The Trap
by GoPens! on Jan 9, 2011 4:24 PM EST
in Statistics
Email
PrintIt looks like there is a narrative developing among some Pens fans that this team simply can't beat the trap, and that Pittsburgh's loss to the Islanders was the template the league was searching for on how to beat the Penguins. People like Seth at Empty Netters, and both SlayerGhaleon and RLM140 here at Pensburgh, have been the few that I've seen so far question the Penguins' ability to beat the trap. As a note, I only cite these individuals because I don't want people to think I'm imagining this.
After the jump, I'll try to show why I think this narrative is inaccurate, and why the Penguins have been more unlucky than uncoordinated the last five games.
First, I'd like to clear something up about the trap. The trap is a hockey system that is designed to make passing through the neutral zone very difficult. The theory is that by making it difficult for teams to get through the neutral zone, the trapping team will not allow the opponent to set up in the offensive zone, and thus they won't give up many chances. This is the critical point about the trap: it is only effective if it prevents the opponent from setting up in the offensive zone. Any hockey system which allows the opposing team to get a lot of shots and chances is a bad hockey system, since teams that out shoot and out chance their opponents will win more in the long run. A good way to see if the trap has been working against the Penguins is to see how well the Penguins have possessed the puck over the last five games. If they've been out possessed, then they've struggled against the trap, and vice versa.
The Penguins are 1-2-2 over their last five games, and this stretch started with the shootout loss to the Islanders. This is the period over which it's claimed the team has fallen victim to the trap. I'm going to ignore the 8-1 win over the Bolts and look at the Penguins' performance over their four most recent losses. Here is the relevant data (NYI, WSH, MTL, MIN):
There are two things I'd like to note from this table. The first is the Penguins' overall shooting percentage during this four game set. The Penguins have scored three goals on 129 total shots, which gives them a 2.3% shooting percentage. Obviously the Penguins aren't this bad; no team in this league is. When a team is shooting this low, it's because they're getting unlucky. The puck will start going in again at a higher rate and the Penguins will get their goals for. It's also encouraging that the Penguins have maintained a high number of shots per game, and not let their bad luck discourage them from putting shots on goal.
Secondly, the Penguins have not succumbed to the trap. They have continued to out possess the opposition over this stretch of time, as they've had a positive Corsi every game so far, and a positive Fenwick in all but one of the games (and keep in mind, the last two games were played without our best player). After looking at this chart, it's obvious what has been going on: the trap has not worked against the Penguins. If it was working, the Penguins would be out possessed by the opposition. But the fact that the Penguins have gotten all of these shots over this time is indicative of the fact that they've been able to gain the offensive zone and possess the puck in the offensive zone. In other words, they've been able to do what the trap is supposed to prevent.
Some might say that stats are misleading, and that possession doesn't mean anything since the Penguins are taking a lot of bad shots. But this isn't an acceptable explanation because it's not true. There are plenty of articles and research that have demonstrated Corsi and shot differential are great predictors of future success. The best teams over the last three years (and all Stanley Cup winning teams) were at the top in terms of out shooting the opposition at even strength. JLikens at Objective NHL has done research here and here which demonstrates the utility of Corsi and Fenwick, and Derek Zona at Copper and Blue reported that teams which out shot the opposition over the last 21 years have had a much better winning percentage than their opposition. Finally, Gabriel Desjardins has also written at length on the usefulness of Corsi and Fenwick as predictors for future success.
Scoring chances, Corsi, and Fenwick are the best statistics we have right now to measure how well a team is playing. Unfortunately, there's no database that records the scoring chances for NHL teams. Since that's the case, Corsi and Fenwick are the next best options, and these measurements aren't deficient: there are mountains of data that illustrate these statistics are great measurements for evaluating how the team is playing. While the Penguins haven't been blowing away the competition (other than in the Islanders game), they've still managed to out possess the opposition, even without their best player for some of this time. This article isn't meant to excuse the performance of Staal, Malkin, Letang and others; that group of players can certainly be better. However, there is no evidence that the Penguins are getting owned by the trap. It just isn't true.
124 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I disagree. The Pens have been lackluster against the trap for a couple years now. They struggled all last season with the Devils trap.
by Kelly Fisher on Jan 9, 2011 4:50 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I didn’t look at how the Penguins have performed against the trap other than these four games this season. How we did in the past is irrelevant, to me at least.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
First off, where’s the evidence the Penguins have struggled against the trap the last few years? Second, even if they did, why does that matter this year if there is evidence they’re not struggling against the trap. Since neither of us can change the past, why worry about it? If the Pens are doing fine this year, the fact that they weren’t fine last year or the year before shouldn’t concern us.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Dude, are you serious?
Watch every game against New Jersey last season for evidence we suck against the trap. Watch the final game against Tampa Bay and the final one against Atlanta for even more proof.
