Building Optimal 21-22 Roster through Analytics

[CaptKirk888]

Thanks for this. You put a lot of work into your analysis. The reality is that this game can not be determined by metrics and analytical thinking. There are just too many variables involved that are not mathematically equatable. For example, players gelling (or not) for multiple reasons, coaching introspection based on those determined (or underdetermined) factors, individual  personalities and possible conflicts etc. 
We can use numbers to predict an outcome but the unknown variables will always be the determined (or undetermined) factor in those equations.

So yah, numbers. Hopefully X gels with Y or Z and it = C (for Cup as in Stanley.)

 

[Dumb Nuck]

Fire Green!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Dumb Nuck

[IBatch]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:56 AM, Timråfan said:

Very good, it fits nicely with my idea that Petey shouldn’t play with Miller.

Green needs to spread the goodies so the other coach will scratch his head what to do.

Hey look at us agreeing on something again.   I'm also hoping we finally get rid of the two line approach and 5 x 5 roll three lines and a shutdown line.    Keeps all the legs fresh too.   And over a long season reduces chances of injuries.   We have 8 legit top six and or strong middle six guys now.   Hogs EP BB   Pearson Horvat Garland  Gadjs?? Miller Podz 

Motte Sutter Dickinson.     To me that's how you balance out the goodies.  

[nuckfanfromafrica]

On 8/3/2021 at 1:56 AM, Timråfan said:

Very good, it fits nicely with my idea that Petey shouldn’t play with Miller.

Green needs to spread the goodies so the other coach will scratch his head what to do.

Absolutely on 5v5. Miller tends to be a line driver with a big influence (stylistically) on whichever line he is one. Petey defers a lot to Miller when aligned together. Stepping away from his biggest strengths - his shot & possession game with give and goes. Petey and Miler are best served each driving heir own line 5v5 (Can be united on PP). Eye test below:

 

 

[The_Rocket]

Where are we saucing the criteria for the xGF60 and CF% for play styles? And how are we defining play styles? Why do players suddenly change styles based on which wing they are on? How are we deriving values for consolidated statistics for different line combo’s? How could it be possible that the optimal line combination for the Vancouver Canucks puts JONAH GADJOVICH on the first line?

 

some of the data seem rigorous and precise, while other pieces seem ambiguous and qualitative. How were determine whether some one is a playmaker or shooter? Simply by watching highlights?

how are we adjusting for quality in teammates and competition? Bumping Dickinson up into the top 6 means top 6 match ups. Moving Sutter to the 4th line means 4th line matchups. 
 

how do we conclude that a line of 3 playmakers is the best possible line? Where are we drawing data from to come to that conclusion?  
 

not gunna lie, this just gives me way more questions than answers

[iceman64]

On 8/3/2021 at 7:52 AM, grumpyone said:

whatever you do DON'T let the oilers or leafs see this....they might use it to figure out why they suck.

No they just suck period, it's just a oiler and leaf thing going on, like the flames, they just can't help it.. meh

[hammertime]

Pete Miller Boeser

Hoglander Bo Garland

Pearson Sutter Podkolzin

Gadjovich Dicky Motte

 

OEL Myers

Hughes Hammonic

Rathbone Poolman

 

this years lineup pretty much writes it's self.

 

Gadjo starts in the A but by January he's forced his wat onto the roster. 

 

Juolevi starts on the roster due to waiver eligibility if he can't cement himself on the Pk Rathbone will make him expendable 5v5

[Patel Bure]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:30 PM, nuckfanfromafrica said:

 

Hockey is a strong link game - having your best players throughout your lineup increases the chances of winning. The default tendency is to load up a top line. In most cases, absolutely entertaining to watch with short term results. Unfortunately detrimental to prolonged team success.

 

 Statistically, a team's success rate is increased exponentially by spreading out talent across the line up. Playing team's best players across the line up  elevates less-elite line mates.

 

The Key however is to compose lines where playing styles mesh. Playing style combination yeilding the highest xG% and the lowest drop off in chain link from forward line 1 to 4 (variance),

 

Example:

 

Team Blue features

• line A xG% 55.4%
• line B xG% 55.0% 
• Line C xG% 52.7%
• Line D xG% 48.9%

               

Team Yellow features

• line A xG% 58.9%
• line B xG% 51.5%
• Line C xG% 48.9%
• Line D xG% 48.9%

 

Even though Team Yellow's line A has the highest xG% on the top line, it has the lower probability of long term success, because of a bigger drop off (variance) from line to line.

