The Hockey PDOcast - Episode 388: Making Necessary Adjustments

Episode Date: March 17, 2021

Jack Han joins the show to discuss adjustments the Leafs are trying to make this season to finally get over the hump, getting the most out of your players with your team's tactics,  how to use video and analytics together to paint a more complete picture, and a variety of other topics. Other things we talk about in this episode include: Changes Leafs have been trying to implement Neutral zone schemes to get in control of the game Pace, defending leads, tightening screws when needed Actively seeking out higher quality shot attempts Coaches making things easy on their players Tampa Bay's creativity in the offensive zone What makes the Islanders so effective Darryl Sutter's instant impact on the Flames How dump and chase can be effective in 2021 Why forechecking can be so difficult, yet so simple Importance of pre-scouting opponents this season A team's in-house metrics vs. public ones Jets defensive numbers, how much is avoidable How to get the most out of video and analytics If you'd like to get a copy of Jack's new book about the history of hockey and how tactics from the past inform today's game, you can do so here.If you'd like to sign up for Elite Prospects Rinkside and get access to all of the premium articles, you can get two free months off your annual subscription with the promo code 'ILOVEEP'.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Are you ready for the most ridiculous internet sports show you have ever seen? Welcome to React, home of the most outrageous and hilarious videos the web has to offer. So join me, Rocky Theos, and my co-host, Raiders Pro Bowl Defensive Inn, Max Crosby, as we invite your favorite athlete, celebrities, influencers, entertainers in for an episode of games, laughs, and, of course, the funniest reactions to the wildest web clips out there. Catch React on YouTube, and that is React, R-E-A-X-X. Don't miss it. This podcast episode is brought to you by Coors Light.

These days, everything is go, go, go. It's non-stop hustle all the time. Work, friends, family. Expect you to be on 24-7? Well, sometimes you just need to reach for a Coors Light because it's made to chill. Coors Light is cold-loggered, cold-filtered, and cold-packaged. It's as crisp and refreshing as the Colorado Rockies. It is literally made to chill.

Coors Light is the one I choose when I need to unwind. So when you want to hit reset, reach for the beer that's made to chill. Get Coors Light and the new look delivered straight to your door with Drizzly or Instacart. Celebrate responsibly. Coors Brewing Company, Golden Colorado. Progressing to the mean since 2015, it's the HockeyPedioCast. With your host, Dimitri Filz. Welcome to the HockeyPedioCast.

My name is Dimitra Filipovich. and joining me is my good buddy, Jack Han. Jack, what's going on, man? Dimitri, it's a wonderful day for hockey. It's, I mean, every day is a wonderful day for hockey, but having you on the PDO cast is especially wonderful, I feel like. We've got a great combo. People can't see it since we don't really run the video for this podcast,

but the combination of your hair and my beard, it makes for a mean, mean, combination, a mean package of flow. Yeah, like if we can find like those Dragon Ball Z like earrings and we'll fuse together and give Brent Burns a run for his money, I feel like. Maybe not there yet. All right, so here's the plan for today's show. We're going to tee it up so listeners know what to expect.

We're going to change it up a bit from the usual because usually I just pick one subject with my guest and we deep dive it for an hour. I thought today you and I could have a bit of a bigger picture conversation about sort of game theory, playing strategies, you know, kind of tapping into some of your expertise or some of your work in terms of blending video and data together. And so we're pretty much just going to press record on a conversation you and I might regularly have off the podcast and just record it and put it on the PDF guest feed. And hopefully listeners enjoy it. Considering the feedback I've gone and I've had you on the show, I imagine they will. But yeah, it's going

to be a bit different just because we're going to bounce around and talk about a variety of subjects. So I'm looking forward to it. Do you want to start with the least? Well, it's obviously a very popular topic with whoever talks to me because obviously I spent three years at Leaves organization most recently as an assistant coach with the Marleys. And I still watch as many Leaves games as I can really. And it's been really exciting to see them maturing as a team and really implementing their style of play. and, you know, they're a bit, they're on a bit of a cold streak right now, but I think this team is really, is really promising. Yeah, it's not the most ideal time to be putting out this conversation

because we initially started planning this right after their series against the Oilers where they completely shut them out. And we were going to talk about the defensive adjustments they've made and how they're a different team this year. And then now by the time we got to finally recording and by the time people listen, they're going through their toughest stretch of the season where they've lost five of six, and especially in their most recent game, I thought, got back to some of the unfortunate tendencies they displayed in the past.

But I think the reason why I wanted to do this conversation with you beyond just the fact that you're familiar with them is I do think they're at a really interesting spot this year. They're 19, 9 and 2. They're leading the North Division, even though they have these recent struggles. They have a plus 23 goal differential. But you know, you wouldn't know it based on the day-to-day coverage. and national referendum that seems to happen after each one of their games. But they're at this weird point organizationally where I do think that ultimately what they

do this regular season beyond somehow completely flaming out, which they obviously won in this North Division and missing the playoffs. I don't think it really matters, right? Like with this team, they could win every single game. And I think they're reaching that sort of Washington Capitals before they finally won the Cup or Tampa Bay Lightning before last year where it's like, all right, well, let's have this conversation again after the postseason because we've gone on. four years an hour or so of them winning a bunch of games, but having nothing to really show for it.

And trust me, like, I completely get how dumb the incentive structure is in NHL, where you can play 82 awesome games. And then you have four to seven unfortunate ones in your season was deemed a failure. But that's where we are. And it feels like with this team, that's certainly where we are. Do you think that's fair to say? Yeah. And I remember when I was back in Toronto, like, I was chatting with Caldubus about something. I don't remember quite what, but, but I, I said, you know, I think as a team, we got to be strong spiritually. And what I mean is, you know, like I'm a very left brain, like rational data-oriented person and so is Kyle.

But I think somewhere in there, it's like, you know, you don't know when your time is coming. All you can do is, you know, get this team as good as possible and, you know, keep the window open and then just, you know, believe and and have faith that something good is going to happen. Like if you look through history, which is actually what I've been doing for the past. few months there. Like one team that really I found interesting was in New York Islanders because there were an expansion franchise in the early 70s. They were terrible for the first few years. They drafted extremely well, which is, you know, they just took the best player available.