The past in this instance is vitally important. “Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.” It’s quite apparent that we learned nothing from our beatings last season from the trap. This is a problem, and will really become one in the playoffs when defenses typically ramp up their game.
by SlayerGhaleon on Jan 9, 2011 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying that we didn’t struggle against the trap in the past, I’d just like some evidence that provides a minimal level of rigor to the claim that we did. And beyond that, it doesn’t matter how we did against the trap in the past because we’re a new team this year. We can’t change the past; all we can do is see how the Pens have fared so far, and it looks like they’re doing alright.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Montreal played the trap against Pittsburgh and Washington, right? PIT outchanced by a 2:1 ratio, and Washington was averaging over 40 shots a game and with decent quality, getting rebound chances as well. Yet people still claim the Caps couldn’t beat the trap. That was true of Game 1 and part of Game 2, but not for the rest of the series.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:20 AM EST up reply actions
It wasn’t the trap that killed the Pens against MTL. It was the four men that were constantly collapsed around the goal once the Pens gained the zone. As GoPens points out the Pens dominated in shots and possession that series. The problem was that the Habs were playing rope a dope. Lots of shots but not a lot of quality shots. They kept us to the perimeter and didn’t take chances. It’s not a plan for long term success and was even a little risky trying to win a 7 game series with it, but it worked. Hockey, like every sport, evolves. Some teams have figured out how to clamp down on the Pens. The Pens will adjust and someone else will come up with a new strategy. It happens. But, I hate when it’s called luck.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
I know, but the MSM loves to preach Jacques Martin’s genius use of the trap which pretty much failed epically.
Yeah, luck = random performance variation, or in other words,
not a plan for long term success
Luck is shorter ;)
By the way…the Pens had tons of quality chances. Like I said above, the Pens outchances and outFenwick’d Montreal by a 2:1 ratio.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:35 AM EST up reply actions
People hate “luck” because there’s no control over it. They hate it even more when it happens over multiple 7-game series. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. An even simpler way of explaining the MTL series (both of them, PIT and WSH) last year: “sh*t happens”.
Someone told me recently that any team that makes the SCF cannot possibly have lucked into it. 2006 would like to have a word with him.
The evidence is in their record against NJD and other teams that play the trap well. And it matters because they are not improving. I’m not familiar with Corsi or Fenwick, but they appear to be just as gimmicky as the BCS.
I think the Devils card is a bit overplayed. Sure, last year we had no luck against them but otherwise have been pretty successful against their system.
.
Follow me on twitter, Picasa or at Pens Through My Lens.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jan 9, 2011 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Sure its overplayed, but youll have that when the devils pretty much perfected that style of play. Not to mention, I remember a couple of teams out of the west that utilized the trap against pitt last season, like minnesota and vancouver. and these teams use it for a reason. The pens struggle with it.
If the trap has been such a dagger in the side of this team, why doesn’t every team that plays the Penguins use it?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
but youll have that when the devils pretty much perfected that style of play
There’s evidence that suggests of the “trapping” coaches, Hitchcock and especially Lemaire actually have perfected it to the point where they can implement it well regardless of personnel or talent on the roster.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:21 AM EST up reply actions
Review the stats from the post-lockout years (2005-2010) and look at the teams that made it to the Conference Finals – they all were good at possessing the puck, getting a lot of shots off, and winning games as a result. the data chart that GoPens! provides is empirical and correct.
it’s just a bad stretch for the Pens, without their top player. these things happen, but the evidence shows that a minor skid has not derailed the players on the ice.
Review the stats from the post-lockout years (2005-2010) and look at the teams that made it to the Conference Finals – they all were good at possessing the puck, getting a lot of shots off, and winning games as a result. the data chart that GoPens! provides is empirical and correct.
it’s just a bad stretch for the Pens, without their top player. these things happen, but the evidence shows that a minor skid has not derailed the players on the ice.
Review the stats from the post-lockout years (2005-2010) and look at the teams that made it to the Conference Finals – they all were good at possessing the puck, getting a lot of shots off, and winning games as a result. the data chart that GoPens! provides is empirical and correct.
it’s just a bad stretch for the Pens, without their top player. these things happen, but the evidence shows that a minor skid has not derailed the players on the ice.
I’m not familiar with Corsi or Fenwick, but they appear to be just as gimmicky as the BCS.
Kelly, I’m assuming you didn’t read any of the links I highlighted above.
Either way, It’s not a debate in hockey anymore: out shooting and out possessing your opponent is the surest way to long term success. This has been verified and validated in countless articles. Stubbornly sticking to the position that Corsi and Fenwick are gimmicky and like the BCS is ignoring reality.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Im not arguing the fact that out shooting and out possessing the opponent are factors of success. Maybe, theyve improved a bit. But I still say they have a hard time winning games when faced with the trap.
One thing is that you tend to see the trap when you’re trailing in a game, either by a couple of goals or maybe by a goal but late in the game. Not a good chance of winning there.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
A team can certainly be unlucky over the course of four games. And do you not think that luck plays a big role in the outcome of hockey games (especially in the short run)?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
That’s kind of my point. You can only be unlucky for a short time before it has nothing to do with luck.
2.3% shooting is not a function of poor play, it’s an outlier in a long 82 game season.
as i write this, David Akers misses his 2nd FG of the day. he’s 31-36 this year, but has 2 misses in one game. is Akers washed up? is his career over? is this a sign that the Philadelphia football philosophy of Andy Reid is awful? WILL POOR DAVID MAKE IT TO HIS CAR WITHOUT AN ARMED ESCORT!?!?!!?
the newspapers will write about Akers costing his team a chance to beat the Packers, but the reality – that Philly had no answer to Green Bay’s defensive scheme, and therefore was an inferior team – will be overlooked.
Im not really concerned about the Penguins recent skid. Im simply saying I dont think the Pens play well at the trap. Im well aware of the ups and downs of an 82-game season.
