I don't think our faceoff coach is good at his job
- I Am The Breadman

Is it like putting Gretzky in as a head coach? My assumption is that they still work with Yanic Perreault when it comes to the faceoffs, maybe he just can't pass on the magic he had at the dot.

There is evidence shows that guys who go between center/wing past a certain age have more trouble at faceoffs than those who don't. I'll find the article from a couple of seasons ago that reviewed this. It wasn't just faceoffs they looked at btw - it was general tasks related to being center. The age was 23 or 24, I can't remember exactly, so Schmaltz has a bit more time but it's ticking away. Coaches will often have younger centers play wing a season, maybe two, but not more than that (and they're usually in the 18-20 range).

The only reason I mention it is the absolute dismissive nature some are about Schmaltz as a center based just on his faceoffs. It's just silly, esp at his age. McDavid is the most skilled player in the NHL and he hanging around 42% after 3 seasons; MacKinnon had an MVP season at less than 42%; and Scheifele is a big strong guy and he struggled at the dot for years (and we don't know yet if last year was an outlier or true improvement). And as you say, some never get it but are great centers.

Schmaltz does so much else a center is supposed to do, it's odd that so many are hyper focused on the FO%. There are some who have other issues with him at center, and I respect those reasons, it's the FO thing I'm like meh about. And Anisimov could be moved to wing just as easily so the two-weak guys at center thing doesn't much hold water for me.

All that being said, I still don't care if Schmaltz is a center or not. He could end up being an ideal playmaking winger and I'm all for it (I liked him a lot with Toews). Like I said in my last comment, as long as he's helping the team succeed, it doesn't matter which position that is. Do think he should be moved away from Kane in that case but that's a different conversation.
- L_B_R

You can’t really bring fast MVP level Centers easily into the equation as those players drive their own offence. They shut themselves down by losing face-offs but at least they have a shot at the puck. Lose the draw but maybe fight for it, get it back. Of the players on the ice, lost face-offs hurt themselves the most, which is still not a good thing but at least they are around the puck.

However, if your MVP level players are wingers the Center losing face-offs can take them out of the game completely. This is especially so if the face-off losses are clean. There was a play-off game where Anisimov basically lost every face-off cleanly which meant in the offensive zone Kane could do nothing as the D-Men quickly got the puck out. So Kane rarely had possession of the puck. Kane as a winger relies on the Center. The Hawks require Kane’s production and he can’t produce without the puck. This is one of the arguments for playing Kane with Toews.

Is it like putting Gretzky in as a head coach? My assumption is that they still work with Yanic Perreault when it comes to the faceoffs, maybe he just can't pass on the magic he had at the dot.
- breadbag

Didn’t he do a nice job with Kruger?

Is it like putting Gretzky in as a head coach? My assumption is that they still work with Yanic Perreault when it comes to the faceoffs, maybe he just can't pass on the magic he had at the dot.
- breadbag

I think so, it's a good comparison. It's like why can't you be as good as I did/am showing you. It worked for me.

Kahun looks like a keeper to me. With Top 6 upside.

You can’t really bring fast MVP level Centers easily into the equation as those players drive their own offence. They shut themselves down by losing face-offs but at least they have a shot at the puck. Lose the draw but maybe fight for it, get it back. Of the players on the ice, lost face-offs hurt themselves the most, which is still not a good thing but at least they are around the puck.

However, if your MVP level players are wingers the Center losing face-offs can take them out of the game completely. This is especially so if the face-off losses are clean. There was a play-off game where Anisimov basically lost every face-off cleanly which meant in the offensive zone Kane could do nothing as the D-Men quickly got the puck out. So Kane rarely had possession of the puck. Kane as a winger relies on the Center. The Hawks require Kane’s production and he can’t produce without the puck. This is one of the arguments for playing Kane with Toews.
- Z3Hawk

There were only 2 MVP winning centers in that list and only one other that was nominated. So if you have a problem with including them, ignore those and focus on the other 6. I can also provide many more examples, if needed.

I did included them because a lot of those MVP guys are really poop at faceoffs and it just shows that even the best can be bad at that area but still succeed. As for wingers who win MVP, it doesn't necessarily impact them either. Kane had his MVP season with Anisimov at under 45% FO, Hall just won MVP with a Hischier at 43% FO, and Perry won MVP when Getzlaf was right under 46% FO. More than faceoffs are important in hockey.