So they ended up getting, you know, Denny Podvan, Brian Trotty, Mike Bossy, Stefan Pearson, all those guys. But then, you know, before they go all the way in 1980, you know, they get upset by the Rangers who were kind of on their way down in 1979. So then, you know, its expansion franchise didn't have a ton of pressure, but you can see how, you know, before great teams rise, there's often at least one setback. And I think, you know, understanding history and understanding how great teams made it in the past gives you more faith that, you know, you could be next.

It does. I'm always fascinated how those teams navigate those bumps in the road, though, right? like because we've seen plenty of examples over history of very, especially skilled teams, right? Like high octane offensive teams that were perceived to have defensive deficiencies. They lose early in the postseason after scoring a ton of goals and setting all sorts of, you know, records in the regular season and having all these highlight real plays.

And then it's deemed that their style of play can't get it done when the postseason comes and when maybe the games tighten up or the competition improves a little. And sometimes those teams completely lose their way. in the sense that they go away from what made them special in the first place and what made them effective. And they try to sort of either like to diversify their portfolio or sort of change the way they play. And usually it backfires because you're going away from what made you good in the first place. And that's not a good strategy. If anything, you want to do what you do well and then do it even better.

And Lightning last year were a great example of a team that, you know, they made some changes. I thought it was overblower and how gritty they got. Like I think guys like, you know, Barkley Goodroll and Blake Coleman, certainly are gritty to an extent, but they're also just good hockey players who you can play in pretty much any situation. And so they were kind of this flawless team, certainly added some pieces on the margins, but it would have been very easy for them to completely blow it up the summer prior after getting swept by the blue jackets. And instead, they stuck with their core. And with this leaves team, I thought it was very telling how they approach this off season, right? Like some of the,

some of the moves were no-brainers in the sense that it's like, yeah, a local guy wants to come play for your team at a veteran minimum or a bargain. Like, yeah, we're going to bring in Wayne Simmons and Joe Thornton, of course, bring in Zach Bogosian. They go from Tyson Berry to T.J. Brody. I thought it was pretty clear that, I don't know how I want to say a phrase this. It was clear that, you know, they wanted to have other dimensions of their game, I guess, or they wanted to be able to play in different settings beyond just winning 6-5 or 5-4.

Like, do you think that's fair to say? Like, it certainly felt like they wanted to bring in different types of players to maybe make their group a slight more well-rounded one as opposed to just having sort of one player type and just going fully all in on that. Yeah, and I think Tampa last year is a good example of a team that, you know, could play a possession game, but then also added some, you know, forechecking elements

on their, at the margins with, you know, Good Rowan and Coleman. You know, I mean, you know, Bogosin is a guy who, who was, was tough for them under third pair, but, you know, could surprisingly make some plays once and a while. And obviously he's doing the same thing with Toronto this year. But I really do think there is something to, you know, having the Thorntons and the Simmons around just because, like, they're such, you know, they grew up cheering for the Leafs. They have that once again, that, that spiritual belief that, you know, maybe something magical can happen. And, you know, like, it's easy to kind of underestimate that.

But I think, you know, it is helpful for a team to kind of build a narrative for itself and say that, you know, we're a team of destiny and we got to believe. And, you know, this is kind of the opposite of the whole like analytics or the X and nose approach that I usually deal with. But I think, you know, for a team to go all the way, I think there has to be that belief element and that element of like, you know, belonging or, you know, brotherhood or, you know, like we're writing a story here. Well, let's get into the X's and O's then,

because that is something we can sort of actually tangibly point to, from our end at least right now, right? And we can point to it as the difference. And I think one of the most interesting trends to me, and I don't want to act like they're this entirely different team because they're still fourth in the league and goals per game. They're scoring power play goals at the second high rate. Like, they're still clearly a very potent offensive group.

But just in terms of the world, way they've been playing. One thing I did notice is that at 5-1-5, in 2016-17, they played at the fastest pace in the league. And that makes sense, given their personnel. 2017-18, they were fifth. 2018-19, they were first. Last year, they were fifth, which I think might surprise people considering all the complaints about Babcock at the start of the season. This year, they're 19th in terms of 5-15 pace. And that sort of does match what you're seeing in the sense that I think there certainly is something to the fact that they maybe want to play a little bit differently, especially when it comes to defending leads.

I think, like, you know, historically that's something they've struggled with. And maybe if you're just playing that one way back and forth, that opens yourself up to some catastrophic, blown leads leading games. And I think they certainly, both through their actions and just through conversations I've had, want to make sure that they can try to finish off games and lower stress environments and put the clamps on teams kind of like the islander due late when they, have a lead. And so just in terms of that and sort of getting into the X's and O's and how they've changed the way they're playing beyond just the new personnel, but also having a full offseason

with Sheldon Keefe as opposed to coming in midseason and trying to make all these changes. Like it's pretty clear that I think they are by design playing at least slightly differently than they have in the past couple years with relatively the same personnel. So I think there's really three key elements to, you know, you know, all the things that you're saying. So first of all is their play with the puck. And, you know, if you watch the Leafster, they have a very fluid style. They use the space very well, very reminiscent of Soviet hockey.

And, you know, there's an expression that Sheldon Keefe uses, and he calls it playing for control of the game, right? Which is pretty self-explanatory. And I think if you watch the Soviets in their heydays, like, that's what they did. You know, they had the puck on their sticks. And, you know, they were dictating the pace of the game. and, you know, they were doing a lot of defending, you know, while playing offense, essentially. And, you know, when you talk about the pace of play, you know, a lot of the public analytics pace equates to, you know, shots four plus shots against. Yes.

