Putting Lindy Ruff's recent comments in perspective

Be sure to join the Discord channel to talk hockey, and everything else, with me and fellow subscribers.

Today’s post was written by C.J. TURTORO. You can find C.J. on Twitter @CJTDevil.

---

The majority of this article was written before the 2-1 OT win against the Sabres on Saturday. All edits that are added after that game will be in italics. 

After the New Jersey Devils’ 4-1 loss against Washington on Thursday, we saw head coach Lindy Ruff more animated than he has been at any time in his tenure. He was very disappointed in his team’s effort. Ruff gave a lot of specifics about what he thought was good and bad about the game and it gives us some insight into what he sees as the problems with that matchup and, therefore, the solutions. 

Let me say off the top that I liked most of what Ruff said. I think he’s right about what went wrong on specific plays and it’s good that he’s sending the message that level of play was unacceptable.

However, some of these quotes taken without context can lead to, in my opinion, very wrong conclusions. I’m not sure if it’s on Ruff or Twitter/Reddit/etc. that those conversations are happening, but I thought some perspective was warranted on a few of the pull quotes from what he said those days after the Washington game.

1. “Didn’t get out-skilled”

In the post-game press conference, Ruff noted the fourth line (Jimmy Vesey, in particular), was most successful and said that the lineup “didn’t get out-skilled, they got outbattled and outworked.” 

I think it’s actually fair that he name-checked Vesey, who was one of the few Devils notable in a positive way. Furthermore, it’d be hypocritical of those who value analytics to point out that Mason Geertsen looked like a water buffalo who is allergic to hockey pucks without also pointing out that he and Gauthier led the Devils in shot share. They did give up a goal and obviously didn’t score one, but, broadly speaking, they did what you’d hope.

That said, I think Ruff’s framing of what happened in this game is misleading. In rewatching the game, the Devils problems were not along the boards, they were in transition. And most of the failed transitions were due to mental mistakes, errant passes, or other poor fundamentals.

In the first two minutes of the game, Sharangovich flubbed a pass on an exit, Johnsson fumbled a potential fast break to Mercer at center ice, and Mercer and Johnsson failed to connect on what could’ve been a sure goal.

In fact, the first OZ time was from the Gauthier line because they were ironically the first line that didn’t let the puck skip off their stick.

Later on, in describing the goals, Ruff’s criticisms were more on-point -- he derided the team’s focus, which is a better description of the failure of that first period. 

You can call these physical and mental lapses whatever you want, but I’d attribute it to some combination of skill (the mental part of the game is skill), chemistry, and scheme. It’s not that they weren’t working hard enough or playing physical enough. They weren’t playing well enough or smart enough.

Edit: Unlike in the Washington game, the Devils were out-hit by the Sabres team 30-25, but they relied made fewer mistakes in the back 45 minutes which allowed their skill advantage over Buffalo to carry them to a “W”.

2. Yegor Sharangovich called out for poor play

During the game, Sharangovich had his ice time docked after the 1st period. In the post-game Ruff criticized “half the forwards” but wasn’t too subtle in implying Sharangovich’s mistakes, in particular, produced the dangerous chances that led to goals.

He pointed out mental lapses on both goals and if you watch the film, you’ll see he likely blames Yegor for at least one, possibly both of them. All three forwards chased the puck after an OZ faceoff that led to an odd-man rush for goal #1 (Yegor took that faceoff), and a “bad change” cased the easy and dangerous zone entry on goal #2 (Yegor abandoned his man coming from the far wing during a breakout from Kuznetsov). 

I think those are accurate criticisms of Sharangovich’s play and if the point is “he’s an important piece of our future and, with Jack out, our present; so, we need stronger overall play from him” then I understand the focus on his mistakes.

In a vacuum, though, it’s worth pointing out that he was also one of the more dynamic transition players in the game and led the team with seven shot attempts and four high-danger chances (twice as many as anyone else on the team). By the end of the game he was a positive in terms of on-ice shot and chance differential. In fact, his four high-danger chances were more than the entire Capitals team produced while he was on the ice (3).

So, again, while I think it’s fair to point out that he made mental errors in this game, making him out to be the goat (the bad kind) of the match is coming dangerously close to evaluating a player based on results rather than on process. What if the puck hadn’t taken two lucky bounces on the first goal and Orlov missed on the 2nd? And what if Yegor scored instead of ringing it off the post? Suddenly the game is 2-2 and Yegor is a big reason why. The criticisms aren’t inaccurate; I just think some perspective is warranted.

Edit: Yegor continues to be trusted in both PP and PK situations. As such he was given the 5th most TOI among Devils forwards against Buffalo despite the 3rd least-used forward 5v5. Ruff started him with McLeod and Kuokkanen, but once again demoted him to the 4th line with Gauthier and Studenic after the team had another brutal 1st period, replacing him with Vesey. The line performed better without Yegor on it.

3. “We need more” from the Nico line

In his press conference after the morning skate, Ruff continued to point out Yegor’s mistakes and then also looped in the Nico line for not doing enough. I thought this was odd considering that Nico led the team in xG ratio and the three of them were the only players outside his beloved Jimmy Vesey who were not on the ice for a 5v5 goal against. 

What I’m sure he means is that this line needs to produce goals. And that is true. If you look at all situations other than the empty net, Zacha (0.92), Nico (0.78), and Bratt (0.65) are three of the top four Devils in terms of xG (Yegor is the other) and none of them have scored. If you are a top NHL line, with about 2.3 xGs, you are expected to have scored at least twice by that point.

On the one hand, that’s very concerning for a team that has a pretty extensive recent history of failing to convert on their opportunities. On the other hand, this rate is obviously not going to continue. If that line keeps getting chances, eventually they are going to go in. So, while it’s fair to point out “we need more from them,” I think that gripe is possibly more with the hockey Gods than it is with that line.

Edit: What I tell you?! While the line once again did not bury a 5v5 chance, the 2-1 Devils win was fueled by goals from Pavel Zacha and Nico Hischier. That top line combined for 1.2 all-situation xGs against Buffalo and buried 2, bringing their season total to 2 goals on 3.53 xGs. Given historical production for these players we’d expect them to be closer to who they were against Buffalo, than who they were the previous 3 games in terms of chance conversion. Something to note, though, is that Tatar and Bratt switch spots in the 3rd period so it’s possible the Lindy Ruff lineup blender has now reached all 4 trios.