Have the Penguins improved enough?

by James Mirtle on May 29, 2009 6:00 AM CDT Comment 37 comments

It's quite a question, really. Are these Penguins, who finished fourth in the Eastern Conference with 99 points, better than the team that had 102 and was second in 2007-08?

And, if so, how much better? Enough to beat the Red Wings?

For that, we need to take a close look at the Penguins of '08 and the Penguins of '09, compare what's there and come to some conclusions.

Line combinations (major losses in bold)

First line
2008: Dupuis-Crosby-Hossa
2009: Kunitz-Crosby-Guerin

Second line
2008: Malone-Malkin-Sykora
2009: Talbot/Satan-Malkin-Fedotenko

Third and fourth lines
2008: Ruutu-Staal-Kennedy
2009: Cooke-Staal-Kennedy

2008: Laraque/Roberts-Talbot-Hall
2009: Dupuis-Talbot-Adams

Defence pairings
2008: Gonchar-Orpik, Gill-Scuderi, Letang-Whitney
2009: Gill-Scuderi, Gonchar-Orpik, Eaton-Letang

Analysis: Up front, Crosby has been much more dangerous in terms of scoring goals, and his line leads the postseason in point production playing as a unit (Franzen and Co. have scored more but while with varied linemates). Hossa is the biggest single loss for the Penguins, and he was also their most productive player in the series against Detroit last year with seven points in six games.

After three rounds last season, Crosby's linemates had 25 points. Guerin and Kunitz so far have 26 (albeit in more games played), which combined with the captain's improvement makes the first line essentially a wash.

Pittsburgh has also lost the contributions of Malone and Sykora (who has been a non-factor this year), production that has been replaced by Fedotenko, Satan, Cooke and, of all people, Adams. Together, they essentially have duplicated their contributions, giving Malkin slightly weaker wingers in exchange for more depth on the checking lines.

Where the Pens have gotten much, much more production is the blueline, as other than Gonchar's 11 points in the first three rounds last season, they only had one goal and 14 points. This year, the No. 2 through No. 7 defencemen have chipped in with nine goals and 29 points.

So there's one huge difference.

In terms of minutes played, here's a look at players' shift in ice time from last year's postseason (among those that remain on the team and who have played 10 games both years).

Forwards
Kennedy: +3:42 per game
Staal: +1:19
Crosby: +1:00
Malkin: +0:29
Talbot: +0:13
Dupuis: -7:49

Defencemen
Letang: +2:15
Scuderi: +1:54
Gill: +0:35
Orpik: -0:43
Gonchar: -2:01 (mainly due to injury)

Forward
Biggest positive change: Better scoring depth & growth of Crosby/Malkin
Biggest negative change: Loss of Hossa

Defence
Biggest positive change: Healthy Eaton & bigger roles for Letang, Scuderi
Biggest negative change: Loss of Whitney

In conclusion: Pittsburgh's roster is significantly different than last season's, especially up front, but the biggest positive improvements have come from the young players like Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Letang and Kennedy, who are all playing bigger minutes and producing more.

Just how much they've improved will go a long way to determining if they can beat a Detroit team that (a) easily handled them last season and (b) on paper, looks awfully similar to last year's group — aside from adding Hossa.

Below, I show (some of) my work:

2009 playoffs						2008 playoffs
The holdovers	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	The holdovers	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-
Crosby, C	17	14	14	28	12	Crosby, C	20	6	21	27	7
Malkin, C	17	12	16	28	3	Malkin, C	20	10	12	22	3
Staal, C	17	2	4	6	-5	Staal, C	20	6	1	7	-4
Talbot, C	17	4	3	7	4	Talbot, C	17	3	6	9	4
Kennedy, C	17	3	3	6	-3	Kennedy, C	20	0	4	4	E
~~Sykora, RW~~	6	0	1	1	-3	Sykora, RW	20	6	3	9	2
~~Dupuis, LW~~	10	0	0	0	-3	Dupuis, LW	20	2	5	7	5

Gonchar, D	15	2	10	12	3	Gonchar, D	20	1	13	14	E
Scuderi, D	17	1	2	3	4	Scuderi, D	20	0	3	3	5
Orpik, D	17	0	4	4	-1	Orpik, D	20	0	2	2	-3
Gill, D	17	0	2	2	6	Gill, D	20	0	1	1	2
Letang, D	16	3	6	9	3	Letang, D	16	0	2	2	5

