The Hockey PDOcast - Shots vs. Scoring Chances, and Coaching in the Playoffs

Episode Date: May 3, 2024

Dimitri Filipovic is joined by Sean Shapiro to talk about the Leafs forcing Game 7, how Jim Montgomery and the Bruins are handling it, the shots on goal vs. scoring chance paradigm shift in the playoffs this year, how the Stars are using young players, and Rod Brind'Amour's contract status. 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.

It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovich. Welcome to the Hockey-Pedocast. My name is Amitra Filippovich, and joining me is my good buddy, Sean Shapiro. Sean, what's going on, man? Not too much, man. I guess I'm technically in your country right now, but farther away, since I'm a little bit farther east and in Toronto right now, kind of a charity hockey tournament thing that's going on here this weekend.

And I got to, I guess, watch Leaf Spruins level of us. night with some of the organic Leafs fan, which was always an interesting experience. Nice. Amherst yourself from the locals there. Yeah, you're doing some boots on reporting. We're going to talk. We're going to start off talking about Bruinsleaves game six that happened Thursday night, and that's the most recent thing for us to talk about.

We're going to bounce around after that and do a variety of different things. So looking forward to that. But let's start with Bruins Leaves. So I've got a few takes that I jotted down as I was watching because I knew we were going to discuss this today. Here's my first one. That first period was, I think, the worst hockey. I can remember in a meaningful game.

And it wound up, we're working out for the leaves, right? I think the game certainly picked up as it went along, and they got their win. They forced the game seven. We're going to discuss all that stuff. But I think the reason why I know that is because that first period ends with them being up 12 to 1 on the shot clock, right? And then throughout the entire broadcast, during as that period was unfolding,

then into the intermission panel, it kept being referenced in particular because the Bruins similarly had a very low shot total in the previous game as well, right? And it was kind of the stat was brought up about how many they had combined in the first periods between the two games. And I think to me, it's really highlighting a big theme of this postseason that you keep circling back to, but also I think just the general kind of paradigm shift that we're heading towards quickly that's happening in these games that are being played, just in terms

of like what teams are strategically trying to do, how they're succeeding in doing so with increasing frequency and how that's, I think, shaping the way I'm watching and analyzing these games and how maybe other people are sort of lagging behind, I guess, in recognizing it. And it's that the Shock Hawk has become almost irrelevant, in my opinion, in discussing what's going on in a hockey game in 2024. I'm sure there's people that are going to argue that that's been the case for a long time now, right? Think of the Barry Trots Islanders teams that made the Eastern Conference final in back-to-back years.

They sort of prided themselves on not caring. particularly about shot attempts, but shots on goal as well as a result, and really just focusing entirely on scoring chances, right? Now, I think that can be a bit precarious because it's obviously easier said than done. That limits you to fewer events. I think it increases the sort of volatility in it, and it's tough to just replicate over time. But I think we're seeing this postseason, and I'm curious for your take on all this, the teams are so far skewed now in that direction,

where we're seeing all these games that the shots on goal are finishing 22 to 20, right? Teams are finishing in the teens and that's not necessarily because they're playing poorly. It's entirely by design and they're actually considering that a job all done, I think. I love the line, the shot clock is irrelevant. Like that to me is the, that's my takeaway. That's the ball that's going to be rolling around in my head the rest of the day as I walk around today. So that's, I love that. I love that ideology here because you're right.

It is, it's becoming you, you watch. these games and you kind of see how teams go and everything like that. And using just the shot counter is trying to apply the same. It's trying to put it's trying to basically paint everything with one brush when it's not answering the question of are the teams doing what they want. Are they achieving their goal of how they want to play? And um yeah, I'm not, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm giving you a ton of credit right now because I like you kind of sunded up really well the shot clock is irrelevant that's something that's going to be bothering me as I watch both these games tonight don't just be thinking about it well because in this game I think it was such a good example of it

because the shots were 12 to 1 for the leaves yeah and like I was tracking it live and I had scoring chances at 3 3 after that first period and in fact for a while it was like 3-1 ruins and despite the fact that they only had one shot themselves and I don't know it's interesting because obviously everyone defines a scoring chance differently, right? So it's kind of subjective in that sense, whereas I think it's much easier, although certain buildings certainly have been known to either inflate or devalue what a shot-on goal is,

depending on their lose definition. But I do think it's an interesting sort of weighing the two against each other. Well, which goalie would you, from a goalie perspective, like, and you could probably ask Woodley next time you have them on, would you rather, if I'm going to tell you there's three, if scoring chances are going to be three-three, would you rather be the goalie face in 12? with the goalie face in one.

Because honestly, if you're the goalie face in one, you're probably in a less ideal position. You're not getting the easy volume. You're not quote unquote feeling the puck or whatever terminology you want to use. Where if I can tell you, hey, scoring chances are going to be even, that's not a big deal.

