Is Canadiens' Tomas Plekanec A Legitimate Number One Center?
A couple of quick thoughts before I head off to Ottawa for tonight's game against the Senators concerning Habs center Tomas Plekanec.
After repeatedly watching highlights of last night's game against the Flyers, it started to really catch my eye when they showed replays of Andrei Kostitsyn's goal. On the play, Plekanec was poised behind the Flyers goal, looking for someone to feed a pass to. Simultaneously, Kostitsyn found the slot just as a Flyers' defender approached, and Plekanec saucered a short eight foot pass over the defender's stick for Kostitsyn to essentially bat a blooper into the net.
On RDS, Benoit Brunet termed the play Gretzky-like, which is always a stretch.
Once I had seen it over again, on a closeup, it's apparent what a smart play it was. It tied the game up, and sent the Habs off to victory.
In Montreal, it's been ballyhood since forever that the team has not had a legitimate number center for ages. Saku Koivu didn't quite fit the description, and Scott Gomez definitely ain't it.
So what exactly would be the criteria for a top line or number one center?
Plekanec's play this season has gotten me thinking about this. Being that there are 30 teams in the league, hence there should be theoretically 30 number one centers. Of course, that all sounds a little too round numbered for me.
I thought I would look at today's current NHL stats to see where he fits in and what I found is quite revealing.
Plekanec is 25th in the league in scoring, and 13th among centers.
His 22 assists in 30 games are 9th in the NHL and 6th among centers.
Sounds like a top line center to me. What do you folks think?
Update: With 3 assists against Ottawa, Plekanec is now 16th in league scoring, 10th among centers for points, and his 25 assists place him fourth overall, tied with Nicklas Lidstrom.
0 recs |
17 comments
|
Comments
Plain total points is such a terribly uninformative statistic. By this very superficial criteria, Koivu has been a legitimate first-line center in several of the years he played in Montreal.
But Plekanec’s 2.43 ESP/60 is an impressive number and worthy of first-line consideration — that’s something Koivu really hasn’t done well except the one year he was paired with Tanguay, and even then not to this level.
However, you’re missing the all-important question of whether Plekanec faces top opposition night in and night out — a crucial factor as to whether a guy can be considered a first-line center or not is whether he’s being used on a first line. This heavy lifting was being done by Gomez prior to his injury, and that fact was no stranger to Plekanec’s increased production. Points are nice, but it isn’t everything; when Ribeiro led the team in scoring, for example, the heavy lifting was done by Koivu, and since Ribs is in Dallas he’s been sheltered a bit behind Richards. It’s good on Plekanec that his production has continued despite facing tougher minutes, though, so maybe there’s something there. Historically, however, Gomez has been much better at this — which is what made him a first-line center, whereas it remains to be proved that Plekanec can be one.
Also worrying is Plekanec’s Corsi number (-11.39), one of the worst on the team, indicating that while the goals are falling in his favor, the puck possession game is not, so there may be a fair bit of luck in this year’s results for him. The recent collapse of Martin’s system, though, is not conductive to good Corsis.
So in short, on whether Plekanec is a legitimate first-line center — the jury’s out, and total points isn’t the right measure. In the long run, though, I think Gomez is more likely to be the guy.
by MathMan on Dec 8, 2009 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gomez was not a first line center in Jersey when it was anchored by Brodeur, Stevens and Neidermayer.
Plekanec was posting good numbers with rotating wingers and had surpassed Gomez before he was injured.
by Robert L on Dec 9, 2009 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gomez was getting the top-line assignments, though, the toughest minutes, and he was driving positive results (with the peak being that game against Atlanta where he neutralized Kovalchuk by keeping the puck on his stick all night). That probably didn’t hurt Pleky, who ended up facing easier opposition.
The roles are reversed right now, and Gomez has had a fair bit of production since coming back from injury despite some less-than-impressive wingers, Sergei notwithstanding (I mean, Ryan White???) — but Pleks hasn’t slowed down, so it all works out.
