Leafs trade for Dave Bolland

[bustaheims]

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

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

There are also some other issues when looking at it on a macro level like that. The top faceoff teams are going to play roughly the same amount of games against the other top faceoff teams as they are against the bottom teams. Same with the bottom teams against the other bottom teams. Since all faceoffs are determined to have been won by someone, the balance of competition is going to pull everyone towards the middle. Top teams are going to have less success against other top teams, while bottom teams are going to have more success against other bottom teams. There may only be a 4-5% difference in totals at the end of the season, but the head to head differences between the top teams and the bottom teams is going to be much more significant - probably closer to 15-20%.

 

[Kin]

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

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

There are also some other issues when looking at it on a macro level like that. The top faceoff teams are going to play roughly the same amount of games against the other top faceoff teams as they are against the bottom teams. Same with the bottom teams against the other bottom teams. Since all faceoffs are determined to have been won by someone, the balance of competition is going to pull everyone towards the middle. Top teams are going to have less success against other top teams, while bottom teams are going to have more success against other bottom teams. There may only be a 4-5% difference in totals at the end of the season, but the head to head differences between the top teams and the bottom teams is going to be much more significant - probably closer to 15-20%.

Sure. And another branch of that, for instance, is that there are in-game decisions that are going to pull it towards 50% as well. Every center in the league is going to take a certain percentage of their face-offs, I don't know how many but some, against players who aren't centers after someone gets tossed. That's going to pull it towards 50% as you'd figure both teams will benefit equally from that. Likewise if I'm a coach with last change I'm probably going to not cede the face-off circle when the other team puts their best guy out there and will probably try to make for as even a match-up as I can, all things considered.

 

[Tigger]

If a faceoff can be called a 'static' puck battle, I think overall what some of those numbers get to is that teams that win more puck battles than they lose on average have better results, in that sense Bolland is a distinct upgrade on Bozak, overall.

If the Leafs are really concerned about that specific skill set it's another reason to make a solid attempt to land Boyd Gordon.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

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

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

I think it's very important in specific situations (PK, defensive zone, etc) but that it's hard to gauge it's impact on a broader scale.  I guess you always would want to be better at it than not, but I don't think it's a "difference maker" for teams generally.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Boland is trusted by Quenville to go out immediately after scoring the go ahead goal and take the faceoff with a minute left.  Not being mellow dramatic I hope but the Stanley Cup clinching win was on the line.  That has to say something about his faceoff skills.  (Sorry no stats to back that up this time...just a gut feeling). 

Maybe Sharp and Handzus were even more injured than Toews....

 

[Jalili]

Nice, I had an inkling they'd go this route.

With Bolland and McClement as the 3rd/4th line centers you can definitely envision the type of team they're trying to put together.

 

[Zee]

Leafs PR ‏@LeafsPR 59m
Dave Bolland will wear # 63 for the #Leafs. No player has worn that sweater # in the history of the franchise. #TMLtalk
Retweeted by Joe Bowen

 

[Redleaf]

Leafs PR ‏@LeafsPR 59m
Dave Bolland will wear # 63 for the #Leafs. No player has worn that sweater # in the history of the franchise. #TMLtalk
Retweeted by Joe Bowen

Anyone remember Burke's issue with his players wearing high numbers? 

I guess Nonis is pretty cool about the whole thing.

The new guys so far...

Bernier #45
Bolland #63
Clarkson #71

 

[Leafaholic99]

Leafs PR ‏@LeafsPR 59m
Dave Bolland will wear # 63 for the #Leafs. No player has worn that sweater # in the history of the franchise. #TMLtalk
Retweeted by Joe Bowen

Anyone remember Burke's issue with his players wearing high numbers? 

I guess Nonis is pretty cool about the whole thing.

The new guys so far...

Bernier #45
Bolland #63
Clarkson #71

Burke moved on that stance when acquiring Kessel.

 

[Kin]

Leafs PR ‏@LeafsPR 59m
Dave Bolland will wear # 63 for the #Leafs. No player has worn that sweater # in the history of the franchise. #TMLtalk
Retweeted by Joe Bowen

Anyone remember Burke's issue with his players wearing high numbers? 

I guess Nonis is pretty cool about the whole thing.

The new guys so far...

Bernier #45
Bolland #63
Clarkson #71

To be fair there's not much Nonis or any Leafs GM can do about that if they stick to their asinine "We're not retiring numbers but we won't just hand out numbers" policy. Pretty clear what number Clarkson would like to wear.