To me that if you got out shot by 11 to 1, by 11, that's not a big deal. That's a, there's a lot of noise there, right? Like I think that's another key thing to think about this. because at the end of the day, the goal is to get as many goals behind the goalies. And so when you lay out those two scenarios, which one is more difficult? Which goalie faced a tougher night in period one last night? I think it would depend because I do think the shot attempts were relatively even for the most part,

like for a long stretch of that. And I think from a goalie's perspective, I might be incorrect. You're right. Like, I should just ask Woodley this and then get out of the way and just let them cook for 50 minutes and present that as a full show one day. and maybe we will do so here in the future. But I imagine the shot attempt is kind of important from the goalie's perspective because it's something you just have to prepare for. So whether the puck makes it to you or not, right?

It's kind of, it's irrelevant in the sense that obviously if the shot gets blocked, you didn't have to really do anything, but you still had to act as if the shot was going to come to you, right? You're not just taking it for granted that your defense might is going to stop it before it gets to you. So you're still getting in your stance. You're still doing the same safe selection. technique. And so you're still at tracking and everything like that.

Exactly. So if the shot attempts are equal, but one guys face significantly more shots on goal, the goalie who's made more saves gets more credit for it. But I think in reality, both guys have to do kind of the same amount of work in terms of like what their actual job requirement and responsibility is.

I will push back slightly on that because there is the, if every shot is getting blocked and everything like that, there is the, you and I talked after game one, of the Dallas Vegas series. And we talked about Logan Thompson looking uncomfortable and everything like that. Like you don't get that chance to be uncomfortable unless you're actually handling the rebound control, the post save, everything like that. So I will push back on that.

Oh, that's a good point. I get what you're saying. I think from the head tracking, from getting your body going and everything like that, they're very similar. But it's the post save action, not creating more problems for yourself, making the proper read on, on, on, on whether to catch a puck that's low or hot, like a puck near the pad, right? A lot of some goleys intentionally try to catch as many as they can that are low. Others,

the glove rarely goes below the pad. Like things like that that I think you don't get unless those shots are getting through. No, I think that's a really good point in distinction. I, in your question about what you'd kind of prefer, I do think in watching like the Predators Canucks series, UC Soros is a goalie who I generally think of as being one of those

that you would put in the camp of like benefiting, from a lot of activity. Like, it seems like he sort of is at his best and thrives in these chaotic environments where he's flying around and having to make a ton of saves in succession. And you look up and he stopped 45 or 47 Poxys face. And you're like, wow, that was an amazing U.C. Soros performance. Now, in this series, he's facing like 17 or 18 shots every single game. And he's still having to make a bunch of high degree of difficulty ones.

But I do think it might explain why he doesn't necessarily look. as sort of like sharp and refined, I think, as you generally think of him as at his prime. And any, you know, for most of the year, especially early on, I think that was the case. But I think this series in particular is kind of, I think that's a possible explanation for why he's looked the way he has because he certainly, you know, we have such high expectations for him. And he was really good in game five to force the game six and extend the series when he was called upon. But I think it's a, it's a bit of a unique challenge for him in that case. Yeah, he's very much a rhythm goalie, right? Like that was, uh, when I covered. when I was covering Dallas closely,

it was one of the unique things about going from Anton Houdobin to Ben Bishop, basically, when they were effectively splitting the season as a 1A, 1B, where Houdobin was a guy who, if he could get 10 to 12 shots in the first period, kind of get his legs going, get his body going. Those were the games where he would have one of those like Anton Udobin, I could turn it on for 30 minutes

as the best scully in the world type games. But if a first period was so, slow or whatever, he would just, he would get kind of lost in the game and wouldn't really be super effective. Meanwhile, one of the things that made kind of Ben Bishop the undoubted number one as you went into the playoffs every year. And anything like that was Ben Bishop could face one shot in the first period. He could face 40 shots in the first period.

And he was going to be the exact same goaltender. And I think Saros is a good example of a guy who, the way he plays, the approach, the way he kind of has to play at being 5, 10 and everything like that. I know he's listed at 5-11, but whatever. That's very, very generous. Yeah, that's probably on it. I'm sure on a dating app, he's actually six foot. Yes, exactly.

And he's, I think he's a guy who's always kind of thrived on getting things going early. And it's hard to be a rhythm goalie in series where there's 20 shots. It's where you're actually not touching the puck as much and everything like that. Yeah, I mean, I think there's certainly a level you have to reach. I guess, like before it becomes a problem. Like I would argue that the Canucks averaging 18 shots on goal per game so far through five games as we're talking is an ideal for their purposes. Like I'm sure regardless of whatever the chances are or how they feel about how they're

like what they're doing with those shots, you still want to get to a certain point just because especially in the postseason we see time and time again. While hope isn't necessarily an offensive strategy, there's so many dumb goals. that happen of like you look at even like the circling back to the Bruins leaves game the first goal they scored the Leafs did and pretty much

the goal that won them the game I know the Bruins scored was 0.1 seconds left to make the second with Leighlander goal the official registered game winning goal but for all intents of purposes it was that first one it was like a fade away point shot that bounces in off Charlie McAvoy and beats Jeremy Swayman which is pretty much the only way you can really beat him

these days with how locked in he is and we see that time and time again again. Now, obviously, having that be your primary strategy isn't a good thing, as we've seen with the hurricanes over the years in previous post seasons, because at some point, those bucks will stop going in against the good goalie, and then you're just going to have no other recourse for generating offense. But I do think, like, you want to mix in a variety of looks, right? And that's why it's kind of tricky if you're passing up every single shot opportunity to look for the absolute best possible high danger chance. At some point, you are going to limit yourself in a certain

sense and that might not be ideal. But yeah, it's an interesting thing to think about in terms of like what teams are prioritizing and how these games are playing out because I think when I first started doing this in the early 2010s, like shot attempts actually working. Like that was the best predictor for figuring out how a team was playing and who was good and what mattered. And then it got sort of narrowed down into shots on goal more so. And then now I think it's getting narrowed down even more into scoring chances.