The Pens are near the top of the East in points this year, they’ve made the playoffs the last 4 years, and 2 of those years include an appearance in the SCF…and they don’t do well against the trap?
As for the historical stats, well how about Brodeur’s GAA and Save %? The Devils are notorious for their “trap” system, right? Brodeur’s career GAA is 2.33 and his Save % is .913. Against the Pens, Brodeur’s GAA is 2.56 and Save % is .897. Now, that’s against the Pens since Brodeur’s first year, but still – the Pens have done fairly well against Marty, despite the trap system.
as for the trap, i mean GoPens! makes a persuasive argument. the stats show that the Pens are possessing the puck and getting a good number of shots against “trap” teams. that conclusion alone shows that the trap is not working. so really, why would these teams use the trap when it means they’re getting outshot and outchanced?
if you’re not convinced yet, read this:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/5/16/1473979/scoring-chance-details-for
it’s a breakdown of the Pens-Habs series this past spring, where the Habs used a “trap” to beat the Pens. it’s a fascinating read, and it shows a lot about how stats can be used to evaluate the game of hockey
Im still not convinced. You can throw another 10 links up here spewing stats saying how the pens “shoulda won” (according to the numbers). I just cant get into it. As one of the links that was posted said, the numbers are always indicative of the outcome. Also, yes I believe you can play poorly against the trap and still make the playoffs. Who eliminated the pens last year? The Habs—played the trap. Even the year we won the cup Carolina eliminated the devs for us. And blah blah blah. I will concede to an agree to disagree type thing :)
by Kelly Fisher on Jan 9, 2011 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
You can throw another 10 links up here spewing stats saying how the pens "shoulda won" (according to the numbers). I just cant get into it.
All these links, and this whole conversation, are really just about the fact that luck plays a big role in hockey, and the Penguins’ losses the last few games don’t mean the team is irreversibly disadvantaged versus the trap.
Also, yes I believe you can play poorly against the trap and still make the playoffs. Who eliminated the pens last year? The Habs—played the trap. Even the year we won the cup Carolina eliminated the devs for us.
I’m confused — what does this have to do with anything?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
It makes as much sense as this:
The Pens are near the top of the East in points this year, they’ve made the playoffs the last 4 years, and 2 of those years include an appearance in the SCF…and they don’t do well against the trap?
by Kelly Fisher on Jan 10, 2011 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
spewing stats is not what’s going on here. rather, it’s an evaluation of a game within the criteria of measurable observation – essentially, the scientific method. it’s the only way to objectively assess an outcome. is it perfect? absolutely not, nor will it ever be (i.e. baseball statisticians are still trying to find a good metric for defense that most people will accept).
the point isn’t to link endlessly, but instead it is to show how a theory (the trap is effective against the Pens) is wrong. the Pens are doing what they should be doing agaisnt the trap, it’s just a minor occurrence that the puck isn’t bouncing their way.
if it’s any consolation, it took me a month to come to terms with the Pens-Habs results I linked to.
by mcnulty4prez on Jan 9, 2011 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The best team doesn’t always win. 8th place Edmonton, really? The 06 Wings might have been the most dominant team since the lockout, and generated about 65% of the shots that series, which if you think about it is plain ridiculous (best since then was Detroit 0708 around 60, I believe). Luck is very real and a huge factor. It’s not all hitting posts either…stuff like Alex Kovalev deciding to have a good season in Montreal, Jose Theodore playing well in a contract year, teams not taking away Mike Green’s favorite backdoor play, etc. Stuff that tends to change on a regular basis.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 10:14 AM EST up reply actions
You can only be unlucky for a short time before it has nothing to do with luck.
Kelly, this simply is not true. Luck has no expiration date (ask Devils’ fans this season), and teams are unlucky for sometimes the entire season. The best models we have estimate that luck is factor in driving shooting percentage and overall winning percentage.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Im not denying the role of luck in the sports world, especially hockey. But more times than not its used in an effort to not take responsibility for poor play.
when, what? Oh that might have been misleading. Thats directed for the fans, not the players. Ill hear fans say their team’s opponent was just lucky, when in fact, they were just out played. Its embarrassing.
If some fans use it incorrectly, that doesn’t mean luck doesn’t play a big part in the outcome of a game, or a season.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
by GoPens! on Jan 9, 2011 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nah, Washington last year at 5on5 shot 2% better than the 2nd place team, over the entire 82 games. That’s the same difference between #2 and #15. It’s been thrown around that your season will be determined by ~55% Corsi, 35% luck, and 10% goalies/special teams (where abnormally high shooting and/or save percentages on special teams are included in “luck”).
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:24 AM EST up reply actions
Very cool GoPens. I think the Penguins system (when run right) can out play the trap. When we lose to the trap, it is because we allow it, and vice versa. The fate to win or lose is ultimately up to coaches and players. Not like we really had a good game in our team’s eyes the last few losses, so I think us playing bad is the real reason we lost.
The trap is depressing to watch because it takes away from the game (to me at least.) One example is this: the teams that do trap do not really have a very solid D, thus they trap. Trapping sorta screws out the “good” defensemen, and if I was a really high end D man, I would not want to go to a trapping team IMO. It is like saying to the players, OK guys you are not good enough to play solid defense, so we are going to trap today.
