TDS Staff
Guest
Pierre Dorion Speaks: Hoffman extension, Ceci megotiations, the blue line being set
TDS Staff via our good friends at Buckeye Battle Cry
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
Senators general manager Pierre Dorion appeared on TSN 1200 last week to discuss the announcement of Mike Hoffman’s four-year contract extension with the Senators. The interview ran on the Wednesday, but I didn’t really have a chance to listen or go through it until this evening.
Rather than let Dorion’s comments disappear into the ether, I figured I’d talk about them now. Besides, it’s the beginning of August and I’m guessing most of you aren’t really interested in commentary on the Senators’ announcement of an extended corporate sponsorship with Mattamy Homes.
So without further ado, the full interview can be heard at the bottom of this post and here are my thoughts in bold.
On whether Mike Hoffman’s deal was a difficult one to finalize and how he settled on the structure of the deal…
“I wouldn’t call it difficult. Time consuming, for sure. This is definitely something that we’ve been working on for quite a while. After we got our coach named, it’s been probably the number one priority that we’ve been working on besides the draft. So this is something that both sides, I think, are fairly happy with. We’ve got Mike Hoffman, I think in the prime of his career, signed at what we feel is a good number and we’re ready to move forward. The second part of your question was how we got this (structure) is that obviously the first year is an RFA number, a restricted free agent number, with an arb(itration) number and after that, we bought, we feel we got three years of UFA numbers at which point Mike could have just walked away (from).”
When the terms of the deal were revealed, I was stunned that Hoffman did not get more money. Given his even strength production rates, the one-year remaining of team control, his impending arbitration hearing and the fact that the Senators did not have any in-house alternatives who are even close to replicating what he can bring to the table, I can’t believe that Hoffman’s representation didn’t get more money out of the Ottawa Senators – especially since Hoffman hasn’t exactly been utilized very well over the past two seasons. I guess I just expected these circumstances to create a situation wherein Hoffman took the Senators for all that he’s worth on the open market.
On how important it was to get this deal done before Mike Hoffman’s scheduled August 4th arbitration date…
“We felt that it was important to get it done, just so that we could avoid arbitration. We wanted to keep Mike here long-term. I think we’ve said that from the get-go that our goal was to try and sign Mike. And we knew if we went a second time to arbitration, this would probably create some conflict and the chances of us signing him long-term after the arbitration process could have been more difficult. So I think we came to an understanding earlier this morning and we feel that we got the player in his prime and we’re anxious to see how he is going to do with Guy Boucher as his coach.”
Considering how close Hoffman’s arbitration hearing was, I wonder how many trade offers or inquiries Pierre Dorion fielded on Hoffman.
On the relationship between Guy Boucher and Mike Hoffman…
“Oh, I think it’s a pretty good relationship from talking with… having not spoken with Mike directly except for a few times since the end of the season or actually, maybe once since the end of the season. But, (in) talking with Guy and talking with Mike’s agent, everyone’s pretty positive that we’re going to get a very productive player under Guy and someone that’s going to help us score goals. We’ve invested a lot of time in Mike Hoffman and to have a chance to lose him when he’s in his prime would be something that would be really detrimental to the organization. Getting him signed now to a longer term contract where he can just focus on helping us win and score goals is something that’s really beneficial.”
It could have been worse. It’s one thing to lose a guy in his prime, it’s another entirely to lose a guy for a nothing and have him to develop into a productive player elsewhere. It’s a good thing that Hoffman cleared waivers in September of 2013, otherwise we’d be talking about him like he was Pavol Demitra – another gifted offensive player who got away without anything to show for it.
On whether Guy Boucher is going to see Mike Hoffman in a more positive light…
“I don’t think there’s really much point to talk about what was done in the past, but I can tell you, in talking about the future with Mike here and with having Guy, I think there’s going to be a lot of communication. He’s coached this player before. The one thing is, you’re not getting a player that won’t know how to handle adversity or certain situations that a coach puts him under and I think this coach knows how to push the right buttons with Mike. Mike really had the breakthrough year with Guy when (he) was coaching in junior. A lot of things are different from junior than in the NHL, but I think having coached a player and having known the player can only help our organization and Mike to reach really his true potential.”
Armed with a new contract, expectations are going to rise for Hoffman, but given his previous even strength production, the bad luck that he had last season that comes with leading the league in hit posts and crossbars and how his role might expand under Guy Boucher, it’s not unreasonable to believe that Hoffman is capable of scoring 30-plus goals if he can remain healthy.
