A Slice of Bouwmeester: Part Two
In the first installment, I had a look at Jay Bouwmeester's performance during his shared ice time with Jarome Iginla and Olli Jokinen over a four game stretch from October 16-28. Today, I 'll look at his next four games, starting with a home ice match-up against Detroit on October 31st and ending with the November 7th New York game.
One of the issues that came up in the first four games was the fact that Brent Sutter had the two forwards on separate lines. That trend held versus Detroit, but the duo were reunited for the final three games of this set
I've expanded the categories for this round. Scoring chances at EV will also be looked at, and will be shown as a +/- in terms of events, as will Corsi. I'll also show Bouwmeester's non-12/21 events in that fashion. I'll also show Bouwmeester's face-off position with and with out the pair.
Glossary notes: Sc.Ch - scoring chances, O/D F - Off./Def face off ratio, P.Opp is the number of the primary opposition player(s) faced that night. 4 w/o - Bouwmeester without either of 12/21. The rest should be easy enough.
Detroit, October 31:
As mentioned up top, the two of them were on separate lines for this one.
| T.Mate | Corsi | Sc.Ch. | O/D F | P.Opp |
| w/12 | +5/-10 | +3/0 | 6/1 | 13 |
| w/21 | +2/-4 | 0/-3 | 0/1 | 33/8 |
| 12/21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Subt. | +7/14 | +3/-3 | 6/2 | |
| 4 w/o | +10/-7 | 1/1 | 3/4 | |
| Total | +17/-21 | 4/4 | 9/6 |
Iginla's overall Corsi was also -5, and Jokinen's was -3, -1 w/o number 4.
As Kent mentioned here, the scoring chances for Iginla happened on one shift with Langkow and Bourque to close the second period. Otherwise, bupkis. Datsyuk ate the Conroy/Iggy duo.
Ice time: Boumeester played 21 minutes, with roughly 12 minutes spent behind Iggy and Joker, and was out against Datsyuk for 7.5 of Pavel's 13 minutes at EV. Jokinen spent most of his night against Draper and Helm, or Abdelkader.
Dallas, November 4th. The dynamic duo is reunited. Excellence must be at hand, no?
| T.Mate | Corsi | Sc.Ch. | O/D F | P.Opp |
| w/12 | +2/-2 | 0/-2 | 2/1 | 91/96 |
| w/21 | +3/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 91/9/63 |
| 12/21 | +2/-8 | 0/-3 | 0/0 | 91 |
| Subt. | +7/-10 | 0/-5 | 2/1 | |
| 4 w/o | +7/-14 | 0/-3 | 2/2 | |
| Total | +14/-24 | 0/-8 | 4/3 |
Iginla's overall Corsi was -10, Jokinen was-1.
The Flames were dead lucky to win this game. Curtis McElhinney, take a bow. A few notes: Joker got his +3 Corsi on one shift with Boyd and Glencross, and if you look at the scoring chances for the game, you'd note Bouwmeester shows as +1/-8 at EV overall, but that plus was the tying goal Calgary scored with McE on the bench.
Ice time: Bouwmeester played 18 minutes at EV, and Jokinen and Iginla spent about 10 minutes with him, most of it paired. Richards and Neal spent about 6-7 minutes of their 14-ish at EV against number 4, but as R O noted in the game comments, Crawford was moving that line around with great effect. As for the reunited duo, they didn't exactly burn it up, did they? In fairness, Iginla had two goals and an assist including the winner, so it he was certainly efficient, timely, etc. etc. Jokinen? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
St. Louis, November 5th. Together again.
| T.Mate | Corsi | Sc.Ch. | O/D F | P.Opp |
| w/12 | 0/0 | 0/0 | N/A | |
| w/21 | 0/0 | 0/0 | N/A | |
| 12/21 | +2/-3 | 1/1 | 21/22 | |
| Subt. | +2-3 | 1/1 | ||
| 4 w/o | +9/-19 | 8/5 | ||
| Total | +11/-22 | 9/6 |
Iginla's overall Corsi -3, Jokinen -7. There is no scoring chance data due to the absence of TV coverage that night.
So, as you might surmise, Bouwmeester hardly played behind Iginla and Jokinen, given the lack of events, and you'd be right, because of JB's 16.5 minutes at EV, only 4 of them were behind Iggy-Joker. The opposition was mixed, with Backes, Kariya, and Boyes making the bulk of his opposition, although Berglund, Perron and Eller were the main threat. The Flames had a poor second period before righting the ship in the third and winning on Phaneuf's OT effort.
New York, November 7th.
| T.Mate | Corsi | Sc.Ch. | O/D F | P.Opp |
| w/12 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/1 | N/A |
| w/21 | +4/0 | +1/0 | 0/0 | N/A |
| 12/21 | +2/-9 | +1/0 | 2/3 | 42/21/12 |
| Subt. | +6/-9 | +2/0 | 2/3 | |
| 4 w/o | +5/-10 | +1/-4 | 3/2 | |
| Total | +11/-19 | +3/-4 | 5/5 |
Iginla's overall Corsi -6, Jokinen -4. Joker's +4 happened on two shifts, one with Bourque, the other with the 'Stroms.