To credit the Islanders and Wild, they both are on pretty good streaks right now and have beaten really good teams, so props to them.
The world is still standing, sun will come up tomorrow, and the Pens will be fine.
Ovechtrip vs Stammerfail - the clear winner here is Sidney Crosby.
I think you exactly right about the Pen’s system that Bylsma is running. He preaches get the puck deep and forecheck the opposing team for 60 minutes. To me this is essentially how you are to beat the neutral-zone trap. The problem is we have skilled players like Crosby, Malkin and Staal who would much rather carry the puck in the zone. And to their credit they are generally successful. But sometimes they just have to simplify their game and play dump and chase.
by StripesForLife on Jan 9, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
Ha, last sentence I found a bit funny. Over the rest of the SBN Hockey blogs I find everyone praising the Pens’—and pardon the language—“balls-to-the-wall” forecheckers. It’s just a phase that’ll go away soon enough.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 10:15 AM EST up reply actions
I think a lot of Pens fans get spoiled and think that our possession game and aggressive forecheck either generates low quality shots or can’t beat the trap, etc. etc. But it’s always interesting to get the other 29 teams’ perspectives.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
It’s just a phase that’ll go away soon enough.
The not-scoring, that is, though to be honest I wouldn’t mind the balls-to-the-wall to go away too. Maybe you need Kessel, in that case.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for writing this — I think this topic is on a lot of Pens’ fans minds today because of the Montreal and Minnesota games, and this is a great way to open discussion.
I have to disagree a little bit with your conclusions, though. It’s interesting that the Penguins are successfully possessing the puck in the offensive zone against the trap, although this doesn’t necessarily mean they are beating the trap system. If they are possessing the puck for long periods of time, but failing to score because players are making it difficult to set up and find lanes, the trap is working. I’ve even read that in trap systems, trapping teams actually want their opponents to possess the puck and wear themselves down on offense, working hard but not getting that quality shot that goes in, making them more vulnerable to odd man rushes.
Although, you might be saying that what happens in the offensive zone doesn’t fall under the definition of “trap” (if it’s meant to refer only to neutral zone play) but teams that trap against the Penguins have also used the “stand in front of the net” technique, with most players focusing on defense most of the time.
Finally, I don’t think you can discount the possibility that the Penguins are taking a lot of bad shots against trapping teams. The low scoring percentage — 3 goals on 129 shots — suggests some combination of crappy shots and great goaltending. The fact that in general, outshooting predicts success, doesn’t disprove the theory that the Penguins have taken a lot of bad shots in games against these teams. I’m not saying that Corsi and Fenwick aren’t useful statistics, just that their usefulness in general does not disprove the “Penguins took bad shots against these teams” theory at all.
So I still think the trap is a problem, but it’s definitely interesting to look at what the Penguins are doing against the trap in terms of puck possession and shooting.
"I mean, please." --Sidney Crosby
If they are possessing the puck for long periods of time, but failing to score because players are making it difficult to set up and find lanes, the trap is working.
That isn’t the point of the trap though. In fact, it isn’t the point of any hockey system: every system wants to stop the opposing team from controlling play in the offensive zone. If you out shoot and out possess the opposition, then you’ve beaten the trap. Also, if the players have clogged up lanes and made it difficult to set up, then we wouldn’t have out shot and out possessed the opposition over the four games in question.
fall under the definition of "trap" (if it’s meant to refer only to neutral zone play)
If the trap only referred to the neutral zone, then it’d be useless. The game is obviously won and lost in the offensive and defensive zones. If the trap doesn’t contribute to making it more difficult for the opposing team to set up in the offensive zone, then what is it good for?
used the "stand in front of the net" technique, with most players focusing on defense most of the time.
If teams want to just let the Pens shoot away in the offensive zone and be content with staying put in the crease, I’ll take that any day of the week. One way to know this strategy doesn’t work in the long run is because if it did,every team would be doing it.
suggests some combination of crappy shots and great goaltending.
Even we assume the Penguins are taking crappy shots (which there is no evidence for), then they should still be at about an 8% or 9% shooting percentage (which tends to be the shooting percentage of the worst teams). If that were the case, the Penguins would have scored eight more goals than they did in these games (129 times 0.085). I doubt the Penguins’ shots these last four games have been so bad that they’re worse than the typically worst team in the NHL. There’s no evidence they’ve taken bad shots, and any team sporting a shooting percentage that low is simply unlucky, nothing more, nothing less.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I don’t think the trap should only be defined as neutral zone — I just wondered if you meant that since you talked about the neutral zone in your definition, and since in your view offensive zone possession means a team has beaten the trap. In my view, if we fail to score, we haven’t beaten the trap.
There may not be evidence that the Penguins have taken bad shots, but there is also no evidence that they haven’t been taking bad shots in these four games. The average shooting percentages of bad teams don’t disprove the bad shot theory anymore than the fact that in general, shooting tends to produce goals. Low percentage shots exist, and it’s entirely possible that the Penguins took more of them in these four games. But there’s no evidence one way or another, unless we have a volunteer to spend the evening coding (I can’t because I’m supposed to be working on my dissertation…) It might be luck, but given our history against the trap, I doubt it.
"I mean, please." --Sidney Crosby
if we fail to score, we haven’t beaten the trap.