And I think the biggest reason why, you know, the pace has fallen off for the least from purely a shot volume point of view is because they actually have better control the game. So what they've been able to do is, you know, they're, they've refined their play with the puck. They're completing more passes, kind of those small area passes or those rotations, they're making more of them and they're doing a better job as opposed to, let's say, 12 months ago. And what that does, first of all, is it will actually cut down on your own shots for because now you're looking for better shot. Instead of going low to high and pounding and then jumping a rebound, you're looking to create

like a mid-range shot where you're looking to create a cross-scene pass. And, you know, not all those passes are going to connect. So actually, your success rate and your shooting is going to go down a little bit. But the shots that you do get, they're going to be a slightly better quality. And, you know, you can see that, you know, qualitatively just by looking at the way that they play. But really, you know, that possession style of play has been, I think it's being better understood by the players. They're executing a little bit better. better. And they have the puck more under six, which means obviously if we have the puck,

they don't have the puck. So, you know, it also, it also lends itself a bit to the defensive metrics as well in the sense that if you have sustained offensive zone possessions where you are kind of probing and looking for those better looks as opposed to just firing and giving away possession, chances are you're probably going to have a 40 to 50 second shift in the offensive zone. By the time the other team gets it, they're probably just trying to get the puck out and change. And it's preventing rushes the other way because the guys are probably pretty gas themselves. exactly so the trend that we're seeing actually tells me that you know they've been successful in you know playing for control of the game because you know their their their shots attempt

ratio is still pretty good you know their expected goals ratio is still pretty good uh but overall the pace is down because the puck is on their stick more and they're dictating more what's going on as opposed to playing run and gun and you know almost out of control yeah which is fun but I imagine also very stressful if you have a rooting interest or if you are in the organization. I imagine when you go up, if you continue to just playing that style, it probably raises your blood pressure a little bit thinking that, oh, we're just a couple of rushes away from giving this right back. Well, it's always exciting.

It's always a little bit challenging for the blood pressure. But, you know, if you play this way, it sets you up way better to counter the likes of McDavid because simply put, he doesn't get any puck. And when a high-end offensive player has trouble, getting pucks and is hemmed in his zone, that's when you see the defensive mistakes pile up, or that's when you see him, you know, lose faith in his game or his teammates or in the game plan.

And, you know, if you're talking about why, you know, was Toronto so good at shutting down McDavid? What's, it's just that. They played for control of the game. They were able to do that. And because of that, McDavid couldn't really get much going unless it was just an individual effort or one undone type play.

Well, they were also uniquely suited. to putting Jake Muz and Justin Hall. And I'm just in the sense that, like, it was pretty clear that they were both given the green light to aggressively gap up, but also had a game plan in mind, right? Like, I'm always interested in terms of how the best defenders in the league defend off the rush, especially as the game has transitions so much to, you know, the best teams are generally, you know, creating easier opportunities off the rush. And especially with these electric skaters, they can move up and down as fast as McDavid,

can, you know, the players, the defensemen that typically have the most success on them, obviously generally have like a long reach and are kind of able to stick to them, like a Colton Preco, for example, or I've noticed like a Mario Ferraro doing this more recently against the Nathan Akinnan. But it's also a team effort in the sense that, you know, a lot of good skating defensemen could, in theory, gap up at acknowledging that they're going to be able to get back if the player burns them, but they're either unwilling or they just get beat. no one back there to help them, you know what I mean?

It's like, it's like there's so many moving parts there and everyone kind of needs to be in unison that it's easy to sort of individually identify just the defenseman and where he's standing at the blue line, but sort of the structure of everyone else and where they are, I think, plays into that as well. So the one, the second element is the change that Toronto has made in the neutral zone. So I would say over half of the NHL teams, maybe closer to two-third, they play a one, two, to neutral zone forecheck, which means the first forward cuts the ice in half. The second forward tries to funnel the puck to the boards.

The third forward is on the other side of the ice or in the middle kind of containing that cross-ice pass. And then the D's the D's are gapped up tight. Now, that's the system that the Leafs and the Marley's used for the previous years. And, you know, last year I had some discussions with Sheldon because he kind of, he was really interested in how the islanders defended. and the Islanders use the 1-1-3. And the 1-1-3 basically is that, you know, the first forward once again forces the play to one side. The second forward pressures the puck.

But then the third forward, instead of holding the middle of the ice, he's actually helping the D's at the blue line. So it's slightly more passive. And what that does is it actually allows you to create a three-man wall at the blue line instead of having just both these gaping up. And so what you're seeing this year with the Leafs is, is, you know, if we have Muzin and Hull defending McDavid,

well, you're going to have a McHaeve or a Pierre Engval protecting the weak side of the ice and skating forward just in case that, you know, if both of these these get beat, then at least there's someone with speed skating forward back to the net. So that 1-1-3 has been really effective for Toronto. And, you know, what they've sacrificed is an ability to create turnovers at the red line. But now what they've done is, they've simply kind of delayed their defensive stand and they're able to shut the play down

either at the blue line or inside their zone once the play is force wide. I'm really interested in, it kind of ties into that, the cat and mouse game in today's game of, you know, as you mentioned, I think teams are not trying to juice the expected goals models, but are aware of the fact that, you know, quality is important in the sense that if you have high-skilled players out there, you should be trying to get to certain areas on the ice because it increases the likelihood that the puck's going to go in, right? You have like a finite amount of opportunities to score in a 60-minute game and you are doing yourself a disservice if you're not actively seeking out certain regions in the ice. And we see a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning,

you know, they have a very clear sort of shot profile in terms of where they're looking to get it and it's very high danger areas. And it was fascinating to me it was watching them last post season against and they went through two teams that I'd say are probably the best that's sort of just eliminating everything in front of their net and especially in the middle

in the stars and the islanders. And Tampa Bay was sort of uniquely suited to disrupt those defensive schemes or kind of challenge them more than most teams are because, and I know you put out a video about this, but they don't sort of devote one of their five attackers to just standing in front of the net, right? There's constant offensive zone movement. And so it's much tougher to sort of load up or just put your guys there and prevent shots from happening there. When everyone's moving, you're sort of being stretched out and having to

chase a little bit more. And so that's sort of that cat and mouse game of offense versus defense and sort of, you know, the offensive team having a clear game plan of where they want to get the puck and where they want to shoot from, and especially the best defensive teams in the league that sort of limit where they allow you to go and sort of strategically push you or guide you to certain regions. And sometimes in subtle ways, but sometimes in obvious ways,

is so interesting to me. And we don't, I think, talk about it nearly enough in terms of like mainstream coverage, because I do think it is slightly more difficult to identify than in basketball where you can just kind of show like a shot chart of where Steph Curry is shooting from, and it's much easier to see on a play-to-play basis. And, you know, to the third point, the third element for me that explains why the least

have been due while this year is, I think as an offensive team, you know, you have players who, I would say, have a bias for action. So what I mean is that, you know, in Austin Matthews and Mitch Marner, William Yelander, they're going to look for opportunities to attack the puck even when they're defending. And I think as an offensive team, it's a little bit counterintuitive. or it's maybe counterproductive to tell your players to be overly passive in the D zone.