On Derick Brassard being a better fit than Mika Zibanejad because he’s a pass-first centre…
“I’m going to… we’re going to leave up who… whomever plays with whom, we’re going to leave that up to the coach. I think that’s for them and that’s probably one of the (most fun) parts (of the job) for a coach is deciding line matchups. But, whomever he decides to play with whom, if he goes back to (Mike) Hoffman, (Kyle) Turris and (Mark) Stone – which was one of the better lines in the first two months of the year in the NHL – or if he decides to put (Derick) Brassard up there and he puts (Bobby) Ryan… it’s up to him to decide what he wants to do. But having Derick Brassard, who’s a left-handed (shot) and more playmaking-type centre compared to a shooting centre like Mika, I think just adds other options to our top-six or top-nine forwards.”
I’ll talk about Ottawa’s left wing situation a little later on, but one of the things that will be interesting to watch in training camp is which centre he pairs his right wingers with. The prevailing belief is one that sees Derick Brassard flanked by Bobby Ryan, but with both players profiling as playmakers, it remains to be seen whether they can gel. Ryan’s had some fleeting moments alongside centres like Kyle Turris and Mika Zibanejad, but it’s never really felt like he’s clicked or had significant chemistry with any centre since he’s been here.
Mark Stone’s so smart and talented, there’s no fear that he can’t find a suitable match, but considering how much Jean-Gabriel Pageau and Zack Smith improved alongside Stone, the concern lies in how much worse that duo can be if they’re forced to play alongside a historical production and possession drag like Curtis Lazar or Chris Neil. The last thing the organization wants to see is the third line struggle out of the gate like it did last season, but the cost/benefit analysis of where to slot Stone is going to weigh heavily on the minds of Boucher’s staff. It’s one of the reasons why I was hoping that the organization could go out and sign a cheap alternative like Lee Stempniak. Right wing alternatives like Lazar and Neil just aren’t good enough and in the event of an injury to the top-six, Ottawa’s depth is really going to be tested.
On Mike Hoffman having long-term security for the first time in his NHL career and whether it’s different for him now knowing that he doesn’t have to prove himself any longer…
“Well, that’s exactly it. I think we’re looking for Mike Hoffman to come through and be even better for us. I don’t think Mike and a lot of people here in our organization feel that Mike has reached his true potential. I think at times, when guys are playing for contracts, they cheat and they just try and score goals. We want Mike to score goals, but play the right way – the way he did earlier in the year. I think later in the year, he was just looking to score goals instead of playing the right way. So I think in Mike’s case, he’s a very proud player. He thinks he can be a very dominant player when you talk to Mike. It’s not a cocky arrogance. He’s just confident in his abilities night in and night out. So I think that can only help this organization and Mike Hoffman to be the better player he can be and to help us win as many games as we can.”
On the surface, the numbers certainly support the position that Mike Hoffman got worse as the season dragged on.
Via the invaluable Corsica.Hockey, here are Hoffman’s five-on-five numbers from October through December contrasted with what he did from January through the rest of his season:
5v5 GP G/60 Pts/60 Rel CF% Rel SF% Rel GF%
Oct. through Dec. 34 1.37 2.86 4.45 3.03 21.8
Jan. through Apr. 44 0.63 1.68 1.18 0.95 -8.28
As the numbers clearly show, his production rates fell noticeably and when he was on the ice, with the exception of the Senators’ relative GF%, the Senators were still better with him on the ice than off. Granted, his relative numbers definitely took a hit in the second half of the season.
Looking a little deeper into his splits, it’s not like the Senators’ Corsi for or against rates or shots for or against rates jumped markedly.
5v5 On-Ice CF/60 CA/60 SF/60 SA/60
Oct. through Dec. 55.21 57.45 28.73 32.83
Jan. through Apr. 56.58 58.57 29.54 32.37
Whether Hoffman was truly guilty of cheating in the defensive end to create more offence is a matter of watching the games and breaking down the video. The numbers however portray a situation in the Senators gave up a similar volume of shots and shots on goal when Hoffman was on the ice.
To account for the massive swing in relative goals for percentage however, one just has to look at the luck-driven statistics to see what ailed Hoffman in the second half: the team’s shooting percentage and save percentage when Hoffman was on the ice at five-on-five took a massive nosedive.
5v5 On-Ice Sh% SV% PDO
Oct. through Dec. 12.55 93.94 106.49
Jan. through Apr. 7.09 91.59 98.68
After the first-half of the season that he had, it was natural to expect some kind of regression in the Senators’ on-ice shooting percentage, but coupled with the Senators’ goaltenders making fewer saves behind Hoffman, I can’t help but wonder if this is a classic case of results-based analysis in which Dorion romanticizes Hoffman’s overall performance in the first half of the season because he benefited from having greater luck.
