Leafs trade for Dave Bolland

[ZBBM]

I don't get the Bozak is a pussy sentiment.  Nobody will mistake him for a banger but I didn't see him shy away from contact either.

Having said that I do think Bolland is an immediate upgrade, just because he's shown he can excel in the clutch.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I didn't realize Bolland's been below 50% on the draw in every season he's played. I just figured he would have been better than that.

Yeah, that's one of the negatives with Bolland - he doesn't improve our faceoff situation.

Vinny seems to be a 50+ % guy most years.
Weiss is a 50+ % guy.
Ribiero is a 45- % guy.
Roy is up and down between 45 and 50 %.

Weiss or Vinny look like the best faceoff options beyond Bozak.

Weiss is among one of the top faceoff specialists in the league.

 

[GoBuds]

I agree with leafplasma's comment and
am confused as to all these comparisons of Bolland to Bozak.

Bolland seems to be more of a replacement to a Komarav. While he is a center, I don't see him here to be our faceoff specialist or on the #1 line. He is a 2nd line center at best, more likely 3rd line center.

I have to believe the Nonis expects to move some players or sign someone that will fill our #1 role.

He is a solid pickup when you consider what he did in the playoffs in previous years, bringing what Marchand does for Boston or what Shaw brought Chicago this year.

 

[drummond]

To replace Komarov hits would be near impossible as well as his agitating-without-taking-penalties ability. All that said I believe the Leafs are pesky enough, what worries me is horrific faceoffs winning percentage.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

To replace Komarov hits would be near impossible as well as his agitating-without-taking-penalties ability. All that said I believe the Leafs are pesky enough, what worries me is horrific faceoffs winning percentage.

Maybe they could hire Tyler Bozak to teach face-offs, I heard he's available...

 

[princedpw]

To replace Komarov hits would be near impossible as well as his agitating-without-taking-penalties ability. All that said I believe the Leafs are pesky enough, what worries me is horrific faceoffs winning percentage.

Maybe they could hire Tyler Bozak to teach face-offs, I heard he's available...

I think people are over-emphasizing the importance of faceoffs.  the difference between the 4th best and 24th best team faceoff percentage was 3.8%. 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20132ALLSAAALL&sort=faceOffWinPercentage&viewName=summary

If there are 50 faceoffs in a game (perhaps there are a few more), that's a difference of 2 faceoffs won or lost on average in a game.  That means there are 48 other faceoffs where the result is the same.

Faceoff percentage makes a small difference over the long haul.

The leafs were completely average at 50% last year.  If they shift down 1-2%, losing an extra faceoff or 2 each game but improve their 5-on-5 play, they will do fine.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think people are over-emphasizing the importance of faceoffs.  the difference between the 4th best and 24th best team faceoff percentage was 3.8%. 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20132ALLSAAALL&sort=faceOffWinPercentage&viewName=summary

If there are 50 faceoffs in a game (perhaps there are a few more), that's a difference of 2 faceoffs won or lost on average in a game.  That means there are 48 other faceoffs where the result is the same.

Faceoff percentage makes a small difference over the long haul.

The leafs were completely average at 50% last year.  If they shift down 1-2%, losing an extra faceoff or 2 each game but improve their 5-on-5 play, they will do fine.

We'll have to disagree there, I think puck possession is extremely important in the offensive and the defensive zones. It could be the difference between clearing a puck in the dying minutes, or keeping the offensive zone and tying the game late.

 

[bustaheims]

I think people are over-emphasizing the importance of faceoffs.  the difference between the 4th best and 24th best team faceoff percentage was 3.8%. 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20132ALLSAAALL&sort=faceOffWinPercentage&viewName=summary

If there are 50 faceoffs in a game (perhaps there are a few more), that's a difference of 2 faceoffs won or lost on average in a game.  That means there are 48 other faceoffs where the result is the same.

Faceoff percentage makes a small difference over the long haul.

The leafs were completely average at 50% last year.  If they shift down 1-2%, losing an extra faceoff or 2 each game but improve their 5-on-5 play, they will do fine.

I disagree. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that 7 of the last 10 Cup finalists, and 4 of the last 5 Cup winners were in the top 10 in faceoffs during the regular season.

 

[ZBBM]

I'm basically with BWB and busta on this.  I'd just add that the overall faceoff percentages are less important than the offensive- and defensive-zone percentages, although the difference probably isn't that much.

Whatever you may think of Bozak, that element of his game is something that needs to be replaced.  I trust Kadri is practicing it right this very minute.

 

[Nik]

I disagree. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that 7 of the last 10 Cup finalists, and 4 of the last 5 Cup winners were in the top 10 in faceoffs during the regular season.