So, you know, one thing with Tampa is, you know, if you watch their ozone rotation, they're very fluid, they're very good at getting into the middle of the ice. But then if you watch them in DZone coverage, you're actually quite aggressive at pressuring the half wall or pressuring, you know, under the goal line or pressuring up to the point.

And the first thing that Sheldon did when he took over the lease last, last season is he made a tweak in the defensive zone. and made the team play more like the islanders in terms of holding the middle of the ice and really collapsing and not pressuring too much at the point or at the half wall. And I think as they got into their series against Columbus, it felt like the players were a little bit handcuffed

because they were asking to be very offensive when they have the puck. But then when they didn't have the puck, it seemed like they were uncomfortable just standing around. And once in a while you would see like a Marner or Matthews or a Neelander, like they would pressure and maybe step outside of the team's system or the game plan, but be able to get a puck, cut a DZone sequence short,

and then go back on a counterattack. So the first thing that I noticed this year from Sheldon and his team is that they went back to a more aggressive DZone setup where they're looking to pressure the wall and cut zone time short as opposed to Barry Trott's and the Islanders where they're comfortable playing in their DZone structure because as a team, they're also, you know, maybe a little bit slower, maybe a little bit less skilled,

but they play a more methodical way that fits with their identity as a team and as players. So, you know, it works for them, but for Tampa and for Toronto, if you're an attack-minded team, then, you know, you like to see that manifests itself both in the Ozone and in the D-Zone. And I think this year, you know, Toronto's way more, I think they're more true of themselves. And I think that's helped as well. I've been doing a lot of sort of thinking about this in terms of how much my approach

or thinking about the game has changed over the years compared to when we started. And the Islanders are a team. I mean, it's a bit easier this year because they have the results, but also the underlying results are significantly better. But just watching them and kind of dissecting their tape a little bit, I have like such a whole different newfound appreciation for how they're able to like repeatedly do the same thing over and over again to success, if that makes sense. Like it's so tough, I think, in today's game to consistently defend because one, the players are really skilled,

two, it's a lot tougher to lean on them. and three, just with the way the game is played, pace is played at and sort of the rush chances that are traded back and forth. Like, if you're defending constantly, eventually there's going to be cracks and something's going to leak through and you're going to get exposed a little bit. And with the Islanders, especially late in these games when they're up, like especially recently, they had this game against the Bruins the other day

where it was like 1-1 and they were just like, okay, we're not giving up anything at this point. And the Bruins had one high-danger attempt. in the third period and overtime. And they could have played another 60 minutes, and I don't think the Islanders would have given them anything. And that ability to, and I think I understand why people are generally skeptical.

Like the reason we prefer quantity over quality is because it's a bigger sample. And also it's hockey is kind of a random game, but it's also more repeatable. But the Islanders have sort of proven that they are able to repeat this certain style of play. And that's so impressive and fascinating to me. And that's something that I've completely changed my tune on over the past couple years.

Well, once again, you know, we talk about playing for control the game, right? So you can, you know, there's different ways to take over a game, whether it's by, you know, turning the pace up and, you know, going for a track meet and, you know, hoping that your goalies and your shooters are going to, you know, be the difference makers or like the Islanders, you can turn the pace of the game way down and then almost like bait your opponents to making mistakes. And actually, if you watch the Islanders, you know, they're actually way better with the puck than they've been, you know, let's say three or four years ago.

So the D's are, you know, like Adam Pellick, Ryan Poolock, like those two guys are doing great work. Noah Dobson is, you know, establishing himself. And, you know, they're completing passes. Like, if you're a team that can complete passes, I don't care, like, where the passes are going and how fast you're playing. Like, like, you're going to do well, right? But how much of that do you think is a skill thing versus a system thing in terms of, like, And I know you've talked about how the Vegas Golden Knights, for example, make life very easy on their centers because you sort of like decrease their set of

responsibilities. You're like, okay, you just need to be in like one or two places on the ice. And this is what's going to happen. And you can sort of like an NFL offensive coordinator in a way, you can kind of like draw up how that drive is going to go for those players. You can kind of like pre-plan what to expect, which is really tough to do in hockey because it's happening so fast and so many random. things can happen, but they constantly make it easier for their centers to do that. Like, how much of that do you think for the Islanders is simply simplifying it or making it easier for them because it certainly seems like you wouldn't compare the Islanders players

to the most skilled teams in the league and say, oh, there's, you know, they have more passing talent and then they have skilled players for sure. We're not trying to diminish that, but it's clear that there's something more at play there beyond just the actual personnel. Yeah, well, it's, you know, it's a question of timing. it's a question of getting to the right spots consistently. And, you know, it's, and once again, it comes back to our member of his conversation I had with Ken Hitchcock. And I ask him, like, what is the first thing that you do when you take over a team?

Because as you remember, he's kind of well known for being, almost, you know, taking a non-playoff team and then immediately making them, you know, competitive or even, you know, playoff contenders. and he said, you know, the most important thing that I try to establish is I try to create predictability for the players. Now, now I think, you know, maybe your methods may differ. I think Ken is more of an old school. Like, he preaches very simple puck plays, you know, like avoiding the middle, you know, making kind of these, you know, high-section. Every deep playoff run starts with building an amazing team. Doing the same for your business doesn't take a room full of scouts. You just need Indeed.

Don't spend hours on multiple job sites looking for candidates with the right skills when you can do it all with Indeed. Hate waiting? Indeed's US data shows over 80% of Indeed employers find quality candidates whose resumes on Indeed matches their job description the moment they sponsor a job. Something I love about Indeed is that it makes hiring all in one place so easy because with virtual interviews, Indeed saves you time. You can message, schedule, and interview top talent all in one place. Indeed knows that when you're growing your business, you have to make every dollar count. That's why when you sponsor a job, you only pay for quality applications from resumes in our database, matching your job description. Visit Indeed.com slash Bluewire to start hiring today.

Just go to Indeed.com slash bluewire. That's indeed.com slash bluewire. Terms and conditions apply. Cost per application pricing, not available for. everyone. Need to hire? You need indeed. Access rate, low value plays, just to kind of get the puck up ice, which maybe it's a little bit different now.

