What to do with Luca Sbisa

[DarthNinja]

too many wrong addresses on his pizzia delivery... get that boy a GPS!

[DarthNinja]

Re-sign him obviously. First I nailed the who scores first in the playoff pole and now this...

Did you also nail the serious overpayment?

[RUPERTKBD]

What would you call being on the ice for the only two goals against (Sbisa)?

oldnews broke the rest of this down for you, but to put it simply, I'd say that Sbisa (and Bieksa on the second goal) were unlucky that their teammates blew opportunities to clear the puck from the defensive zone.

[ilikecanucks]

I think you're trying way too hard yet again.

"They started 62.5% of their shifts in the offensive zone" - I suppose that sounds more dramatic than posting the fact that he had 5 offensive zone starts and 3 defensive - in which case, bothering to make the point at all sounds rather ridiculous - that's how small the sample you are referring to is.

Weber had a +8 corsi and only "33% ozone starts" lol (as in 4 of 12) and yet managed to be on the ice for a goal against, actually playing a rather unfortunate role in turning the puck over at the blueline. So he had a very good puck possession night, yet was on the ice for a goal against. Small sample plus/minus is highly relevent to 'advanced stats' and analysis, though, right.

Beating minute samples like this to death isn't 'advanced', it's obsessive. Anyone who has ever played any sport knows how meaningless and fleeting a tiny sample like this is. Every single player in the NHL's statistics fluctuate wildly from game to game over tiny samples like this. Suggesting that a coach is going to ride two pairings for the last five minutes is also pretty daft.

Another case of you getting carried away is this claim you make above:

"Watch the replay of the winning goal. What was Sbisa doing? Charging to cover the point?"

Are you serious? Did you watch the replay yourself? Sbisa is at the goal side edge of the faceoff circle - he's literally 7 or 8 feet from the net, gliding towards Backlund to take away that option away from Brodie. Watch it again and realize how slanted your perception of the play and the player is, trying desperately to find fault in everything he does in order to make a point that isn't really worth the effort. He was not charging the point, nor should he have been. Was he in the line of sight before the shot? Yes. That is extremely common in a game where 100 shot attempts are taken, and over 25% of them are blocked. Did he play either goal against perfectly? Probably not, but is he responsible for either of the goals against? No. Could he have prevented either goal? Probably not. This notion that 'he was on the ice for both goals' is exceedingly weak in relevance and the fact you try so hard to attribute more meaning than there is indicates more about you than Sbisa.

Apparently you love to fill your boots with this stuff, but all you're really doing is micro-nit-picking players - pretending it is some form of "advanced analytics".

When it's like that every game, when every game outcome has him on the bottom of the possession chart, it's no longer a small sample. When every dman he plays with has their possession numbers sag next to him, it's not a sample issue.

Players perform worse next to Sbisa.

I'd be interested to know what types of things he showed that you could say he was one of the better players on the ice, like has been suggested in here.

The truth is I don't like Sbisa, I don't think he's any good. I think he's a bottom pairing defensman. I think our team performs better when he's not on the ice. I watch games and see him hemmed in his own end nearly every shift. He doesn't appear "awful" in his own zone, because he's always there.

The people that love him, IMO, are infatuated with the tool box he presents, tall, stocky, good skater, reasonably hard shot. It's like these tools disguise the things that I see (breakout passes that are never to the recipient in stride, "gliding" in zone coverage, circling back into his own zone when getting it out would be better - more a function of the system). I know what you people are seeing, I see a bit of it too, in flashes, mashed between large bouts of inconsistent play.

You can continue with your pompous comments as you'd like.

[Lui's Knob]

Shocking we signed him long term

[ilikecanucks]

oldnews broke the rest of this down for you, but to put it simply, I'd say that Sbisa (and Bieksa on the second goal) were unlucky that their teammates blew opportunities to clear the puck from the defensive zone.

I'd attribute it to luck if that type of soft zone coverage was out of the ordinary with this pairing, IMO its not. I'll agree though, Kenins failing to get the puck out and Horvat gassing out played big parts in the goal, but I don't think excusing the poor coverage and chalking it up to bad luck (seems these guys have a lot of it together) makes sense.

[RUPERTKBD]

Shocking we signed him long term

Yes, especially since so many experts around here think he's garbage. Very strange. Why can't WD and Benning see what's so obvious to CDC?

[RUPERTKBD]

I'd attribute it to luck if that type of soft zone coverage was out of the ordinary with this pairing, IMO its not. I'll agree though, Kenins failing to get the puck out and Horvat gassing out played big parts in the goal, but I don't think excusing the poor coverage and chalking it up to bad luck (seems these guys have a lot of it together) makes sense.

Again, this presupposes that your "poor coverage" assessment is accurate, which I don't think it is.

Also you earlier disparaged my assertion that they are the most physical pairing the Canucks have. (some would say they're the only physical pairing) Do you think the team can be successful by being even less physical than they are right now?

I do not.

