Grading the 2011 Philadelphia Flyers: Blair Betts
We continue our annual, player-by-player look at the 2010-11 Philadelphia Flyers. In no particular order, we'll analyze one player per day (or so) over the next few weeks. Up next, fourth-line favorite Blair Betts.
Expectations: What do we expect out of Blair Betts? Just solid, defensive fourth line hockey. He's not a flashy guy, he's not going to light up the score sheet, he's not going to get talked about on WIP. And really, that's all good. We don't need him to be flashy, we don't need him to light up the score sheet -- and God forbid the day somebody mention his name on WIP. That would mean they actually, you know, maybe watch the game.
The one question mark with Betts is his health, and really, that's not something we can really judge him on. Still, with a guy that you know exactly what you're getting out of him like Betts, I think a lot of us probably based our expectations on his health after some nasty shoulder issues last year.
***
The good news is that Betts had a damn good year health-wise. He played in 75 of the team's 82 games, missing four games with a finger injury and three at the end of the season with an undisclosed lower-body injury. But he played every game in postseason, so his health is likely fine.
His faceoff numbers weren't fantastic or anything, but they were still above 50 percent, below only Jeff Carter on the team in terms of win percentage among players who took more than 136 of them. (In other words, Ville Leino's superior faceoff percentage doesn't matter when analyzing Betts.)
His goals against per 60 minutes did rise as opposed to last year, from 1.74 to 2.38, but he also played with worse teammates, as the Relative Corsi of his teammates dropped from a team-worst -3.955 to an even-worse -4.643. In other words, Jody Shelley isn't as good as Ian Laperriere.
He wasn't on the ice for as many goals this season, and thus his goals for per 60 fell quite a bit and he failed to outscore his opponents as he did last season, but again, when you're playing with hands-of-stone Darroll Powe and Jody Shelley, it's hard to put the puck in the net.
Not that Lappy is a great goal scorer, but how many times do we recall Betts and Powe on a rush this season, developing a scoring chance and then failing to finish? We can't fault them too much for that. With a Corsi percentage of 40.5 percent, Betts still directed the puck up the ice relatively frequently for a guy that started shifts in his own end all the freakin' time.
All in all, Betts started just 26.9 percent of his shifts in the offensive zone. That's the second lowest number in the league behind Manny Malhotra of the Canucks, known as one of the league's best defensive forwards.
Overall at five-on-five in the regular season, Betts took 226 faceoffs in the defensive zone, 226 in the neutral zone and 81 in the offensive end of the ice, meaning that Peter Laviolette trusts him more than any other forward when it comes to starting shifts and taking draws in his own end.
Simply put, Blair Betts serves a role on the Flyers and he does it damn well.
Grading criteria: We assign grades on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being the best. We base our grades on expectations, execution on those expectations and a player's overall potential. A 10 means that the player had a fantastic, expectation-surpassing season. A 1 means that he was horrible and needs to go. Like, yesterday.
The grade: We're giving Betts an 8. He definitely suffered when the Flyers replaced Ian Laperriere on his wing with Jody Shelley, but Betts was still a perfectly serviceable fourth-line center. His defensive numbers were a little less impressive than a year ago, but we won't fault him too much for it.
What about you?
43 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think an 8 is fair.
But while you can say he had a good year health wise because he didn’t miss a lot of games, sure his finger injury must have been a factor of his faceoff trouble during the playoffs. Not so much an excuse, but at least an aggravating factor. He said it himself after the season,
“It was tough only having a four-finger grip on my stick,” Betts said. “It was painful at times but only when I got whacked or took a shot off of it, but for the most part, it was bearable.”Personally, I love Betts and I think he’s a major unsung hero on this team. He was a notch down from last year, totally true, but he was still just as valuable to the team.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
we need a “.5”, just like last year with the A+ or B+. I didn’t want to give him a full 8, but he was better then a 7. so 7.5 IMO
Samesis
Are you serious? You have 10 options to choose from, and you want 20?
Jen! Weren’t you supposed to be mean to people who did this??
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I never agreed to that, just in case I was that person one day.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jun 9, 2011 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the problem is that people aren’t grading based on the scale we’ve set up.