I can understand the desire to make Hoffman a better all-around player by publicly describing his shortcomings as a player, but this seems like an instance where the organization has an easier time celebrating Hoffman’s overall performance when the results are there. For as much as we can discuss cheating within the defensive end, maybe it’s just as easy to: 1) question whether Hoffman pressed more as he approached the 30-goal plateau; 2) mention the number of times that Hoffman rang pucks off the iron; or 3) describe how the Senators’ rash of top-six injuries contributed to making the Senators and Hoffman easier to match up against.
On where things are going in the Cody Ceci negotiations…
“I think on Cody, it’s more… we’ve talked many situations. We’ve talked from one-year to six-year deals and we don’t seem to agree a lot on where we’re going, but I still feel very confident that he’ll play for us when the season starts. He’ll be here when training camp starts. It’s just there’s different types of deals coming out of entry-level (contracts) and here, we just want to make sure that we do what’s right for Cody (and) for the organization. We want to pay him fair value, but at the same time, we have got an idea of what Cody can be, but it could be even better. We want to make sure we’re fair towards him, but we’re fair towards the organization.”
Precisely.
Unfortunately for the Senators, they’ve lacked quality right-handed defensive alternatives which has put them in a situation wherein they have had to rely on Ceci to play a top-four role that he wasn’t quite ready for. Just because Ceci’s played top-four minutes on what’s been a high event/bad defensive team these past few seasons doesn’t mean that he should be paid commensurately to what a top-four defenceman makes on a good team.
Through the past few seasons, Ceci’s been a nominal top-four guy and few stretches of hockey alongside Patrick Wiercioch in 2014-15 and Dion Phaneuf in 2015-16, he hasn’t played at a high enough level for me to be comfortable with the idea of giving him a long-term contract.
At the risk of potentially costing the Senators a few more dollars down the road, I believe the Senators should give him a year alongside Dion Phaneuf to really flesh out what they have.
On whether previous long-term contracts that the organization have handed out before fuel a concern for giving one out to Cody Ceci…
“Nope. It’s a very simple answer: no. A lot of other contracts that were done, they were done… you guys know that once Tim (Murray) left, Bryan (Murray) was very kind to let me handle a lot of these negotiations of contracts. Everything ran through Bryan and it’s something I enjoy doing, but what’s done in the past, we can’t control. But we’re looking more for the future and if we feel that giving a long term to a player is the right thing for the organization and for the player, we’ll definitely do that. But at times, I’m more of the old school (mentality): let me see what you can do when, not when we’re a bad team. Let me see how good you are when we’re a good team and then we might look at giving you (a) long-term (contract). You guys are smart enough to read between the lines on this comment.”
Irrespective of whether a team is good or bad, a general manager should always be looking lock up a team’s best assets to cost-effective deals that give the organization the flexibility to allocate and put its remaining resources to use.
On Clarke MacArthur’s status and preparation for the coming season…
“I think I’ve alluded to this a few times. With Clarke, he could have played last year at the end of the year. He could have played. In the last week, he was cleared to play three or four games. I don’t want to be wrong on the exact number of games that were left, but he was medically cleared to play. We just felt, why take the risk? We weren’t going anywhere. A few more months of rest and hard training would be the best thing (for him). He’s one-hundred percent (healthy). He has had a great summer. He’s texted me a few times. He’s so anxious to start the season. If he’s there, our top-six forwards or top-nine forwards, I feel very comfortable with them being top-nine guys that could (get us into) the playoffs. So he’s going to be coming in. It will be interesting. He took a few hits last year in practice at the end when he was going full out and he didn’t have a non-contact jersey. So we feel really confident that Clarke’s going to be able to play and give us a good year. Sometimes you have those years where things don’t go your way and that was the case for Clarke, but I think he’s a high-character human being and a high-character player and we expect big things from Clarke this year.”
Even though I love Clarke MacArthur as a player, it would have been difficult to watch any member of the organization have to go through what he did last season.
Granted, he brought some of that onto himself by failing to disclose his concussion symptoms, but that’s a systemic problem brought about by hockey’s culture of hiding injuries – something that Gabriel Landeskog wrote about in a recent post for The Player’s Tribune.
For MacArthur, he probably wanted to get into a game down the stretch, so that he could clear that hurdle and ease his mind as he headed into the summer offseason, but even if he did, it’s going to be hard to watch him play and worry that he could be just one hit away from walking away from the game.