Sutter ran a different bench in this game, with the Langkow line and the Regehr-Phaneuf duo getting the main match against Gaborik. Bouwmeester spent roughly half his 17 minutes at EV behind Iginla and Jokinen, and Corsi was much less kind to them than Kent's scoring chance compilation. When on ice together, they mostly faced the second string of Kotalik, Anisimov and Higgins. Dawes, Langkow and Bourque really carried the mail on the night.
Totals for the four games:
| T.Mate | Corsi | Sc.Ch. | O/D F | P.Opp |
| w/12 | +7/-12 | +3/-2 | 8/3 | N/A |
| w/21 | +9/-4 | +1/-3 | 0/1 | N/A |
| 12/21 | +6/-19 | +1/-3 | 3/4 | N/A |
| Subt. | +22/-35 | +5/-8 | 11/8 | |
| 4 w/o | +33/-50 | +2/-8 | 16/13 | |
| Total | +55/-85 | +7/-16 | 27/21 |
Total EV TOI was about 72.5 minutes, with approximately 34 spent behind 12 and/or 21. The face-off numbers struck me as a bit weird, but the Flames did have 8 more total Ozone draws during this stretch of four games, so it isn't beyond the pale, and most of that edge for these two happened when Sutter was trying to get Iginla going against Detroit.
I guess if you want to break it down this way, it looks like Bouwmeester spent about 47% of his time behind Iginla and Jokinen, with about only 41% of the Corsi events occurring in that time. Better players are usually high event, so that's maybe a sign that not much was happening with 12 and 21 out there. You'd also normally like more pluses than minuses, right?
The bigger issue for me was how things broke when all three were on the ice together. That +6/-19 happened in about 18-19 minutes of EV TOI together. As Corsi normally is expressed /60, that wolud be a rate of roughly -40. Ouch. That game against the Rangers was really symptomatic of their play, victory though it was. Sutter tried his damnedest to get the big two out against anyone but Gaborik, and they still didn't get much going at EV.
In summation, I'm not going to put every last bit of blame on them for Bouwmeester's poor Corsi. He suffered behind the Langkow line in St. Louis as well. The big two didn't help him much, though, and they should be on the good end of possession. Between a "first" line that went through a struggle to get things going at evens and major ice-time versus the best on most evenings, Bouwmeester got a nice deep trench dug for him to try to climb out of. The fact that he does as well as he does says a lot for him. He could use some help from his friends, I'd say.
Oh, and Cory Sarich hasn't been any hell either. That's another tale for another time, though.
13 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Given the recent shift to Regehr/Phaneuf facing the biggest bad guys, one wonders if Sutter was looking for some better results from the tough pairing. The fact that he didn’t get them (quite the opposite) makes me wonder when the inevitable Reggie-Bouwmeester pairing will come about.
If that occurs, shouldn’t Langkow and Bourque be two of the forwards out there PvP? Iginla-Jokinen doesn’t seem like a good idea PvP regardless of who’s behind them.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 19, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, for sure. I take for granted the fact that Jokinen/Iginla – when paired – shouldn’t be going power on power. Nor should Jokinen be doing it alone. Or at all.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 19, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
It does seem odd to me the Regehr is not taking on the big boys. Having him on the second ‘QComp’ line is frustrating for me to see, as he seems to be thriving against that competition. CorsiOn: 4.8, Rel: 11 (which is the highest of D men.) Sarich still has a spectacular GaOn/60 @ 1.49 and Chaos Dion is still leading that in the bad @ 3.03. Could Sarich help Dion? I guess that’s the problem….if Reggie can’t keep Dion afloat, then who can? And if you put Sarich, who has had his own dose of ‘chaos’ in his game…then what.
God…it is endlessly frustrating that we have star players on this team who don’t seem to be able to match well with anyone.
Is that just a result of being blinded by the drill-hole analysis. I mean, someone is going to score and be scored against. It just seems like Jokinen and Dion don’t fit in any position on the team, with any players and we always have to settle with the best of the worst. Is this irrefutably true?
By counting numbers alone…Joker and Dion don’t look too bad. 11pts +1 could be better, and 10 pts +3…is alright. Langkow at 11pts -4 looks like more of a disaster defensively… are we being overly harsh on Dion and Joker, or not hard enough on Langkow etc?
I mean ….as it stands Joker and Iggy are taking on the toughest of the tough: .205/.225 vs Lanks @ .124. He’s only making 700k less than Jokinen and looks like more of a liability @ even. Am I out to lunch or reading the numbers wrong? As well, Joker is our best face-off man @ 49.6% (scary). I know when I watch Langkow, he looks way better…but you guys are getting me on this numbers/advanced stats thing which I am just trying to understand.
