[Article] Sutter is not a shutdown centre

[Ossi Vaananen]

I don't mean to plug someone else's work but I found this one interesting. The Pass It To Bulis blog looked at some fancy stats regarding Sutter and compared him to other centres league-wide. The article is here: https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/brandon-sutter-is-not-a-shutdown-centre-1.23931634?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Posted below:

Quote

The Canucks’ top two centres are set for years to come. Elias Pettersson has all the makings of a franchise forward, the type of elite, playmaking centre that every team dreams of having in their lineup. Bo Horvat, meanwhile, has developed into a two-way force, driving the puck up ice and to the net with ruthless efficiency.

 

It’s the type of one-two punch down the middle that could become the backbone of a Cup contending team in the future. As pointed out by The Athletic’s Harman Dayal, Pettersson and Horvat are arguably already a top-ten centre duo in the NHL.

he Canucks’ top-two centres were 8th in combined Wins Above Replacement (WAR) using Evolving Hockey’s model last season, while Dom Luszczyszyn’s projections based on his Game-Score model ranked them 10th among the NHL’s centre duos. What remains to be seen is whether the Canucks have done enough to build around Pettersson and Horvat. After all, the NHL’s top centre duo is Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl, and we’ve seen what the Edmonton Oilers have done with them.

While the Canucks have upgraded their wingers and defencemen via trades and free agency, there’s a lingering question at centre: who will play behind Pettersson and Horvat?

 

This wasn’t supposed to be an issue. When the Canucks acquired Brandon Sutter in 2015, he was specifically described as a “foundational piece” and immediately signed to a 5-year contract extension worth $4.375 million per season.

“You win with players like Brandon Sutter,” said Benning at the time. “I’m not comparing him to Patrice Bergeron, but when I was in Boston, Bergeron was a great two-way player for us. Look at Jonathan Toews. That’s how you win in the playoffs.”

Regrettably, the Canucks haven’t made the playoffs since trading for Sutter, so Benning’s hypothesis remains untested.

At least until Brock Boeser signs a new contract, Sutter is still the fourth-highest paid forward on the Canucks and is ostensibly the team’s third-line centre. While initially deployed as a top-six forward with the Canucks, head coach Travis Green has deployed him primarily as a shutdown centre.

 

That means Sutter regularly starts his shifts in the defensive zone while matched up against the opponent’s first line, a thankless role that doesn’t allow for a lot of offensive opportunities. Sutter gets these types of shifts in order to shelter the team’s younger, more skilled centres, Pettersson and Horvat.

There’s just one issue.

It’s not enough to be deployed in a shutdown role, you have to actually follow through on that role. You have actually shut down the opposing team and prevent them from scoring. Unfortunately, last season Sutter didn’t do much shutting down.

Among Canucks forwards at 5-on-5 last season, Sutter was on the ice for the highest rate of goals against: 3.88 goals per 60 minutes. That’s reflected in other statistics as well: shot attempts, shots on goal, and scoring chances.

To a certain extent, that’s not too surprising. You would expect someone with difficult defensive usage to give up a higher number of shots, chances, and goals. But how much higher?

We can get an idea by looking at centres around the NHL that had a similar rate of defensive zone starts at 5-on-5 last season. Using analytics site Natural Stat Trick, I looked at centres with defensive zone start percentages above 60%, indicating they started a much higher percentage of their shifts in the defensive zone. Then I charted their rate of defensive zone starts against the rate of scoring chances against when they were on the ice.

The rate of scoring chances given up with Sutter on the ice at 5-on-5 was significantly higher than the rest of this group of 33 centres.

This is reflected not just in scoring chances, but in shot attempts against, shots on goal against, and goals against. In each of those statistics, Sutter was the worst among this group of players with similar zone starts.

As an extra kick in the teeth, one of the centres that performed better defensively with similar zone starts is Nick Bonino, who the Canucks traded away to get Sutter in the first place. With the Nashville Predators over the past couple seasons, Bonino has played in a shutdown role and performed well, while also scoring goals in the double digits.