But again, I did include more than just MVP caliber centers. Like Scheifele, who is a big, strong guy but was at around 42-44% his first 4 seasons and didn't go over 50% until last year when he was 25 (and that could have been an outlier, we don't know yet). Or Schenn, who topped 60 points for the first time last season and just for his FO% to 46% at age 27. Or how about Kuznetsov, who got up over 46% once but then went back down and he was at only 38% in the playoffs as the Caps top line center. Did prevent his line from dominating.

And Kane does not rely on his center for possession of the puck in general - he's been a top 5 timed possession player in the league from 2010 onward and he's had a variety of centers over that time, and that includes when both Anisimov and Schmaltz were his centers (top 1-3 in those year btw). In that one playoff game, the entire line was failing to get possession, not just AA. But that's why sample size matters - you can't look at one game and make a assessment.

There has been a lot of research into this and faceoffs are just plain over valued. It's not that they don't have merit - no one is saying that - they're just overvalued. They don't have much impact on shots, goals, possession time, or wins over the course of a game/season, esp if they are roughly in the 45-55% range (46%-54% for DZ deployed guys) and can be an even wider margin for players individually. It's something like 1 win in a season for a team that is at 44%. Faceoffs are more situationally important than in terms of quantity, like blocked shots and hit are, especially in defensive situations.

I know it seems like the opposite of common sense, but it's been proven that possession is so much more about the line / skater combo on ice than one small event in a large sample of events like a faceoff. Faceoff have a short impact time, mere seconds on average, so puck retrieval / control after a faceoff is more important. Good faceoff guys have poor possession numbers all the time and bad faceoff players have good possession numbers as well. Better to have a good faceoff guys + good possession line combo than not, for sure, but the good possession line combo is just way more important.

Now, all that said, Schmaltz is below the 45/46% range and he is not MVP quality like some I mentioned in my last post, so that's not ideal for him. Doesn't stop him from being a top 6 center, esp as he's learning on the job, and Schmaltz was at 52% CF last season so his shot metric possession did not suffer for it (neither did his timed possession) - but all that means he could maybe be even better. The best way for him to get better, though, is for him to be taking faceoffs game in and game out imo. That is, if the org sees Schmaltz as a center long-term.

If they don't see Schmaltz as a center, then none of this matters much. I didn't even mean to reopen the faceoff conversation like this, it's just annoying to dismiss a player as a center when all info suggests it's not actually all that key to being a center. I do prefer centers to have better FO number than Schmaltz has, I just wouldn't dismiss him outright because of it, esp since it is common for young centers to take years getting to acceptable FO% numbers.



tl;dr There's more to a centers job than FOs and it can take years for it to happen, plus they don't impact the game as much as you think. I'd like Schmaltz to get better if he stays a center; if not, the convo is moot.

Kahun looks like a keeper to me. With Top 6 upside.
- 35Tony0

If Kahun could pan out to being a good middle 6 player, wing or center, it would definitely make life easier in the future. He does have a lot of bonuses, though.

If Kahun could pan out to being a good middle 6 player, wing or center, it would definitely make life easier in the future. He does have a lot of bonuses, though.
- L_B_R

Why does everyone complain about Kahun's bonuses.

If he hits them - something is really going right for this team.

Why does everyone complain about Kahun's bonuses.

If he hits them - something is really going right for this team.
- dahawks8819

Not complaining? Just pointing out they exist.

Though on the otherhand, Panarin hit all his bonuses and it didn't really help the team - just him and Kane as individual players. Hitting bonuses don't necessarily mean team success now, but it shows they have a good player in the system.

Thank you for the answer, that clears a lot up.

Out of speculation, where do you guys and gals think Panarin and Bobrovsky end up? I really want to see Panarin come back (at a reasonable price) but I'm not sure that he will. I think he has his heart set on NYR, heaven knows why. My favorite players have a track record of not staying with the team. I also think Bobrovsky makes it all the way to July 1st, but decides to stay with CBJ.
- I Am The Breadman

IMO, I really think he wants to come back to the Hawks to play with Kane. I just hope there's some way to afford him. He's not wanting to sign a long term deal in CBJ. And I think CBJ wants to trade him, but he would have to sign an extension with the other team...and it might be that he's not willing. I don't have the insight a lot of you so, am I way off base? Thoughts? Would really love to see that combo again!!!

been big fan of the young goalie delia as he has been showing month by month he got the right stuff to be an NHL goalie: he will be the hawk starter as early as sometime next year or the 2020 season...