I think this is where we get sidetracked. If Team A outshoots Team B 50-15, but loses 2-0, which team do you think will win in the long run? Obviously Team A (as all the data indicates). It’s silly to think that bad luck during one game (or four games) should change how we judge the team.
but there is also no evidence that they haven’t been taking bad shots in these four games.
There’s a decent amount of evidence that shot quality over multiple games (and especially a season) isn’t really a factor. But the best evidence we have that the Penguins didn’t take bad shots is the fact that they’ve out shot the opposition so much. There’s no evidence to indicate that there has ever been a team which has out shot and out possessed the opponent and yet continued to shoot at a 2.3% because their shots were of such low quality.
The average shooting percentages of bad teams don’t disprove the bad shot theory anymore than the fact that in general, shooting tends to produce goals.
I think you’re confused. I used the shooting percentage of bad teams to show that the Penguins 2.3% shooting percentage over these four games is due to luck, and not poor play.
Low percentage shots exist, and it’s entirely possible that the Penguins took more of them in these four games.
We know the Penguins out chanced the Islanders, and we don’t have a record for the other games, but the fact that their Corsi and Fenwick are almost all positive probably means they’ve out chanced the opposition.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I’m not confused. I understand that in your view, shot quality either doesn’t vary much or doesn’t matter much, and you are using the shooting percentage of bad teams to say that since they must be worse at playing hockey, and even they have a higher shooting percentage than 2.3%, the Penguins’ 2.3% shooting percentage cannot be due to performance. I’m saying the shooting percentage of bad teams does not refute the theory that something about the Penguins’ shots made them less likely to go in.
First, it’s possible that in those four games, the Penguins played even worse than bad teams play on average. Bad teams beat us sometimes, so it’s not like we aren’t capable of playing worse than the Islanders. Second, even if it’s true that on average, shot quality doesn’t tend to vary much in the NHL, it’s still possible that it was a factor here.
I understand why given your view of what explains goals and wins, you don’t feel that shot quality is a likely explanation. But you’re talking like you have proved that it couldn’t possibly have been a factor in these games, when none of these numbers prove that. It’s an alternative explanation that you disagree with, but it’s not an alternative explanation that you can conclusively rule out.
I agree that Corsi and Fenwick are useful statistics, and of course it makes sense that more shots means more goals and more wins. I also agree that luck plays a role, and that it played a role in the 2.3% — certainly luck was a factor. But I also believe it’s possible that the Penguins were not taking the best shots they could have taken, considering positioning of themselves and defensemen, the goalie, etc. Other things like how they dealt with defensemen, whether they were screening the goalie, also could be factors in addition to the position and timing of shots.
"I mean, please." --Sidney Crosby
I understand that in your view, shot quality either doesn’t vary much or doesn’t matter much
It’s not in my view. Shooting percentage at even strength last year was between 8.1 and 8.7%, and the data over other years is very similar. In addition, shot quality isn’t a big deal because there is no team on record that has managed to get out shot by the opposition over the long run, but still come out on top because they take such higher quality shots. The winningest teams the last five years have been those that can out shoot the opposition.
does not refute the theory that something about the Penguins’ shots made them less likely to go in.
If this proposition can’t be refuted, then it’s not a theory. What do you want to see?
First, it’s possible that in those four games, the Penguins played even worse than bad teams play on average
Bad teams get out shot and out possessed by the opposition — that’s why they’re bad. The fact that Penguins were positive in Corsi and Fenwick mean they weren’t playing worse than the worst teams in the NHL.
But you’re talking like you have proved that it couldn’t possibly have been a factor in these games, when none of these numbers prove that.
Here’s the problem. First, this article and my points on shot quality were directed at the proposition that the Penguins were getting beat by the trap. That isn’t true. Second, if you want to argue that shot quality was the reason the Penguins lost the last four games, then the onus is on you to prove that’s the case, because all the data we have is that teams that out shoot and out possess the opposition win more often than not. If the Penguins were doing that, but losing instead, then luck is most likely the reason why.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Shooting percentage varies from game to game, and can be as low as 0%. And of course it varies widely between players (last year Crosby had 17% and Adams had 0%). I guess the question is whether high and low shooting percentages in individual games are random noise around the 8% average, or whether performance is a factor.
As I said earlier, the bad shot theory could be refuted by watching each shot and recording various things about the shot and the circumstances — coding, basically — but I’m sure neither of us has time for that. I certainly don’t want to re-watch depressing games and take notes.
I guess I’m bothered by definitive statements like “This is not true” when people disagree or have other theories. I’m not one of those people who think statistics are mumbo jumbo fuzzy math (the opposite, actually) but I have been trained to recognize their limitations and to be careful when I talk about results, and especially to be open to alternative explanations and to think about omitted variables. But, I’m not even invested in the shot theory being true. It’s not like Dan Bylsma calls me for advice. So I’m going to let it go.
But I really did enjoy the post, and it was interesting to think about our performance against the trap. I do still believe we struggle against the trap, but however one sees it, these numbers (possession, shots) are useful for thinking about what might and might not be going wrong.
"I mean, please." --Sidney Crosby
I guess the question is whether high and low shooting percentages in individual games are random noise around the 8% average, or whether performance is a factor.
Performance might be a factor if you’re only throwing 10 or 15 shots on per game. But when a team puts almost 130 shots on goal and gets three goals in return over four games, there’s something more going on than just bad performance.
