Why Can't Certain Islanders - Blake Comeau, Josh Bailey, & Rob Schremp - Score Goals?
There are several players on the Islanders who are on goal-scoring slumps lately. Some of these players have actually been pretty solid, but they simply have been unable to get on the scoresheet. What's going on here?
To figure out what's been the problem for these players, I took a look at BehindTheNet's shot distance and shooting % numbers for the Islanders this year, which can be found here. These numbers are only at even strength, which has been the real achilles heel for the Islanders this year.
| Player | Shooting % (Including Missed Shots) | Average Shot Distance | Shots on Goal | Missed Shots | Goals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schremp | 11.1% | 36.6 | 28 | 20 | 6 |
| Joensuu | 9.4% | 35.2 | 22 | 7 | 3 |
| Moulson | 9.0% | 28.4 | 77 | 34 | 11 |
| Grabner | 8.8% | 29.6 | 78 | 26 | 10 |
| Parenteau | 7.6% | 30.8 | 55 | 18 | 6 |
| Comeau | 6.9% | 32.7 | 87 | 34 | 9 |
| Bailey | 6.8% | 30.8 | 35 | 6 | 3 |
| Tavares | 5.7% | 25.1 | 100 | 33 | 8 |
| Nielsen | 2.4% | 31.2 | 57 | 23 | 2 |
Table 1: The basic shooting % numbers of Islanders forwards.
Legend:
Average Shot Distance: The average distance in feet of each shot taken by a player.
Two things to note here:
First, in general, the closer one takes a shot, the better chance that shot goes in. This should be fairly intuitive, really...the closer you are, the more likely you are to not miss and the less time a goalie has to block the shot. So Shot distance is fairly important (Sidney Crosby, for example, scores extremely frequently due to shooting really close to the net). Of course, there is skill involved in shooting itself, so simply getting closer to a goal won't necessarily result in a player being better than a guy who shoots from farther away. However, if a player is shooting really poorly from really close, we'd expect it to regress a bit so that that player's numbers improve.
Second, Shooting Percentage includes missed shots, but not blocked shots.
Anyhow, the table shows some fairly counterintuitive results: the most efficient Islanders' shooter is Rob Schremp?! John Taveres is second to last in shooting % of relevant Islanders? Well first, remember that this is NOT including power plays (or shorthanded situations) or 4 on 4 (overtime) situations, where Tavares has scored most of his goals this year. By converse, Schremp has only scored 1 of his 7 goals outside of 5 on 5 play, so he basically gets full credit for his goals in these numbers. Still, that doesn't explain it completely.
Another explanation is Tavares' low shooting percentage is that it's hidden due to the sheer amount of shots JT takes each game. Tavares has a total of 133 taken shots on 5 on 5 (2.9 shots per game). Schremp for comparison's sake has taken a total of 48 shots (1.4 shots per game) and is thus shooting half as often as Tavares.* This accounts for the difference in goals.
*Much of this is opportunity; while Tavares is on the Ice the Isles shot differential is +9.3/60 better than it is with him off the ice, while Schremp's his only 0.9 better than with him off the ice. Some of that is skill but most is simply how each player is used: Tavares gets on the ice for faceoffs in the offensive zone at the 2nd best rate on the team, while Schremp gets opportunities like that much less often, and this would account for about 7-8 shots of the difference.
Now it should be noted that it's been discovered that shooting % fluctuates wildly at times, due to random luck....a player may spend half a season, or even a whole season on a tear....caused purely by luck. Note that luck here is derived from the fact that whether a shot goes in depends not just upon the shooter, but also a goalie....players do have good or bad shooting %s often solely because weak shots do/don't go in, or really good shots get robbed/don't get robbed. Remember, goals are sparse in the league...if a player has just 5 weak shots go in due to bad goalies, his shooting % goes way up. So what ends up happening is that shooting %s regress to the mean for a particular player over a longer time...and if a player is frequently shooting from close distance and is not scoring, he'll eventually start getting goals. This needs to be remembered.
So lets look at these numbers more in depth for certain players:
So for John Tavares: He had a shooting % of 7.9% last year at even strength, with an average shot distance of 23.6 feet. Tavares is basically still shooting from really close this year, so we shouldn't have expected a change. In other words, Tavares' results should increase till his shooting % is closer to last year's number, meaning an increase in scoring wouldn't be surprising from him (Though he's getting a greater number of shots ON NET than last year). Moreover, the composition of his shots hasn't changed from last year: while most of his shots are wristers (though the number has slipped slightly), around a third of his shots appears not to be a wrister, snap shot or slap shots - i.e. a backhand (most likely), a deflection, or a wrap-around. In other words, a look at shooting % and the shot distance would suggest an increase in goals as the season progresses.