You might argue that Sutter’s minutes were even more difficult because he had more difficult competition, but that doesn’t hold much water. Most of the other centres in this group were also deployed in shutdown roles, facing first lines more often than not.

Brandon Dubinsky, who shows up as an outlier in a different way, is an exception, as he was generally sheltered from difficult competition despite his zone starts. But you can look to a player like former Canuck Brad Richardson, who was deployed as a shutdown centre with the Arizona Coyotes.

Using HockeyViz’s visualization of teammates and competition, you can see that Richardson and Sutter had very similar usage. In the top right corner of each image is the opposition forwards they regularly faced: both Ricahrdson and Sutter faced the top three forwards — ie. the first line — about the same amount.

The difference is that Richardson was on the ice for nearly 10 fewer scoring chances against per hour than Sutter and 1.84 fewer goals against per hour.

 

We don’t have to compare apples to oranges, of course. In Jay Beagle, we have someone that we can compare directly to Sutter.

Beagle and Sutter played on the same team, in front of the same goaltenders, with the same defenceman, while playing the same system. His usage was even more extreme, as he started more of his shifts in the defensive zone and far fewer in the offensive zone. In spite of this, Beagle was on the ice for a far lower rate of shots, scoring chances, and goals against.

While you can take issue with some elements of Beagle’s play, those issues lie more in what the Canucks give up offensively when he’s on the ice, as he provides very little at the other end of the ice. There’s no denying that Beagle was very good defensively last season. There’s also the small matter of his contract, but there’s nothing Beagle can do about that, so we can set it aside when evaluating his actual on-ice play.

The main difference in usage between Beagle and Sutter was in terms of teammates, but it’s not like Beagle had better linemates than Sutter. His most frequent linemates were Tyler Motte and Loui Eriksson, while Sutter’s most frequent linemates last season were Jake Virtanen and Antoine Roussel.

What this means is that the Canucks have two shutdown centres and one of them didn’t really shut anyone down last season.

Perhaps there’s an explanation for Sutter’s struggles last season: health. After all, he missed 56 games and it’s hard to believe he was 100% for the 26 games he actually played. The Province’s Ben Kuzma gave us the first “heading into camp in the best shape of his life” article of the season, reporting that Sutter is aiming for a healthier season thanks to Pilates.

“I started doing Pilates this summer which was awesome,” said Sutter, adding, “It’s all functional movement and based on the inner thigh and core. It’s just very specific for exactly what I need and now that I’ve done it, in the future I’ll do it more and spend less time lifting weights.”

 

Even if a healthier Sutter can bounce back from his struggles last season, there’s still the question of whether the Canucks need two shutdown lines. While Pettersson and Horvat definitely need support, the support they need isn’t necessarily to have someone else take on all the defensive responsibilities. Instead, they need the support of depth scoring.

If the Canucks already have Beagle on the fourth line as a shutdown centre, Horvat as a two-way possession driver, and the underrated defensive abilities of Pettersson, is there still a place for the one-way defensive play of Sutter?

That question is particularly pertinent if, like last season, Sutter doesn’t actually shut anyone down with his defensive game.

That leaves the Canucks with a couple other options. They could move Sutter to the right wing, where he’s played in the past, and pair him with Beagle for a pure shutdown fourth line. Unfortunately, both Sutter and Beagle shoot right, so they wouldn’t be able to split faceoff duties on their strong sides, but there’s merit in matching them up together.

Alternatively, they could explore the trade market for Sutter, which might be sparse, but has been there in the past.

Either way, the Canucks would need someone else as the third-line centre. The most likely candidate is Adam Gaudette, who is very much unproven in the NHL despite playing 56 games for the Canucks last season. The potential is definitely there, but there’s still a question of whether he’ll reach that potential.