It's also worth mentioning, I think, that the one cup winner who wasn't, Chicago this year, had in Toews maybe the single best face-off guy in the league despite their overall low team percentage so they had a great option for those late game defensive zone face-offs even if they were a toss-up for the relatively unimportant ones. The 99-00 Devils, which are the last team to win a Cup with a team face-off percentage under 50%, also had a guy in Holik who was one of the absolute best in the league for the important draws.

 

[bustaheims]

It's also worth mentioning, I think, that the one cup winner who wasn't, Chicago this year, had in Toews maybe the single best face-off guy in the league despite their overall low team percentage so they had a great option for those late game defensive zone face-offs even if they were a toss-up for the relatively unimportant ones. The 99-00 Devils, which are the last team to win a Cup with a team face-off percentage under 50%, also had a guy in Holik who was one of the absolute best in the league for the important draws.

Chicago was tied for 10th this year (the difference between them and Detroit is so small that I consider it to be irrelevant). The team that wasn't was the Penguins in 2009 - but, they were an offensive juggernaut that could overcome not having puck possession much more easily that other teams. That Pittsburgh team was also the last team to win the Cup despite winning less than 50% of their faceoffs in the regular season.

 

[Nik]

Chicago was tied for 10th this year (the difference between them and Detroit is so small that I consider it to be irrelevant). The team that wasn't was the Penguins in 2009 - but, they were an offensive juggernaut that could overcome not having puck possession much more easily that other teams.

Well, alright. Even then though the Pens had Sid Crosby who's very good on the draw. Point stands, I think, that while you can have a so-so percentage team wise, although you're definitely right that there seems to be a trend with successful teams having a good face-off percentage, you should have options among your top centers to win a draw.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, alright. Even then though the Pens had Sid Crosby who's very good on the draw. Point stands, I think, that while you can have a so-so percentage team wise, although you're definitely right that there seems to be a trend with successful teams having a good face-off percentage, you should have options among your top centers to win a draw.

Absolutely. In general, good teams win more faceoffs. It's not an absolute, obviously, and you don't have to be the best in the league at it, but, you generally have to be better than most and have at least one or two guys that are among the best in the league that you can trust to win the really important ones.

 

[David Brent]

Good afternoon chaps.

Is there anything to suggest Kadri could improve at faceoffs or that Colborne could develop this?

Unlike most of your good selves I have never played hockey so not sure how easy a skill it is to learn or improve at.

 

[Nik]

Good afternoon chaps.

Is there anything to suggest Kadri could improve at faceoffs or that Colborne could develop this?

Unlike most of your good selves I have never played hockey so not sure how easy a skill it is to learn or improve at.

It's a skill like any other. There are guys who come into the league and aren't great at it and get better but there are guys who don't. There's no way to tell, I don't think, where a guy goes in that regard.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

A little dated (2005) but I think it raises some good points about faceoffs and their importance to winning (or lack thereof): http://puckstopshere.blogspot.ca/2005/12/faceoffs_08.html

 

[David Brent]

Good afternoon chaps.

Is there anything to suggest Kadri could improve at faceoffs or that Colborne could develop this?

Unlike most of your good selves I have never played hockey so not sure how easy a skill it is to learn or improve at.

It's a skill like any other. There are guys who come into the league and aren't great at it and get better but there are guys who don't. There's no way to tell, I don't think, where a guy goes in that regard.

Ok. I suspected as much.

 

[princedpw]

re: faceoffs -- good points made all around.  I'm not convinced but I can see your perspective.  It would be interesting to see how much of a connection between winning and faceoff percentage there is.

 

[princedpw]

A little dated (2005) but I think it raises some good points about faceoffs and their importance to winning (or lack thereof): http://puckstopshere.blogspot.ca/2005/12/faceoffs_08.html

This post does seem to reflect some of what I've heard elsewhere:  It's not that winning faceoffs isn't important, it's just that there isn't quite enough of a difference in faceoff percentages to make a big difference in the bottom line (team wins).  Having said that, I know there is some difference and it matters to some degree.  It's just a question of "how much" and how you way that against other things.

 

[Nik]

A little dated (2005) but I think it raises some good points about faceoffs and their importance to winning (or lack thereof): http://puckstopshere.blogspot.ca/2005/12/faceoffs_08.html

I think, though, that there's a pretty glaring problem with that analysis that misses a pretty obvious point. That argument holds that winning face-offs has a pretty small impact on winning because everyone is close to 50% and the differences don't reflect a lot of possessions.

The problem, though, is that it ignores that one of the reasons that there isn't a wild swing between teams at the top is because teams care about face-off percentage and will make roster decisions on the basis of not being too weak in the area.