[Jiggs50]

Sbisa and Bieksa shouldn't be together. They just don't mesh

[RUPERTKBD]

Sbisa and Bieksa shouldn't be together. They just don't mesh

So we put Hammer and Juice back together. That means that Weber and Sbisa are the third pairing.

Are you comfortable with that?

[ilikecanucks]

Again, this presupposes that your "poor coverage" assessment is accurate, which I don't think it is.

Also you earlier disparaged my assertion that they are the most physical pairing the Canucks have. (some would say they're the only physical pairing) Do you think the team can be successful by being even less physical than they are right now?

I do not.

We don't have to agree. That is what this place is for. Multiple opinions.

I don't think either of them are as effectively physical as Hamhuis or Edler are. I love Bieksa, one of my favourite guys on the team, but even at this peak, his physical play was "overstated". He's a good fighter, but he's not a great hitter and at his size isn't all that effective with knocking guys out of their lanes. The thing with Bieksa though is he has a track record of success to fall back on. Sbisa doesn't IMO (but what I do know, I've never been a paid scout or played in the NHL).

For me, I'd probably re-unite Hamhuis-Bieksa.

Play Edler-Tanev between 24-26 minutes, play Hamhuis Bieksa 20-22 minutes and let Weber and Sbisa play 14-16, Weber can pick up his additional minutes on the PP, Sbisa on the PK.

We need to play to win, not play to keep guys fresh for games 6 and 7.

[RUPERTKBD]

We don't have to agree. That is what this place is for. Multiple opinions.

I don't think either of them are as effectively physical as Hamhuis or Edler are. I love Bieksa, one of my favourite guys on the team, but even at this peak, his physical play was "overstated". He's a good fighter, but he's not a great hitter and at his size isn't all that effective with knocking guys out of their lanes. The thing with Bieksa though is he has a track record of success to fall back on. Sbisa doesn't IMO (but what I do know, I've never been a paid scout or played in the NHL).

For me, I'd probably re-unite Hamhuis-Bieksa.

Play Edler-Tanev between 24-26 minutes, play Hamhuis Bieksa 20-22 minutes and let Weber and Sbisa play 14-16, Weber can pick up his additional minutes on the PP, Sbisa on the PK.

We need to play to win, not play to keep guys fresh for games 6 and 7.

I wouldn't be adverse to trying that, but I wonder at reducing the respective icetime of our top scoring and our top hitting defensemen, especially after a game where we were only able to muster one goal and when the opposition scored the winner because of physical superiority.

FTR, I've always liked the Hammer-Juice pairing, but I believe Lidster and Willie are trying for more balance across the top 6 and I'm not ready to abandon their plan after a game where the defense allowed only two goals. If the score had been 5-4 or even 4-3, I'd be right with you calling for changes.

[ilikecanucks]

I wouldn't be adverse to trying that, but I wonder at reducing the respective icetime of our top scoring and our top hitting defensemen, especially after a game where we were only able to muster one goal and when the opposition scored the winner because of physical superiority.

FTR, I've always liked the Hammer-Juice pairing, but I believe Lidster and Willie are trying for more balance across the top 6 and I'm not ready to abandon their plan after a game where the defense allowed only two goals. If the score had been 5-4 or even 4-3, I'd be right with you calling for changes.

Totally fair. Glad we could find some middle ground.

7 game series are a different animal to me, I think the team has to constantly look for adaptations that can give them a leg up. I don't expect we'll hold the Monahan line in check every game rolling 4 lines.

With regards to shrinking Weber and Sbisa's minutes, they'd still get their reps on the PP (Weber) and PK (Sbisa). I guess instead of using total minute breakdowns, I'd just like to see Edler-Tanev get 40% of the EV strength time, Hamhuis-Bieksa can get 30-35% of the EV minutes and the bottom pairing can get 20-30% of the minutes.

Ride your best players, there is nothing to save them for.

[oldnews]

When it's like that every game, when every game outcome has him on the bottom of the possession chart, it's no longer a small sample. When every dman he plays with has their possession numbers sag next to him, it's not a sample issue.

The truth is I don't like Sbisa, I don't think he's any good. I think he's a bottom pairing defensman. I think our team performs better when he's not on the ice. I watch games and see him hemmed in his own end nearly every shift. He doesn't appear "awful" in his own zone, because he's always there.

You "watch games" you say, but like I said, what you see says more about you than the player.

What passes your eye test doesn't carry any credibility whatsover.

Simple example is what you posted regarding the winning goal last game. Absolute nonsense.

Obvious question is whether you've had your eyes tested.

Watch the replay of the winning goal. What was Sbisa doing? Charging to cover the point?

[baumerman77]

We don't have to agree. That is what this place is for. Multiple opinions.

I don't think either of them are as effectively physical as Hamhuis or Edler are. I love Bieksa, one of my favourite guys on the team, but even at this peak, his physical play was "overstated". He's a good fighter, but he's not a great hitter and at his size isn't all that effective with knocking guys out of their lanes. The thing with Bieksa though is he has a track record of success to fall back on. Sbisa doesn't IMO (but what I do know, I've never been a paid scout or played in the NHL).