 

[ZBBM]

I like mid-high numbers myself.  50s-60s-70s rock.  For no good reason, I don't like 40s at all, and 80s-90s are kind of meh.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

The new guys so far...

Bernier #45
Bolland #63
Clarkson #71

three new GameDayBears to  make 

hmmmmmm Bernier is 45? But Fraser is 45 and FraserBear already exists??...

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I suspect he didn't want to ask Gunnar to give him the number, so the old switcharoo it was.

 

[Zee]

I think all Leafs forwards should only wear numbers that signify Stanley Cup winning years:

18
22
32
42
45
47
48
49
51
62
63
64
67

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[hockeyfan1]

I think all Leafs forwards should only wear numbers that signify Stanley Cup winning years:

18
22
32
42
45
47
48
49
51
62
63
64
67

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Now that may just bring us good luck! 

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think all Leafs forwards should only wear numbers that signify Stanley Cup winning years:

18
22
32
42
45
47
48
49
51
62
63
64
67

Leiweke says NO!

 

[Corn Flake]

Leafs PR ‏@LeafsPR 59m
Dave Bolland will wear # 63 for the #Leafs. No player has worn that sweater # in the history of the franchise. #TMLtalk
Retweeted by Joe Bowen

Anyone remember Burke's issue with his players wearing high numbers? 

I guess Nonis is pretty cool about the whole thing.

The new guys so far...

Bernier #45
Bolland #63
Clarkson #71

Things for a GM to not waste more than 5 milliseconds worrying about for $500, Alex.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Just watched CP24 where Dave Bolland was parading the Stanley Cup in Mimico.  Nice homecoming.  And perhaps some good luck for our Leafs!


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/leaf-forward-dave-bolland-brings-stanley-cup-west-195334478.html

 

[CarltonTheBear]

At the time of the trade Nonis talked about how Bolland's role with Chicago last season was more of a third line role. Carlyle said the exact same thing yesterday. The idea here is that Bolland hasn't been given an opportunity to play in a top-6 role so there's some untapped potential there. The problem is that statement is completely not true.

I met Dave Nonis yesterday, he was standing in front of my building.

Did you ask him why he and Carlyle keep saying that Bolland was a third line centre last season when his most common linemates were Kane and Sharp?

Probably because he averaged the 7th most even strength time on ice among Chicago forwards. I'm just guessing of course.

This exchange was taken from the useless thread where I was just being a little cheeky. If I'm going to elaborate a little bit on that I wanted to move it here. I'm sure you'll find it here OTH.

The fact that Bolland was 7th in even-strength ice-time with the Hawks is really the fault of his own. He played about 92% of his even-strength ice time with Patrick Kane. He played about 43% of his even-strength ice time centring a line of Patrick Kane and Patrick Sharp. His 8 most frequent line combinations had Patrick Kane on them. To put these numbers into context a little bit, Bolland with with Kane more frequently than Bozak played with Kessel last season. If you have Kane on your wing that often you aren't playing on the third line. He centered Chicago's 2nd line essentially from the beginning to the end of the regular season. He was only bumped off in the playoffs in favour of Michael Handzus.

Why it took so long for Chicago to take him off that line is beyond me, because all the numbers show that he was brutal in that role. Patrick Kane had 38 even-strength points last season. The league leader was Eric Staal with 43. Bolland had a measly 10 points at even-strength while spending 92% of his ice time with one the highest scoring players in the league. Somebody else also dug up the fact that Patrick Kane's corsi rating with Bolland on the ice too was 44%. When he played without Bolland that number skyrocketed up to 56%.

I'm not trashing Dave Bolland here. I liked the trade a lot. I didn't like some of the things that it meant for our roster, but I do like the idea of having Bolland on our 3rd line. It's just amazing that Nonis and Carlyle can stand there and say that he was a third liner last season. It makes me question how much they even watched him play, if they did at all. It also makes me worried that they might be comfortable playing him on the 2nd line, particularly if Kadri has an extended hold-out. Because if it didn't work in Chicago it certainly work here. Bolland needs to be on the third line to be effective.

 

[Kin]

Somebody else also dug up the fact that Patrick Kane's corsi rating with Bolland on the ice too was 44%. When he played without Bolland that number skyrocketed up to 56%.

While that may be true I can't help but feel as though that has a lot to do with the fact that the center that Kane played the most with other than Bolland was Toews. That's a tough comparison for any center.