But I think the idea about predictability and having the players have faith in each other that they're going to be in the right spots, that's really important. And that's what the islanders are doing now better than ever. And maybe that's a little bit where Columbus has faltered. Because if you remember 18 months ago, these were probably the two best defensive team in the league. And, you know, one team has got better and the other team has fallen way off.

All right. Should we take a quick break here to hear from a sponsor and we'll finish up the conversation and all the other things? All right. You want to talk about Darrell Sutter? I'll give you the floor. Yeah. Well, you know, I just talked about Ken Hitchcock being, you know, a bit of a turnaround artist

and taking a lot of those underachieving teams into the playoffs. beyond. And I think Darrell Sutter, you know, that's kind of what, what he did in L.A. when he took over that team and then, you know, won a couple of cups. And I think he looks to be on the same path with Calgary now. You know, they've only played a handful of games, but, you know, they're shot their frontials way up. They're creating way more zone time in the offensive end. You know, they're attacking them that more often. Surprisingly, even Johnny Guadro looks to be a little bit revitalized, even though, you know, they're essentially playing that same heavy dump and chase, four check, low to high, puckson, that same game that L.A. played way back when. And that's kind of a

bit of a Daryl Sutter trademark. I'm not worried about a guy like Goodrow. I mean, it seems counterintuitive because of his body type and that playing style. But when you say, all right, we're going to have the puck more often in the offensive zone, that's something. That's something. that a guy like Johnny Goodro was probably looking at it being like, all right, this is, this is great for me. And he was having a nice bounce back season before, even under Jeff Ward, because he was just too skilled to be underperforming the way he was last year. But yeah, it's interesting because I think there is a bit of a misnomer in the sense that I

think typically we would prefer, you know, high carry and rate teams because it's, it's been shown to lead to higher, you know, shot and goal generation. and it makes sense you're not giving away the puck for no reason. But in Sutter system, there is a reason behind it, right? Like it's been fascinating to see them come in and already in just three games, albeit we'll see if it lasts. But you can see all of those trademarks, right, of like the dump and jays, but also the puck support,

sort of being much more intentional with what they're doing. It's led to better results, obviously. and I'm really curious to see if it can keep up. It's amazing that given limited practice time coming in during a pandemic season, you can just have the same personnel and get wildly different results. But that's kind of what we're seeing so far, I guess. Yeah. And the story that was that Scott Palloran told me,

so Scott was in player development with the Kings when Darrell Sutter took over over there. And, you know, that team was underachieving. obviously they had the pieces that they had to go to the Stanley Cup. But for whatever reason, it just wasn't clicking for them. And then when Daryl came in, what Scott told me was that he basically told us team to play fast, play tough, and play smart. And that was it. Like there were no X and O's changes.

You know, he wasn't overloading them with instruction. You know, they were play. And that's because I think the previous coach was Andy Murray. But basically the system was the same, but they just needed a fresh full. They just needed someone that's going to kind of, you know, fire them up or get them playing, you know, instinctively. And that's what Sutter did back then. I don't know if the process is the same now with the flames. But this could be one of the reasons why you're seeing immediate dividends.

It's just because the approach is not focused on like explicit, you know, I'm going to tell you what to do or where you got to stand. It's more just implicitly, you know, play your game a certain way and then, you know, let the rest kind of flow. And I think this is why it's actually, it's, it's so difficult to pre-scout in hockey. Like, you know, some people don't like the word pre-scout, but, you know, if you come up with something better, let me know, because I'll use that. But who doesn't like pre-scout? Well, because scouts? Well, because, like, you know, obviously you're going to scout before the game, right? If you scout after a game, that's too late.

But, well, technically, post-scouting is pre-scout for the next game. Yeah. Yeah. There's always another game. It's just words, Nettie. You know, it's just words. But the point is that, you know, you look at what Sutter is having the flames do, and it's super predictable.

You know, they're going to use a strong side of the ice, find the middle support, get out of the zone. They're going to dump it in. They're going to forchike 1-2-2. Then the second guy is going to come in. Then D is going to pinch. Then they're going to go low to high, throw it to the net, jump on a rebound and, you know, ground and pound you until,

either they score or you dump the puck out and then they regroup and they start over again. Like really, really simple game plan. But why is it that it's so difficult to communicate that to your players so that they can be properly prepared against that? And, you know, I thought about it for a long time. And finally, recently, I kind of had this eureka moment where I thought back to when I was a kid and I was really into watching like superhero movies or comics or, you know, you know, animated series like, you know, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, whatever. And it's like, you know, I compare that to how teams do their pre-scout.

And the way that a typical NHL coach would do a pre-scout is like, you know, you show their breakouts, you show their forecheck, you show their neutral zone forecheck, you show a bit of power play, show a bit of PK, like it's very like mechanical. right and like you're almost like going down a laundry list of items and then a lot of players tune out a lot of players don't really see the big picture behind it um and and for me that you know i i i always felt a little bit let down by that whole process because there's uh what you're really trying to do is you're trying to tell a story that you know you like we're the superheroes there's a super villain on the horizon which is you know the flames and they're their heavy dump and chase and you know darrell sutter is kind of like we're the superheroes kind of like the mad genius behind the bench. And so then the question becomes like, what's, what's the key to their power, right? Like, what did they draw their power from? Because once you can figure that out, and once you can find a solution for that,

everything else kind of takes care of itself. And it's like, you know, when the superhero realizes that the supervillain, you know, can't handle a certain type of chemical or can't, like the gremlin, like you can't pour water on them, right? because then they go crazy. But like one little thing that you can do and then the rest, like the rest of the puzzle just kind of falls into place. And like I've never seen a pro hockey coach look at a pre-scout this way,

like almost like an epic battle of good versus evil or, you know, make a story out of it. But I think that's the way it should be done, especially this year when you're playing against the same five or six teams all the time. Like how like how much more can you say about a one-two, like there's only so much you can say before even yourself. if you go to sleep, right? So it's all about telling a story now.

Well, it's interesting because, you know, I was saying how the concept of dumping and chasing as your primary playing strategy does seem to kind of run counterintuitive to what analytically we'd like to see. But, you know, like especially like expected goals models, like love both teams that forecheck very intensely, but also players that do so. And it makes sense, right?

you're keeping the puck as far away as possible in most cases from your own side of the ice. And you're also creating a lot of higher danger scoring opportunities on the instances that you do, you know, get in and create a quick turnover. We've already seen it in these three games where the flames have had a number of their goals scored by simply just getting the puck below the goal line and causing a turnover or a quick play that led to a pass from behind the net out front for an easy tap-in, right? And so I think it's a really, you know, you need to have the personnel for it. Like if you have certain types of players, you don't want to be taking the puck off of their stick intentionally at all times.