New on the scene						Dearly departed
Guerin, RW	17	7	7	14	11	Hossa, RW	20	12	14	26	8
Kunitz, LW	17	1	11	12	6	Malone, LW	20	6	10	16	4
Cooke, LW	17	1	6	7	-2	Hall, RW	17	3	1	4	-1
Fedotenko, LW	17	6	5	11	6	Ruutu, LW	20	2	1	3	-1
Satan, RW	11	1	5	6	5	Roberts, LW	11	2	2	4	-4
Adams, RW	17	3	2	5	2	Laraque, RW	15	1	2	3	-1

Eaton, D	17	4	2	6	10	Whitney, D	20	1	5	6	8
Boucher, D	8	1	3	4	-1	Sydor, D	4	0	0	0	1
Goligoski, D	2	0	1	1	-1

I'll have a poll up later this afternoon looking for your opinion on who will win the series, so check back and join that discussion. And, tomorrow, my finals preview and predictions will be up early in the morning.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The +/- line tells the story for the Pens this year. As good as Malkin is, they’ve been winning their games with Crosby on the ice. That’ll have to continue for them to have a solid chance of beating Detroit. That’s a tall order against Lidstrom and Zetterberg.

by RyanV on May 29, 2009 7:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Really good writeup, Doc.

I think this year’s Pens team has a lot more balance. Guerin has surprised me just how much gas he has left in the tank and that he’s actually keeping up with the speed of Crosby’s game….Ruslan Fedotenko is definitely a prime-time player who’s finally meshing with Malkin. Kunitz is very physical and shown nice passing touch, believe it or not.

I think the biggest difference for the Pens will be Malkin. Last year at this time he was totally gassed and a non-factor. This year it seems like he’s getting stronger by the game. Last year the Wings shadowed Crosby with Zetterberg, if Datsyuk is ailing can he keep up with Geno? That’s one of the most interesting angles to me.

by Hooks Orpik on May 29, 2009 8:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Just out of curiosity, how do the stats compare when you look at both teams coming into SCF, rather the body of work for the 2008 Pens against 2009 Pens at this point?

by Hansmoleman on May 29, 2009 8:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Here are the Penguins stats from the finals last year.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 29, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last year Crosby scored 4 times on 37 shots at ES throughout 19 games.
This year Crosby has scored 9 times on 38 shots at ES throughout 17 games.

So part of his increased production comes from taking more shots at ES, but the biggest part is just luck. He’s shooting at about 5% above his regular season ES SH%.

The entire team took a huge step forward in terms of possession – last year everyone but Hossa and Letang were in the red in Corsi, and this year all the big guns are in the black (for now). But the point remains that their playoffs possession leader last year (Hossa) is now on the other team – and that other team was a dominant possession team without him and is even better with him. The steps forward by Pittsburgh are well and good but they are still thoroughly outclassed by Detroit. The loss of Hossa totally outweighs any of the additions they made.

A lot of the talk (and this talk doesn’t originate from you James – I just hear it on TSN or see it in blog comments or other blogs a lot) on how Hossa and Datsyuk have gone cold or how Malkin and Crosby have “elevated their game” and “discovered what it takes to win” and now “really want it” (as if they didn’t want it before?) or how Guerin seems rejuvenated or etc. etc. – it seems a lot like rationalization for luck, circumstance and small sample size. Hot streaks can end at any time (e.g. in these playoffs, Luongo, Ward, Lundqvist, Blues, Canucks, etc. etc.). And when hot streaks end the tables turn and the talk is how “Luongo choked” or “Eric Staal didn’t do enough” or all sorts of other BS.

If the Penguins win the Cup it will be on the back of luck and injuries to Detroit (which is a form of luck). Although their cause will also be helped by Osgood’s return to Earth (which as been good luck for Detroit too – just not as good as Pittsbugh’s luck).

by R O on May 29, 2009 10:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Im having a hard time buying the addition by subtraction that everyone seems to be espousing.

by john ogrodnick on May 29, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So part of his increased production comes from taking more shots at ES, but the biggest part is just luck. He’s shooting at about 5% above his regular season ES SH%.