Blake Comeau: Comeau's shooting % is way down from last year where he was second on the team with a 10.9% shooting %. Comeau has increased his distance from the net on average by around a foot - 32.7 feet compared to 31.5 feet - but that shouldn't explain a 4% drop. However, unlike Tavares, there is a clear change in what types of shots he is taking. Last year, Comeau was shooting 29 slap shots (20 on net), 21 snap shots (15 on net), and 53 wristers (46 on net). This is a clear majority of wristers, that he shot from a close distance for an 11.7% shooting percentage. This year, Comeau has taken 41 slap shots (29 on net), 17 snap shots (12 on net), and 40 wristers (28 on net). As you can see, this year, Comeau has fallen in love with the slap shot - a shot that Comeau on average takes from close distance (45.1 feet) and on which he has a lower shooting percentage, just 6.8% (by contrast, Comeau's wrister accuracy has remained more or less steady). Comeau HAS scored on the slap shot....but it's not a high % shot, and really he might want to go back to the wrister and pass up the slap shot opportunities.
Josh Bailey: Josh Bailey last year had a pretty good 9.3% shooting percentage on 97 total shots from an average distance of 34.8 feet away from the net. This year, Bailey's shooting from 4 whole feet closer, and yet his shooting percentage has dropped 2.5% on 41 shots. This is not a big sample size for this year, so it's hard to really make a big conclusion about it. Still it looks like Bailey is shooting the same way as last year....a large majority of his shots are wristers. And it's here that's the problem....despite shooting his average wrister from 4.6 feet closer than last year, his shooting % on those shots is down from 12% to 8.3%. Odds are, this is a fluke (In Bailey's rookie season, the shooting % on his wristers (small sample size again) was 13%. So, we should expect Bailey to start scoring at a higher rate as he takes more shots as the season goes on.
Rob Schremp: Well, last year, Rob Schremp was absolutely dismal at scoring at even strength; while he had 7 goals, 5 of them came on the power play. The end result was a 2.7% shooting percentage on 71 shots, from an average shot distance of 36.3 feet away, which is actually pretty far away compared to other players especially when you consider that a majority of shots were wristers. Still, for a guy known for stickhandling, one would expect his shooting percentage to increase....and it did as we saw above..Schremp leads the team in shooting percentage. Unfortunately, this bounce back is TOO extreme for it to be real...in fact Schremp is shooting wristers from even farther away this year, but has scored 5 goals on 22 wristers (pretty nice). As we discussed above, Schremp doesn't shoot very often, and thus we have small sample sizes both years....which leads me to believe that the improvement in his shot ISN'T completely real...while Schremp should be a better shooter than last year, his real shooting percentage is probably closer to 2.7% than 11.1%.....if we combine the two seasons together, we get a shooting % of 6.8% over the last two seasons, which is not a bad estimate for what we can expect from Schremp going forward. In other words, Rob Schremp, who doesn't score enough for some fans' tastes, is likely to score less frequently going forward (and his current slump may be a manifestation of this regression).
Conclusion:
I could of course go further with this examination of players, but I think you get the point, and if you examine the the link above you can do so yourself (Once again, 2010-11 shooting data on 5 on 5 is HERE. Last Season's numbers are HERE.). The conclusions of this post were as follows:
Tavares should heat up and score more frequently. The same should be the case with Josh Bailey.
On the other hand, Blake Comeau's problems scoring will probably continue if he persists in loving the slap shot, while Rob Schremp's shot is going to cool off.
This doesn't bear good news for those who want more scoring from the line of Bailey-Schremp-Comeau. Perhaps the team can score more frequently by splitting up that line so that each member plays with at least one good goal scorer? (Putting Comeau with Tavares and Parenteau for example and Moulson with Bailey and Schremp, leaving Grabner (the third goal score)r with Nielsen and another forward). This would ensure balanced lines, at least.
Submitted FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog or SB Nation. If you're reading this statement, you pass the fine print legalese test. Four stars for you.
35 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Finally somebody did it!
