O'Byrne a Liability?

so tonight's game-tying goal was scored by colgate while o'byrne was serving a penalty. watching o'byrne play last year, and a few games this year, i sorta always felt like he's a big liability on the ice, due to his constant taking of needless penalties, putting extra stress on the PK units. i went back through the stats: we have allowed 21 goals in all this year, including 14 on the PP and 7 shorthanded or even-strength. of those 14 goals, only 3 were scored on us while o'byrne was in the box (tonight's second goal, clarkson's first goal, BC's first goal). when thinking about that, those 3 aren't that bad, especially since the clarkson game was decided by 2 goals, and since o'byrne managed to score on BC shorthanded after his penalty.

however, i still can't shake the feeling that he is placing the team in a dangerous situation time and again by his constant needless penalties. since we have allowed more goals defending a PP than on even-strength (or on the man advantage), his penalties put us on shaky ground. o'byrne's penalty minutes last season surpassed hornby's minutes in a season for all but 2002-2003, and again o'byrne is on pace to pass last season's total penalty minutes. [on top of that, hornby was an enforcer, o'byrne is not.] just from a judgment, many of these penalties have been useless (hauling someone down in a corner) and flagrant (right in front of a ref).

so although the statistics aren't on my side, i wonder if any of you have the same feeling about o'byrne?

I've had similar thoughts. I decided that I wouldn't mind O'Byrne taking so many penalties if he could just be consistently good in his play, as opposed to being either hot or cold. When he's good, he's great, but other times I panic when I see him trying to advance the puck.

[Q]A-19 Wrote:
so although the statistics aren't on my side, i wonder if any of you have the same feeling about o'byrne? [/q]
When you're a team that does not score goals easily--as we have been since the flurries of scoring in the early season AHA games--it really does pay to avoid unnecessary penalties.

Schafer said to Adam after the Clarkson game that taking undisciplined penalties allowed them to get back into that game. Last night was an even better example of what can happen to a hard-earned lead when you give the bad guys a man advantage. Pulling a guy down when he's breaking in on net or about to wrist a rebound in the slot can be a smart move, but pulling him down in a corner scrum--when you do it consistently--just raises the odds of the other team putting another one on the scoreboard.

I have had the same feelings about O'Byrne until I really started thinking about it. I think maybe it's because O'Byrne is utilized a lot on the penalty kill and he is taking away one of our strong defensemen when he takes a stupid penalty. I actually believe the reason Colgate was able to score on the power play last night was due to our mixed defensive lines as a result of Gleed and Polulok's injuries. The first goal that Colgate scored was a mistake on the defense in front of McKee, nobody lifted the sticks of the Colgate players because they were in chase mode due to poor body positioning. I thought O'Byrne did a good job handling the puck through the neutral zone last night but when he approached the offensive zone he got indecisive.

Well, if Sasha really is gone for the rest of the season, then O'Byrne really has to begin to mature as a player and become not only not a liability, but a big asset. That's not a lot to ask of a 3rd round draft pick.

are we tallking about the penalty in front of section O where the Colgate player wrapped the cornell defenseman around the head and pulled him down on top of him and got a penalty called??

yep

I agree that O'Burne had taken some dumb penalties this year and a disproportionate number have come in the first and last minutes of periods (I leave it to the reader to decide whether a penalty at the start or end of the period is any worse than any other time). But some perspective - the kid has 50 total penalty minutes after 23 games. The Cornell record is well over 100. He's no where near that and isn't likely to get there even if Cornell makes it to the national championship game.

I don't think O'Byrne is a liability. He won't hit his potential unless he does eliminate some of the stupid penalties, but he definitely should be on the ice.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

I agree that O'Burne had taken some dumb penalties this year and a disproportionate number have come in the first and last minutes of periods (I leave it to the reader to decide whether a penalty at the start or end of the period is any worse than any other time). But some perspective - the kid has 50 total penalty minutes after 23 games. The Cornell record is well over 100. He's no where near that and isn't likely to get there even if Cornell makes it to the national championship game.

I don't think O'Byrne is a liability. He won't hit his potential unless he does eliminate some of the stupid penalties, but he definitely should be on the ice.[/q]

Yes, but you might as well say, "Moulson's scoring numbers aren't anywhere near the Cornell record, so he's really not that valuable." Still, with a kill in the 88% range, you have to commit 8 stupid penalties before you give up 1 goal, so I agree that O'Byrne's penalties probably have not made a huge difference this season.

How many O'Byrne penalties led to power play goals against us, and how many turned out to change the outcome from W to T or T to L?

That's one more judgment stat that would be interesting to keep: Dumb Penalties vs. Penalties vs. Smart Penalties. Somebody from the other team who hauls down Matt Moulson when he's free in front of the net, that's a smart penalty (or at least not dumb). Any penalty in your attacking zone is probably dumb. Ditto a retaliation penalty. Especially retaliation when the guy took you down and you've got a power play coming if you don't whack back at him.