Sure Lanks corsi is marginally better…but if Jbo shows us anything, that’s also dependent on QualComp and situations. We just seem to hate…I mean really HATE Joker’s play and then applaud Lanks like crazy…but is the gap that large?
Too many questions…too much confusion.
Langkow has actually gotten better, though. He was -9 after the first Chicago game, and I know I’ve mentioned before that he and Dawes both went -3 in that game and the preceding Dallas game. -6 in two games is a hole to get out of. This does show how smallish sample sizes can wreak havoc, because those two games are still dragging down his PDO number. The EV SV% behind him is .879, and most of it is still caused by McElhinney’s poor first outing and the clusterfuck in Chicago.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 19, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
The QUAL COMP stats at behindthenet aren’t all that useful right now. We all know that Langkow et al have mostly been seeing the tough match-ups for awhile now, while Jokinen has been sheltered. Unfortunately, for QUAL COMP (which relies on on and off-ice plus/minus figures) in a small span of games the results from match to match wildly skew the numbers. Stuff only really tends to shake out in the latter half of the year.
Jokinen’s counting stats are comparable to Langkow’s (despite much shittier play) for 3 reasons:
1.) more PP time
2.) softer circumstances in terms of quality of competition and zone start
3.) better bounces. Langkow’s PDO (SH%SV%) is currently (11.2287.9) 99.1. Jokinen’s is (10.34+.93.9) 104.2.
Relative corsi really captures the difference between the two. Langkow stands at +1.4, well above Jokinen’s -7.1 (only McGrattan has a worse rate than Jokinen in terms of regular forwards).
I don’t have any real complaints with Dion’s play (although he and Regehr looked rough last game). I don’t think Sutter is as much babysitting Dion as he is trying to get a tough match-ups defender on each of the two top pairings in order to “spread the wealth”.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 19, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, both of these response are fair: Here is my rebuttal
Robert: Yes, he’s gotten better, but our opinions of him didn’t seem to start low and change. If I’ve learned anything from you about our Kipper conversations it’s that those things did happen with Langkow…and the sample size is the same for both of them, so it’s equally fair to consider it.
Kent, true very true
1. We’re talking a two point difference in special teams. Neither of them are lighting it up.
2. If behindthenet can’t be used now, then what can? I can only assume, if Joker isn’t facing tougher comp 19 games in, it’s got to be pretty even then.
3. I have a tough time factoring in bounces with PDO when the bounces haven’t exactly been going Joker’s way (maybe true for linemates) but Langkow is shooting at a VERY unsustainable 18% right now and Joker.. a career worst 4.5%. If anything, Joker should have about 2-3 more goals if he’s getting even career average bounces.
This investigation only furthers my opinion, that like it or not, and as disgusting a thought as it is: Joker is our #1 centre. If he isn’t playing comparable to Lanks…then it’s at least close and the numbers seem ok with that. I would prefer a better #1 centre as well.
Here’s the thing. The one idea Sutter hasn’t gone with is straight-up lines through the depth charts, and I think its about time. Joker is NOT as good as Langkow, but I think he could be our number one if he isn’t playing with a ‘invisible wing’ Langkow could manage that…let’s face it Joker cannot.
I want to see:
Bourque_Joker_Iggy
Dawes_Lanks_Moss
GlenX_Connie_Boyd (Or Boyd_Connie)
Prustrom2
Jbo_Reggie
Sarich_Phanuef
Gio_Pardy
You know what…hell man, the players can cry me a river if they cannot handle it, cause this ‘balanced’ approach is just killing one-two forward lines and maybe dumbing down two defensive lines.
It’s time for Moss to Grad up a line, he’s ready. Same with Boyd…to be last year’s Moss. Bourque > Cammy. Dawes > last year’s Bourque. If Joker can’t cut it with the two best wingers… then shoot him. That’s my thoughts.
And dammit, put the inevitable Reggie – Jbo together and start playing with some aggression.
Like Sutter said post game…everyone is too worried about making mistakes and noone is playing, and in my mind this ‘balanced lines’ approach is only compounding that problem.
Or another way to do ‘balance’ would be corsi Rel through 20 games.
Then you get lines that look like this:
Dawes_Lanks_Iggy = +5
RbQ_Joker_Moss = +2.6
GlenX_Boyd_Nystrom = + 4.2
Sjostrom_Conroy_Prust = 0
These are other combinations that have not been tried. I’m not convinced the Dawes_Langkow_RBQ line should stay together forever at the expense of the other lines.
Sorry
I know this is supposed to be a “Bouwmeester” feature, but he and Kipper are the least of our problems.
No need for an apology, Lawrence. In a roundabout way, I’d hoped that my point was he wasn’t getting the help from his forwards that he needed if the Flames were going to run him out against the best. The potential rebalancing of the lines, and an examination of how the team chooses to deploy Jokinen are perfectly legitimate points of discussion, and are really at the heart of how this team will perform over the next few months. If they end up moving a player or two down the line, it will almost certainly be to add a forward of some note.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 19, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions

by 


