Great work Garik! I had one question though. Is there (and I haven’t been able to look into the link yet, so forgive me if it’s there) individual shot distances for the goals the players have scored, or is everything just jumbled into the shot distance average? My point being that I’m guessing that while RSH has a higher mean shot distance this year, I’m assuming the goals were probably scored on the closer shots. In this case (and probably for the rest) it definitely would indicate that they are all playing very perimeter-ish hockey. Visually, we noticed that Bailey in particular wassciring some very handsy goals early on from in tight as well. I think these guys may need a new linemate that gets to the net and opens up the perimeter so they can get a bit closer for shots(especially since it’s apparent they are all not willing to get down there themselves and have a tendency toward orbits).
Also, you had mentioned that shot prevention is the best way to prevent goals, do these guys (relative to the rest of the team or NHL) have a higher rate of blocked shots? Also, it is obvious that they really don’t take enough. Do you have any thoughts on the Justin Biurne theory that “shoot from anywhere” is overrated? His argument is that often a bad shot is worse than zone control and the safe play, and that players should still work for a quality shot over quantity of shots.
"Gervais...he looks danger in the fist with his face!" JPinVA
by Keith Quinn on Jan 31, 2011 8:59 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I don't have individual numbers (theoetically you could look those up by going to pbp of each game).
However, BTN shows the amount of goals on each of the 3 major shot types (Wrister, Snap Shot, Slap Shot), and how far the average distance is for each of those types, which can give you an approximate.
“Do you have any thoughts on the Justin Bourne (sp) theory that "shoot from anywhere" is overrated? His argument is that often a bad shot is worse than zone control and the safe play, and that players should still work for a quality shot over quantity of shots.”
On an individual level, this can be true…..this is why shot distance matters….we want our players to shoot from closer to the net. Moreover, a low quality shot often results in a clear and an opposition shot on goal (instead of a rebound), resulting in a failure to prevent shots on your own nets.
On a team level, teams have not been shown to be forcing shooters of opponent’s to be shooting from less quality locations, and teams in general have not been able to sustain a greater quality of shot quality in any real sense….(this is an odd concept that’s hard to understand)….so a team experiencing a rise in shooting % is likely the result of randomness rather than improving shot quality.
Sooo long-story short: Yes, Good Quality Shots > Lower Quality shots, but if you can take multiple lower quality shots and thus increase your shot differential, this is likely to be better over a long run than trying to shoot “better shots” but suffering in shot differential because of it.
do these guys (relative to the rest of the team or NHL) have a higher rate of blocked shots?
Matt Moulson is the only Islander forward with a decent number of blocked shots – you can find that here: http://www.behindthenet.ca/2010/5_on_5_blocks.php?sort=10&mingp=20&mintoi=10&team=ALL&pos=F . Not significant though really for forwards.
Nice, Thanks!
Matt Moulson is the only Islander forward with a decent number of blocked shots
I worded this poorly, I meant getting their shots blocked. Not them blocking shots.
"Gervais...he looks danger in the fist with his face!" JPinVA
by Keith Quinn on Jan 31, 2011 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
In essence, while there's skill in blocking shots, there's very little repeatable skill in avoiding having your shot blocked, it's all variation.
Moulson and Comeau get a lot of shots blocked…but they take a lot of shots. Blocked shots aren’t included in the analysis above.
The elusive holy grail
Sooo long-story short: Yes, Good Quality Shots > Lower Quality shots, but if you can take multiple lower quality shots and thus increase your shot differential, this is likely to be better over a long run than trying to shoot "better shots" but suffering in shot differential because of it.
I’ve really enjoyed the work that’s gone into showing this, and Gabe’s observations at BtN.
I suspect one reason it’s counterintuitive to our “But I saw them do it better” instincts is due to luck and short-term tactical adjustments. I think the instinct is to picture this magical Soviet team that controls the puck with impunity and shoots only when the gaping net awaits. Whereas 1) That’s just not happening in the NHL and 2) it might not even be the right strategy even if it could happen (I’m reminded of frustration with Russians NOT shooting, of Kovalev needing to beat the same guy three times). In the long run, if you are good, you will control the play more, and thus get more shots, and thus (probably) get more high-quality shots by volume (not percentage) — not because your team has discovered the magical formula to make more of your shots of higher quality.