We purposefully set it up after Japers’ scale so that the numbers would hover around 5, rather than 7. This way, people get the entire range of 10 options, rather than having a “never to be used by an honest grader” 1-5.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Well then I think maybe you should add descriptions next to the numbers. I’m not a psychologist, but I think by nature most people will be hesitant to select the lower numbers. So you could do:
10 Should be a Trophy-Nominee
9 Outstanding
8 …
7 …
6 …
5 Average
4 …
3 Should start next year in the AHL
2…
1…
Or something. However you guys want it to be.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jun 9, 2011 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
So you want them to clarify what a 3 and a 7 are?
We base our grades on expectations, execution on those expectations and a player’s overall potential. A 10 means that the player had a fantastic, expectation-surpassing season. A 1 means that he was horrible and needs to go. Like, yesterday.
If Geoff wants the scale to hover around 5, yes. Because when I read that description, 3 and 4 feel like awful grades rather than below average grades.
Warning: Arguing the NHL CBA with me could be hazardous to your mental health. Proceed at your own risk.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jun 9, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough. It was intuitive for me, but that doesn’t mean it is for everyone — I guess it’s true that it implies that 10 is merely expectation-surpassing and not expectation-wildly-smashing.
Personally, my objection to it is that if someone exactly hits their expectations, they should get a 5.5, which we’re not allowed to do. 9-point scale FTW!
You’re an ass.
And Jen, that makes sense. But I still want to bitch. It should have been intuitive.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m definitely grading on a scale from 1.5 to 9.5 now, just for you.
1.5 means WAY below expectations
2.5 means way below expectations
3.5 means below expectations
4.5 means a bit below expectations
5.5 means met expectations
6.5 means a bit above expectations
7.5 means above expectations
8.5 means way above expectations
9.5 means WAY above expectations
Change my grade for Betts to 5.5 please.
If you want to abstain from voting, be my guest.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Just want to point this out:
Using Balanced Zone Starts, since Betts got less than 35% of his starts in the offensive zone, he was expected to finish in the offensive zone 12.5% more than he started. He finished in the offensive zone 17.2% more frequently.
Now, that’s rather easy to do with a 26% offensive zone start, but stil… damn impressive.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
I disagree on this one. I’m giving him a 5.
Did Betts do good work in tough spots? Yes, he definitely did. But did you expect otherwise?
Last year he faced the fourth toughest competition on the team, had the fewest offensive zone starts (about 11% below the team average), and had a Corsi Rel of -16.
This year he faced the second easiest competition on the team, had the fewest offensive zone starts (about 11% below the team average), and had a Corsi Rel of -19.
In other words, relative to his teammates, his starting locations were about the same, his competition was much easier this year, and his results were worse. I’m willing to blame Shelley for the majority of that, but I’m calling it a point below expectations.
I’m glad he was healthy all year, but it’s not like I expected injury. I feared it, but at best that’s worth a point. Which gets me back to a 5.
are you counting penalty kill? cuz that’s some relatively good competition and at a disadvantage. also don’t really understand the “4th toughest and 2nd easiest” assuming there’s 4 lines to play against. 1 being the toughest 4 being the least tough. which would mean last year he faced the easiest and this year the 2nd easiest?
No, that’s just even strength.
What I mean is that if you rank all of the Flyers forwards who played 40+ games by the quality of competition they faced (as measured by Corsi Rel QoC, which I think does a pretty good job of identifying who faced top lines the most often), you find that Betts was 4th out of 13 last year and was 13th out of 14 this year.
Right. The scale is 1-14, not 1-4.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Answering the follow-up question:
- Corsi is kind of like a +/- for shot attempts, measuring whether the player’s team outshot their opponents when he was on the ice. This has been shown to correlate well with puck possession, zone time, and goals.
- Relative Corsi compares the team’s Corsi with the player on the ice to their score with him off the ice, which helps to see how much the player was individually responsible for the team’s success measured by the first number.
- Corsi Rel QoC is the average of the Corsi Rel of all of the opponents the player faced. So it ends up measuring how often he faced their top lines, and while I was a little skeptical of competition metrics in general for a while, I’ve become very impressed with the empirical success of this measure in identifying players who I know to take on tough competition.
Is there a metric for penalty kill? I know it’s not quite as simple as that, but if Corsi Rel is only for even strength, is there a correlation between the three you’ve described below specifically relating to the penalty kill?
