) and is a far cry from his Corsi (51.39%). Three seasons isn’t a small sample anymore, and the goal results seem to be matching xG, goal results that place him in lower-end third-pair territory.

He ranks 140th out of 169 NHL defensemen with at least 2,000 minutes played in terms of average quality of on-ice shot created, and is 20th-worst when looking at shot quality allowed.

This is worrisome because the Hawks already have this issue - they have the puck a lot but they don't prevent the other team from having more quality chances. Keith and Seabrook are in the same discussion currently. Some of it is on the fact that the forwards for the Hawks have been sub-average defensive, what with the loss of Hossa and Saad (for a while) and Kruger and Bolland, but the defense need to be better as well. Adding a guy who has the same issue as the team already doesn't do a lot to make me believe he'll be helpful, especially since he did all of this against lower quality of comp. The fact that most Flyers fans agree Manning's stats line up with his eye test makes it a weird signing to me.

But again, this is all on paper. I don't like it right now, but I don't know what Q/Ulf will do with him.
- L_B_R

Again very helpful, thanks. Great analysis by the writer and you explaining it. So the discrepency in his corsi and Gx over 3 yrs says he's been very very lucky and this is with the Flyers having poor goaltending and him on with bottom 6 teammates? Gotta be a rub in there somewhere, no?

And as I read your breaking down of these stats makes and how Keith and Seabs are regressing in the Gx that when they trade AA this will only get worse! And an ROR would help a lot in this regard, no? Nothing like a good centerman to act as a 3rd Dman and help control quality shots against, no?

But Manning isn't a top 4 d-man and Gus was better in a 3rd pairing role than Manning was.



And Oesterle wasn't used on the left by the Hawks - he was Keith's partner primarily, so Manning doesn't bump him at all. The only player this signing probably bumps is Forsling.
- L_B_R[/img]

I don't know how the pairs will all shake out, but you are right Oesterle did play on the right side when he was with Keith. He is still a Left-handed Dman who can play both sides and would probably play left side if the Hawks find Keith a proper partner

Gustafsson was okay at times in the small sample size, but it is a leap to look at a chart of 24 tracked games and assume he is a stronger defensive dman. I'd like for that to be true, but Manning is a pretty low risk add is all I'm saying. I don't think he will hurt the team and we really won't know how he will play with the Hawks until he actually does. His teammates, coaches, systems and usage will vary.

Overall, a pretty bad day for day 1 of free agency. What we really need is a 1C but can't afford one. Let's hope Day 2 and so on brings more hope.

Just to understand: Stan gets criticized for his past bloated long term contracts - but you’re ok giving a 22 year old with really less than two full seasons in the Show - and one with good numbers - who we don’t know what his best position is - a 6x6 contract?
- StLBravesFan

Not all all Sage, just that if the Hawks determine Schmaltz, or any other Hawk, is part of the core 2.0 and he's gonna put up numbers if you can get ahead of the cap curve and ink him with value as an end result do so.

And yes, unless it's a Laine or that centerman kid out of CLB or Jersey, I'm damn nervous with only 1+ yrs body of work to make such a decision.

Why play young guys who aren't ready and potentially hurt their development when you can sign a low risk guy to add that depth though?
- breadbag

They aren't going anywhere this season. Manning is hurting their development more than playing in the NHL would.

But Manning isn't a top 4 d-man and Gus was better in a 3rd pairing role than Manning was.



And Oesterle wasn't used on the left by the Hawks - he was Keith's partner primarily, so Manning doesn't bump him at all. The only player this signing probably bumps is Forsling.
- L_B_R[/img]

How do you feel about these comparisons? One player vs another, each on a different team, not taking into account the quality of comp they are on the ice with and against or zone starts?

And for this one Manning has 129 game body of work and Gus 24 games.

Overall, a pretty bad day for day 1 of free agency. What we really need is a 1C but can't afford one. Let's hope Day 2 and so on brings more hope.
- hawks1186

We did get a veteran backup goalie, even though he isn’t great.

We also got a depth forward who will play into Qs system and stabilize the locker room (if there were issues).

Manning isn’t a top four dman but he is a d-first guy, something we’ve all been pining for. He is physical and isn’t a ‘puck moving smurf allergic to contact’, so we got that going for us, which is nice.

Stan is done for today, but there’s still trades to be made in the league:
-Karlsson, Faulk, O’Reilly, Skinner all strongly rumored to be moved
-couple teams with RFA or cap troubles; WPG, TOR, VEG

I’m holding out hope that we still move Hossa, and either AA or Murphy

How do you feel about these comparisons? One player vs another, each on a different team, not taking into account the quality of comp they are on the ice with and against or zone starts?

And for this one Manning has 129 game body of work and Gus 24 games.
- Mr Ricochet

Very interesting to see that because most people on this forum think Gustafsson is a steaming pile of hot garbage.