and I'm sure at some point it's going to become like only high dangerous score chances. We're going to keep like whittling away until it becomes this sort of one thing that every single team is trying to accomplish. And then it'll be interesting to see whether we reach a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think we're there yet. It's just the same right where I, although every time I have an opportunity and you're talking to coaches, I always am kind of doing a bit of my personal digging to get an idea of what data, what metrics, NHL coaches actually care about. It's kind of one of those common things that if I get a chance in a conversation and everything like that.

And I know, for example, like Andrew Burnett, like I wrote the story about him in the middle of the season. Obviously, this was before the Predators even had even gone on their run and were even looking like a playoff team. And one of our additional parts of our conversation then was he talked about how it was all about scoring chances. Everything was about scoring chances. It wasn't about shots.

It was about creating. the best ones. And you get other snippets from that from other coaches too, where some will be more honest than others. But basically, at the end of the day, they're looking at that scoring chance chart. Or you'll see sometimes the coach gets frustrated after game. And they'll be like, well, we had just three, only have three scoring chances in the first period, like where they're all of a sudden they, and it's, to me, that is the biggest telltale that coaches are starting to slip up and letting everyone know that this is really where it's going. It's getting, it's interesting too because it's very similar to

NHL hockey is starting to look a little bit similar in this way to what if you go and watch like an SHL game or a European game where a lot of European hockey is based off of weight delay, create

a prime chance and it's very much quality over quantity. And I don't think it's completely the same. I think it's still looks a little bit more for corners offense when you watch an SHL game. Like I watched a little bit this past week. But it's getting, the NHL is getting,

it's starting to take more of those elements now when it comes to, you know what, this nothing shot attempt is just a nothing shot attempt. Yeah. Oh, I think, I think this stuff's incredibly fascinating.

Obviously from the team level in terms of what they're trying to accomplish with their game plan and their ability to execute it, but also I think from us as fans from watching it, right? Because so often I think we've just defaulted to just looking at that shot counter in just being like, oh, well, this team has this many more shots, so they must be controlling the play. And as I'm watching this postseason, it's really become so obvious that that's just like a wild misrepresentation for the most part, right? Like, you just have to dig deeper beyond that.

And so I think that's fun. And it used to be one of the things that I actually, I used to be a big believer. In my opinion probably changed on this in the last, I don't know, probably might come to Jesus moment to your line of thinking on this probably within the last year and a half or something. So, but like, I used to be a big believer that we need to see the shot counter in the scorebug at all times, right? Like, it used to be, like, I used to think it was something where like, hey, I want that tool where if I turn the game on at the 12 minute mark and I haven't watched the first eight minutes, I see the shot count. I at least have some sort of tool that tells me how the game has gone, right, in a zero zero game or whatever, more than the score. I have started to actually revert a little bit on the other way where it's, I think sometimes we almost, It's like the shot counter sometimes becomes the crush on us for some where we look at it.

And it stops us from actually seeing what's happening. And I have gone from being the person to be like, oh, I want to see the shot counter in every scorebug to now I don't care anymore. And I think that's another reflection of where this has gone. And I'm a smarter person now because of how I watch the game and had my come to Jesus moment, I guess. Well, isn't it also ironic? And it's so NHL, I think that like for years, we were all begging and pleading for these broadcasts to. all include the shot counter. And then now I think it's almost,

it's pretty much universally adopted, like pretty much every single broadcast does have them. I know like sometimes ESPN takes it off, to flash on their various stats, but for the most part, they're still up there throughout the course of the game. And now it's becoming like, all right, I actually need other stuff.

Like, please give me a running tally of like offensive zone puck touches or something for a team or something like that. Like I don't even know if the offensive zone possession time is even that indignant. So, yeah, it's, it's fascinating. to see how the game's changing. And I think that's, that's, that's a good thing, right?

Like, it can be, it can be frustrating when not everyone is on the same page and we're not necessarily all coming to this realization at the same time. And then you're like hearing people talk about it. It's like, ah, that's not, that's not right. But that's also a makes for fun debate. And I think that's always going to be the case of sports. So, um, yeah, on that series, I want to talk to a little bit about, about Jim Montgomery, a coach that you covered.