BTW on a different thread there's discussion of Pokoluk's privacy as to which bone got broken and for how long. Here, O'Byrne is being dissected mercilessly. Is there a difference? If I was O'Byrne or his girlfriend or family, I would be steaming right now. I think it's especially tough for athletes who've been looked up, sometimes even adored, because to have gotten to this level, you've had to be among the elite (thus adulated) previously. The reason the family would be steaming is a) because the criticism/comment is unfair or b) because it is fair.

Somewhere at eDookies.com, the guard who turned over the ball thrice in Duke's home loss probably has 100 posts about what a dolt he is.

Ditto for OklahomaIsOKfootball.com about their players. I suppose those athletes have the protective mechanism of not being insulted unless their tutor reads the messages out loud to them.

Good point Robb, though the two (scoring and penalties) aren't completely analogous. But anyway, my point was just to give a little perspective and give some force to my argument that he's not killing the team by being out there.

I think a reason for O'byrne taking so many penalties is that he is so much bigger than most other college hockey players. I think that once he starts playing professional hockey his oppenents wont fall because they are much stronger and that he will take a lot less penalties.

One wonders if the referees subconsciously watch for bigger guys tossing their weight around. That's good when Clarkson goons manhandle Topher Scott. But it's just plain unfair when O'Byrne goes into the corner with some midget from Yale and O'Byrne gets called for interference when of course we all know the Yalie started it.

"It's not my fault I'm the biggest and the strongest. I don't even exercise!"

[Q]jim kensington Wrote:
I think a reason for O'byrne taking so many penalties is that he is so much bigger than most other college hockey players.
I think that once he starts playing professional hockey his opponents wont fall because they are much stronger and that he will take a lot less penalties.[/q]
... have to disagree with you on this one Jim.
He leads the team in number taken and minutes ... He has taken 25 penalties for 50 minutes; Swada is second with 18/36; and Gleed is third with 12/35.
Broken down by period: 7 in the first; 11 in the second; and 7 in the third. Only three of his twenty-five penalties were converted into goals.
Break down by call like this:

Penalty Called    (# Occurrences/Minutes served)
Interference:                6/12
Holding:                     5/10
Cross-Checking:              5/10
Tripping:                    3/6
High-sticking:               2/4
Hooking:                     1/2
Delay of Game:               1/2
Holding the stick:           1/2
Hitting After the Whistle:   1/2

It would appear his penalty(ies) of choice are interference/holding/cross-checking (none of which, IMHO, have a relationship between size and likelihood of a call). There is a 44% chance he'll take a penalty in the second period and a 28% chance he'll take one in the first and third. I put myself in the camp of "too many stupid ryan o'byrne penalties." Most are taken in front of the referee (I mean directly in front of, like not even a question it’s a penalty). So to date (this season), only three have been converted into goals but as anyone who plays/watches sport knows ... it only takes one at the wrong time to lose the game. I’d say my faith that he'll make the correct decision not to interfere/hold/cross-check when it really counts in almost non-existent. i could be wrong.

just my $.02

(source: [www.collegehockeystats.com] only)

I see what you're saying, but interference and holding calls could certainly be affected by Ryan's size. It is not really a question that such things go on all the time off and on the puck. However, when a much bigger player happens to nudge a guy off of the puck, odds are much greater that he'll go flying or fall, or at least that the ref will notice the infraction. I'm not saying O'Byrne's penalties are excusible, one must learn to play withing himself, just that size can affect these calls as well.

[Q]jim kensington Wrote:
Only three of his twenty-five penalties were converted into goals.
[/q]
Right in line with our 88% kill.

On the other hand, there's also the opportunity cost of a penalty - that's 44 (+ whatever time we spent on the 3 unsuccessful kills) minutes of hockey that we didn't get to play offense...

Just to add another twist to the discussion, did any of our shorthanded goals come with him in the box? Because then can we really say that it hurt our offense?

[q]Because then can we really say that it hurt our offense? nut[/q]If we had anyone scoring goals short handed like John Madden did at Michigan then it might be reasonable to say that penalties don't hurt the offense. But given that we don't it's fair to say that being short handed hurts our offensive chances, even if we do get a goal from time to time.

i was hoping that the would indicate my sarcasm. maybe i should have added the randy moss.
does anyone else notice that i'm bored today?

Does anyone remember the early careers of Dan Ratushny and Doug Murray - also guilty of untimely penatlies. To call Obyrne a liability is crazy - he is very needed to contribute huge minutes every night. Also, when he does cross check someone in front - at times that is an acceptable statement - DON'T COME HERE for sloppy goals in front of our net.

Quit bashing OB! They physical D is needed, risks and all.

Perhaps with Sasha Pokoluk down for the duration (of the RS at least) the rest of the players will step up a notch, including O'Byrne. I wonder if Troy Davenport could have played defense. That was Ken Dryden's position when he was just fooling around.

Dan Glover anyone? geez he is a draft pick, and a gutsy hitter. we are deep on the blue line, and although 'Pokoluk-y charms' is great and all, but i don't worry too much about losing him for a couple weeks.