As I said earlier, the bad shot theory could be refuted by watching each shot and recording various things about the shot and the circumstances — coding, basically
It’s a lot easier than that, you’d just have to count chances.
I guess I’m bothered by definitive statements like "This is not true" when people disagree or have other theories.
There’s an enormous amount of data that out shooting and out possessing the opponent is the surest way to win, and that teams which do that have won the most in the past (coincidentally, they’ve won the last three Stanley Cups, at least). It’s not a theory if it can’t be proven wrong, and I still don’t see any evidence that somehow over this four game stretch the Penguins were suddenly taken over by some intangible force that has made an overwhelming majority of their shots become low quality.
But I really did enjoy the post
Thank you :)
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Out of curiosity, do we know if anyone was tracking scoring chances for some or all of these four games?
.
Follow me on twitter, Picasa or at Pens Through My Lens.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jan 10, 2011 9:02 AM EST up reply actions
Email Neil Greenberg at Russian Machine Never Breaks for the Caps game and Olivier Bouchard at En Attendant Les Nordiques should have up chances for the MTL game.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
Just by the way…both Cari and GoPens are right. Shot quality is real…just a very tiny part of winning in the long run (less than 5%, I think).
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:28 AM EST up reply actions
I will most definitely do this. My only issue will be with how chances are defined. I tend to think a team should get a chance for even on missed shots and blocked shots. Any idea whether Neil or Olivier agrees?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Generally they don’t do blocked shots, but yes to missed shots. Here’s Neil’s definition. If you ever see one of my tallies note that I tend to include blocked shots more than the others (my rationale being some blocked shots are last-ditch efforts and more “fixing” than “preventing”).
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
I would agree with you. Part of my thinking is that any team which gives the other team more opportunities in the chance region (regardless of what percentage of their shots end up blocked, missed, etc.) is going to lose in the long run. I know blocking is a skill, but I would probably think it’s smarter to include it in chance definitions only because I want to see who is gaining that valuable territory more often than not.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
If teams want to just let the Pens shoot away in the offensive zone and be content with staying put in the crease, I’ll take that any day of the week.
This is why the Habs don’t win that seven game series 9 times out of 10 or even less and why the Pens keep winning. One playoff loss and a small percentage of games throughout the season and you would think the sky was falling.
I don’t always agree with GoPens and the stat heads mainly because I don’t agree with “luck”. What they call luck I call anomalies, variations and exceptions that are due to occur. That said, he is dead right on this one (except for the unlucky business of course :) ).
Put on your dancin' shoes.
Cari said it all. Just because we’re possessing the puck, does not mean we’re beating the trap. I remember clearly that shift by the fourth line last night. Everybody was slobbering over how great it was, yet they got what, one quality scoring chance during the whole thing? That means the trap is working.
I repeat what I said in the previous thread. You can posses the puck all you want, but if you can’t score goals, or even get scoring chances for that matter, you’ll still need a quarter to buy a cup of jack squat.
The general idea is to dump the puck in, have the forwards race in and either beat the defenseman to the puck or to check them if they get it and hope you dislodge it.
As for beating all the guys parked in front of the goalie, that requires a winger plowing through to the front of the net and collecting rebounds. I think. I’m not an expert.
Incidentally, Philadelphia employed both of these against Montreal last playoffs, which is why they beat them in five games.
by SlayerGhaleon on Jan 9, 2011 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
Nah, the Pens are fine. The Pens system works well and it’s easier to execute than trying to install a neutral-zone trap (especially in the middle of a season).
by StripesForLife on Jan 9, 2011 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
Right, and the team used to trap back in the Kevin Constantine days. It was horrifying to watch and not all that effective to boot.
Not to mention the way the Pens are built right now, doesn’t exactly lend itself to being a team that would want to trap. The Pens have a high-octane offense and quitely frankly people would start complaining if we were only winning 2-1 or 3-2 games.
by StripesForLife on Jan 9, 2011 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
Look at the difference in MTL’s save percentage the first two rounds last year, and then versus Philadelphia. It’s more likely their luck just ran out.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Their luck ran out because had the right combination of players and scheme to dismantle the trap, whereas we and Washington did not.
by SlayerGhaleon on Jan 9, 2011 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t buy it. Pittsburgh last year was much better than Philadelphia. And assuming no luck, how could a 121 point team lose to a team that basically made the playoffs by a single goal? How could a 3.9 goals/gm offense suddenly turn into a 0.33 goals/gm offense over the final three games? The trap only applies to the neutral zone, and both the Capitals and Penguins had little trouble breaking it, as evidenced by the shot totals. Montreal couldn’t touch Pittsburgh last year…except in goal.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Just because we’re possessing the puck, does not mean we’re beating the trap.
Then what is the point of the trap?
You can posses the puck all you want, but if you can’t score goals, or even get scoring chances for that matter, you’ll still need a quarter to buy a cup of jack squat.
As I’ve mentioned time and again, and linked to in the five articles above, the best way to out score and out chance your opponent is to out shoot and out possess them. This means Corsi and Fenwick are great indications of whether this is happening. There are tons of articles that have displayed how teams that out shoot their opponents also out chance and out score them.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
To make it harder for teams to score. Seems to be working, doesn’t it?
I’m sure Corsi and Fenwick have their uses, but not here. This requires actually watching the game.
by SlayerGhaleon on Jan 9, 2011 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
To make it harder for teams to score. Seems to be working, doesn’t it?