On recent moves reflecting a change to bring significant experience into the dressing room and whether that coincides with the impetus for this team to win now…
“Yeah, exactly. I’m tired of hearing (that the team is a few years away). Sometimes we’re a bit biased on the team that we have and maybe I’m too optimistic. I’m telling our fans, ‘Just look and see what we can do.’ But bringing in these people, these people aren’t coming in… Chris Kelly isn’t coming in here just to ride out his career. He’s coming in here to try and help us win. Derick Brassard knows the players in the league. He’s a big hockey fan. He looks at our team on paper and says, ‘This is a good hockey team.’ When we acquired Dion Phaneuf, it wasn’t so he could just play games and see where it goes. It’s for us to have that winning mentality and that’s what we’ve tried to do here. Ever since I took the (GM) job, I said, ‘I’m not looking at really improving our top-six forwards.’ I think we’ve done that right now in adding Derick Brassard and him taking the spot of Mika (Zibanejad). But at the same time, we’ve improved where I’ve felt we needed to improve, which was our character and leadership, helping to improve our penalty killing. So those are things that we’ve targeted more than just looking at bringing in a top name, because, I think on paper and I think with this coaching staff, we definitely have a playoff team.”
Derick Brassard sounds like he’s angling for a future in management.
It’s interesting hearing Dorion mention how he wanted to improve the team’s penalty kill unit. Last year, the Senators had one of the worst shorthanded save percentages in the league and compared to its recent history, the Senators allowed more shorthanded chances and shots.
CA/60 SA/60 SV%
2015-16 102.5 (25th) 59.2 (T-28th) 84.44 (29th)
2014-15 96.2 (15th) 53.6 (19th) 88.63 (8th)
2013-14 90.5 (7th) 52.7 (18th) 86.67 (T-23rd)
2012-13 90.4 (12th) 54.7 (26th) 92.49 (1st)
If there’s a saving grace, it’s not like the Senators have much room to get any worse, but as Scott Cullen pointed out on TSN in his write-up analysis of the Brassard/Zibanejad trade however, Zibanejad was one of the team’s better performers last season when killing penalties.
Hopefully a new coaching staff can help identify and remedy the issues otherwise, the last hope will be for the team’s goaltending to mask the PK unit’s underlying problems again.
On what he believes is the biggest question mark is on the team heading into training camp…
“I’m anxious to see how our special teams have to be better. To me, that’s one thing. I think that’s the biggest thing for me. Last year we were 27th and 29th in special teams and I hate to put a bit of pressure on our coaches, but that’s why we hired them. If we’re in the top-10, how many more points (in the standings) is that going to be? Does that automatically put us in a playoff spot? I think that’s probably the biggest key. Cutting our scoring chances against is another thing that I’m looking forward to. As far as player personnel, obviously Clarke will be a big question mark – how he reacts when the season gets going and when he handles a few hits. But, that’s one thing that I’m pretty positive about. (Do) you know what intrigues me the most? How our coach is going to juggle these lines. We pretty much know how our defence pairings are going to be. We pretty much know that (Marc) Methot is going to play with (Erik) Karlsson, (Dion) Phaneuf is going to play with (Cody) Ceci and (Mark Borowiecki) will play with (Chris) Wideman unless someone likes a (Fredrik) Claesson, (Michael) Kostka, (Ben) Harpur, (Pat) Sieloff or (Andreas) Englund comes in and challenges for (Borowiecki) or Wideman(‘s spot). But how will he play with our forward group? Who will he play with who? Who will he match up? Will he put (Curtis) Lazar back on right wing? Will (Chris) Kelly maybe play with (Jean-Gabriel) Pageau and (Curtis) Lazar if Lazar is on right wing? Where will Zack Smith fit in? Those are the things that probably excite me the most.”
It’s not some throwaway comment, the inclusion of “Cutting our scoring chances against is another thing that I’m looking forward to,” is great because it is evidence of what analytics the Senators rely on to track performance.
On a completely different note, it’s impossible to know whether the exclusion of Thomas Chabot from the third pairing conversation was intentional or an oversight, but good lord, it’s hard to imagine a team that is dead set on competing for a playoff spot is willing to roll with Mark Borowiecki as a regular.
On being excited to see what Mike Hoffman can do if he gets a bigger role on the power play…
“That’s a great point. When we did the interview with Guy, the first time it was just myself for about four and half hours, but the second time, it almost went eight hours or just under it. We started at quarter to one and went to about quarter to nine and (he talked about) how he was going to use Mike Hoffman on the power play and that was really appealing to me. Now it wasn’t the reason why we hired him, but how Mike Hoffman’s power play production will go up under the way that Guy wants to have him on the power play. So that’s another thing that is really exciting.”
More Hoffman power play production? Yes, more of that please.
Over the last two seasons, Hoffman has struggled to produce points with the man advantage, which is weird considering the ease in which he comes across them at even strength. Considering his skill set, it’s odd, so hopefully this is simply a matter of usage and philosophy which can bring out the best in Hoffman.
http://proxy.autopod.ca/download/podcasts/chum/186/44742/jul27dorion.mp3
Continue reading...
