ShareThis Page
Penguins

Penguins Prediction Rewind: Jake Guentzel leaves Conor Sheary in his dust

Jonathan Bombulie
| Friday, Aug. 10, 2018, 5:05 a.m.
Ducks goaltender John Gibson makes a save on the Penguins’ Jake Guentzel in the first period Saturday, Dec. 23, 2017 at PPG Paints Arena.
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Ducks goaltender John Gibson makes a save on the Penguins’ Jake Guentzel in the first period Saturday, Dec. 23, 2017 at PPG Paints Arena.

Note: Last summer, beat writer Jonathan Bombulie made a series of predictions leading up to the start of the 2017-18 season. Some of them were hilariously off the mark. In this series, Bombulie will explain what he was thinking and where his logic went off course.

THE PREDICTION

Jake Guentzel will score more goals than Conor Sheary this season.

THE RATIONALE

— Guentzel sure doesn’t appear to be a flash in the pan. His speed and vision are top of the line, and he looks to be less prone to slumps and injuries than Sheary. He’s also been so effective as a top-six winger that coach Mike Sullivan will probably resist the temptation to use him as a stopgap center.

— Guentzel will probably end up spending more time on Crosby’s wing than Sheary. When the three play together, Sheary occupies the right wing. If Sullivan wants to get right wingers Patric Hornqvist and Phil Kessel into the top six, Sheary’s the one who is going to get bumped, especially if he hits a slump like he did in the playoffs.

READER REACTION

A sample of Facebook comments:

— “Crosby and Guentzel have terrific chemistry together. I can’t see them being broken up unless they struggle together. Guentzel seems to have all of the tools.”

— “It’s fun to speculate. Only time will tell which player scores more goals. My money is on the player on Sid’s line.”

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

Guentzel scored more goals, but it was by a small margin, 22-18.

Sheary actually had a solid advantage in goals per 60 minutes of even-strength ice time (0.92-0.74), but Guentzel nosed ahead because of an edge in power-play goals (7-2).

Guentzel ended up playing a little more with Sidney Crosby (55 percent of his even-strength minutes) than Sheary did (48 percent).

Guentzel suffered from a normalization in shooting percentage. As a rookie, when he was scoring at a 32-goal pace for a full season, he shot an unsustainable 19.8 percent. Last year, it was a more reasonable but still high 12.9 percent.

THE FLAWS IN THE LOGIC

There weren’t flaws in the logic. Guentzel is the better scorer. The problem is that now, with 20-20 hindsight, it looks like a prediction that any dope could have correctly made. At the time, it wasn’t an easy call.

Last summer, Guentzel had a grand total of 40 games of NHL experience to his credit and given the team’s lack of center depth, there was talk he was going to be moved off Crosby’s line to a position he wasn’t as comfortable with.

If Guentzel played center, Sheary was going to spend a lot of time on Crosby’s wing, and with 30 goals in 105 career NHL games coming in, that looked like a position he could have exploited for a big season.

In the playoffs, of course, Guentzel clicked with Crosby and poured in 10 goals in 12 games. Sheary scored zero goals and was traded to Buffalo to open up salary cap space shortly thereafter. With that, the prediction looks obvious. It really wasn’t.

LESSONS LEARNED

When predicting which player will score more, choose talent over role. Eventually, if the talent’s there, role will take care of itself.

Keep up with the Pittsburgh Penguins all season long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan at jbombulie@tribweb.com or via Twitter @BombulieTrib.

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.

click me