I guess the point I’m getting at is that we should be able to look specifically at the penalty kill from this past season where Betts and Powe were the main PK unit and compare it with last year where Betts and Lappy were the #1 PK unit.
I’m reading BtN’s 10 part “new to advanced stats” post right now, so please bear with me.
by hebrew hammer on Jun 9, 2011 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
It appears that most of what the skaters contribute to the PK is shot suppression.
The Flyers gave up 48.2 SOG/60 at 4-on-5 this year (5.3 G, 42.9 saved shots), best in the league. Last year, they gave up 49.8 SOG/60 at 4-on-5, third-best in the league.
As for Betts personally, last year opponents got off PP shots at a higher rate against him than against any other forward who got more than a few seconds a game of PK time. This year, Powe moved ahead of him for that title, but he was still among the most-shot-against forwards.
It looks like the PK improved a bit, and he was perhaps responsible for some of that improvement, but he wasn’t the one individually driving their PK success in any great way.
I gave him a 6, but unlike you, I gave him a point for simply staying healthy.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m glad he was healthy all year, but it’s not like I expected injury. I feared it, but at best that’s worth a point. Which gets me back to a 5.
I missed the “back to” part of that.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 9, 2011 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I docked him a point for letting Shelley drag him down a bit more than I’d have expected, basically.
Haha I got him a 6…but for all the reason you gave him a 5. I didn’t dock him for Shelley because Shelley replacing Lappy is a big drop off IMO…though so was his competition. Meh, still 6.
Teaching Travis how to Dougie since 2011.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
Yeah, as I wrote it, I realized that it’s probably more fair to assume that the dropoff is from the thing that we know changed (Lappy → Shelley) than the thing that we don’t know (Betts getting better/worse). WOWY should be the way to interpret this, but in this instance the difference we’re seeing between this year and last is in the competition metric, and I don’t have WOWY competition numbers.
This is the weird thing about grading relative to expectations. Coming into the season, I just wasn’t thinking that our fourth line was going to have to be a lot more sheltered. Is it Betts’ fault that my expectations were unfair?
Incidentally, here’s what I do have on the WOWY: when Betts played without Shelley, his Corsi was almost identical (40.6%), but it was based on 15.8% offensive zone starts. Seriously, when Betts was out there without Shelley, at even strength, he had 25 offensive zone faceoffs and 133 defensive zone faceoffs.
5, coulda been a 6. Steady, unspectacular, meh.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
10 imho
not that i have a blair betts shirt that my wonderful girlfriend got me or anything though
Yo – who are the 37 trolls that gave him a “1”??? That’s just bullshit. You could argue for (perhaps) a 4, if we accept that 5 is ‘met expectations’ and he was injured a bit – but anything below that is fucked up. He’s not SUPPOSED to score 40 goals, or get power play time, or do anything except play well on the fourth line and penalty kill – and I say he did his job damn well.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
I could see a 3 even given his role and expectation. He had an underwhelming year on the PK and on the 4th line. But he got put in brutal situations so…
But regardless, I can see it.
Teaching Travis how to Dougie since 2011.
Geoff has Boosh, Mike's got Powe, Nodl is all mine!
OK – even if you’re really that unimpressed, a 3. That means 63 people voted lower than that, for Blair Betts. I’m hoping that just means that a lot of PPP fans are registering votes here.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Jun 10, 2011 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
And if Betts was ‘underwhelming on the PK’ I guess Richie was horrible? Betts allowed 26 goals against when shorthanded, in averaging 3:37 minutes of PK time per game, while Richards allowed 24 goals in 2:08 shorthanded per game.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Jun 10, 2011 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
You could also look at it as:
at 4-v-5, Richards was a -4.69/60, Betts was a -4.18/60.
And Richards had an 0.847 Sv% to Betts’ 0.891.
But what Don said. Richards gave up 37.8 shots/60, Betts 39.7.
Neither were particularly amazing, but Giroux was.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 10, 2011 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that an extrapolated shots/60, or is that actual shots per 60 TOI?
Regardless, without regulating for quality of competition I guess either argument is inherently flawed. Being on the first penalty kill unit brings a much higher qualcomp I would think.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Jun 10, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

by






