Just to play devil's advocate, is there evidence to show that he can't improve at the dot while playing mostly wing. I mean, I know that experience is a great teacher, but there has to be some factors to his struggles at the dot, some of which could relate to his strength and ability to battle other centers. The coaches on the ice working with him really should be in a position to best tell if he is likely to improve, based on their analysis of why he loses draws. I won't pretend to know exactly why Schmaltz struggles, but I think some of the improvement of young players just comes with maturity of their bodies.

Some guys just don't have it at the dot. Malkin is a good example, who is still generally around 43%. Kuznetsov in a bit more than 4 seasons has yet to become much more than a 44% guy at the dot. Wennberg, very slight improvement over 4 years, but nothing to write home about so far.

Schmaltz might be what he is at the dot more or less. I think he will get opportunities to improve and show it at C, but they might not want two guys who are weak at the dot at C in the top 9.
- breadbag

All valid points. Here is an article to back up what you are saying.
https://www.si.com/nhl/20...ew-importance-nhl-faceoff

No team has won more hockey games than the Pittsburgh Penguins since 2010, with 267 victories and a .659 points-percentage. The Penguins have lost more face-offs than they've won over that span.

The New York Rangers, fifth in the NHL in points earned since 2010, have been one of the worst franchises in terms of winning face-offs, at 48.6 percent. The Washington Capitals, the third-best franchise over this timeline by points-percentage, was under 50 percent on face-offs earlier this week for the same sample, and have hovered around the 50 percent-mark.

Two teams have won at least 52 percent of their face-offs the past seven seasons: The Boston Bruins (52.8 percent) seventh in points-percentage, and the San Jose Sharks (52.1 percent), eighth. The next-best franchise has been the Phoenix/Arizona Coyotes (51.6 percent), who rank dead last in the NHL.

I still like Schmaltz on the wing.

Here is the FO% for the cup teams since 2009-2010.

Chicago Blackhawks 2009-10 FO% 50.8
Boston Bruins 2010-11 FO% 52.0
Los Angeles Kings 2011-12 FO% 49.7
Chicago Blackhawks 2012-13 FO% 46.8 Boston was 55.3%
Los Angeles Kings 2013-14 FO% 52.9
Chicago Blackhawks 2014-15 FO% 53.1
Pittsburgh Penguins 2015-16 FO% 50.5
Pittsburgh Penguins 2016-17 FO% 50.4
Washington Capitals 2017-18 FO% 49.1

Even though the data shows a good face off team does not always make the team successful or provide better possession numbers. I believe in the playoffs it does matter especially for situational draws.

Here is a article from sportsnet awhile back.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/...n-battle-for-stanley-cup/

Not complaining? Just pointing out they exist.

Though on the otherhand, Panarin hit all his bonuses and it didn't really help the team - just him and Kane as individual players. Hitting bonuses don't necessarily mean team success now, but it shows they have a good player in the system.
- L_B_R

If Kahun scores 70+ points to hit one of the bonuses, think about the numbers of his linemates. If it's Toews, then he will be back to his previous production numbers.

If it's Kane, then he will probably be back up to 100+ points.

From a team standpoint, either way has to be a major improvement from last year.

If Kahun could pan out to being a good middle 6 player, wing or center, it would definitely make life easier in the future. He does have a lot of bonuses, though.
- L_B_R

According to Cap Friendly, Kahun has $2.85 million in potential bonuses (unless I’m reading it wrong). I wonder if Stan wants to keep that cap space available this season so Kahun’s bonuses won’t need to be carried forward to next season).

All valid points. Here is an article to back up what you are saying.
https://www.si.com/nhl/20...ew-importance-nhl-faceoff

No team has won more hockey games than the Pittsburgh Penguins since 2010, with 267 victories and a .659 points-percentage. The Penguins have lost more face-offs than they've won over that span.

The New York Rangers, fifth in the NHL in points earned since 2010, have been one of the worst franchises in terms of winning face-offs, at 48.6 percent. The Washington Capitals, the third-best franchise over this timeline by points-percentage, was under 50 percent on face-offs earlier this week for the same sample, and have hovered around the 50 percent-mark.

Two teams have won at least 52 percent of their face-offs the past seven seasons: The Boston Bruins (52.8 percent) seventh in points-percentage, and the San Jose Sharks (52.1 percent), eighth. The next-best franchise has been the Phoenix/Arizona Coyotes (51.6 percent), who rank dead last in the NHL.