Maybe the lack of a puck possession and transition game is hurting Gomez, as he is a puck-possession ace who’s never really played on such a terrible 5-on-5 team — whereas Pleky, who is used to 5-on-5 crappiness from his years as a Hab, may be more able to cope. I admit, though, I had hoped that Gomez would have been able to elevate the Habs’ 5-on-5 game as he has excelled there in the past for the Rangers, but he can’t seem to overcome the Habs’ less-than-impressive 5-on-5 system (or lack thereof).
by MathMan on Dec 9, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Corsi Number
Sidney Crosby’s 2008-09 Corsi Number ranked him behind Craig Conroy, David Legwand, Steve Ott, Brandon Dubinsky etc etc.
by Chris Boyle on Dec 9, 2009 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby draws very tough minutes. A guy like Steve Ott, not so much. Strength of competition is a big factor especially with a stat like Corsi.
by MathMan on Dec 9, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is why I don’t quote Corsi stats because not accounting for strength of opposition is HUGE. That is something that can’t be just brushed aside. It is also based on shots taken and shots against, but does not judge the quality of shots. It does not differentiate between a shot from 65 ft away on a 1 on 4 and a one-timer from the slot unimpeded. Jason Blake fires the puck every attempt he gets, a player like Andrei Kostitsyn likes to hold on to the puck. How do you quantify Tomas Holmstrom’s contribution? Is there a stat for goals created by standing in front of the net and digging pucks out of corners?
And how do you quantify strength of opposition? Points? Shots? /-? Corsi? ES Pts? points per minute? adjusted +/-? How would somebody like Doug Gilmour rate in strength of opposition? A 100 point player who also was one of the best defensive centers in the league? How would a guy like Wayne Gretzky? Guy Carbonneau? As far as I am concerned, all are strong opposition but present entirely different problems for the opposing center.
I always enjoy reading hockeys attempts at Sabremetrics, but baseball sabremetrics are also flawed and the game is based solely on one on one competition with minimal outside variables dictating outcome. Hockey is full of random occurrences that vary shift to shift. Player changes, player opposition, goaltender ability, powerplays, shorthanded chances.
I am sure that all of this work will pay off with intriguing new insight into the future, but I have yet to come across a stat that has managed to match on paper what my eyes can see.
by Chris Boyle on Dec 9, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have to take Corsi with appropriate consideration, it is but one tool, and it is only a measure of puck possession. There are other valuable stats to consider, too. But in this case it’s easier to make the comparison because Gomez and Plekanec play on the same team and before his injury Gomez was always matched up against the opposition’s top line (but also got the best wingers).
Now it’s Plekanec’s turn, but unfortunately for him, the Habs’ transition game has gone completely missing so the entire team is getting shelled. Good thing the goalies can stand on their heads. For some reason, though — observer bias warning — it seems the Habs win more when they’re getting shelled than when they actually dominate games.
Oh and, “I have yet to come across a stat that has managed to match on paper what my eyes can see” — not to dismiss the importance of a smell test, but this was actually where the baseball sabermetrics revolution came in. The stats weren’t entirely jiving with what the eyes of baseball people saw… but it turned out that it was the eyes of baseball people were wrong (or rather, they were not giving weigh the right things).
by MathMan on Dec 9, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have misconstrued my quote and looked at in a negative way.
Coming from the guy who charted every single shot for Price and Halak this season, I am looking for the truth behind the truth, but when Puck Prospectus uses statistics to indicate that an adjusted +/- should be a + or -1 distributed equally among the players on the ice to get a true measure, my eyes and brain tell me this premise is absurd. Niklas Lidstrom on any given shift is not by default worth 20% of an earned minus or plus. To award a defenseman for the equal plus on a goal where Ovechkin’s skill creates the opportunity and finishes does not equal out over 82 games. All players are not created equal.
I have played baseball at a very high level and disagree with plenty of sabremetric views in regards to the sport, but I also appreciate the wisdom in some of the findings. I just find the infancy of the hockey research to be flawed and when the proper measurables are finally measured they will be impossible to translate to anything in the past. Yet it is still being done on a daily basis. It seems to me that the effort is to rewrite history based on flawed statistical data.
I am sure moving forward that somebody will unearth a stat that changes the way we view players, but "I have yet to come across a stat that has managed to match on paper what my eyes can see".
This season is starting to look a lot like 2002, a season in which they routinely won games in which they were badly outshot.
by Chris Boyle on Dec 9, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or I did a poor job of conveying my thought. Your choice.
by Chris Boyle on Dec 9, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Though I am a man of stats,(sabremetrics is a fing joke)
we tend to take it way out of proportion, there are way too many variable to justify a true #1centerman by stats alone, what if the puck slid 20 degree to the left or the ref held onto the puck for 1 second more during a faceoff, or if a goalie decided to stand up instead of butterfly.. the list goes on and on.. so all those variables aside , is he a point producer? yes! does he bring out the best in his wingmen? yes! do the fans love him? yes! is he doing random stupid shit to get penalties and getting the team in a mess? no!
thats all we need to know he is a true #1 centermen for the habs
keep it simple, it’s hockey after all
by jon paine on Dec 9, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I ghave to agree on the “rewriting history” part of your argment. We do with the data we have. Altough it’s far from perfect, Corsi rating is helpful in a narrow way, I think, and this narrow way is: a proxy for time of possession at even strength.