A lot of his playoff goals have been from around 5 feet away from the crease. I’m not sure what his shot selection was like in 2008, but he’s taking VERY high percentage shots these playoffs, and it at least appears that he’s taking a lot more from close range than he did during the regular season. Shooting percentage is greatly affected by WHERE your shots are coming from… it’s not all just fluctuations based on luck. To me, Crosby’s increase in goal production is akin to the top reason Johan Franzen has an insane goal output in the postseason: they are establishing great scoring position from within six feet of the goaltender on a consistent basis… and are getting the puck.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on May 29, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

There could be a bit to that as his average shot distance at ES has gone from 23.8 feet in the regular season to 22.5 feet in the playoffs. But two questions come up:
- Is that commensurate with the increase in his SH%? I dont’ think so.
- Why wasn’t he taking those high% shots in the regular season?

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn’t it possible that as his linemates have changed, Crosby’s changed his game? He’s just simply going to and standing in front of the net much more often in the playoffs.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 29, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s possible. In fact it is likely due to the uptick in his shot rate and corsi – not only has Crosby changed his game but the entire Penguins team has. However that stil doesn’t explain the 5% uptick in SH%. I don’t think that kind of short-term gain in shooting percentage has ever been sustainable.

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’re really just looking at a short-term scenario anyway. Maybe if we’re wondering if this keeps up over an 82-game season it’s more of a factor, but who’s to say the trend doesn’t last another six games?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 29, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True enough. There’s no timetable for when Crosby’s %‘s will return to normal again. But I think it’s a coin flip at best. All we can project is that Detroit will win the possession battle against Pittsburgh, and beyond that the dice will roll the way they roll.

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, I take it your prediction is Pens in 6?

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why’s that?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 29, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I recall you picked the Penguins to win in your bracket. And you said “who’s to say the trend doesn’t last another six games?” above. So I added 2 + 2 and got 6 :)

by R O on May 29, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let’s put it this way: If I pick Detroit, it won’t be because I think Crosby’s scored a lot of goals based on luck and that his shooting percentage can’t be maintained.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 29, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seems like you doubt that his shooting percentage is unsustainable.

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last year Franzen only scored 4 goals at ES – he was a PP machine.
This year Franzen’s scored 7 ES goals and his SH% is way up too. That’s bound to come down.

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I generally agree with your premise that over time, they will score at a rate that is more consistent with their long term output. But I also think that part of the reason comes with adjustments made by the opposition. I also think playoff trends are unique based on the format of the competition involved… in the regular season, you are hard pressed to play the same opponent twice in one week, let alone 4-7 times in a two week span. It naturally will result in different results.

But I agree that the whole “elevated his game” and “choke” labels are very simplistic and overblown by fans and the media, especially when they do a 180 from one series to the next.

Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.

by saskhab on May 29, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt. A lot of Pittsburgh’s and Crosby’s increased success comes from line matching (or mis-matching) or their new shoot-more philosophy or better reads or any number of skill-related factors.

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to emphatically disagree that the loss of Hossa outweighs the current additions, when you consider the implications of his would-be salary. A part of the proof is in the “New on the scene”/“Dearly departed” section of James’ article above. Gowever, a look at those numbers doesn’t tell the whole story. The lack of Hossa’s hit on their salary cap has allowed them to add Guerin’s 14 pts and +11, Kunitz’ 12 pts and +6, Fedotenko’s 11 pts and +6…etc. Basically, in my opinion, with Hossa and his salary on the Pens, they are not deep enough to even make the cup finals.

-David
sixminutecynic.blogspot.com
www.piratesmix.com.

by pascaldupweevil on May 29, 2009 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gowever...

However with gumption.

-David
sixminutecynic.blogspot.com
www.piratesmix.com.

by pascaldupweevil on May 29, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those stat lines don’t tell the whole story either. Consider:
- Last year Hossa was the Corsi leader in the playoffs, on a bad possession team. He and Letang were the only ones who remained in the black. The difference between him and Crosby wasn’t significant (2 shot attempts/60) but when you compare favorably with Crosby that says something about what kind of player you are. There are arguments to be made that Hossa was the Penguins MVP last playoffs season.
- This year the team is much better at possession (half the team is in the black in the Corsi) and yet Guerin and Kunitz are square in the middle of the pack at Corsi (at around 0.0/60). This is while playing a lot of time with Crosby. They’re not anchors but they’re not difference makers – they get hemmed in a lot. Hossa is a difference maker.