I still like Schmaltz on the wing.

Here is the FO% for the cup teams since 2009-2010.

Chicago Blackhawks 2009-10 FO% 50.8
Boston Bruins 2010-11 FO% 52.0
Los Angeles Kings 2011-12 FO% 49.7
Chicago Blackhawks 2012-13 FO% 46.8 Boston was 55.3%
Los Angeles Kings 2013-14 FO% 52.9
Chicago Blackhawks 2014-15 FO% 53.1
Pittsburgh Penguins 2015-16 FO% 50.5
Pittsburgh Penguins 2016-17 FO% 50.4
Washington Capitals 2017-18 FO% 49.1

Even though the data shows a good face off team does not always make the team successful or provide better possession numbers. I believe in the playoffs it does matter especially for situational draws.

Here is a article from sportsnet awhile back.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/...n-battle-for-stanley-cup/
- Hawks_For_Life

The first article is a great overview of faceoffs info (though it's more narrow than most research shows), but the second doesn't have any real data to back up it's claim / conclusion.

I mean, the second article is about the Chicago-Boston series where Boston absolutely dominated the Hawks in terms of faceoffs but were the losers in shot metric and timed possession as well as goals/wins. It mentions faceoffs impacting game 3 in that series for the Bruins win and limiting the Hawks to 28 shots on goal, but it's a false narrative - the Hawks had 53% of the shot attempt share, which was on par with the next two games that the Hawks won, so the Bruins winning faceoff did not impact the Hawks getting the puck and shooting a lot - but something did prevent them from getting those shots on goal. If the article's author looked at all the stats, instead of just one, they'd see that blocked shots had a huge impact in game 3 (esp in close), and so the Hawks adjustment to that in the other games was key. The Chicago-Boston series is one where faceoffs really didn't impact the series.

Anyway, research has shown that faceoffs in the playoffs fall right in line with success in the regular season - situations can be important, quantity % not so much in a specific range. There can be more variance in a single series and individual can have more extremes, though, because of the sample size being small.

If Kahun scores 70+ points to hit one of the bonuses, think about the numbers of his linemates. If it's Toews, then he will be back to his previous production numbers.

If it's Kane, then he will probably be back up to 100+ points.

From a team standpoint, either way has to be a major improvement from last year.
- dahawks8819

It would be a major improvement from those individual players' stand point, for sure, but may not have a team-wide impact.

Look, don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Kahun reaching his bonuses and would love for the Hawks to have found yet another undrafted player that is amazing. I just think it's not true that individual/one line success = team success. It definitely could but it's not automatic. Panarin's 70+ point certainly didn't when it counted the most.

I did not mention the bonuses as a complaint either way, just noted it's something to watch.

The first article is a great overview of faceoffs info, but the second doesn't have any real data to back up it's claim and is just flat wrong in it's conclusion.

I mean, the second article is about the Chicago-Boston series where Boston absolutely dominated the Hawks in terms of faceoffs but were the losers in shot metric and timed possession as well as goals/wins. It mentions faceoffs impacting game 3 in that series for the Bruins win and limiting the Hawks to 28 shots on goal, but it's a false narrative - the Hawks had 53% of the shot attempt share, which was on par with the next two games that the Hawks won. If the article's author looked at all the stats, instead of just one, they'd see that faceoffs didn't impact the score/wins in any of those games, but that blocked shots had a huge impact in game 3 (esp in close), and so the Hawks adjustment to that in the other games was key.

Anyway, research has shown that face-offs in the playoffs fall right in line with success in the regular season - situations can be important, quantity % not so much in a specific range.
- L_B_R

I get what you are saying. If you look at all the playoff teams from year to year not all good face-off teams make it through to the finals for various reasons. Though the last nine cup winners only 3 teams were below 50% for FO%. No teams were below 45%. So I would say FO's are important more so in the playoffs (Situational Draws can be a difference maker) and it helps in team success.

I get what you are saying. If you look at all the playoff teams from year to year not all good face-off teams make it through to the finals for various reasons. Though the last nine cup winners only 3 teams were below 50% for FO%. No teams were below 45%. So I would say FO's are important more so in the playoffs (Situational Draws can be a difference maker) and it helps in team success.
- Hawks_For_Life

No teams are below 45/46% cause that really the range of FO% mattering in terms of wins over a larger sample size. And if you wanted to round to 10 teams, the Pens in 2009 were at 48.4%.