We've spoken about him, uh, at various times over the past couple years. And in watching this. Bruins team. It's amazing, right? Because for years, we've spoken so much about the Leafs and how they've been haunted by their past history in these big moments and these games and losing game sevens and all that stuff, right, in the postseason. And yet now you're watching this Bruins team. And I honestly don't think it's lazy analysis or kind of cliched to discuss how their game is sort of changing as this pressure amounts because you watch these past couple games and it's clear that they're just,

they're playing, whether it's a bit more like reserved or tense or what have you, I think the pressure that's mounting and also as they're approaching nearer to this like possibility of a truly catastrophic collapse, right? Like the idea of losing back-to-back years when you're up 3-1 with two of the final three games at home, no less. and blowing both those series. And then even for the coach of Montgomery,

extending even beyond that before he came to Boston with some of his track record and these kind of close-out pivotal games, you see it kind of like just the execution isn't the same as it was that they're not nearly as sharp. And I think it makes sense for a team that, like I think a Florida, for example, or a Carolina, would treat these games slightly differently

because they're so frenetic and chaotic and the puck's bouncing everywhere. that they can just kind of as long as they keep moving and keep competing, the game won't look that different. But this Bruins team is so structured and so much built on like precision and execution that I do think once you get into that human element of like, oh, no, this is a really important game. And, you know, we're steering into trouble here.

I do think that would impact the way your decision making and the way you're playing. Yeah. No, I agree with that. It's, I mean, it is a human sport played with human emotions. human impact, right? There's the, it's not just plug in a video game characters. And that is something that's, I think, important here too. And the Montgomery one is interesting too because it's like, as he said, like I covered

both of his seasons in Dallas when he was there. And in 2019, Dallas had a 3-2 lead in the second round against St. Louis and looked like absolute, looked absolutely awful in game six had home, dropped a 4-1, low. Boston just got rocked. And then they go to St. Louis for game seven and just got, they went to two overtimes because Ben Bishop had one of the best games of his career. And it was just, it looked completely small in the moment. I was there.

I covered both those games in person. Dallas looked completely small in the moment. They didn't do anything like that. And at the time, it's something where looking at the evidence of the moment, you're like, oh, that's something you look at the whole team. But it's hard not for me to think about that when you look at, Boston dropping the 3-1 series lead last year

and we see him in my opinion he got out-coached by Paul Maurice last year in that Florida series and then you go into this series and I don't think he's getting out-coached by Sheldon Keith

but I don't think it's kind of one of those things where it is a whether it's just an unlucky whether he's just an unlucky stat about Jim Montgomery where he's lost seven straight chances to close out in a

opponent or something that he's causing. I don't know which it is. But the evidence to me is there's definitely something here that needs to be gotten past. The other interesting thing about last night that I went, essentially the clip of it, because I saw it is after the game, Jim Montgomery basically goes out to call, call out David Pasternak for, it's like we need, we need Posternak to step up. We need yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada.

That's been when Jim Montgomery has, in his time is in Dallas when he was struggling, His bag was to go to calling out top players. That was his crutch when the team was struggling, and he didn't know how to get going. A lot of people in Dallas might remember the times when he said he had the famous quote where I've not been able to get rid of the culture of mediocrity. And that culture of mediocrity,

those comments came soon after he ripped into Jamie Ben and Tyler Sagan for not stepping up. It came in that same era when Jim Lights very famously called me into his office to just overly amplify that opinion as well. They were, they were like horse, horse poop. Was that the quote?

Yes, exactly. And I mean, yes. And like that was something that was co-signed by Jim, by Jim Montgomery and everything like that. So I don't want to, it's,

it's one of those things where I'd love to, I don't get to be a fly on the wall in the room. So I don't know exactly what's happening there all the time and everything like that. But it is the reality where if you are looking at the common thread for this, and where things go and how his teams have tended to kind of collapse upon themselves. And they go from, they start getting, the structure starts to disappear. And they start to get more skittery and everything like that. It's, to me, there's a common thread there that the Bruins have to figure out before game seven and their head coach has to figure out.

Because I don't think just, I don't think, I mean, what, asking David Pasternak to turn. into Superman. I don't think that's the best, I don't think that's the best way to, I don't, I don't think that is going to fix all your problems from what actually was issuing, what actually was bothering you in game six. Well, I do think this stuff, particularly in the postseason, can really take a life of its own at times and sort of impact results. The beautiful thing about sports, for the most part, is that you do get to control and write your own narrative in the sense that no matter how bleak things seem, all that really matters is the most recent thing you've done.

So, like, instantly, if you just win one game or one series, all of a sudden, all that gets thrown out the door, essentially becomes irrelevant. Now, I think part of the trouble here is that that's probably more so the case for players, especially star players, who can sort of more directly control the outcome of that because they're responsible for what's actually happening. As a coach, you can push all the right buttons,

motivate your players, tactically prepare it guys, divvy out ice time accordingly. And if the players don't get it done or if things happen, it's kind of up the chance for the most part, right? And I think that can be very frustrating. I did think that was very interesting his post-game comments because it was pretty cutting, like in terms of like what you're going to hear a coach in real time during a series say about a star player because he, you know, he sort of prefaces it or couches it with talking about his effort. And I do think he's right. Like I think Pasternak's effort has clearly been there in this series and you really cannot

question that, which isn't always the case for a lot of scorers when they're struggling. But then he sort of goes like, he talks about how in these big moments like you need your star players to produce. And he goes, Batman or Sean has done that. Now like David Pasternak needs to, right? Yeah. Kind of comparing the two in different lights, I think was very, very dramatic on his part. I will say though, I think he's right.