But in certain cases, it does make sense. Now the ability to do it time and time again, I think the reason why it's difficult for a coach is because you're asking your players to put in max effort. Right. Like for this to work as a viable strategy, everyone needs to be getting in there and causing how. havoc and trying to get the puck back because otherwise, if you're just dumping it in and basically changing, you're just giving the puck away to the other team and reaping no benefits of it. So it's a difficult proposition for like longevity and buy in, but in terms of coming in midseason with a new voice and being like, okay, this is what we're going to play. And then

getting immediate results and being able to point to that as if we keep doing this, this is going to keep happening. Like this is a pretty ideal set of a set of events for them, I think. Yeah. And I think, you know, the thought. of play is not necessarily modern or super creative, but from an analytics point of view, I think it's going to get results just because they're playing bumper cars, they're falling the puck to the net, they're taking a bunch of shots from the point, they're getting a bunch of rebounds, you know, they're whacking the puck into the goalies pads for those juicy high danger chances.

And like, that's how they're going to play. So I'm not surprised at all that they're going to look really good in at least the shot metrics. And actually, I think that's a good segue to Winnipeg, because Winnipeg is kind of like the opposite. And what's been killing Winnipeg is, you know, they have this great top six, especially now with Dubois in, you know,

who can play both center and wing and who's, I think, at five on five a much more useful player than Lining, even though Lainey is one of the best shooters in the game. But so they have this amazing top six, and then their defense is just not that good, right? So how they've been able to, kind of hope with that is, you know, they're going to lose the shot battle.

They're going to lose the expected goals battle. They're going to hope to, you know, strike off of two on ones, three on twos, maybe an overtime, you know, with their high end forwards and, you know, score some goals in the power play. But then aside from that, it's just a lot of prevent defense, hoping that Connor Hullibucks makes a lot of saves, you know, letting the other team into the zone, but away from the slot. And then just kind of hope for the best. But do those things need to be mutually exclusive? Like, do you have, like, to play that way offensively and create those situations?

Like, it seems like there is a middle ground where you can take advantage of that skill and create the numbers game in your favor while also not being as bad in their own zone as they are defensively. Like, I know, you know, Paul Maurice takes issue with the public models that have them where they are. Like, listen, let's let's be real here. First off, a coach saying that internally they look a lot better than we think they are. It's funny that a coach has never come out and publicly said that they actually look a lot worse than we think they are. But in this case, they're like either the worst or second worst team.

I think in an expected goals against that five on five in all situations on natural statric, they're right between the Canucks and the senators, which obviously is not an ideal place to be in defensively. If internally they are a bit better, which I'm willing to believe that they are because we know that publicly expected goals models have their loopholes and their flaws, So, you know, the shots that are being recorded, for example, I think, are wildly off compared to what's actually happening. Functionally, if they are better, they're going from like the 30th best defensive team to the 25th defensive best. Like, it's not like they're going to have this model that's all of a sudden going to have them as a high-end defensive team. So for someone to take issue with that, I think, you know, it's clear what he's doing. He's defending his team, which is funny because they can't.

defend themselves. But this conversation for me is a fascinating one because I do think there's a lot of nuance, but it ultimately just boils down to people yelling at each other and saying, oh, analytics is useless because it's actually off by this small margin where I do think, for the most part, it tells us a pretty good story of, especially on the extreme cases of a team that's really good or really bad. And just even watching these games, like you watch Winnipeg Jets games, is there any argument that they, like, they're horrible defensively? Conor Halaba constantly gets left out to dry. It's like he makes an above average number of saves because he's really good and he won the Vesna.

But don't tell me that that's good defense. Like it's not. Yeah. And I think there's, it's a strange kind of tradeoff when you're coaching because I think if you're a smart coach, you're aware of what your team is good and bad at. And I think every NHL coach is, you know, is a smart person and able to recognize strength and weaknesses. So then, you know, there's two ways you can go about it. You can either completely run away and try to hide your weaknesses and paper over it as best you can.

Or you can kind of find, you know, ways to use your strength to cover your weaknesses or even, you know, doubling down on your weaknesses so that it's less of an issue. So let me let me give you a few examples. Okay. So we know that Winnipeg has lost a lot of their top these in the past few years. So Bufflin's gone. Trubb is gone. You know, Myers is not the great,

the best player ever, but, you know, he played a role. He's gone. Ben Chirot is gone. So on and so forth. You know, Toby Enstrom is gone.

So they basically turned over their entire decor, and I would say the new guys aren't as good as the old guys. And so what they did is, if you look at Corey Schneider's tracking, they're,

they're the most forward biased team in the league get when it comes to having their forwards carry the puck out of the zone. So they're telling the forwards, okay, well, the Ds aren't as good now, so you're going to do more of the work. And obviously at some point, you know, even though the forwards are their strength, the whole thing is going to break apart because now you're asking, you know, them to double dip and do more than they should, right? And I think that hurts them.

The second thing is now is that, you know, they're looking to be very passive in the neutral zone. So they play a one, one three. And it's really easy to get. in the zone against them because they just don't want to get beat for a touchdown right away. So they're going to give you, you know, five yards, 10 yards, whatever. And then the third thing is, uh, in zone now, they're like, you know, we're more passive than neutral zone.

So let's be more aggressive inside the D zone. So then you see a lot of like, you know, last night I was watching them against Montreal, Montreal had a three on O and the polly score. So, so it's like, it leads a lot of, that was by design. Paul Maurice drew that one up. In any case, it just leads. a lot of disjointed stuff going on. And, you know, I wrote an article on my newsletter a while back that got a lot of people

in Winnipeg fired up. And I'm just like, if I were four playing for the jets, like, like, I got to be, you know, not quite thrilled with this right now because the Ds just don't, they don't do anything. Like, they don't help me on breakout. They don't help me in transition, you know, to sprint the weak side and to create options. In the ozone, they're just standing at the point and, you know, they're drilling shots inside shin pad. So I got a backtrack.