The most successful teams feature a high xG% on the top line and lowest variance from top line to bottom.

 

• 20-21 Edmonton Oilers (Team yellow): Connor McDavid - Leon Draisaitl
• 20-21 Tampa (Team Blue): Point - Kucherov, Stamkos-Cirelli, etc.

 

The criteria used for this composition are as follows:

 

1. Playing Style (based on 5v5 play):

         

 Metric:

          a. Playmakers:  CF% => 54.1%    and      xGF60 => 2.64

          b. Shooter:     52.0% <= CF% < 54.1%     and      2.51 <= xGF60 < 2.64

          C. Balanced:   50.2% <= CF% < 52.0%    and     2.35  <=  xGF60  <  2.51

          d. Dependent: CF% <=  45.6%   and    xGF60 <  2.02  

 

Current Roster forward composition CF% and xGF60 (stat average over the last 3 seasons):

 

• Tanner Pearson (48.11%, 2.62) - falls within two playing styles depending on his position on ice (primarily a dependent & secondary a shooter). He tends to be dependent when lined up on the Left wing. Playing off wing as a RW he utilizes his shoot more. Video eye test below:

 

 

• Elias Pettersson (53.7%, 2.74) - fits as both a playmaker (when playing as a center) and a shooter playing the wing.

 

• Nils Hoglander (50.71%, 2.50) - limited sample size. fits into the dimension of balanced

 

• Bo Horvat (49.28%, 2.73) - fits primarily as a playmaker then secondary as a dependent.

 

• Boeser (51.2%, 2.54) - fits primarily as a shooter then secondary as balanced

 

• J.T. Miller (50.90%, 2.65) - fits primarily as a playmaker then secondarily as balanced

 

• Jason Dickinson (51.59%, 2.14) - fits primarily as balanced then secondary as dependent

 

• Conor Garland (59.06%, 2.55) - fits primarily as a shooter when playing RW and playmaker on the LW. Eye test video below:

 

 

• Brandon Sutter (44.42%, 2.10) - fits as a dependent

 

• Tyler Motte (42.51%, 2.14) - dependent

 

• Highmore (40.32%, 2.12) - dependent

 

• Zack Macewen (45.15%, 2.01%)

 

• Jonah Gadjovich (limited sample) - projects as a dependent

 

• Podkolzin (no sample) - projects primarily as a playmaker and secondarily as balanced.

 

 

2. Playing Style composition xG%:

 

Probability that a shot will result in a goal based on the characteristics 5v5 expected goal. The line composition below are not based on LW-C-RW composition but more chemistry fit for each playing style.

 

Metric

 

1. Playmaker - Playmaker - Playmaker = 58.9%

2. playmaker - Balance - Playmaker = 57.2%

3. playmaker - Playmaker - Shooter = 55.4%

4. playmaker - shooter - shooter = 55.1%

5. Balanced - playmaker - shooter = 55.0%

6. balanced - shooter - shooter = 54.7%

7. playmaker - dependent - playmaker = 54.5%

8. balanced - playmaker - balanced = 52.2%

9. dependent - shooter - shooter = 52.1%

10. balanced - balanced - balanced = 51.5%

11. balanced - balanced - shooter = 50.9%

12. dependent - playmaker - shooter = 50.3%

13. shooter - shooter - shooter = 50%

14. balanced - dependent - playmaker = 48.9%

15. balanced - dependent - shooter = 48.5%

16. Dependent - playmaker - dependent = 45.8%

17. balanced - balanced - dependent = 45.4%

18. depensent - shooter - dependent = 44.7%

19. balanced - dependent - dependent = 44.6%

20. dependent - dependent - dependent = 41.8%

 

 

3. Forward Roster composition based on the 2 above metrics:

 

Alternative option:

 

Line a:          Pearson (LW) - Pettersson -   Podkolzin (RW)

                 7. Dependent       -  playmaker   - playmaker = 54.5%

 

Line b:      Miller (LW)  -  Dickinson - Garland (RW)

                5. playmaker - Balanced - shooter = 55.0%

 

Line c:      Hoglander (LW) - Horvat - Boeser (RW)

                5. balanced  - playmaker - shooter  = 55.0%

 

Line d:    Gadjovich (LW) - Sutter - Motte (RW)

               20. dependent - dependent - dependent = 41.8%

 

 

Extra forward on line d:  Highmore & Macewen.