 

The other option would be J.T. Miller, who was acquired primarily to play on the wing. If Sutter falters and Gaudette isn’t ready, however, the Canucks don’t really have any options at centre other than Miller. They’ll have journeyman Tyler Graovac in the AHL with the Utica Comets and technically Tim Schaller and Tyler Motte have played at centre before, but that’s not overly inspiring centre depth.

The Canucks should have the wingers to form an effective third line. Now they’ll have to either hope for one heck of a bounce back from Sutter or that Gaudette takes a big step forward in his sophomore season.

Oof. It hurts to see guys we passed on like Bonino and Richardson performing that much better. It seems Beagle has outperformed Sutter as well. As the article says, maybe cross our fingers and hope that Gaudette is ready for the second half. 

 

For the Too Long Didn't Read crowd: just look at the first chart. Sutter is egregious when it comes scoring against based on frequency of defensive zone starts.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Ossi Vaananen

[Team Bagues]

The only useful part of that article is whether or not the Canucks need two shutdown lines. As far as that goes, the successful teams these days don't seem to emply a shut-down line of any kind in the traditional sense - 3rd and 4th lines for 3rd and 4th round teams drive play, pressure the opposition and score goals to chip in.

 

Analytics is for failed GMs and basement dwellers (see nee Florida and Arizone, presently Toronto). You don't hear too much about analicktick darlings in the 3 and 4th round of the playoffs.

 

Smart GMs see it as information, but real hockey trumps 85% of the time.

 

There are too many compounding variables in hockey to make cause and effect statistics reliable for hockey.

 

It works for baseball, since most plays are cause and effect - 1 person affecting 1 person affecting an outcome.

 

Hockey has 12 variables (players) plus referees on the ice at any given time - most statistics can't handle this type of math. When considering such a high number of variables your starting to get in to the mad science of climate change, and we all know how messed up that is.

[AK_19]

Sutter's last two seasons were night and day. I think we can just chop it up to injuries. As far as having too many shutdown lines, who cares? It'll free up Horvat and Pete's line for more offense. 

[Alflives]

I stopped reading at Draisatl is a centre.  Guy plays wing with McDavid.  He’s a terrible centre.  

 

[-AJ-]

11 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

Sutter's last two seasons were night and day. I think we can just chop it up to injuries. As far as having too many shutdown lines, who cares? It'll free up Horvat and Pete's line for more offense. 

The article definitely caught my eye and I read through most of it, but I think you nailed it on the head here @AK_19. Last season was not the usual Sutter we saw in the prior two years. 

[Gaudette Celly]

More quality from #PassTheBull.

[48MPHSlapShot]

I've harped on Sutter as much as anyone, but using his last injury plagued season, which has every indication of being an anomaly, as the blueprint for your article is intellectually dishonest.

[Pears]

1 minute ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I've harped on Sutter as much as anyone, but using his last injury plagued season, which has every indication of being an anomaly, as the blueprint for your article is intellectually dishonest.

And considering he’s been really solid when healthy, why even bother with this article? Taking one bad year to determine what a player is, is the definition of cherry picking to fit your narrative. I’d fine with moving on from Sutter but I at least know he’s contributed when he’s healthy. 

[Toyotasfan]

Last season is one I don’t remember seeing much of Sutter at all , never mind be effective at anything. That being said , I don’t think he ever drives the play, when he’s at his best he causes neutral zone turnovers , rushes up the ice and shoots. He  almost never controls the puck for any significant amount of time in the attacking zone. He’s reactive, a good stick checker , speedy but not creative. Kinda reminiscent  of a young Mason Raymond.

[BlastPast]

Ehh, a bit of an opportunistic article. Where was the commentary when Sutter was healthier/playing better ? Keeping in mind that he has had a pretty challenging role being caught between an outgoing H. Sedin and an incoming Horvat. I also question some of the conclusions based on current WAR models.

[JM_]

So fancy stats from a year a guy played injured? OK. 

[khay]

22 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I stopped reading at Draisatl is a centre.  Guy plays wing with McDavid.  He’s a terrible centre.  

