Penguins prediction rewind: Change of scenery didn’t provide boost to Jack Johnson | TribLIVE.com
Penguins/NHL

Penguins prediction rewind: Change of scenery didn’t provide boost to Jack Johnson

Jonathan Bombulie
1428696_web1_gtr-pens06-101718
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Penguins’ Jack Johnson has the puck jump over his stick during a power play against the Canucks in the second period Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2018 at PPG Paints Arena.

Last summer, beat writer Jonathan Bombulie made a series of predictions leading up to the start of the 2018-19 season. Some were OK. Some were hilariously off the mark. In this series, Bombulie will explain what he was thinking and where his logic went off course.

THE QUESTION

Where will Jack Johnson rank in ice time among the Penguins’ top six defensemen by the end of the season?

A. Bottom two


B. Middle two

C. Top two

THE PREDICTION

B. Middle two

THE RIGHT ANSWER

A. Bottom two

THE RATIONALE

• A statistical look at Johnson’s career was not flattering, but he was due for at least a slight improvement in play by moving from Columbus to Pittsburgh. After all, he’d never made outlet passes to Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin before. A change of scenery, a little more favorable zone-start deployment by coach Mike Sullivan and Sergei Gonchar’s influence looked like they would help.

• If Johnson played a little better than his career averages, he’d be in a group with Justin Schultz and Olli Maatta vying for ice time behind Kris Letang and Brian Dumoulin. That means he was likely to be third or fourth in total time on ice.

READER REACTION

A sample of Facebook comments:

• “Agree with the middle-pairing minutes assessment. He is a talented player that likely just needs to play in a better system with better guidance.”

• “I’m not going to expect the world of the guy. He’s not the savior of this team’s defense. That would be unfair. But, I do expect a better contribution to this team than other D signings such as (Christian) Erhoff or (Matt) Hunwick.”

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

• The question should have been more specific, because Johnson finished anywhere between third and fifth in ice time among Penguins defensemen depending on the way the stat is measured. In overall minutes, he was third. In minutes per game, he was fourth. In five-on-five minutes per game, he was fifth. Five-on-five minutes per game best reflects the spirit of the prediction, so that’s the one we’ll go with.

• An interesting note: Before the trade deadline, Johnson was third on the team in average five-on-five ice time per game. After it, he was sixth. That suggests his leash got shorter as the season wore on.

THE FLAWS IN THE LOGIC

• A move to Pittsburgh didn’t bring improvement to Johnson’s game. He pretty much was what he has been his entire NHL career. He has his plusses. For instance, he led the team’s defensemen in hits and blocked shots. He has his minuses. When he was on the ice five on five, the Penguins were outscored, 60-46. When he wasn’t on the ice five on five, the Penguins outscored opponents, 136-90. Coaches notice a stat like that and adjust ice time accordingly.

• If the question had been worded better and specifically took into account durability and special teams, the middle-two prediction would have been wiser. Johnson didn’t miss a game and he was a regular on the penalty kill.

LESSONS LEARNED

This change-of-scenery thing is hard to figure out. Moving to Pittsburgh was a magic elixir for Erik Gudbranson. It didn’t have anywhere near the same effect for Johnson. Tread lightly when making predictions that expect a change of zip code to make a world of difference.

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all offseason long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review assistant sports editor. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.