 

Analysis: not much variance from line a - c. The average score for the top 3 lines is 54.83%. Weak link is line d. composition given that it comprises all forwards that are dependent. This line construction also adds the advantage of having a defensive presence on each line along with some grit whether on the wing or middle.

 

Optimal option:

 

Line a:    Gadjovich (LW) - Pettersson - Garland (LW/RW)

            7. Dependent      -  Playmaker  -  Playmaker = 54.5%

 

Line b:    Hoglander (LW) - Horvat -  Boeser (RW)

            5. Balanced     -   Playmaker  - Shooter = 55.0%

 

Line c:     Pearson (LW) -  J.T Miller - Podkolzin (RW)

            7. Dependent   - Playmaker - Playmaker = 54.5%

 

Line d:      Motte (LW) - Dickinson - Sutter (RW)

            19. Dependent - Balanced - dependent = 44.6%

 

Analysis: Also has low variance from line a - c. Average score of the top 3 lines are slightly below at 54.67% when compared to first option. It however has the advantage of having a lower drop off from top 3 lines to line d at 44.6% compared to 41.8% (meaning a more productive line and better overall balance). Eye test advantage of aligning players that complement a certain playing style.

 

Line a -  a puck possession style with crease presence

Line b - puck possession with a crease presence in Horvat 

Line c: Mix of dump & chase (suited to J.T Miller play style) and possession (Podkolzin on forechecks). Also features net presence.

Line d: features 2 match up centers and a high motor in Motte.

 

Popular option:

 

Line a:       Miller (LW) - Pettersson - Boeser (RW)

                 3.  playmaker - playmaker - shooter = 55.4%

 

Line b:       Hoglander(LW) - Horvat - Garland(RW)

                 5.    balanced -  playmaker - shooter  = 55.0%

 

Line c:      Pearson (LW) -  Dickinson - Podkolzin (RW)

                 14.  dependent -  balanced - playmaker  = 48.9% 

 

Line d:    Gadjovich (LW) - Sutter - Motte (RW)

               20. dependent - dependent - dependent = 41.8%

 

Analysis: feature 1 line with the highest % but the drop off from Line b to line c is significant. Average of the top 3 lines is 53.1%.

 

 

4. Comparison to other NHL Teams Depth Chart in the Pacific Division (compared against optimal option)

 

Calgary:

 

1. Gaudreau(shooter) - Elia Lindholm(playmaker) - Tkachuk(Shooter)=55.1% 

 

2.  Blake Coleman(Playmaker) - Sean Monahan(dependent) - Dillon Dube(shooter) = 50.3% 

 

3.  Mangiapane(Playmaker) - Backlund(playmaker) - Tyler Pitlick(dependent) = 54.5%

 

4. Lucic(dependent) - Byron Froese(dependent) - Brett Ritchie(dependent) = 41.8% 

 

Analysis; top 3 line average of 53.3% (compared to Vancouver at 54.67%) and a bigger drop off of line 4 at 41.8% (Vancouver at 44.6%). Advantage Vancouver.

 

Edmonton;

 

1. Zach Hyman(playmaker) - McDavid(shooter) - Puljujarvi(dependent) = 50.3%

 

2. Nugent-Hopkins(balanced) - Draisaitl(playmaker) - Yamamoto(playmaker) = 57.8%

 

3. Warren Foegele(dependent) - Turris(dependent) - Kassian(dependent) = 41.8%

 

4. Devin Shore(dependent) - Derek Ryan(playmaker) - Josh Archibald(dependent) = 45.8%

 

Analysis: Edmonton lacks enough depth compared to Vancouver hence tends to be a top heavy team where at least 1 line features a much higher xG% than any of Vancouver's. The drop of from 1 line to next is significant, that includes moving Draisaitl to play with McDavid. Top 3 line average of 49.97% compared to Vancouver at 54.67%. Advantage Vancouver with a better strong link chain.

 

Vegas:

 

1. Pacioretty(playmaker) - Chandler Stephenson(playmaker) - Mark Stone(playmaker) = 58.9%

 

2. Marchessault(shooter) - Karlsson(shooter) - Reilly Smith(shooter) = 50.0%

 

3. Mattias Janmark(Tuch)(playmaker) - Nolan Patrick(dependent) - Evgeni Dadonov (dependent) = 45.8%

 

4. Carrier(dependent) - Brett Howden(dependent) - Nicolas Roy(playmaker) = 45.8%

 

Analysis: Vegas past success has been based on a strong link chain where there wasn't a significant drop off from line to line. However they have lost depth among the forward group but still feature a top heavy top line at 58.9%. An average of 51.57% compared to Vancouver at 54.67%. Vancouver has an overall better Chain however Vegas has a better top heavy line. Advantage Vancouver.