 

Agree. Draisaitl is not a center. Edmonton would not have sucked if Draisaitl put up 50G 100 pts as a 2nd line center behind McDavid's 116 points.

 

As for shutdown line, I feel like it's a strategy for teams with lack of talent. If your team is not talented, then you have not much choice but to employ defensive players and hope to keep the scoring low. Now we have enough talent to not have to ice 2 shutdown lines. I actually think Sutter can still be useful if healthy at both ends of the ice (he scored 20 goals before) but maybe we should keep him on the wing.

 

The article suggests Miller as an option at 3C and I think that might be a great idea. 

 

Ferland-EP-Boeser

Baer-Horvat-Pearson

Eriksson-Miller-Sutter

Virtanen-Beagle-Leivo

Goldobin

Motte

Roussel (IR)

Schaller (trade/minor)

 

 

[xereau]

23 minutes ago, Pears said:

And considering he’s been really solid when healthy, why even bother with this article? Taking one bad year to determine what a player is, is the definition of cherry picking to fit your narrative. I’d fine with moving on from Sutter but I at least know he’s contributed when he’s healthy. 

He missed like 8 games TOTAL before signing here.

 

When healthy it opens up totally different roles for Horvat.

 

The crappy system, the crappy linemates really should be the story in the article, and not Sutter.

[DADDYROCK]

If Mr. Sutter can stay healthy he is a as I think it was the GM called him ,a foundational player.If he can rub off any good traits to a guy like Virtanen it is all worth it.

I have no problem playing guys that you can tell give their all to help the team win.

[Crabcakes]

I think these stats are cherry picked to fit a narrative as @Pears said above.  In my opinion the author has shown that Sutter faced to top opposition line most often and of the centres with 60% D-zone starts, he did the worst of the 33 centres shown.  If there are 4 centres per team, that makes 124 centres in the league, or approximately 1 per team used in a shut down role.  So Sutter has the worst scoring chances against rates.  What about the other metrics stated?  Shot attempts against, shots on goal against, and goals against......worse still?.....no idea.

 

Not to mention the statistician's favorite, sample size.....how many games for Sutter last year?  26.  Or how about how many healthy games played?  less than 10 to be sure.

 

So to what is probably the most useful part of the article, how will Sutter be deployed this year?  Shut down?  I think he will remain the top PK centre on the Canucks if his heath holds out but at 5 on 5, the Canucks are built differently this year.  There is clearly going to be more talent out there this year than last so I would expect that only 1 of Sutter and Beagle be deployed in a shutdown role.  If they pair Sutter with a play maker like Baertschi and Virtanen or Leivo it's going to be a more offensive line.  Sutter may not be the best play maker around but he is capable of 20 goals.  

 

As an aside, Miller was acquired at considerable cost to be deployed in a top 6 role.  To use some grit and size as a compliment to some of the Canucks smaller skilled forwards.  We won't be seeing him on the 3rd line.

 

Sutter is an important player for the Canucks this year because Benning thinks that Gaudette has a chance to become a top 6 skill player.  He just needs the opportunity to develop his offensive side which was the plan last year.  He had to play with the big club due to injuries and lack of depth.  This years version has the depth so that players can stay in Utica and develop.

 

Anyhow, thanks the OP for reminding me why I don't read PITB 

Edited September 1, 2019 by Crabcakes

[Tre Mac]

Guess the truth hurts for some.

[BlastPast]

7 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

Guess the truth hurts for some.

And debate hurts others.

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

Guess the truth hurts for some.

pilates can clear that right up. 

[Tre Mac]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

pilates can clear that right up. 

You got a colorful graph to back that up?  

 

5 minutes ago, BlastPast said:

And debate hurts others.

As evidence from the "But he was injured" responses.

[combover]

So he’s not a shut down c,  he’s not a scoring c, he is not a set up c, he’s doesn't hit and he doesn’t stand up for his teammates on or off the ice..... aka Foundational. .. . Must be why teams are lining  up to get him.