Being situationally important is true of most counting stats (fo, blocks, hits) but that's why looking at quantity isn't as important.

One interesting thing with the playoffs is that the team variance is at the highest - teams don't play the same opponents, so they may have really different results based on those teams. Like a typically bad faceoff team could do better in the playoffs or a good faceoff team could do worse in the playoffs depending on their opponents. For example:

The Hawks in 2013 were a 50.8% FO team in the regular season (11th), but because 3 of their opponents in the playoffs were better at the dot (Wild 3rd, Kings 5th, Boston 1st), they ended up with one of the worst FO% in the playoffs at almost 46%. And yet, they actually had just slightly better shot metric possession numbers: 54.14% in the regular season and 55.54% in the playoffs. The drop in the FO% in the post-season didn't impact their overall shot metric or wins in a discernible way because FO% doesn't often correlate to possession/shots/winning.

Another trend for most teams is that they only ~need have two centers over 50% centers on their team. Below are post-season FO% for top 4/5 centers based on amount of FO taken (80 or more):

PIT 2009: Crosby 53.0, Staal 46.1, Talbot 44.4, Malkin 47.1, Adams 46.7
CHI 2010: Toews 60.2, Bolland 39.3, Sharp 49.8, Madden 51.0
BOS 2011: Bergeron 60.2, Krejci 51.8, Kelly 47.9, Campbell 40.5
LAK 2012: Kopitar 48.6, Richards 49.9, Stoll 51.8, Fraser 43.2
CHI 2013: Toews 53.1, Handzus 46.4, Bolland 42.5, Kruger 37.6, Shaw 47.2
LAK 2014: Kopiar 53.1, Stoll 56.7, Richards 53.9, Carter 48.1
CHI 2015: Toews 56.1, Richards 49.7, Vermette 58.9, Kruger 50.0, Shaw 50.0
PIT 2016: Crosby 52.4, Bonino 48.5, Cullen 52.2, Malkin 48.4
PIT 2016: Crosby 49.2, Bonino 52.3, Malkin 46.9, Cullen 56.4
WSH 2017: Backstrom 51.7*, Kuznetsov 38.1, Eller 50.6, Beagle 60.1

*Putting Backstrom 1st because he was just 2 FOs behind Kuznetsov with 4 less games so he would have been #1.

Several of these players have pretty different FO numbers in the regular season.

7 out of the 10 teams have 2 players at 50% or more. 3 teams have only 1 player at 50% (PIT 2009, LAK 2012, CHI 2013). 2 teams have 3 players at 50% or more (LAK 2014 and CHI 2015).

Interestingly, only 2 top FO taking centers have under 50% (Kopitar 2012, Crosby 2017), though even those guys are pretty close. 7 of the 2nd high FO taking centers are under 50%, though again most are close with two being under the non-impact range (Bolland 2010, Kuznetsov 2018).

There are 6 players on that list above are above the range of non-impact (Toews 2010, Bergeron 2011, Stoll 2014, Toews 2015, Vermette 2015, Beagle 2018) and only one of them wasn't a top line or defensively deployed player (Vermette). There are 7 players under the non-impact range and most are offensively deployed (Staal 2009, Bolland 2010 being some but not all exceptions).


Ultimately, I'm not disagreeing with you totally. I don't think in quantity that faceoffs are more important in the playoffs, but that situationally they could be. And top line and defensive centers typically have average to well above average 50% numbers for a reason. This also means that offensively deployed centers have more wiggle room to be successful (not 40% successful but lower than what we all typically think of).

It would be a major improvement from those individual players' stand point, for sure, but may not have a team-wide impact.

Look, don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Kahun reaching his bonuses and would love for the Hawks to have found yet another undrafted player that is amazing. I just think it's not true that individual/one line success = team success. It definitely could but it's not automatic. Panarin's 70+ point certainly didn't when it counted the most.

I did not mention the bonuses as a complaint either way, just noted it's something to watch.
- L_B_R

I guess concern would have been a better word than complaint.

My main point is if you can find a free agent from Europe who contributes to the point that he earns the bonuses, then this team should be better than it was last year.

*NEW* blog up: https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=94915

I guess concern would have been a better word than complaint.

My main point is if you can find a free agent from Europe who contributes to the point that he earns the bonuses, then this team should be better than it was last year.
- dahawks8819

Ah, okay. Well it's a concern only in that it has cap implications, not that we'd all be upset that we found a hidden gem of a player. I def agree if could potentially be huge for the team.