I'm not necessarily sure that like doing so in that setting is the way to do it. Yeah. But I don't, I don't even think he needs David Pasternak to be superhuman. I think he needs David Pasternak to be David Pasternak because in this series, that's fair. Simply has not been good enough, right? Like, he's scored two goals. He's not, I'm going down for 11 scoring chances in five games.

Like for him or six games, for him, that's, that's not enough. Like, he's such a high value chance generator and scorer. And what I have noticed, it's been interesting. And this is credit to the Leafs because I think they did a really good job of preparing for this and pre-scouting defensively and then focusing on an important sort of tool in Pastornax bag is like he loves to circle around behind the net in the offensive zone and then kind of pop open into the slot and then quickly turn around and like whip a puck on net and it instantly becomes a high danger chance. And every time he tries to do that in this series, there's a Leaves defender that's like right on him and he doesn't even have a chance to really. release it properly the way he does in the regular season. And so that's credit to them because that's just, that's phenomenal pre-scouting.

That's, that's, that's one of the things you and I talked about before the playoffs where one of the great things about playoff hockey is teams actually get to focus on what the other team does. And that's a key thing that we sometimes see with top players. Where with Pastor knock, that's a good example of one of his trades and one of his habits.

You can say something about that in game 62 of the regular season, but you're not hammering it down for three days of video work, because we have to play another team two days later. It's one of the things that I think happened with, one of the things I give credit to Jason Robertson's game with this year after last year was I think teams picked up a lot of his tendencies last year,

and they really kind of hammered down on him quite a bit. And then this year, I think I've seen Jason Robertson be a little bit more adjusted and things like we just saw the goal against Vegas the other day, to kind of the walk across instead of doing one of the two things he normally does, adjusting to, like, I think that's, one of the great things about playoff hockey is there are we find ways that players have to become problem solvers and the Leafs have done a great job of taking away another thing and Alposter Knock has to be a problem solver in another way. Yeah. No, I love that. That is one of the best parts

of playoff hockey. Yeah, no, we're getting the game seven, which is fun. After game four or whatever, before game five, when it kind of became clear that Matthews was going to be out and missed game five, and then he missed game six as well. I posted on Discord kind of jokingly, but I was like, I know that unequivocally, like this decreases their chances of winning because he's one of the three best,

most impactful players in the entire league, and he's unbelievable, and he's the only reason they've won a game so far, yet I have no doubt in my mind that the Leafs are just going to win the next couple of games because this is playoff hockey and this, like, it was always going to be the most chaotic,

dumb outcome in terms of like the runout of how this was going to shake out. I would never just be as simple as like, oh, well, you lose your best player and you're done. And so in this case, we're getting a game seven and it's going to be highly dramatic and fun. And so looking forward to watching that this weekend. All right, Sean, let's take our break here. And then when we come back, we'll pick it back up and finish the week strong. You're listening to the Hockey P.D.

podcast streaming on the Sports Night Radio Network. All right, we're back here on the Hockey Pee-Ocast with Sean Shepero. Let's bounce over to Stars Nights. And I did a breakdown of the series of our pal David Castillo recently. So I think a lot, we covered a lot. I left a little bit of meat on the bone that I wanted to circle back with you to because I think it's going to double as a good entry point for us into like a deeper conversation about coaching in the playoffs.

And it'll go along with a theme of what we just talked about with Jim Montgomery. So I think it all kind of ties together neatly. But during our conversation about Wyatt Johnson, I'll start with this, I was kind of raving about his performances postseason and how good he's been in the series and how he's like really elevated his game and distinguished himself as Dallas's best forward. In that conversation, I kind of forgot to, I forgot to mention, but I also really just forgot as we were talking about last year's West final between these two teams in terms of how it went for Johnston, because I went back and looked at it and he really struggled in that

series. He got outscored 5. Nothing at 5-1-5. He had like a 36% expected goal share. He was held pointless in nearly 100 minutes of ice time. And obviously there's a multitude of reasons why they lost. He's not anywhere near the top of that list. But the reason why I point that out was it is interesting to kind of, especially for such a young player where he was, what, he was still a teenager at the time, I believe, if not if he had to touch or 20 yet,

as kind of like a learning experience, what that series was. And then now how heavily relied upon he is as a player, right? where he's leading the stars in Ice Time in this series amongst forwards, as opposed to being this kind of fun story as a middle six contributor for them. And just the value, I guess, of like getting those reps, even if it comes as a humbling in a way in terms of like, all right, this is still what I need to work on,

what needs to happen for me to improve and get to that level. The young players sometimes don't get in the postseason, because whether it's after an early mistake or whether it never even happens in the first place, coaches so often default back to their trusted veteran players and kind of we're leaning on those guys. And we're going to run through some other examples that we've seen of that in this postseason. But I think Johnston is kind of a good example of kind of working through that and how he's now benefited from it this season. Well, we also have to bring a fair context to this on Wyatt Johnson. Wyatt Johnston was pretty good against the wild of the Cracken in the first two rounds.