(I think we should call it something like Total Shots or some name more indicative of what it is, that is the difference between shots attempted (ie: Goals, Saves, Missed and blocked shots) by a team and shots attempted by their opponent, cuz Corsi as a word is meaningless)
I guess at some point the league will get to some kind of puck tracking system and, maybe, will make the data available publicly. But in the meantime, Corsi (and it’s more useful variant, Corsi relative to teammates) is part of a bunch of proxies people are developing from the play by play data now available. Gabriel Desjardin’s Quality of Competition, a measure built around +/-, is another pretty interesting stat; it is my understanding it needs something like 30-40 games to really start giving accurate results, but when you look at it, it does makes sense.
Crosby’s Corsi relative to his teammates was, in 08-09, +5.4/60 minutes (pretty much at the top of the team amongst those having played more than 40 games against tough competition) and a QUALCOMP of 0.049, 3rd best on the team (and surrounded with guys featuring CorsiRel ranging from —5 to -9/60…).
Those aren’t perfect or even entirely trustable stats because they come from fairly fickle sources, but when you cross-reference them, some of those actually end up being pretty useful.
Plus, it’s (to me at least) an insanely entertaining way of procrastinating :-)
by Olivier on Dec 9, 2009 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd trot out the headline that he is
This town has funny ideas about what it means to have a number one centre. Mathman’s response is just another case in point.
Really, heavy lifting or not, what matters is how Plekanec contributes to winning on this team. This season, as well as two seasons ago he has played a massive role in that regard.
What’s more, and I say this as a massive endorser of the Corsi. All stats must be taken with a grain of salt here. If you want your answer, just watch the guy. I’ll tell you what he’s been doing differently this year so far and that has been finding the middle of the ice on break-ins, rather than taking the easy way of being ushered around the boards into the corner. He has been braver and much more patient. if you want reason behind the rhyme of his “lucky” Corsi, you should look no furthr than this and other behaviours in the offensive zone.
I digress. My initial point was that Koivu was a top offensive centre, as is Plekanec. Gomez has been in the past and certainly has the skill to carry a line, so that is great for the Habs. #1, #2, #3 these are transient.
by Topham on Dec 8, 2009 7:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’ll buy that. Besides, Plekanec is running with the #1 minutes right now. Get Gomez some scoring wingers, then get the coach to establish something resembling a decent puck-possession and transition system, and the Habs will be rolling.
by MathMan on Dec 8, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Agree on the Koivu notion and the Corsi thoughts.
“….what matters is how Plekanec contributes to winning on this team….”
Plekanec, i believe has just assisted on five consecutive goals for his team in two back to back wins. What more could be wanted?
by Robert L on Dec 9, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it’s a good question but still a question. he needs to show consistency. wait until the top checkers o the opposition play him regularly—like for another 30 games—then let’s see.
by IanJohnson on Dec 9, 2009 4:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hey, my fantasy team sure like the guy.
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
by DarrenM on Dec 9, 2009 4:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Corsi .... leave it to the number cruchers... actual play bring it to the fans!
I have been a fan since 81, first game I can ever remember is Montreal vs Boston and LeFleur scoring the winning goal on a near Christmas-time game.
Watching that guy whiz down the ice, reckless abandon and all was AWESOME. Since then I have watched many a Non-Corsi Superstar float on the ice in the Montreal Forum/Bell Centre. I could have cared less if the leading scorer was -25, as long as Les Habitons win.
My zest for the game has not changed much, albeit I didn’t like the lock-out (who did?), but when people water down the passion and charisma a player has shown by referring to irrelevant stats to discredit them, it boils my blood. Yes we can all look at stats and say “Oh my he’s doing great”, but if the team he’s on isn’t any better (Wins) when he plays, what’s so big about that? Plekanec’s is fast becoming a dependable centre for whoever he plays with, which makes his linemates better, and subsequently turns games around. I believe as Topham, its Plekanec’s confidence that has changed… thank god for their development of him (I praise an area so many believe to be lacking in the MTL organization in light of trading away youthful players). Sure he has a ways to go to show that year to year he is this talented… but I bet my last wooden nickle that this year is his swing year…and that we don’t see another subpar for a few years to come.
by Cruisin4aBruisin on Dec 10, 2009 7:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 
