TDS Staff via our good friends at Buckeye Battle Cry
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
Senators general manager Pierre Dorion appeared on TSN 1200 last week to discuss the announcement of Mike Hoffman’s four-year contract extension with the Senators. The interview ran on the Wednesday, but I didn’t really have a chance to listen or go through it until this evening.
Rather than let Dorion’s comments disappear into the ether, I figured I’d talk about them now. Besides, it’s the beginning of August and I’m guessing most of you aren’t really interested in commentary on the Senators’ announcement of an extended corporate sponsorship with Mattamy Homes.
So without further ado, the full interview can be heard at the bottom of this post and here are my thoughts in bold.
On whether Mike Hoffman’s deal was a difficult one to finalize and how he settled on the structure of the deal…
“I wouldn’t call it difficult. Time consuming, for sure. This is definitely something that we’ve been working on for quite a while. After we got our coach named, it’s been probably the number one priority that we’ve been working on besides the draft. So this is something that both sides, I think, are fairly happy with. We’ve got Mike Hoffman, I think in the prime of his career, signed at what we feel is a good number and we’re ready to move forward. The second part of your question was how we got this (structure) is that obviously the first year is an RFA number, a restricted free agent number, with an arb(itration) number and after that, we bought, we feel we got three years of UFA numbers at which point Mike could have just walked away (from).”
When the terms of the deal were revealed, I was stunned that Hoffman did not get more money. Given his even strength production rates, the one-year remaining of team control, his impending arbitration hearing and the fact that the Senators did not have any in-house alternatives who are even close to replicating what he can bring to the table, I can’t believe that Hoffman’s representation didn’t get more money out of the Ottawa Senators – especially since Hoffman hasn’t exactly been utilized very well over the past two seasons. I guess I just expected these circumstances to create a situation wherein Hoffman took the Senators for all that he’s worth on the open market.
On how important it was to get this deal done before Mike Hoffman’s scheduled August 4th arbitration date…
“We felt that it was important to get it done, just so that we could avoid arbitration. We wanted to keep Mike here long-term. I think we’ve said that from the get-go that our goal was to try and sign Mike. And we knew if we went a second time to arbitration, this would probably create some conflict and the chances of us signing him long-term after the arbitration process could have been more difficult. So I think we came to an understanding earlier this morning and we feel that we got the player in his prime and we’re anxious to see how he is going to do with Guy Boucher as his coach.”
Considering how close Hoffman’s arbitration hearing was, I wonder how many trade offers or inquiries Pierre Dorion fielded on Hoffman.
On the relationship between Guy Boucher and Mike Hoffman…
“Oh, I think it’s a pretty good relationship from talking with… having not spoken with Mike directly except for a few times since the end of the season or actually, maybe once since the end of the season. But, (in) talking with Guy and talking with Mike’s agent, everyone’s pretty positive that we’re going to get a very productive player under Guy and someone that’s going to help us score goals. We’ve invested a lot of time in Mike Hoffman and to have a chance to lose him when he’s in his prime would be something that would be really detrimental to the organization. Getting him signed now to a longer term contract where he can just focus on helping us win and score goals is something that’s really beneficial.”
It could have been worse. It’s one thing to lose a guy in his prime, it’s another entirely to lose a guy for a nothing and have him to develop into a productive player elsewhere. It’s a good thing that Hoffman cleared waivers in September of 2013, otherwise we’d be talking about him like he was Pavol Demitra – another gifted offensive player who got away without anything to show for it.
On whether Guy Boucher is going to see Mike Hoffman in a more positive light…
“I don’t think there’s really much point to talk about what was done in the past, but I can tell you, in talking about the future with Mike here and with having Guy, I think there’s going to be a lot of communication. He’s coached this player before. The one thing is, you’re not getting a player that won’t know how to handle adversity or certain situations that a coach puts him under and I think this coach knows how to push the right buttons with Mike. Mike really had the breakthrough year with Guy when (he) was coaching in junior. A lot of things are different from junior than in the NHL, but I think having coached a player and having known the player can only help our organization and Mike to reach really his true potential.”
Armed with a new contract, expectations are going to rise for Hoffman, but given his previous even strength production, the bad luck that he had last season that comes with leading the league in hit posts and crossbars and how his role might expand under Guy Boucher, it’s not unreasonable to believe that Hoffman is capable of scoring 30-plus goals if he can remain healthy.