 

Statistical Suggestion:

 

Among the top favorite teams in the Pacific, Vancouver features the strongest chain between its lines using the optimal balance. It however doesn't have the top line in the division. Assuming its defensive core collectively perform better than does in its division, Vancouver is destined for the playoffs as a top 2 team in the division  assuming all other things remain constant. The other key variables that would undermine or enhance these odd include:

 

How well the Defensive core & Goalie tanden below stacks up against the rest (along with well it meshes with the forward composition - Analysis soon):

 

                    VANCOUVER                                                                                                    EDMONTON

 

Oliver Ekman-Larsson(6'2" 200) - Hamonic(6'2" 205)/Poolman                    Darnell Nurse(6'4" 221) - Tyson Barrie (5'11" 197)      

 

Quinn Hughes(5'10" 170) - Poolman(6'2" 199)/Hamonic                               Duncan Keith(6'1" 192) - Cody Ceci (6'2" 210)

 

Olli Juolevi(6'2" 183) - Tyler Myers (6'8" 229)                                                Kris Russell(5'10" 170) - Evan Bouchard (6'3" 194)                                  

 

            Demko & Halak                                                                                                   Mike Smith & Mikko Koskinen

 

 

                   VANCOUVER                                                                                                    CALGARY

 

Oliver Ekman-Larsson(6'2" 200) - Hamonic(6'2" 205)/Poolman                   Noah Hanifin(6'3" 215) - Chris Tanev (6'2" 197)      

 

Quinn Hughes(5'10" 170) - Poolman(6'2" 199)/Hamonic                             Juuso Valimaki(6'2" 212) - Rasmus Andersson (6'1" 214)

 

Olli Juolevi(6'2" 183) - Tyler Myers (6'8" 229)                                               Connor Mackey(6'2" 183) - Nikita Zadorov (6'6" 235)                                 

 

            Demko & Halak                                                                                            Markstrom & Daniel Vladar

 

 

                   VANCOUVER                                                                                                     VEGAS

 

Oliver Ekman-Larsson(6'2" 200) - Hamonic(6'2" 205)/Poolman                    Alec Martinez(6'1" 209) - Alex Pietrangelo (6'3" 210)      

 

Quinn Hughes(5'10" 170) - Poolman(6'2" 199)/Hamonic                              Brayden McNabb(6'4" 213) - Shea Theodore (6'2" 195)

 

Olli Juolevi(6'2" 183) - Tyler Myers (6'8" 229)                                                Nicolas Hague(6'6" 221) - Zack Whitecloud(6'2" 209)                                  

 

                 Demko & Halak                                                                                             Robin Lehner & Laurent Brossoit

 

 

A quick eye test suggests that Vancouver stacks up pretty well against its competition within the division. A separating factor will be health and special teams performance relative to others. Running 2 equally adept powerplay units & PK units. An opinion:

 

 

Power Play 1
Boeser, B.		Miller, J.		Pettersson, E.
	Hughes, Q.		Ekman-Larsson, O.

Power Play 2
Garland, C.		Horvat, B.		Podkolzin, V.
	Höglander, N.		Myers, T.

 

 

 

 

 

Out of the lines suggested, I think the one with Dickinson centering Miller and Garland intrigues me the most by far since all three lines scored above 55%, and none of those lines required Miller moving to center.

 

Pearson-Pettersson-Podkolzin

Hoglander-Horvat-Boeser

Miller-Dickinson-Garland

Gadjovich-Sutter-Motte

 

That’s some damn good creativity if you ask me.  Miller and Dickinson should make for an awesome defensive line (with Miller helping out on face-offs), while the presence of both Garland and Miller should allow for Dickinson’s offensive upside to be unlocked a little.  
 

On the top line, Podkolzin helps Petey out in the physical department just as Miller was doing, while Podkolzin also gets a chance to expedite his offensive development by playing with Petey right from the get go.

 

Boeser has also always been a better stylistic fit with Horvat than Petey as well in my opinion.  
 