HOWEVER, every team has certain tendencies and coverage habits that are exploitable — particularly average teams who must adjust to address one weakness only by creating another. It’s easier to see this within a playoff series, but even within a seasonlong series teams will adjust their approach to a repeat opponent, and if execution and luck prevail, they’ll get a few more juicy chances, more goals and a win out of the effort. And even if those aren’t the reasons for turning a loss last meeting into a win in the rematch, the temptation to believe such, from player to coach to fan, i sstrong.
So when we see that, I wonder if we tend to think, “See! They really focused on getting better chances from Area X and attacking D-pair Z and look what it did!” And that might even be true — for a game or two. But in reality teams are constantly adjusting to one another’s weaknesses. Reese and Gervais eventually get broken up. A team that’s sending a cheater behind you gets noticed, and the advantage stops. Little things can make a difference game to game (again, providing luck is also on your side), but in the long run you are who you are. Just like Dennis Green told you.
And then you have luck and special teams, which screw everything up.
Lighthouse Hockey: "Are you fist-f#$%ing me?!" --P.A. Parenteau
by Dominik on Jan 31, 2011 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
too many shots go wide
as I watch the games I am amazed at how many of the Islanders shoot wide. many times taking them right back out of the offensive zone. even on the PP
we need to getthem on net. just a plain simple fact
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
Mind supporting this assertion?
Note the missed shots counted above (Note, I’m ignoring Defenseman, so this could be true for them). The only player who has a bad ratio of shots on goal to missed shots is Rob Schremp…and he’s shooting the best overall even if you factor missed shots.
As it is, I think in Sunny Mehta’s piece on blocked shots, he observed that the variance of missed shots at a team level was smaller than what one would get from a binomial distribution (that is to say, the frequency of missed shots relative to shots on goal may as well be luck, at a team level at least).
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 Feb 1, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
Team Level indeed
This post is entirely on the individual level above.
(IIRC, Mehta only found a team level skill at blocking opponent’s shots).
D is shooting too far out
They really aren’t getting any goals. AMac’s goal was when he finally moved in some. When Jurcina had his two goal game both came closer to the net. The average shot distance for the D must be horrendous. They never come close enough to get a good shot on net. I like AMac but how many times a game do I have to hear ‘shot wide by MacDonald’.
You mean to tell me shooting the puck from 70 feet out doesn't earn us extra goals?
In general, though, that's the role you need the D to fill
Nobody will ever turn it down when it happens, but it’s not realistic to expect a defender to approach 10% shooting on a consistent basis. Their job offensively is more to distribute, to get shots low and hard to the net for rebound opportunities, and to prevent the defense from collapsing on the forwards, thus increasing their room to get off higher-quality shots. Especially in a lower-scoring environment, it’s not worth the risk for your less-skilled shooters to constantly press, trying to get close enough for a “quality shot.” They’ll give up far more dangerous chances to far more dangerous shooters coming back the other way. It has to be a tactic used with discretion.
Where I agree, however, is the mantra HIT THE NET. But here, I’d be interested to see if there’s an overall difference in blocking shots from the point vs. from forwards down low. Intuitively I’d guess that it’s easier to block the point shots because they have to pass through more sticks and legs, you have more time to react, and it’s just generally harder to be accurate: you’re talking about fifty feet instead of thirty, and with a less-accurate slapper. This would have to lower the percentage of point shots that find the target vs. just missing… but I don’t know if the numbers will bear out the theory.
making you Google since 2004
Lighthouse Hockey - a beacon of greatness on the rocky coast of sports blog mediocrity
Great job combing over these numbers
My take on these numbers
:
Moulson is were I expect him to be, scoring from tight in and covering the low slot area. His shot total is pretty high considering that he is playing with Tavares and is looked at as the secondary option. I think the high number of attempts has to do with him just jamming away at it.
Schremp is more accurate because he chooses his situation more carefully and only firing when he has a higher probablity of scoring. He has the skill to snipe, but needs to put himself in the right situation more to do it. The distance would have been further amplified by him playing the point on the PPif it were part of the numbers. I could be snarky and say it was because he heads away from traffic where he has much more room to release his big wind-up.
Tavares throws pucks at the net in bunches, but multiple rebounds down low before the puck goes in could lead to a much lower shooting percentage, but more goals. His high number of shots on goal means he is getting in better position to put the puck on net as well. Most goal scorers shoot alot because they are in the right position to do so.
Bailey isn’t even trying to shoot the puck. It confirms what many of us have suspected, if it isn’t guaranteed to hit the net, he isn’t shooting. When he is shooting he isn’t trying to score, but hit the net. He’s too conservative with the puck.