For me, I'd probably re-unite Hamhuis-Bieksa.

Play Edler-Tanev between 24-26 minutes, play Hamhuis Bieksa 20-22 minutes and let Weber and Sbisa play 14-16, Weber can pick up his additional minutes on the PP, Sbisa on the PK.

We need to play to win, not play to keep guys fresh for games 6 and 7.

I agree with this.

No need to roll four lines and 3 d pairs anymore. This is the playoffs every game matters. Rolling all lines in the regular season served the purpose of keeping the top guys fresh for the playoffs. Now is the time to use them. Higgins got more ice time than D. Sedin in game 1. Sbisa had 17:41 had 17:41 and Tanev had 20:57. The gulf in minutes should be much wider than what they were in the first game.

The flames bottom pair played much less: Potter 3:56 and Schlemko 10:34.

[RonMexico]

I agree with this.

No need to roll four lines and 3 d pairs anymore. This is the playoffs every game matters. Rolling all lines in the regular season served the purpose of keeping the top guys fresh for the playoffs. Now is the time to use them. Higgins got more ice time than D. Sedin in game 1. Sbisa had 17:41 had 17:41 and Tanev had 20:57. The gulf in minutes should be much wider than what they were in the first game.

The flames bottom pair played much less: Potter 3:56 and Schlemko 10:34.

You sound like the blowhards on TSN 1040.

Change the way you have coached the game all season because it's the playoffs and you lost one game?

[tyhee]

We don't have to agree. That is what this place is for. Multiple opinions.

I don't think either of them are as effectively physical as Hamhuis or Edler are. I love Bieksa, one of my favourite guys on the team, but even at this peak, his physical play was "overstated". He's a good fighter, but he's not a great hitter and at his size isn't all that effective with knocking guys out of their lanes. The thing with Bieksa though is he has a track record of success to fall back on. Sbisa doesn't IMO (but what I do know, I've never been a paid scout or played in the NHL).

For me, I'd probably re-unite Hamhuis-Bieksa.

Play Edler-Tanev between 24-26 minutes, play Hamhuis Bieksa 20-22 minutes and let Weber and Sbisa play 14-16, Weber can pick up his additional minutes on the PP, Sbisa on the PK.

We need to play to win, not play to keep guys fresh for games 6 and 7.

My issue is that think Hamhuis-Weber is now at least as good a pairing than Hamhuis-Bieksa (which was good two years ago, but hasn't been very effective this season) and that Sbisa-Weber is, if anything, even worse than Sbisa-Bieksa. It will be noted the Flames scored against Sbisa-Weber after a turnover by Weber when the defence was unable to complete a change.

I agree in general, though, with the idea of making the ice time somewhat less even.

Note: I haven't done a statistical breakdown as to how the various pairs performed together, so what I've written is just my subjective impression.

[William_Clarkson]

My issue is that think Hamhuis-Weber is now at least as good a pairing than Hamhuis-Bieksa (which was good two years ago, but hasn't been very effective this season) and that Sbisa-Weber is, if anything, even worse than Sbisa-Bieksa. It will be noted the Flames scored against Sbisa-Weber after a turnover by Weber when the defence was unable to complete a change.

I agree in general, though, with the idea of making the ice time somewhat less even.

Note: I haven't done a statistical breakdown as to how the various pairs performed together, so what I've written is just my subjective impression.

Hamhuis & Weber don't have chemistry and I feel that recently Hamhuis has been carrying the pairing. Hamhuis and Bieksa at least have a lot of experience together. Also, in general Bieksa's a better 5 on 5 player than Weber. All the D except Edler and Hamhuis for one stretch haven't had to deal with a lot of minutes compared to what they could probably handle, now is the time to play them more.

[baumerman77]

You sound like the blowhards on TSN 1040.

Change the way you have coached the game all season because it's the playoffs and you lost one game?

Change the way we play because the game changes in the playoffs.

[oldnews]

Strong game from Luca tonight.

Not perfect, but an assist, +1, a couple hits, a blocked shot. Corsi -2. Didn't play the goal against perfectly, but all in all a strong game.

The team as a whole was extremely stingy. Calgary may have had a pair of grade A scoring chances tonight, otherwise absolutely shut down. The entire blueline - really, all units of 5, played some great team defense tonight.

Joke was on the folks attempting to school WD in coaching strategy. Did what he does, and owned the Flames with few tweaks.

Henrik played only 16:01, and yet had a +11 corsi and +22 in two games now. On the other hand, Hudler is a combined -21.

The Sedin line is absolutely owning Calgary. Shocking how many monkeys were still wanting to jump on their back after game 1.

Stajan has been excellent for them . He used to be the butt of endless jokes out of Toronto, but he is a solid depth C - had two very strong games despite getting the worst of a bad decision to drop them with Richardson.