On Derick Brassard being a better fit than Mika Zibanejad because he’s a pass-first centre…
“I’m going to… we’re going to leave up who… whomever plays with whom, we’re going to leave that up to the coach. I think that’s for them and that’s probably one of the (most fun) parts (of the job) for a coach is deciding line matchups. But, whomever he decides to play with whom, if he goes back to (Mike) Hoffman, (Kyle) Turris and (Mark) Stone – which was one of the better lines in the first two months of the year in the NHL – or if he decides to put (Derick) Brassard up there and he puts (Bobby) Ryan… it’s up to him to decide what he wants to do. But having Derick Brassard, who’s a left-handed (shot) and more playmaking-type centre compared to a shooting centre like Mika, I think just adds other options to our top-six or top-nine forwards.”
I’ll talk about Ottawa’s left wing situation a little later on, but one of the things that will be interesting to watch in training camp is which centre he pairs his right wingers with. The prevailing belief is one that sees Derick Brassard flanked by Bobby Ryan, but with both players profiling as playmakers, it remains to be seen whether they can gel. Ryan’s had some fleeting moments alongside centres like Kyle Turris and Mika Zibanejad, but it’s never really felt like he’s clicked or had significant chemistry with any centre since he’s been here.
Mark Stone’s so smart and talented, there’s no fear that he can’t find a suitable match, but considering how much Jean-Gabriel Pageau and Zack Smith improved alongside Stone, the concern lies in how much worse that duo can be if they’re forced to play alongside a historical production and possession drag like Curtis Lazar or Chris Neil. The last thing the organization wants to see is the third line struggle out of the gate like it did last season, but the cost/benefit analysis of where to slot Stone is going to weigh heavily on the minds of Boucher’s staff. It’s one of the reasons why I was hoping that the organization could go out and sign a cheap alternative like Lee Stempniak. Right wing alternatives like Lazar and Neil just aren’t good enough and in the event of an injury to the top-six, Ottawa’s depth is really going to be tested.
On Mike Hoffman having long-term security for the first time in his NHL career and whether it’s different for him now knowing that he doesn’t have to prove himself any longer…
“Well, that’s exactly it. I think we’re looking for Mike Hoffman to come through and be even better for us. I don’t think Mike and a lot of people here in our organization feel that Mike has reached his true potential. I think at times, when guys are playing for contracts, they cheat and they just try and score goals. We want Mike to score goals, but play the right way – the way he did earlier in the year. I think later in the year, he was just looking to score goals instead of playing the right way. So I think in Mike’s case, he’s a very proud player. He thinks he can be a very dominant player when you talk to Mike. It’s not a cocky arrogance. He’s just confident in his abilities night in and night out. So I think that can only help this organization and Mike Hoffman to be the better player he can be and to help us win as many games as we can.”
On the surface, the numbers certainly support the position that Mike Hoffman got worse as the season dragged on.
Via the invaluable Corsica.Hockey, here are Hoffman’s five-on-five numbers from October through December contrasted with what he did from January through the rest of his season:
5v5 GP G/60 Pts/60 Rel CF% Rel SF% Rel GF%
Oct. through Dec. 34 1.37 2.86 4.45 3.03 21.8
Jan. through Apr. 44 0.63 1.68 1.18 0.95 -8.28
As the numbers clearly show, his production rates fell noticeably and when he was on the ice, with the exception of the Senators’ relative GF%, the Senators were still better with him on the ice than off. Granted, his relative numbers definitely took a hit in the second half of the season.
Looking a little deeper into his splits, it’s not like the Senators’ Corsi for or against rates or shots for or against rates jumped markedly.
5v5 On-Ice CF/60 CA/60 SF/60 SA/60
Oct. through Dec. 55.21 57.45 28.73 32.83
Jan. through Apr. 56.58 58.57 29.54 32.37
Whether Hoffman was truly guilty of cheating in the defensive end to create more offence is a matter of watching the games and breaking down the video. The numbers however portray a situation in the Senators gave up a similar volume of shots and shots on goal when Hoffman was on the ice.
To account for the massive swing in relative goals for percentage however, one just has to look at the luck-driven statistics to see what ailed Hoffman in the second half: the team’s shooting percentage and save percentage when Hoffman was on the ice at five-on-five took a massive nosedive.
5v5 On-Ice Sh% SV% PDO
Oct. through Dec. 12.55 93.94 106.49
Jan. through Apr. 7.09 91.59 98.68
After the first-half of the season that he had, it was natural to expect some kind of regression in the Senators’ on-ice shooting percentage, but coupled with the Senators’ goaltenders making fewer saves behind Hoffman, I can’t help but wonder if this is a classic case of results-based analysis in which Dorion romanticizes Hoffman’s overall performance in the first half of the season because he benefited from having greater luck.