PAP is better than I expected. He is the designated puck carrier so his shots are from further out which makes sense since otherwise he is dishing to Tavares and Moulson lower in the zone. I like his low number of missed shots since it means when he is shooting he is getting it to the net, which is especially important when you are the high forward in the zone.
Sarcasm is my permanent font.
Thoughts on your take:
Bailey isn’t even trying to shoot the puck. It confirms what many of us have suspected, if it isn’t guaranteed to hit the net, he isn’t shooting. When he is shooting he isn’t trying to score, but hit the net. He’s too conservative with the puck.
This is not really a conclusion you can draw from the data…Josh Bailey is being used such that he sees the 3rd least amount of offensive zone faceoffs as any other forward on the team, with him only ahead of Frans Nielsen and Konopka. That leads in part to less shots.
Moreover, the lack of missed shots doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not trying to score! In fact that’s just silly. It could be a number of things: such as improved accuracy from much closer locations or pure random luck of a small sample size.
You’re taking the bit about Bailey above and fitting it to fit your thoughts on Bailey, rather than considering all the possibilities. Given that Bailey hasn’t changed his shot distribution, but has simply got closer to the net, it’s more likely that he’s still doing what he did last year (when he put almost a 100 shots out there, so it’s not like he was afraid to shoot) when he was a better scorer.
Schremp is more accurate because he chooses his situation more carefully and only firing when he has a higher probablity of scoring.
Actually, I’d think that this ISN’T supported by the data….Schremp is missing the net at high frequency, more often than any other player. He didn’t do that last year. What this would suggest is that Schremp is aiming for the home run with shots….aiming at the corners and other parts of the net most likely to produce a goal…but are more difficult to hit, instead of say…aiming five hole, where one would expect to be highly accurate at getting hte puck on net.
This wouldn’t necessarily be a situation where you have a higher probability of scoring….it’s all or nothing,, and Schremp is taking these shots from not really close distance. Thus I wouldn’t say he’s only shooting when he has a higher probability of scoring…rather he’s trying to hit high percentage areas of the goal that are harder to hit.
In the case of Bailey, it’s not that he isn’t trying to score, of course not, but he seems to be making only the safest of plays with the puck even when putting it on net. I think his shooting closer and lowered shooting % is further evidence that he isn’t looking to pick corners, but just to get it on net. I understand that since he is shooting from closer in he will be hitting the net more often, but his shooting % should rise accordingly.
On the Schremp take I like your analysis far better than my own. I think your homerun shot analogy better describes what he is doing. All or nothing. As I was putting my thoughts together, I kept wondering why I felt at times like he was shooting a bit like Hunter and missing the net, yet his shooting percentage is so high. I didn’t take into account his number of missed shots. So he has the exact opposite problem as Bailey – Schremp is trying to be too precise. Higher probabilty was used in the wrong context, it should have been as you stated, higher probability of going in, if he hits his target, but a harder target to hit.
Sarcasm is my permanent font.
Additional Numbers I found last week and had posted in the Carolina recap
Comeau,Bailey, Schremp…complied from Dobber hockey based on even strength ice time. First line-total points and %of points with linemate, 2nd line-total ice time % with linemate.
Proabably should be a fanpost or something:
Comeau
EV COMEAU,BLAKE – SCHREMP,ROB – SIM,JONATHAN 6pts 20.69%
14.6% EV57 COMEAU,BLAKE – 44 SCHREMP,ROB – 16 SIM,JONATHAN
EV BAILEY,JOSH – COMEAU,BLAKE – SCHREMP,ROB 3pts 10.34%
13.38% EV12 BAILEY,JOSH – 57 COMEAU,BLAKE – 44 SCHREMP,ROB
Bailey
EV BAILEY,JOSH – GRABNER,MICHAEL – NIELSEN,FRANS 2pts 13.33%
11.53%EV12 BAILEY,JOSH – 40 GRABNER,MICHAEL – 51 NIELSEN,FRANS
EV BAILEY,JOSH – COMEAU,BLAKE – SCHREMP,ROB 2pts 13.33%
17.81%EV12 BAILEY,JOSH – 57 COMEAU,BLAKE – 44 SCHREMP,ROB
Schremp
EV COMEAU,BLAKE – SCHREMP,ROB – SIM,JONATHAN 6pts 31.58%
25.28%EV57 COMEAU,BLAKE – 44 SCHREMP,ROB – 16 SIM,JONATHAN
EV BAILEY,JOSH – COMEAU,BLAKE – SCHREMP,ROB 2pts 10.53%
23.17%EV12 BAILEY,JOSH – 57 COMEAU,BLAKE – 44 SCHREMP,ROB
"Gervais...he looks danger in the fist with his face!" JPinVA
Rewrite
Comeau with Schremp and Sim is 14.57% of his even strength shift time, in which he has 6 pts which is 20.69% of his total production.