Aside from the dollars/term, the bigger issue to me is whether one full year as a tweener C/W is worth a long term committment a year before you might know better what his role should be, let alone a year before you need to do it at all.
- Return of the Roar

I'm with you on the body of work thing as I was in replying to Sage..... But he's an RFA after this yr so they have to get this figured out soon. Maybe sometime in season if they are gonna bridge deal the kid?

Minus the ailment, you’re saying Chris Kunitz at age 38 Can still play?and you’re telling me Marion Hossa Was washed up? This is screwed up.

Very interesting to see that because most people on this forum think Gustafsson is a steaming pile of hot garbage.
- Hawks_49

I really want to see him succeed. He has some great qualities to his game when he has the puck.

Again very helpful, thanks. Great analysis by the writer and you explaining it. So the discrepency in his corsi and Gx over 3 yrs says he's been very very lucky and this is with the Flyers having poor goaltending and him on with bottom 6 teammates? Gotta be a rub in there somewhere, no?

And as I read your breaking down of these stats makes and how Keith and Seabs are regressing in the Gx that when they trade AA this will only get worse! And an ROR would help a lot in this regard, no? Nothing like a good centerman to act as a 3rd Dman and help control quality shots against, no?
- Mr Ricochet

If it was all goaltending, then it would have impacted his PDO in a consistent negative away, which it didn't: 100.47, 98.71, and 99.63 the last 3 seasons 5v5. One down season. And if it was more team level and less individual, it would be impacting more teammates rather than just Manning. This is not to say that Manning couldn't have been impacted negatively by his partner/linemates/usage - I do think he was used incorrectly by the Flyers - I'd have to just dig a lot deeper to find evidence of that.

As for Keith and Seabrook, because it's both of them and then expands through the Hawks lineup (not all, but most), it means that the problem is likely systematic of the team, not the individuals. Overall team quality or how the players are being run are impacting their numbers. Not to say they aren't declining as well, but if it was just them, it wouldn't be seen across the board.

I don't know how trading Anisimov would impact too much cause Idk what his replacement would add.

I think Kunitz was a Q motivated move. As we heard from the conference call, they like that he's a 'gamer'. While I usually dismiss abstract adjectives describing someone's play, there is some validity to Kunitz play 'the right way'.

He knows where to be, and his mistakes are few. One thing the Blackhawks lost a lot of in the last 3 years was guys who always make the right decision (when to pass, when to hold it, when to float the puck up ice and change, when to shield the puck along the boards, etc.).

Hopefully Kunitz is a guy who makes the Hawks harder to play against. I have hesitations about his physical abilities at this age, the wheels will be slow and the shot is likely diminished. But I do hope that he's a fundamentally sound guy who can work in our puck possession system.
- ObeseOprah

Q loves his predictability, I guess what coach doesn't. I bet he still has night tremors thinking of when the puck was in the Hawks' zone last yr.

No doubt at all even when Kunitz had youth on his side he was a responsible player, a pro. Agree with you Q will like this player for this reason. Hell he liked Timmonen and he played like his legs were broken.

I don't know how the pairs will all shake out, but you are right Oesterle did play on the right side when he was with Keith. He is still a Left-handed Dman who can play both sides and would probably play left side if the Hawks find Keith a proper partner

Gustafsson was okay at times in the small sample size, but it is a leap to look at a chart of 24 tracked games and assume he is a stronger defensive dman. I'd like for that to be true, but Manning is a pretty low risk add is all I'm saying. I don't think he will hurt the team and we really won't know how he will play with the Hawks until he actually does. His teammates, coaches, systems and usage will vary.
- breadbag

I didn't claim Gus was better defensive d-man - just that he was better in a 3rd pair role than Manning. And yes, the sample is smaller, but Mannings sample is big enough to show that he's not great defensively.

Exactly. Now they can control his development. I'd wager a bet that Boqvist joins the Hawks by the middle of the 19-20 season.
- Hawks_49

I have a feeling I'm gonna get to Hogs game live in the near future. Never saw the kid live and hate to draw any conclusions, especially jrs or young players, until I do.

As this day played out I was thinking about this Swede. Dmen are at such a premium and there is a reason for that..... At the lower end he needs to be a Letang, anything else is gravy.

How do you feel about these comparisons? One player vs another, each on a different team, not taking into account the quality of comp they are on the ice with and against or zone starts?

And for this one Manning has 129 game body of work and Gus 24 games.
- Mr Ricochet

Okay context: Gus saw higher QOC, had marginally higher QOT (like barely worth noting), and had more OZS. Manning's zone deployment was skewed highly to the NZ - he got Murphy's deployment, pretty much, if you want a more direct comparison. Looking at notes from the Flyers SBN guys, it's because Manning was being deployed against the lower comp more deliberately. Q skewed Gus's zone deployment but not his comp; Flyers skewed Manning's comp but not his zone deployment. Both were sheltered in some way but Gus was ultimately better on a objectively worse team, at least this past season.