I can understand the desire to make Hoffman a better all-around player by publicly describing his shortcomings as a player, but this seems like an instance where the organization has an easier time celebrating Hoffman’s overall performance when the results are there. For as much as we can discuss cheating within the defensive end, maybe it’s just as easy to: 1) question whether Hoffman pressed more as he approached the 30-goal plateau; 2) mention the number of times that Hoffman rang pucks off the iron; or 3) describe how the Senators’ rash of top-six injuries contributed to making the Senators and Hoffman easier to match up against.
On where things are going in the Cody Ceci negotiations…
“I think on Cody, it’s more… we’ve talked many situations. We’ve talked from one-year to six-year deals and we don’t seem to agree a lot on where we’re going, but I still feel very confident that he’ll play for us when the season starts. He’ll be here when training camp starts. It’s just there’s different types of deals coming out of entry-level (contracts) and here, we just want to make sure that we do what’s right for Cody (and) for the organization. We want to pay him fair value, but at the same time, we have got an idea of what Cody can be, but it could be even better. We want to make sure we’re fair towards him, but we’re fair towards the organization.”
Precisely.
Unfortunately for the Senators, they’ve lacked quality right-handed defensive alternatives which has put them in a situation wherein they have had to rely on Ceci to play a top-four role that he wasn’t quite ready for. Just because Ceci’s played top-four minutes on what’s been a high event/bad defensive team these past few seasons doesn’t mean that he should be paid commensurately to what a top-four defenceman makes on a good team.
Through the past few seasons, Ceci’s been a nominal top-four guy and few stretches of hockey alongside Patrick Wiercioch in 2014-15 and Dion Phaneuf in 2015-16, he hasn’t played at a high enough level for me to be comfortable with the idea of giving him a long-term contract.
At the risk of potentially costing the Senators a few more dollars down the road, I believe the Senators should give him a year alongside Dion Phaneuf to really flesh out what they have.
On whether previous long-term contracts that the organization have handed out before fuel a concern for giving one out to Cody Ceci…
“Nope. It’s a very simple answer: no. A lot of other contracts that were done, they were done… you guys know that once Tim (Murray) left, Bryan (Murray) was very kind to let me handle a lot of these negotiations of contracts. Everything ran through Bryan and it’s something I enjoy doing, but what’s done in the past, we can’t control. But we’re looking more for the future and if we feel that giving a long term to a player is the right thing for the organization and for the player, we’ll definitely do that. But at times, I’m more of the old school (mentality): let me see what you can do when, not when we’re a bad team. Let me see how good you are when we’re a good team and then we might look at giving you (a) long-term (contract). You guys are smart enough to read between the lines on this comment.”
Irrespective of whether a team is good or bad, a general manager should always be looking lock up a team’s best assets to cost-effective deals that give the organization the flexibility to allocate and put its remaining resources to use.
On Clarke MacArthur’s status and preparation for the coming season…
“I think I’ve alluded to this a few times. With Clarke, he could have played last year at the end of the year. He could have played. In the last week, he was cleared to play three or four games. I don’t want to be wrong on the exact number of games that were left, but he was medically cleared to play. We just felt, why take the risk? We weren’t going anywhere. A few more months of rest and hard training would be the best thing (for him). He’s one-hundred percent (healthy). He has had a great summer. He’s texted me a few times. He’s so anxious to start the season. If he’s there, our top-six forwards or top-nine forwards, I feel very comfortable with them being top-nine guys that could (get us into) the playoffs. So he’s going to be coming in. It will be interesting. He took a few hits last year in practice at the end when he was going full out and he didn’t have a non-contact jersey. So we feel really confident that Clarke’s going to be able to play and give us a good year. Sometimes you have those years where things don’t go your way and that was the case for Clarke, but I think he’s a high-character human being and a high-character player and we expect big things from Clarke this year.”
Even though I love Clarke MacArthur as a player, it would have been difficult to watch any member of the organization have to go through what he did last season.
Granted, he brought some of that onto himself by failing to disclose his concussion symptoms, but that’s a systemic problem brought about by hockey’s culture of hiding injuries – something that Gabriel Landeskog wrote about in a recent post for The Player’s Tribune.
For MacArthur, he probably wanted to get into a game down the stretch, so that he could clear that hurdle and ease his mind as he headed into the summer offseason, but even if he did, it’s going to be hard to watch him play and worry that he could be just one hit away from walking away from the game.