He scored, I think he scored the series winner against the raccoon, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. In that game seven against the Cracken, he had a, so he was, it's not like he was a, he was a guy who had kind of, I think, in Pete Dibor's mind was already a quote-unquote veteran. DeBore had played him all 82 games. He had played him all 82 games. He was quite good in the first two rounds. And then so him kind of struggling in round three.

it didn't really, I think it was a slightly humbling spot for Johnston. It also kind of got buried in the larger narrative because so much of that series basically became a, well, it's two overtime games. And then Jamie, it's two overtime games that could have gone either way. And then Jamie Ben loses his school. And like, then that just narrative overshadowed everything in that Western Conference final series last year. So I think the Johnston story from last year's playoffs is more so. of, I think it's twofold. It's one where just because a young player has played well

against one team in the playoffs, doesn't mean it's just going to hum along exactly against every team. There might be different reasons and matchups and whatever. And the other thing is you have to, not have to, but I think you have to remember the intrinsic value in allowing a player to actually establish himself so you can look at things fairly, right? Like I'm sure I know for Dallas last year with him with Johnston in that Vegas series,

it's something where they're not, they expected to be better and everything like that. But it was the spot where you kind of knew based off what happened to the other two that there was something else there. And I think that's kind of the key to the Johnston story. It's not like this was a round one series and he just struggled and he came into this year. Like why Johnson coming into this season and this postseason is not some guy where it's like, oh, he struggled in the playoffs last year. It's like, no, he knows how to deliver in the playoffs. He did it last year for two rounds.

He just kind of, he hit a bit of a wall or whatever when it's against Vegas. And this year, he has proven that maybe, I don't know, maybe it was timing. Maybe this is a question that you and I put a pin in and see how White Johnson looks when he's playing his 100th game of the season. Because maybe that's something to it too. That's another key point for us to think about later. Certainly, especially for a player who had previously been playing significantly less, obviously at lower levels. But even like just in terms of the volume of games. of games. No, I'm with you. And you're right, because that's kind of why I forgot that that

was even part of that playoff run, because I thought that he was so good last year as a rookie with the context of how young he was, but also just in general. And then I remember the big moments he had in the first two series. And I kind of forgot that he had had that series. And then now just thinking about this one. And certainly, like, I get your point that when a young player is playing while I'm producing, it's much easier for a coach to just keep giving them more rope and just like sending them back out there with with you need a more featured role. And so that applies to this next point as well, but just comparing like what you're seeing in this series where Peter Burr is leaning on him and Logan Stankovin in this spot where,

and I think it's influenced partly by Joe Pabelski's struggles at this point of his career, particularly as we've spoken about in this specific matchup where Vegas is so good and adept at neutralizing his biggest strike. as a player offensively. But he's using them and sprinkling in both Johnston and Stankovin to like manufacture additional looks for Robertson and Hints as well along the way, right? Like we've seen Johnston in full games with those two guys, but we've also seen him like creating for Robertson as well with Stankovin

where he throws them out for a couple shifts here or there and then all of a sudden creates some easier looks for them. And he's almost using them regardless of what their regular role is as kind of like quick bursts of energy or catalysts to help get other offensive players going. And I find that a really fun development. And that's what a coach should be doing. It happened on the, on the Duchenne goal, too. I mean, we've seen it.

It hasn't happened as much on five on five, but they've gone to pairing Johnston with Dushain more in kind of that net front, net front slash bumper role. And I think Johnson's good in the bumper wherever he is, but they, D'Shaun's been struggling to get pucks in the net and everything. I thought Deshain was better in game four. They had been in all series and scored in game five. And on the power play perspective,

so it's something that Johnson's not only getting used in that role at five on five, there's also elements of let's go out of our way to help him get other guys going. And it's kind of that natural thing, right, where it's not supposed to be supposed to, it's the wrong word here, but like the hockey cliche is like, oh, you put a guy with like the veteran to get him going. And really this is, Dallas is using effectively their, youngest player. I'd have to compare his and Stankovin's age to make sure I have it exactly right. But like, they're effectively using a 20 year old to make sure this quote

unquote veteran team gets moving. Like that's, that's a, that's a huge testament to what he's doing. And it's a credit to Pete DeBore too, because for as much as sometimes people will be like, oh, they never trust young players. They never trust young players. They let a teenage white Johnson play 82 games last year. They let a, they let Thomas Harley step in and completely shelve older quote unquote veteran players last year. So as much as Pete DeBore sometimes gets a rap from Stars fans of, oh, he doesn't trust young guys. It's not actually the truth. He trusts young guys, but. Well, and Sean, I mean, he trusts Niels Lunkwis enough to sit on the bench for 57 minutes at a time. Sorry, I had to throw that. I know I had to. One of the great, one of the

great things. I was reading my pal Robert Tiffin's post-game piece after that game. And he said he really hoped that in the second half of game five that Lundquist and Dorfie have got out a game of battleship or something like that. So they could play battleship across the benches so they at least could find something to be competitive at. We need a story on what's Lundquist's like regiment during these games. Like is he like taking walks in the tunnel? Is he going out for a spin during TV timeouts? Because I imagine sitting for that long is going to lead to like not only just being sore but potentially even cramping up. Like it's he is the, and I've written this and I've said this and I know no team would ever do it.