And yeah, Gus's sample is much smaller but the tracking is random so as to not gather any hot streaks. It's a justifiable comparison even if it won't necessarily be exact. Again, it's impossible to be exact in any comparison.

Ultimately, both the numbers and my own eye test tell me this: Gus is a good offensive bottom pairing d-man while Manning is a bottom pairing d-man that does nothing particularly well. In that case, I take the guy with offense because it's more useful, especially given the right partner (which I would hope would be Seabrook). There is a possibility that Manning will end up being more useful with the Hawks than Flyers, just my assessment now is that seems unlikely. Can't know for sure until he plays, it's just not a signing I particularly like, esp if it blocks the development of Forsling.

wow... Is this how a slow smoldering death spiral looks like? Detroit 2.0
- busmaster

Hardly. Detroit won the Cup in 2008, lost it in 2009, was ok in 2010 and otherwise pretty meh thereafter.

We did get a veteran backup goalie, even though he isn’t great.

We also got a depth forward who will play into Qs system and stabilize the locker room (if there were issues).

Manning isn’t a top four dman but he is a d-first guy, something we’ve all been pining for. He is physical and isn’t a ‘puck moving smurf allergic to contact’, so we got that going for us, which is nice.

Stan is done for today, but there’s still trades to be made in the league:
-Karlsson, Faulk, O’Reilly, Skinner all strongly rumored to be moved
-couple teams with RFA or cap troubles; WPG, TOR, VEG

I’m holding out hope that we still move Hossa, and either AA or Murphy
- ObeseOprah

I agree. Those two might get in the way of guaranteeing a top 4 pick next year. Manning is the perfect addition for that.

Okay context: Gus saw higher QOC, had marginally higher QOT (like barely worth noting), and has more OZS. Manning's zone deployment was skewed highly to the NZ. Looking at notes from the Flyers SBN guys, it's because he was being deployed against the lower comp more deliberately. Q skewed Gus's zone deployment but not his comp; Flyers skewed Manning's comp but not his zone deployment. Both were sheltered in some way but Gus was ultimately better on a objectively worse team, at least this past season.

And yeah, Gus's sample is much smaller but the tracking is random so as to not gather any hot streaks. It's a justifiable comparison.

Ultimately, both the numbers and my own eye test tell me this: Gus is a good offensive bottom pairing d-man while Manning is a bottom pairing d-man that does nothing particularly well. In that case, I take the guy with offense because it's more useful, especially given the right partner (which I would hope would be Seabrook). There is a possibility that Manning will end up being more useful with the Hawks than Flyers, just my assessment now is that seems unlikely.
- L_B_R

Manning sucks. Flyer fans are rejoicing that they never have to watch him again.

Very interesting to see that because most people on this forum think Gustafsson is a steaming pile of hot garbage.
- Hawks_49

Well with respect to those who think so when I go to the window I bet on the horse I like. Same with hockey players.

Gus can move the thing and his feet and shows offensive IQ. He only has 75 NHL games and with some time with Colliton I'm looking forward to seeing Gus this yr.

Same with Forsling. Gotta be patient with Dmen.

If it was all goaltending, then it would have impacted his PDO in a consistent negative away, which it didn't: 100.47, 98.71, and 99.63 the last 3 seasons 5v5. One down season. And if it was more team level and less individual, it would be impacting more teammates rather than just Manning. This is not to say that Manning couldn't have been impacted negatively by his partner/linemates/usage - I do think he was used incorrectly by the Flyers - I'd have to just dig a lot deeper to find evidence of that.

As for Keith and Seabrook, because it's both of them and then expands through the Hawks lineup (not all, but most), it means that the problem is likely systematic of the team, not the individuals. Overall team quality or how the players are being run are impacting their numbers. Not to say they aren't declining as well, but if it was just them, it wouldn't be seen across the board.

I don't know how trading Anisimov would impact too much cause Idk what his replacement would add.
- L_B_R

Ok you've convinced me. All his fancy numbers blow except for corsi and that was a 3 yr outlier explained by his Gx that when unpacked that blows too.

And of course we'd have to know what replaces AA. Doubtful it's a better centerman.

I think I'm better at valuing term better than cap hit, understanding the two go together to find balance, and admit I'm ignorant for the most part on bridge deals.

Wonder what the comparables might be for a Schmaltz type player? 5+ for 6 yrs seems solid for the Hawks tho.
- Mr Ricochet

Just a quick look at some more or less comparables:

J.T. MILLER
5 x 5.25

BO HORVAT
6 x 5.5

MIKA ZIBANEJAD
5 x 5.36

NINO NIEDERREITER
5 x 5.25

JONATHAN DROUIN
6 x 5.5