On recent moves reflecting a change to bring significant experience into the dressing room and whether that coincides with the impetus for this team to win now…
“Yeah, exactly. I’m tired of hearing (that the team is a few years away). Sometimes we’re a bit biased on the team that we have and maybe I’m too optimistic. I’m telling our fans, ‘Just look and see what we can do.’ But bringing in these people, these people aren’t coming in… Chris Kelly isn’t coming in here just to ride out his career. He’s coming in here to try and help us win. Derick Brassard knows the players in the league. He’s a big hockey fan. He looks at our team on paper and says, ‘This is a good hockey team.’ When we acquired Dion Phaneuf, it wasn’t so he could just play games and see where it goes. It’s for us to have that winning mentality and that’s what we’ve tried to do here. Ever since I took the (GM) job, I said, ‘I’m not looking at really improving our top-six forwards.’ I think we’ve done that right now in adding Derick Brassard and him taking the spot of Mika (Zibanejad). But at the same time, we’ve improved where I’ve felt we needed to improve, which was our character and leadership, helping to improve our penalty killing. So those are things that we’ve targeted more than just looking at bringing in a top name, because, I think on paper and I think with this coaching staff, we definitely have a playoff team.”
Derick Brassard sounds like he’s angling for a future in management.
It’s interesting hearing Dorion mention how he wanted to improve the team’s penalty kill unit. Last year, the Senators had one of the worst shorthanded save percentages in the league and compared to its recent history, the Senators allowed more shorthanded chances and shots.
CA/60 SA/60 SV%
2015-16 102.5 (25th) 59.2 (T-28th) 84.44 (29th)
2014-15 96.2 (15th) 53.6 (19th) 88.63 (8th)
2013-14 90.5 (7th) 52.7 (18th) 86.67 (T-23rd)
2012-13 90.4 (12th) 54.7 (26th) 92.49 (1st)
If there’s a saving grace, it’s not like the Senators have much room to get any worse, but as Scott Cullen pointed out on TSN in his write-up analysis of the Brassard/Zibanejad trade however, Zibanejad was one of the team’s better performers last season when killing penalties.
Hopefully a new coaching staff can help identify and remedy the issues otherwise, the last hope will be for the team’s goaltending to mask the PK unit’s underlying problems again.
On what he believes is the biggest question mark is on the team heading into training camp…
“I’m anxious to see how our special teams have to be better. To me, that’s one thing. I think that’s the biggest thing for me. Last year we were 27th and 29th in special teams and I hate to put a bit of pressure on our coaches, but that’s why we hired them. If we’re in the top-10, how many more points (in the standings) is that going to be? Does that automatically put us in a playoff spot? I think that’s probably the biggest key. Cutting our scoring chances against is another thing that I’m looking forward to. As far as player personnel, obviously Clarke will be a big question mark – how he reacts when the season gets going and when he handles a few hits. But, that’s one thing that I’m pretty positive about. (Do) you know what intrigues me the most? How our coach is going to juggle these lines. We pretty much know how our defence pairings are going to be. We pretty much know that (Marc) Methot is going to play with (Erik) Karlsson, (Dion) Phaneuf is going to play with (Cody) Ceci and (Mark Borowiecki) will play with (Chris) Wideman unless someone likes a (Fredrik) Claesson, (Michael) Kostka, (Ben) Harpur, (Pat) Sieloff or (Andreas) Englund comes in and challenges for (Borowiecki) or Wideman(‘s spot). But how will he play with our forward group? Who will he play with who? Who will he match up? Will he put (Curtis) Lazar back on right wing? Will (Chris) Kelly maybe play with (Jean-Gabriel) Pageau and (Curtis) Lazar if Lazar is on right wing? Where will Zack Smith fit in? Those are the things that probably excite me the most.”
It’s not some throwaway comment, the inclusion of “Cutting our scoring chances against is another thing that I’m looking forward to,” is great because it is evidence of what analytics the Senators rely on to track performance.
On a completely different note, it’s impossible to know whether the exclusion of Thomas Chabot from the third pairing conversation was intentional or an oversight, but good lord, it’s hard to imagine a team that is dead set on competing for a playoff spot is willing to roll with Mark Borowiecki as a regular.
On being excited to see what Mike Hoffman can do if he gets a bigger role on the power play…
“That’s a great point. When we did the interview with Guy, the first time it was just myself for about four and half hours, but the second time, it almost went eight hours or just under it. We started at quarter to one and went to about quarter to nine and (he talked about) how he was going to use Mike Hoffman on the power play and that was really appealing to me. Now it wasn’t the reason why we hired him, but how Mike Hoffman’s power play production will go up under the way that Guy wants to have him on the power play. So that’s another thing that is really exciting.”
More Hoffman power play production? Yes, more of that please.
Over the last two seasons, Hoffman has struggled to produce points with the man advantage, which is weird considering the ease in which he comes across them at even strength. Considering his skill set, it’s odd, so hopefully this is simply a matter of usage and philosophy which can bring out the best in Hoffman.
http://proxy.autopod.ca/download/podcasts/chum/186/44742/jul27dorion.mp3
Continue reading...