Fedetenko looks like a player though. His possession metrics are very healthy.

Hossa and his salary might have prevented all of Guerin, Kunitz and Fedetenko from being acquired, but you don’t need all of these guys. Hossa and Fedetenko would have been enough – one elite difference maker is worth more than two guys who play their opponents to even.

by R O on May 29, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

His possession metrics are very healthy.

Are you an Oilers fan, by any chance? They are the geekiest fanbase on the internet.
(And I mean that as a compliment.) :D

"A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with." -- Tennessee Williams

by Baroque on May 30, 2009 4:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s actually a Flames fan, I believe.

I’m never surprised when the geekiest hockey fans show up here…. :-)

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 30, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m a Flames fan, who follows the Oilers blogosphere. There is no teacher but the enemy.

by R O on May 31, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're basing an awful lot yourself on extremely small sample sizes

as well as the belief that, at 21, Crosby has already established what his “normal” is. Who is to say that he wasn’t unlucky last year?

In 91-92, Lemieux’s S% jumped 6% from the regular season to the playoffs. The next season, it stayed there – was he “lucky” for 76 games? Even in 60 and 70 game seasons, he didn’t have a “normal” percentage that he returned to. He often fluctuated by 5% or more from one season to the next, or between regular seasons and playoffs.

I don’t think that, for individual players, a 5% change in shooting percentage is as much of an anomaly as you’re making it out to be. And I think you’re overlooking the fact that Crosby, Malkin and Letang are markedly better than they were a year ago; you’re simply setting that aside and calling it “luck”.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on May 30, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Crosby posted similar shooting percentages in both 07/08 and 08/09 (regular seasons). So that’s actually two seasons in a row in which that baselne has been established. And Crosby has been given a lot more icetime and opportunities than the average 21 year old to establish said baseline.

Of course there are fluctations above and below the baseline. However they tend to be unsustainable from year to year, i.e. a peak one year is a “career season” while the corresponding dropoff the year after is a “slump”, even though the player is just as good from year to year at turning over the puck, getting to the puck, winning puck battles … all the things that win hockey games.

I haven’t overlooked the fact that Crosby et al have improved. I have acknowledged that they are better at driving possession, which tends to be the way that players improve themselves in a sustainable manner (i.e. one that carries over season-to-season). At the same time, the Crosby hype right now, in this particular playoff season is predicated partly on goal scoring totals driven primarily by percentages.

This happens all the time – it happened with Eric Staal (who turned from Conn Smythe candidate into playoff choker – h/t CopperNBlue) and it is happening with Johan Franzen and it is happening with Sidney Crosby.

by R O on May 31, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Franzen scored the winner last night though?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on May 31, 2009 6:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it was considered a “lucky” goal by quite a few of the media who covered it in the highlights.

by R O on May 31, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Crosby’s shooting percentages have been remarkably consistent, year after year: 14, 14.4, 13.9, 13.9. And yet, over that time, he has been getting better at all of the other “things”. Shouldn’t his percentages be going up, by your logic? Perhaps the consistency is the fluke.

And if a player can maintain a +5% streak of luck for an entire season, I don’t see how two seasons could be enough to establish a baseline. Perhaps, after 80 games, it’s not luck anymore. Perhaps you’re overestimating the amount of certainty in your variable.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on May 31, 2009 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And yet, over that time, he has been getting better at all of the other "things". Shouldn’t his percentages be going up, by your logic? Perhaps the consistency is the fluke.

No, because my contention is that the things that he is getting better at (driving possession, outchancing, outscoring) are the things that are sustainable over the long run. A lot of work has been done in looking at how shooting %’s are not sustainable over time. Specifically you might want to check out this blog and specifically these insightful posts

And if a player can maintain a +5% streak of luck for an entire season, I don’t see how two seasons could be enough to establish a baseline.

And the next season after , when the % goes down by 5%? Sometimes shooting % streaks DO last an entire season, hence why players have “career seasons”. But they inevitably go down. If you look at Mario’s %’s (since you are fixated on him) then you see that the trend in his shooting % is actually negative over time. Every peak followed by a trough. No sustain whatsoever.

And you said yourself, Crosby’s percentages have been consistent over four years now. And this post shows how one might conclude that a player with Crosby’s shooting % over a few seasons might maintain a similar shooting % over the rest of his career.

by R O on May 31, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Post one was about team shooting percentages. Post two was about extreme values (1/37). They’re both very convincing posts, but neither of them, IMO, was that helpful to your contention that Crosby will always be a 14% shooter.