But if you're Dallas and right now you're a spot where you might have forwards coming back, wouldn't, is this the, this is the one time where a coach should be crazy enough to go 13.5 because Joe Puevielski is struggling to get it going. You got some, you got some health stuff like you wouldn't have preferred maybe four or five minutes of Mavri's. Bork occasionally jumping into the lineup as a forward instead of basically playing five defensemen with those long was playing two minutes well I think certainly if faxan and marchmen were healthy I think that would actually be a realistic consideration right yeah I think so yeah the past three games I mean I jotted it down I'm looking for it right now yeah 257 109

221 and I was morbidly curious to see in that game three that went to overtime if it had become like a crazy four-overtime game. At what point, Pete DeBore would have been like, I just, I got to send him out there because I always say it would have been unfair to Lundquist after sitting for that long to just get thrown into the fire. But also like at some point, he would have had to just because he cannot possibly use Chris Tadav and Ryan Suter and guys like that, that much. Well, it's he, I kind of joke at the spot where it's like, I think Nils Lundquist

is, should have picked a higher number because he has yet, like, I think he basically, I think Pete looks at the number on his back and says, that's how many shifts you're getting. And so, like Nils needs to change his number to like 74 or something like that so he could get more shifts. Yeah, just offer a bunch of money for Matthew Chains in 95.

See if he can. Yeah. If he can work his way up there. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, he's certainly not invaluable, but I think in the aggregate still has done a good job in that sense

in trusting these guys in putting out positions to succeed. And so I think it's a massive net positive, especially when you compare it to the way other coaches tend to operate this time of year. But yeah, that dynamic of sort of coaches and young players and who they trust is so interesting. And like a favorite of mine Tommy Novak, no, he's not young in terms of age because I think he's 27 years old at this point. But young in terms of NHL experience, he's played fewer NHL games than Wyatt Johnson has because it took him so long to get at this point. You're watching in this series and it's like the Preds have seven five-on-five goals in five games against the Knox and it's been an absolute slog generating any sort of offense.

And he just clearly does not, Andrew Burnett does not trust him in the defensive zone to the point where he had to give zero defensive zone starts so far in the series. And he's playing less than any other Predators forward, which was not the case. Like at the end of the season, when they were winning, he was essentially getting second line minutes on this team. And now because of the situation, you're seeing guys like Michael McCarran just playing significantly more than him in these matchup assignments. And I just, I think there's an irony to it because the predators are,

need to attack off the rush, for example, right? And I think Tommy Novak is one of their better players at helping transition the puck from the defensive zone into the neutral zone and then into the offensive zone to accomplish that. Yet he's not really getting the opportunity to do so because he just never trusted to actually play in a defensive zone. So in a way, it's like a catch 22. It's like, all right, the one thing this guy does isn't even being allowed to really

materialized because of the lack of trust, right? And I think that's where fans get frustrated with coaches when it's like, if we're going to lose, let's at least do so in a way where like it encourages hope for the future beyond losing with all of our oldest players being responsible. So yeah, it's interesting. I don't know there's a right answer, but it's always fun to see this time of year,

and how certain coaches deal with it. Well, you can't be a, it's kind of the classic thing in life sometimes of like, how do you? It's like, oh, I want someone more experience. So how does someone gain more experience? They play more games. Like, I mean, Wyatt Johnson's a perfect example.

White Johnston is an experienced, quote unquote, NHL player. He's 20 years old. And you know what? The stars have created an experience an HL player at 20 because they let him play all 82 games in back-to-back years. They have let him play big minutes. You can become an experienced player at 20. It's not, it's not tied to age.

And that's another White Johnson lasting legacy here, I think. Anything else on that series? it's kind of caught your eye or you think is relevant to note. You know, they're playing the game six on Friday night. Yeah, they're playing the game six tonight. So it's kind of could be. And I know you went deep on it the other day with David and everything like that. So to me, the one thing that's been the other thing that's just been,

I wonder on this whole Lundquist thing. It's the perspective of how long can you get away with this in the long run if Yanni Hock and Paw, like, because allegedly the whole thing coming to the playoffs. It's like, oh, once Hock and Paw is healthy, he'll come in. Hock and Pawn's not even close. He's not skating with the team. Like, how long can you do this? That's the, that's the other thing that's just the fascinating part to me, where Vegas is going to take a chunk out of it, right? And you're doing it with effectively playing five defensemen the entire time. What's going to happen once you start hitting games 12, 13, 14 of the playoffs if you advance, and you've still been doing

this against Colorado because that's what they play in the next round if they get by Vegas. that to me is just a fascinating things to watch with this Dallas team because at some point Pete DeBore is either going to have to trust Nils Lundquist or they're going to have to trust an HL type player because until Yani Hockenbach comes back.

Yeah. Well, I was going to say, especially if you're getting into games 12 and potentially 13 of the postseason, that means you're deep in an avalanche series and we know the pace they play at and the physical demands of that. That's like as challenging

as this Golden Knight series, is for a defenseman for a variety of reasons. I think that one is almost like tenfold in so many other ways. So yeah, that'll be certainly, certainly taxing and demanding on those guys. Do you have any notes on, as I think we've covered enough of those series, just like general NHL news, something that's sort of gotten a lot of attention this week has been this whole Rod Brindamore thing with his extension and contract status with the hurricanes, which I guess if there's a time to do it during the postseason, it's while you're

waiting to start your next round because you just finished out round one and you're waiting for round two to commence. But certainly interesting timing. It seems like it was like a 24-hour new cycle and there was that classic negotiating and like using the media to sort of get a little bit of leverage. And it seems like it has been sorted. But do you have any kind of notes on that and just kind of the general practice, I guess, of the insider's role in facilitating a lot of this stuff. I mean, it's, I have one coach. As per my last week.