Like it's just not a very pleasant situation. Whereas for me, you know, so you have these Ds who are not very good or especially not good at identifying threats in your own zone. So why don't you play more aggressive, having pinched a little bit more? Like I would much rather Logan Stanley pinched down in the Ozone at the half wall like on a Daryl Sutter coach team instead of Logan Stanley backing off and then trying to play these on coverage. So it's like, you know, some teams, for example, like Calgary, you know, they're being more aggressive so that, you know, they want to cut down on their D zone time. They want to cut down on their shots against.

Whereas Winnipeg, it's like they recognize their weakness, but then they're just kind of playing into it. They're going about it the wrong way. Yeah. Yeah. It reminds me of like, remember when Mike Johnson was running the penguins and then they were struggling so bad and then Mike Sullivan took over and got significantly better results with pretty much the same players, even though the personnel didn't change that much.

And part of their issue at the start of that season was you just watched the tape, but you'd see like every single time Crosby and Malkin would just have to go back deep in their own zone, retrieve the puck, and then have to make their way up the ice and do everything. And a lot of times they would get stopped because you have to pass through a lot of bodies and a lot of traffic and it's not a very sustainable way. You'd much rather be getting them the puck in space quickly in transition. And then Mike Sullivan came in and implemented this renowned system of, play fast rather than skating fast where you're just constantly moving the puck up the ice and

got significantly better results. And I do see that a bit with the Jets too. Like seriously, the talent has eroded over time. If you compare the year, they made the Western Conference final. No one's expecting those results where they were an analytics darling and everyone loved them in terms of their underlying metrics. But I do think they're going about it the wrong way in terms of what they're trying to accomplish and how they're trying to cover those flaws because a lot of it is they're just not allowing those defensemen to do anything. And that seems like that's not an ideal way to play as you illustrate. Well, speaking of defensemen not being allowed to do anything, you know,

we don't know if we, we don't need to go further than Rasmus Dalyan and Buffalo. Yeah, that's sad. I did a full podcast on the Buffalo Sabres. I don't know if I want to do this again. It's depressing. Let's not talk about that. But really, like, you know, if we're talking about how to put play

players in their, you know, in a place to succeed or, you know, playing to their strength. And it's exactly that. Like if you have, you know, a player who's used to being offensive and having the puck and stuff like that and who's not too good at defending, you can either tell them to get better at defending or it can tell them to get better at attacking so that they have to defend less. And generally speaking, you know, when you get to such a high level, it's difficult to really make progress on on your weaknesses because they're always going to be your weaknesses. So then it's probably a better bet to double down in your strength on your identity as a

player and focus on that. Like, you know, that's why I think a lot of young defensemen, they kind of, they, they get put through the ringer because, you know, their whole lives, they're, you know, the coaches just kind of let them go. And then all of a sudden they get to a level against players where it better than they are and then they got to change your games. So a lot of guys don't survive that just because not only are you playing against tougher competition, but also now you're fighting yourself.

You're fighting your own instincts. You're a second guessing yourself. Yeah. I guess, you know, not to stick with the Jets, but the thing that did bug me was, you know, Mark Schafe, who was asked about us. And one of my biggest pet peeves is when a media reporter goes to a player knowing exactly what they're going to say and basically, like, tricks them into being like, so those analytics. huh? And then they get the sound bite they're hoping for, which is the players saying analytics are stupid.

And then people just run it with it and be like, see, even the players think it's stupid. I thought it was interesting that Shaftly, who does seem, by all accounts, to be like a massive hockey nerd was saying, like, I'd rather just watch the games, which I completely agree with, by the way. Like, I've totally come around on this. I think, like, I watch an insane amount of tape these days because there's so much stuff that happens that I'm really curious. like I look at the numbers and then I'm like, huh, that's an interesting trend. And then I just go back and just watch either that player shifts or that team's games on an instat hockey. And I'm like, oh, yeah, why is this happening?

And I think that's the sweet spot of sort of blending these two things, right? Where we look at sort of like these macro trends of either why a team is performing a certain way or why a player is struggling or doing well. And then you actually look at the tape to try to figure it out as opposed to just exclusively using one of them because it's impossible. You work this video coach and now you break down a ton of tape and work with players and stuff. Like there's a certain number of hours in the day and it's impossible to watch every single player and every single game. It's just not humanly possible.

And so for that to be your strategy, to base all your impedance off of what you see on tape, it seems like not a very sustainable formula for analysis. Yeah. Well, you know, regardless of what Chifley says, I'll give you an idea of, of how I work with players because that's how I would work with a Mark Shifley, you know, not necessarily on the analytics part of the game, but just to break down his own game and to kind of show him the way to get better and also to kind of keep playing to the strength. So, you know, I don't use a ton of, you know, what you would call, you know,

the coursey stats with my players. But what I do work with is a lot with puck touches. So the way that that we do this is obviously, you know, you can have the puck in any of the three zones. ozone, D zone or neutral zone, you can have the puck inside or outside of the dots. And, you know, the simplest breakdown I could offer a player is you have a certain success rate when making plays in all these areas. So, you know, if you think about a guy like Zach Hyman, you know, he makes a lot of outside the dots touches in the ozone because he's looking

to get the puck down ice. He's looking to win battles down low, cycle the puck, and then eventually funnel to the net, right? Whereas a guy like Mark Gifley, well, if he's looking to play off the rush, and I would care about his ability to get into the middle on the breakout or in transition or in the ozone. So for him, it's like, you know, how many touches is he getting total, but then how many touches is it inside versus outside and how many successful versus how many fail plays. So, you know, it's not the type of analytics that we're familiar with, with the NHL's real-time stats tracking, but when working with individual players, this is how I would break down a player's offensive game.

And this, I suppose, is a form of analytics because, you know, I've studied players such as Jack Hughes and Alexei Lafrenere on my newsletter. And it's stunning because, you know, you have these highly touted prospects come in and you know that, you know, in terms of their vision, their hand skills, they're shooting, they're skating. They're way above average. But then they come in and initially they struggle, right? like, you know, Jack Hughes and Capuocaco, they were the top two picks, two of the worst NHL players last year. Why?

And the reason is because, you know, the bad coercie or the bad expected goals come from a lower success rates on puck touches. Because these offensive players, they're used to having, let's say, 80% success rate. But as soon as you go down to, you know, 60, 50, 40, then your entire game collapses and, you know, your expected goal is into the 40s and 30s.