How does it seem to be working? If the trap were so successful, why did only NJ and MIN use it the last five years? If the trap was a better strategy than out shooting, why haven’t more coaches adopted it? The Pens haven’t scored because they’ve been unlucky. If you take a simulation where a team gets 129 shots on goal over four games, and run that 10,000 times, they’ll only score three goals a fraction of the time. This is bad luck, not the trap working.
I’m sure Corsi and Fenwick have their uses, but not here. This requires actually watching the game.
Corsi and Fenwick are immensely valuable because they do an awesome job predicting long term success. To assume to that they’re different than watching the game is to misunderstand the point of statistics.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
A lot of coaches have adopted it post lockout. Team Canada did it in the gold medal game in the Olympics. Washington did it in the Winter Classic after Fehr’s second goal. Hell, the Pens do it when they have a lead in the third period. The best example of that is game seven against Detroit. It’s successful, and it’s widespread. There’s a reason that most teams who score the first goal win the game. The trap.
Stats are misleading.
by SlayerGhaleon on Jan 9, 2011 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
Citing those two examples doesn’t prove most teams have adopted the trap — the fact that you have to resort to an Olympic team is an indication that very few teams regularly use a trapping style. And that’s the point: very few NHL teams play a trap system. Playing it in the third when you’re up by 2, 3, or 4 goals doesn’t mean you’re a trapping team, but rather that you’re playing to the score. The fact that very few teams trap on a regular basis, using it as their system, is probably an indication that it’s not a key to long term success.
There’s a reason that most teams who score the first goal win the game. The trap.
This probably isn’t true, since it’s more likely those teams that score first are better. A look at the team records when scoring first shows that the majority of the top 12 or 13 teams are the very good teams, and the bottom ten teams are the bad ones.
If Corsi and Fenwick were misleading, they wouldn’t predict future success so well. The fact that they do means they’re not misleading.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
No, actually it doesn’t, since the three coaches of the Canada team were NHL coaches.
It doesn’t mean you’re a trapping team, but it does mean you’re using it. A whole lot of teams use the trap when up on the scoreboard, (which means they regularly use it) which was my whole point to begin with. To believe otherwise is to admit you’ve never watched post-lockout hockey, which considering your complete reliance on stats, is entirely possible.
Whatever.
by SlayerGhaleon on Jan 9, 2011 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
No, actually it doesn’t, since the three coaches of the Canada team were NHL coaches.
Mike Babcock might be the most famous coach in the league today for being the antagonist to the trap — he’s preached the puck possession game for some time now, and out shooting and out possessing the opposition doesn’t happen when you play the trap. Mike Babcock doesn’t play the trap in Detroit, and I had realized this earlier, I would have questioned your original premise to begin with that Team Canada even used it as a system, which I’m not sure they did. Before you come back and say they did, please provide some evidence that they other than anecdotes.
A whole lot of teams use the trap when up on the scoreboard, (which means they regularly use it) which was my whole point to begin with.
Playing to the score isn’t anything new, but the reason trapping occasionally once you’re up on the scoreboard is significant is because it so rarely happens otherwise. The two teams which really used the trap since the lockout have been the Wild and the Devils, and together they’ve been average at best. Who are some of the better teams since the lockout (lets say last 3-4 years)? Chicago, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Washington, Detroit, Vancouver. How many of these teams play a trapping system? None. Washington’s use of it the last three games isn’t enough to override 3-4 years of data.
I think it’s important at this point to go back to the original argument that started this. The Penguins have been out shooting and out possessing the opposition. We know that. And we know that’s the best way to win games in the long run (though luck can foil that plan for quite some time in the short run). So if the Penguins have been able to do that over these last four losses, then it doesn’t make sense to say they’ve been owned by the trap (which is exactly what you and others were saying after the loss to the Wild last night). If you plus these shooting numbers into a simulation and run it 10,000 times, the Penguins win more often than not.
which considering your complete reliance on stats, is entirely possible.
If I never watched hockey, why would I be on this blog? There’s really no reason for ad hominen’s here.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
As an outsider, I’d like to say that struggles with the trap or not, the Pens are the best team in the East. Period. The only team in the East that I could see trapping the Pens out of the playoffs is Philadelphia.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:32 AM EST up reply actions
he's right
Hey, if you’re gonna call us birds you might as well call us chickens.
The universe moves depending on where Sidney Crosby is on the ice - IHeartPenguins
Recently-converted Certified Grabbo lover. GET WELL SOON, SID
If I never watched hockey, why would I be on this blog? There’s really no reason for ad hominen’s here.
I agree with you here. But, it does seem at times that you can’t see the forest through the trees. Exceptions exist because all of the advanced metrics are based on league averages. I don’t want to get into a stat vs. scout debate here but one thing for everyone to keep in mind is that stats such as corsi must be viewed solely in the long term and when you do so, you see that GoPens is correct.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
I think all us stats people should put in our sigs “Just assume I haven’t seen anything to contradict the stats.”
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
Anti-stat people don’t understand that, like any other science, advanced sports statistics are simply our current best explanation of what we observe. It’s not immutable, as there will be better stats in the future, and the stats come from watching the game, not straight out of the ether.
by JustinM on Jan 10, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Whats funny is. I actually thought I was a stat whore until reading this post and its comments! I love math and science!
by Kelly Fisher on Jan 10, 2011 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
Exceptions exist because all of the advanced metrics are based on league averages.