Sometimes shooting % streaks DO last an entire season

This is why I’m saying that you can’t use two seasons to create a baseline. If either or both of them is way out of whack, then your error is huge.

It also detracts from your original insinuation that Crosby’s “luck” can’t last; your contention is that it could last another 60 games and still be luck.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on May 31, 2009 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The first post is about team percentages but the particular number that was discussed (the PDO figure) actually applies to individuals as well – the first comment in that post illustrates this.

The second post is about a particular extreme value but the analysis could easily be extended. There is nothing particularly special about the 1/37 figure. I think it was just to illustrate the concept of “the dice have no memory”, which I believe applies to SH% in hockey.

There is also the third post which shows how one might divine a player’s true SH% from a season and a half of results.

My original point was that his 5% SH% boost was unsustainable, meaning that it couldn’t last forever. It could certainly last in the next 4-7 games, but it could just as likely be 5% less for the next 4-7 games. The odds aren’t in your favor if you predict either way.

I mean, you look at how the first two games have gone, and CBC has emphasized multiple times how Crosby’s gone goal-less, point-less, etc. But Crosby’s been getting jobbed by posts and narrowly missed opportunities (as have his linemates). He appears to be playing at the exact same level as he did in the previous three series. Zetterberg is a formidable opponent but Crosby is driving possession and getting good chances and is basically playing him to even (worse in game 1, better in game 2), which is all you can really ask for against a world-class player like Zetterberg. But Crosby hasn’t been the goal or point-scoring monster that his SH% previously painted him as. Did he just forget how to go to high% areas? No! He’s still in those high% areas; he (and his linemates who he’s setting up) are just not burying their chances in those areas.

This is why I’m saying that you can’t use two seasons to create a baseline. If either or both of them is way out of whack, then your error is huge.

You are correct, of course – it is possible that he’s been unlucky in one or both seasons. But the likelihood that these two regular seasons are indicative of his true shooting ability is much greater than the likelihood that the past 17 playoff games are indicative of the same.

by R O on Jun 1, 2009 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure we're going to agree to disagree

Given that nothing Crosby can do will prove either of us right or wrong. But I will still take issue with this statement:

I think it was just to illustrate the concept of "the dice have no memory", which I believe applies to SH% in hockey.

I strongly disagree here. SH% may have an expected value, a binomial distribution (I don’t know, I’ve never checked) and certainly a random component; but it is far from a random event. Previous successful (or unsuccessful) shots really do influence subsequent ones.

On an aggregate scale (i.e. teams, leagues and seasons) you can probably treat it statistically as having a random distribution. On the scale of an individual player, playing a small number of games against a small number of opposing teams, I’m not convinced that it has any predictive value at all (within reasonable bounds; percentages beyond 30% or 10% are very unlikely to be sustainable).

Crosby’s SH% will (has) quite likely go (gone) down, but not because of “less luck” but because Detroit is a superior defensive team and will allow fewer quality scoring chances – which is not a random event.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jun 2, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whether Pittsburgh has improved enough is kind of irrelevant in my opinion

Detroit’s been the best team in hockey for 3 years running. Injuries derailed them against Anaheim in ’07, they pretty much cruised to the Cup last year with their only losses late in the playoffs coming when Turco and Fleury stole games.

Detroit’s one of those teams where it doesn’t really matter how their opponent is playing- if Detroit is on their game, they win. The thing is, something hasn’t seemed right about them all year. I know they still always seem to dominate in shots on goal by a more than healthy margin, but they just don’t seem to be dominating in terms of puck possession like they did last year.

No doubt the continuing improvement of Crosby, Malkin, and Stall gives Pittsburgh a better chance than otherwise- but ultimately, as is always the case with Detroit- it basically boils down to whether the Wings are on their game or not.

Right now, I’m not so sure they are…something just seems missing. Maybe it’s the level of motivation they had last year, maybe they’re a little tired from playing a billion games the last 3 years, who knows.

by Make a play Whitner on May 29, 2009 12:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As has happened in the past, the Red Wings’ toughest opponent will be themselves.

by hallock on May 29, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From The Rink: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

From The Rink -

SB Nation's hockey blog