Not bad........not bad at all.

[Spotted owl]

6 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

Out of the lines suggested, I think the one with Dickinson centering Miller and Garland intrigues me the most by far since all three lines scored above 55%, and none of those lines required Miller moving to center.

 

Pearson-Pettersson-Podkolzin

Hoglander-Horvat-Boeser

Miller-Dickinson-Garland

Gadjovich-Sutter-Motte

 

That’s some damn good creativity if you ask me.  Miller and Dickinson should make for an awesome defensive line (with Miller helping out on face-offs), while the presence of both Garland and Miller should allow for Dickinson’s offensive upside to be unlocked a little.  
 

On the top line, Podkolzin helps Petey out in the physical department just as Miller was doing, while Podkolzin also gets a chance to expedite his offensive development by playing with Petey right from the get go.

 

Boeser has also always been a better stylistic fit with Horvat than Petey as well in my opinion.  
 

Not bad........not bad at all.

Yes, the (Miller  Dickinson  Garland) line is interesting... 

 

[hammertime]

On 8/4/2021 at 5:37 AM, IBatch said:

Hey look at us agreeing on something again.   I'm also hoping we finally get rid of the two line approach and 5 x 5 roll three lines and a shutdown line.    Keeps all the legs fresh too.   And over a long season reduces chances of injuries.   We have 8 legit top six and or strong middle six guys now.   Hogs EP BB   Pearson Horvat Garland  Gadjs?? Miller Podz 

Motte Sutter Dickinson.     To me that's how you balance out the goodies.  

Its pretty wishful to think Podkolzin immediately finds a home on the 1st line. Give it some time.

[IBatch]

35 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Its pretty wishful to think Podkolzin immediately finds a home on the 1st line. Give it some time.

I don't think that at all...what i'm hoping his Miller is our "3rd" line C.    And no i don't have that sort of wishful thinking.   I'm just hoping we spread the offense out and make one shutdown line.   The last couple of year our bottom six did ok and then awful.    Expecting Dickinson to run a third scoring line is trouble.   Maybe we can run two shutdown lines but i'm pretty sure we can't do that either.   Who knows - guess we will find out.   I don't expect Podz or Hogs to make the first line.   What i'm hoping is we create three lines that it's tough to say at any given night we know who's the first line and who's the third 5 x 5.   Yes the guys making the first PP unit (and Miller will get his time there), will end up scoring the most.   Making a line of Hogs Miller Podz ... doesn't make it the first line does it? 

[hammertime]

58 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I don't think that at all...what i'm hoping his Miller is our "3rd" line C.    And no i don't have that sort of wishful thinking.   I'm just hoping we spread the offense out and make one shutdown line.   The last couple of year our bottom six did ok and then awful.    Expecting Dickinson to run a third scoring line is trouble.   Maybe we can run two shutdown lines but i'm pretty sure we can't do that either.   Who knows - guess we will find out.   I don't expect Podz or Hogs to make the first line.   What i'm hoping is we create three lines that it's tough to say at any given night we know who's the first line and who's the third 5 x 5.   Yes the guys making the first PP unit (and Miller will get his time there), will end up scoring the most.   Making a line of Hogs Miller Podz ... doesn't make it the first line does it? 

Rather than pull Miller off of a Petes wing. Sutter when given the opportunity to create offense which hasn't been often given his deployment he has shown flashes. something along the lines of.

 

Miller Pete Boeser 1A

Hog Bo Garland  1B

Pearson Sutter Podkolzin Utility line probably best for Podkolzin's development he can play in all situations without being relied upon too heavily one way or the other. All 3 of them are very good a clogging the neutral zone and maintaining pressure. 

Motte Dicky Lockwood Pure shutdown line. Lockwood has really impressed me with his defensive play blocking shots, creating turnovers, getting under opponents skin I think if we are going for a pure shut down 4th line he could really find a home there. This line can get the puck get it up ice in a hurry and hand over possession to Bo or Petes line. 

 

[vancan2233]

What I love about this team is with : Pettersson, Horvat, Garland, Hoglander, and Podkolzin  there is going to be a "never quit on the puck" attack player on the ice all game long. Miller when on his game is the same and Dickerson seem like a never quit player too. This forward group is going force most teams to play in their own end most of the game.  

[Spotted owl]

Miller  Pete  Garland   (When the Canucks need a goal, send out this line...)