BC with Schremp and Bailey is 13.38% of his even strength shift time in which he has 3 pts for 10.34% of his total production.
Bailey with Grabner and Nielsen is 11.53% of his even strength shift time in which he has 2 pts for 13.33% of his total production.
Bailey with Schremp and Comeau is 17.81% of his even strength shift time in which he has 2 pts for 13.33% of his total production.
Schremp with BC and Sim is 25.28% of his even strength shift time in which he has 6 pts for 31.58% of his total production.
Scremp with BC and JB is 23.17% of his even strength shift time in which he has 2 pts 10.53% of his total production
"Gervais...he looks danger in the fist with his face!" JPinVA
Interesting, but it's hard to tell much, even if two of the players have had more points with Sim.
Sim was absolutely terrible this year….Just ugh.
My thoughts on that were
that it may be a chemistry “/player type” issue. Sim during his time on that line showed a willingness to get into the corners and stand out front and get a beating (remember how many goalie interference penalties he took?). I speculate this helped to get BC and RSH the puck while doing less dirty work, provided screens, and generally gave them more room to roam and allowed them to get closer to the net because D was collapsing to Sim. (Of course, I have no solid evidence, but I do remember seeing it at the time). I just found it interesting that RSH and BC #‘s double or triple away from JB in very similar ice time samples, and JB’s are roughly the same for everyone. (His and RSH’s samples of ice time are smaller though due to missed games). My biggest thought on the whole matter is that these are just not complimentary players…they all have roughly the same strengths and weaknesses on offense…and there is not a pure finisher on the line (not that they’re easy to come by.)
"Gervais...he looks danger in the fist with his face!" JPinVA
Well put, and good conclusions.
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.
Was thinking that myself
Still not a big sample or anything, and it seemed like Sim ran out of gas quickly, but those few games when that combo was producing, it looked like Sim was doing the plumbing and the other two were doing the painting. One of those cases where keep it simple stupid works.
In the current combo, it looks like there are too many painters, no one is clear on his role, and of course no one wants to deal with the messy job of unclogging the stack pipe.
Lighthouse Hockey: "Are you fist-f#$%ing me?!" --P.A. Parenteau
Think injecting Martin on that line might spark something? Martin is essentially a better skating sim.
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.
lmao, stop what? I'm serious. Martin was never really given a long look in a 3rd line role and is really young.
Plus, if it worked with sim, it’s at least worth a try with martin. You really seem to have some pure hate for this kid.
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.
I have no hate for a kid. I'm rational.
I can see that he’s been terrible at getting shots on net, playing D, and hell even putting shots in (5.4% shot %, would put him below all top 3 forwards but Nielsen).
Look at the linemates. I'm not saying martin deserves a chance immediately, but he should be tested at some point this or next season with top 9 caliber forwards for a handful of games to see what the kid's actually got in the tank.
Would you really expect bailey to be getting any shots on net and scoring with konopka on his line?
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.
lol, so wrong.
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.
I hope you mean "so wrong" in the "wrong to point out the truth" sense
Because look at Bailey’s production.
I mean wrong as in funny but over the top a bit.
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.
Once and for all - MARTIN SUCKS!!!
Jeez. What is it that you don’t understand? He will just drag the 3rd line down. He’ll make them worse, they’ll make him look a little less bad but overall it will just drag down the 3rd line. Plus he is 2nd worst player on the roster so you want him to get the 2nd least amount of minutes. Really he should be in BPT and getting no minutes at all but that’s another matter.
Once again, let's be fair: Martin sucks NOW
Martin MIGHT be a fine player in the future. Lets not slam him TOO hard.
Exactly. Thank you.
The Isles future looks brighter then most would think with these young core guys in place:
Tavares, Okposo, Bailey, Nielsen, Niederreiter, Grabner, Moulson, MacDonald, Hamonic, and DeHaan.

by 










