Yes. I have, sweet. I have one, I have, there's a couple coaches. It's funny who I have spoken to before, who have left the impression before to me where it's like, oh, hey, keep my name in mind on things. And there's guys, too, there are coaches who definitely are playing the game. And they are, they ask for favors without asking for them. And the whole interesting thing about the Brendan Moore thing to me has been somehow

in an industry that has never been more volatile, right? Like we've had like 25 coaching changes like in the last two years. Like the fact Bruce Cassidy is the most tenured coach in the Pacific Division is downright laughable. and it's this position, this coach music is so much more volatile and everything like that. And we have one guy who isn't kind of that group of probably like, there's probably about four or five coaches in our minds where it's like, oh, that guy will actually get to leave on his quote unquote own terms. Right. And now he's getting kind of roped into it. And it's kind of this interesting question of tests the morals of how the hurricanes want to run things.

And there's been two things that have happened this week with how the hurricanes want to run things. The hurricanes, it's fitting, honestly. One of the reasons the hurricanes and the Chicago Wolves split was because Tom Dundon, the owner of the hurricanes, is effectively wanted more control of the HL operations. But also all of these things also come down to money. Everything comes down to money. We've heard the stories in Carolina how Tom Dundon is willing to spend the cap on his players. but other things, you're going to be, you're going to try to find the best possible financial deal for yourself to do it.

Tom Dundon is the person who was told me, point blank, that if he could, he would make the Hurricanes jersey look like a NASCAR jersey so he could sell 16 ads all over the place. They won't let him. And so this is testing kind of the morals of one of the reasons hockey operations has worked so well in Carolina is because Rod Rendemore has been willing to work there for less than market value. This is a team where the president of,

The team president for business and the GM are the same person. No other NHL team has those people as the same job. Those are two very different jobs. And Don Waddell, for whatever he's getting paid, is not getting paid enough to do both of those jobs. But he's willing to do it. One of the, Dundon has basically been kind of running on this system where he gets the people who are willing to do this or willing to stay in a place they like and do it for a little bit less to take the hometown discount. Rod Brendamore is starting to realize that, you know what? there's probably 20 teams in the NHL that would probably fire my coach right now to bring Rod in.

And I think he's starting to realize that. And now he's going to push back against the. And that's kind of, it's kind of this clashing of what are the defining morals of how Dundon is running his team. Are you, and he has to break one of them because he's got two of them. One is Rod Brendamore makes everything go. Two is we don't spend a lot of money. He has to break one of them right now. And it's going to be, it's going to be the one where he doesn't want to spend a lot of money because he's going to keep Robbendamor.

Well, also another one of them from general business practice, and I think it's done them well. You know, it's caused some issues along the way, but it's also done them well in terms of like maintaining flexibility and being always available to add players and make whatever deal they want to and always being involved in a lot of these like, all right, someone's available. The hurricanes are interested, even if they don't always accomplish a deal, is internally setting a value on what everyone is worth. and if it exceeds it, it's like, all right, well, this isn't for us. And the issue with that in this case is that Rod Brindamore's value is whatever another team is willing to pay him. It's not necessarily what you said it at. And so in that sense, if there's a team, cough, cough Seattle that has an opening and a connection, and they're like, hey, we're going to go crazy on this.

All of a sudden, that porpoises kind of pushes you in an interesting, into a corner where you're like, all right, do I match that and go out of my comfort zone in that sense? Or do I, like, what do I do with it? Right? And so I think that's what we kind of saw. But I'd be shocked if he went anywhere just because it would be an how successful they've been and what do you mean to that organization, even beyond just this coaching team. I think they'll get it done.

I'm not pretending to be a quote unquote insider or anything, but I do think they'll get it done just from the space. But I think it's one of those that required this public, it kind of required. it required a Rod's agent to send a call or text to someone to say, hey, they pulled the off. This isn't going as smooth as it should be right now. And that gets people asking the questions. Yeah, I'm going to need you to post a tweet about this. Anyways, all right, Sean, this is a blast.

Everyone, go follow your work. We're going to have you on against you. I wanted to, on the theme of coaching, I wanted to talk about all the Pittsburgh stuff and Mike Sullivan. But you know what? I don't think that's necessarily imminent. And those could be famous last words because something could happen. And I mean,

they just fire our Todd Reardon. But I think next time I have you on, I want to get more into that because I think this conversation of coaching and the way they're treated as assets for an organization is a very fascinating one. But we'll have more time to dive into that. Keep with great work, man. Enjoy this weekend of games. And we'll have you on again soon.

Thank you everyone for listening. Next time you hear from us, we'll be doing our round two preview, I think. So time really is flying by when you're having fun. This is a blast. Thank you for listening to the HockeyPedio cast streaming on the SportsNay Radio Network.