 

Hog/Podkolzin   Bo  Beoser

 

Pearson  Dickinson  Podkolsin/Hog

 

Motte   Sutter   (Sign another good, big, fast player from free agent Bargain Bin.)

 

To be determined in camp (13 forward.)

[DownUndaCanuck]

Wow, you've really done your homework here. This rings a lot of bells of the older NHL games where you'd have better chemistry if you combine a shooter, playmaker and gritty forward all on the same line.

 

I do think analytics has a large part to play in the modern game, but do wonder if there are other "intangibles" out there on the ice that these analytics miss that are important when consider line chemistry. In particular, things like toughness and ability to win puck battles along the boards/cycle along the play with other players. Also, having more defensive-minded forwards protecting offensive forwards is wise, but then there's the combination of these forwards with different risky defensive pairings which adds to the complexity.

 

To be honest, I've thought that when we had the Sedins in around 2011, we had too many playmakers in our top-6 (both the Sedins for example) and really no primary shooters (Kesler sort of became one). A wiser move would have been to share the playmaking ability across the lineup and split up the twins but this only happened rarely, and we failed to get the Sedins a proper shooter on their line for most of their career.

 

Ironically, looking at our lineup now we have a LOT of shooters/scorers who think shoot-first. Boeser is a shooter and goal scorer, but can pass and has good hockey IQ. Pettersson is interesting but looking at him in junior, he was always more of a shooter-first and scorer, passer-second. Miller can do a bit of everything but again, I wouldn't call him a playmaker-first, probably more of a scorer (and last year, more of a selfish one). None of them are particularly strong defensively, none of them are particularly gritty either.

 

When you look at our current lineup, we're really loading up all of offensive threats on two lines, and then putting all of our gritty defensive checkers on the bottom lines. This isn't how the NHL used to operate successfully around 5-10 years ago but a lot of teams do this now. I wonder how a lineup like this would work, considering each line need the perfect combination of playmaking ability (which can be shared amongst players), shooting/scoring ability, checking, gritty ability (and hopefully net-front presence) and defensive awareness:

 

Motte - Pettersson - Boeser

(Motte brings defence/checking, Petey converts to a playmaker, Boeser the shooter)

 

Pearson - Horvat - Garland

(Horvat the shooter, Garland the passer, Pearson the gritty player)

 

Miller - Dickinson - Hoglander

(Miller the shooter, Dickinson the gritty defensive player, Hoglander the playmaker)

 

Podz - Sutter - MacEwan

(Bit different, less offence-focussed but still Podz can shoot, Sutter can playmake and defend and MacEwan can be the gritty player)

 

The reason coaches don't use these lines is because they must think that the gritty player "sucks" offensive skill from the other players and limits them, but I think Motte and Pearson could handle themselves in a top role and more importantly, bring more complexity to their lines. Too many times last season we saw Miller mess up, out of position and Pettersson and Boeser certainly wouldn't be covering his mistakes. Then you couple that with a defensive error by Hughes and we're toast.

 

Speaking of, it's important to complement each of these lines with the right pairings as well defensively. Last season we saw Miller, Petey, Boeser and Hughes all on the ice at the same time caught up ice while poor Hamonic has to defend odd-man rushes against him. Instead, these could our more balanced defensive pairings:

 

OEL - Poolman

(OEL brings the puck-moving ability, Poolman the stay-at-home defenceman and also bit of grit)

 

Hughes - Hamonic

(As above, we need Hamonic on the ice at the same time not just defensively but for some toughness)

 

Juolevi - Myers

(A bit less puck-moving ability but a more stable defensive pairing)

 

Rathbone/Schenn

(These two can slot into the lineup when injuries occur, Rathbone could replace OEL/Hughes and Schenn replace the defensive guys)

 

This way, when we're attacking sure we can have our top 2 lines out there with our top-2 defensive pairings, but if we over-commit or get caught defending in our own zone against top offensive units, we'll have guys like Motte and Poolman on the ice at the same time to dig us out of trouble, or Hamonic, Pearson and Horvat for example.

 

When you look at teams having success deep in the playoffs, it's often their top units playing against other top units and whoever can defend the other better wins. We need to balance our offensive threats a bit better and honestly I'd be keen to try something like this. It's not flashy, it's not sexy and sure, Pettersson isn't going to hit 80-90 points playing next to Motte. But they're going to play better as a unit, defend better, hold their own against tougher opposition and I bet they'd get scored against far less often.