What? This doesn’t make sense.
stats such as corsi must be viewed solely in the long term
First off, what is long term? Second, this still isn’t true. Corsi is still a great predictor of team success on a game by game basis (though it gets better once sample size issues disappear).
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I’m done with this. Have fun.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
by PensFan024 on Jan 10, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry for the grammar errors, let me know if you don’t understand anything
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Team Canada did it in the gold medal game in the Olympics
Only when ahead.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
Vic Ferrari put up a nice graph at Irreverent Oilers Fans about scoring chances% and Fenwick%…they pretty much correlate perfectly. Higher Fenwick% = Higher scoring chance%, pretty much without exception. At least, with score tied/close. If the Pens were trailing you’d expect their shooting% to go down a bit, but definitely not below 6% or so.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:30 AM EST up reply actions
http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2010/04/timeonicecom-script-notes-part-ii.html
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
The trap’s full name is “neutral-zone trap” for a reason. It doesn’t apply to the defensive zone at all. Every trapping team, once the puck crosses their own blue line and is in possession of the opposing team, falls into a standard defensive formation whether that’s some type of man-to-man or zone.
This is one point that’s been missed, it’s not just “trap”, it’s “neutral-zone trap” and is designed to take away the neutral zone with a 1-2-2 defensive system. Living in Detroit (huge Pens’ fan, though), I mundanely watched this during the Scotty Bowman years. If a team was able to get a puck into their zone, they were usually kept to the boards and had poor shooting lanes. But it was never designed to be a full rink defensive plan.
I think with the elimination of the two-line pass, this threw a little kink into the whole trap defensive play making it not as suffocating as it used to be, but it still can be rough to get through. But there’s so many factors involved in the outcome of a game, to pinpoint one thing for a team’s slump, no matter how long it lasts, can be a bit misleading.
the trap is just a bitch.
sidney crosby is better than me.
by katielynn906 on Jan 9, 2011 5:03 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is true, but the Penguins are beating it. They’re just getting unlucky :(
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
It might not be the trap that is jacking us up but it is something that we are doing in the O-zone. We play along the boards never attacking the slot. When we do have the puck behind the net no one is cutting to the net they are going out wide to the boards to receive the pass. Maybe teams are clogging up the slot but it just seems odd that we are along the boards for the majority of our possessions. I am semi new to hockey but I have not missed a penguins game in the past 2 years thanks to the center ice package. It seems like other teams are looking for someone in the high slot or cutting backside to the net, while we just continue to cycle along the boards. I understand that it wears down the defense but at some point we need to attack the higher scoring parts of the ice.
Is this the place where I make my annual rant about how, if the NHL is serious about attracting the casual fan, they need to outlaw the 1-4/left wing lock neutral zone defensive formations this offseason?
Before anyone says they can’t do that, if certain levels of basketball can outlaw zone defense, then the NHL can outlaw the trap.
by JustinM on Jan 9, 2011 7:19 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
It isn’t just the trap. Teams that employ the trap effectively prevent an offensive zone rush, forcing teams to dump the puck and work in the corners, which is something at which we excell. Trap teams stopping the offensive rush are also forcing us to take shots from the outside. This is the one area where I will say it: we miss Gonchar. No one is able to get shots on net through a crowd like he can (not saying I want him back, just that we miss that particular area of his game). Other than Sid, we don’t seem to have enough net presence for deflections and rebounds.
Le-Tang Clan: Ain't Nuthin To Puck With!
good introduction on the use of stats
It’s a baseball stat site, but it’s good for a laugh and does a great job laying out statistical analysis in layman’s terms. i think it would help a lot of people come to a better understanding of how stats are used.
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2005/04/glossary-of-terms.html
and here’s a link of stone cold steve austin driving a Zamboni:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAgZDZWwgRI
enjoy!
Off-topic
Is anyone else no longer having new comments show up as new? Anyone know how I can fix this?
.
Follow me on twitter, Picasa or at Pens Through My Lens.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jan 10, 2011 9:10 AM EST reply actions
yeah…support@sbn.com? The email is something like that.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:33 AM EST up reply actions
Although when I’m in a thread new comments show up.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 9:36 AM EST up reply actions
Same here.
.
Follow me on twitter, Picasa or at Pens Through My Lens.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jan 10, 2011 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
Works again for me.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Jan 10, 2011 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
Cool, working for me now too.
.
Follow me on twitter, Picasa or at Pens Through My Lens.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jan 10, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
On my laptop at home the new comments only show up in a slightly darker shade than the old ones for some reason. On both of my desktops the new comments show up yellow. I have no understanding of why this occurs but I have a very hard time seeing the new comments on my laptop when the room is bright.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
The main issue that I was having was that even on the home page I could only see that there were x number of comments for each post with no mention of how many were new, and then when I would open a thread the new comments were not highlighted at all, though the ones that were new since I opened the post would be highlighted. Apparently this was a fairly widespread problem. It is working again, at least for myself and RAL.
.
Follow me on twitter, Picasa or at Pens Through My Lens.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jan 10, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
- Worth every penny: LA Kings D Drew Doughty comes through with stellar playoff performances
- Coyotes finish off best season ever
- Doughty enjoying breakthrough playoff for LA Kings
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