So, you know, for an individual player that, you know, I work with a handful of guys every week, these are the things that we're talking about. And the core C or they expect the goals or, you know, their own goals and assist, the plus minus. That's going to take care of itself if you're able to get a lot of puck touches in good areas and have a high success rate. Yeah. No, I think that's fair. And certainly, like, kind of looking for the explainers. Like, I think a big one for me is the idea of either, let's say, a specific.

specific player, like them being bad defensively versus them performing poorly defensively, right? I think those are two entirely different concepts. I think it's very dangerous to mistake one for the other. And a great example is Connor McDavid last season versus this season, where he had at atrocious defensive numbers. And you look at him and you're like, all right, there's no reason why Connor McDavid should be bad defensively. But at some point, you are what the numbers say you are.

And this year, his numbers are significantly better. And it's very easy. You just look at the tape and you see like, all right, well, you know, certainly still attacking off the brush in his trademark style. But especially in the minutes where he was playing with the S.E. Poli Arvi and Ryan, Eugene Hopkins, they had a much more sort of structured ozone identity where they were getting the puck in, keeping the puck on his stick as opposed to having a waste energy chasing it and having these sustained offensive zone possessions.

And then guys like Pulley Arby were doing a dirty work and forced. checking like crazy and getting them more opportunities and extending possessions. And that's like a very easy thing to sort of see compared to last year where they were playing a very different way and you're getting wildly different results on based on how you play. And so for me, that's like a great sort of intersection between those two that can kind of explain sort of what the numbers are telling us. Because you can cut them any way you want and make them say whatever you want to say. It's up to you as an analyst or as a coach or a player to figure out why it's happening and how

you can change it to optimize your performance. And here's another area that I've been really interested in for the past almost six months now, but it's the history of the game. So when I look at McDavid playing with Pulliervy, like I'm reminded of Gretzky playing with another finish winger because what would happen in the 80s is like McDavid, Gretzky would often fly the zone or he'd often cheat for offense and actually in the D zone, it's Yari Curry playing, you know, in that center spot for him.

And they, you know, so, so Gretzky would leave the zone early. Curry would make a stop defensively, work with Glenn Anderson and D's, and then find Gretzky for, you know, a stretch pass, and then Gretzky is going to delay in the in the neutral zone, get the entry and then, you know, create a scoring chance. So I actually find, like, a lot of where hockey's going, it's where hockey's been before. I have a new e-book out called Hockey Tactics Retrospective and the first part is focused on 1975 through 1986 and you look at the Soviets, well, that's what Toronto's doing with the puck.

You look at Calgary's 112. Well, now it's like half the league wants to play a one-one-three. You look at Edmonton and, you know, Gretzky plays a lot like McDavid does now, you know, somewhat different because Gridsky is more easy. with and McDavid's obviously got that amazing north-south speed. You look at how, you know, Tampa persevered and added to their core. And, you know, it was the same story for the Islanders. And you look at how good, you know, the Habs dynasty was in the late 70s.

So for me, it's like, you know, you want to know where hockey's headed. Like you've got to study where hockey's been. And like, I've been super into, you know, watching these old games on YouTube and then taking notes and taking clips and then, you know, writing about it. Well, do you want to do you want to do you want to do some plugs here? As we get out of here and put a bow on this conversation, where can people get that book? Where they, what can they expect from it and give us all those plugs? Yeah, well, I mean, if you don't know me yet, I think the best way to get to know me a little bit is to follow me on Twitter.

So it's J-H-A-N-H-K-Y. And then once you follow me on Twitter, you know, check out my free newsletter on Substack. and then once, you know, if you love the content that I'm sharing there, then you can check out my e-books that are on sale for, on gumroad.com. So once you get on my Twitter, then all the rest is going to be there for you. You know, as someone who's really, like, I first fell off the game by reading hockey books. So right now it's like, you know, I'm working with players remotely analyzing video. But really, like, I'm writing the kind of stuff that 10-year-old me would have

like to read. So, you know, so now that I'm back in the public sphere, I'm just doing stuff that's fun to me. And if you find that fun as well, then I love to, I love to meet you. Awesome, man. Well, this is a blast. I'm glad we got to do this. And good luck with the book. I definitely recommend people go get it and nerd out on it. And let's get you back on the show send down the road. All right. Thanks, Dimitri. Take care. Cheers. All right, that's going to be for today's episode of the Hockey PDOCast. Hopefully you enjoyed listening. And if you did, please consider taking a minute to go leave us a quick little rating and review.

It takes a minute of your time. It's super easy to do. And it goes a long way to where it's helping us out. And I personally greatly appreciate it. You can just leave us to five stars. If you've got some time and are willing to do so, you can also drop us a note there and let people know either what you enjoy about the show or why you recommend they check it out themselves. and it helps us a lot moving forward in terms of the ratings. So thank you to those of you that have done so already,

and thank you in advance of those of you that will do so moving forward. We're going to get back to doing more podcasts here. I'm sure many of you noticed, and I apologize that we only did a couple shows in February. Personally, I was a bit preoccupied and adjusting to my new writing gig at Elite Prospects Ringside. If you haven't checked out the website there in the work we're doing, I really highly recommend you do so.

I'm really proud of the work that's on the site on a daily basis, not only the stuff I do myself where I put out one or two new pieces a week, but all the stuff we've got out there, we've got so many deep dives and interesting video breakdowns and analysis by just some really awesome voices in the hockey community. So I know there's a ton of things to subscribe to these days and not everyone will be able to do so right now. But if you can and you're kind of on the fence and thinking about it,

just give it a shot use the promo code i love ep uh ep for inkside maybe also alias peterson it gets you two free months on an annual subscription and we've got content on there that's deeper and more thoughtful than then you'll get anywhere and i truly believe that so um i guarantee once you get that subscription you'll be on there every day you'll be soaking it all up you'll be reading all the content you won't be disappointed you're going to get the bang for your buck and so yeah go check it out so thanks for listening to today's show. We're going to be back next week with another episode, and then we're going to really ramp it up here as we get towards the trade deadline and the sprint towards the postseason. So until then.

Cast with Dimitri Filipovich. Follow on Twitter at Dim Philipovic and on SoundCloud at SoundCloud.com slash hockey p.docast.