Arizona Coyotes Pregame: Paging Sam Gagner

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

I used to hate when my teachers said that to me, usually in response to blank answer spots on tests in Statistics and Biology. It seemed like a really good tactic, to me- you can’t be wrong, per se, if you don’t give the wrong answer. Foolproof logic.

I was joking to one of my co-workers last night about the whole Sam Gagner in Arizona situation, though, and I made an off-handed remark that “he’s given us no sample size for his shooting effectiveness, ’cause he has like five shots on goal so far this season.”

Live Feed

Puck Prose

No, but really- according to Hockey Reference, that’s exactly how many shots he’s taken so far. With none of those shots finding the back of the net, that’s a zero for his SH% so far in two games.

Let’s compare this to Steven Stamkos, who- going into his fifth game of the season- has a 13% on shots taken finding their mark, based on 23 shots in four games.

It’s hard to say that Sam Gagner is a comparable player to Steven Stamkos right off the bat- one is a clear top-six center, the other is struggling to play bottom-six minutes. They’re miles apart, it would seem. Yet, Gagner was drafted in the top ten (6th overall) in 2007, while Stamkos was drafted first overall the subsequent year- really, the two should be playing similar minutes, and in similar roles with their respective clubs.

Can we effectively look at those numbers and compare Sam Gagner to Steven Stamkos? No, not in the direct sense. Having no shots translating into goals with 5 SOG is significantly better- relatively- than looking at a player who has 23 SOG and no goals to show for it.

I’m choosing to compare the two players, though, because they play the same position. A center is a playmaker, similar to the quarterback on a football team- you set your teammates up for solid plays and high numbers of goals. An extremely effective center should see his assists surpassing his goals by a significant margin, so it’s mildly unfair to consider a center’s play poor based on the number of goals he has alone.

I want to take that thought, though, and look at the assists by the two- one for Stamkos, zero for Gagner. Even based on this assumption that a center should be taking more playmaking risks than attempts at scoring, Stamkos is sitting above his desert friend.

Many assumed that Gagner was being smothered by the eerily terrible system up in Edmonton, where promising young players go to have their careers die. A “new atmosphere”, everyone promised, would see the player who once put up 8 points in a single NHL game find some consistency and scorepower.

Apr 4, 2014; Glendale, AZ, USA; NHL linesman Matt MacPherson prepares to drop the puck for Phoenix Coyotes center Antoine Vermette (50) and Edmonton Oilers center Sam Gagner (89) during the second period at Jobing.com Arena. Mandatory Credit: Matt Kartozian-USA TODAY Sports

We have yet to see this- and there’s no way of knowing whether this is a lack of talent (Gagner, after all, truly could be one of those overrated centers who got drafted miles above his ultimate potential levels) or a lack of effort of the center’s part. I don’t want to say that Sam Gagner doesn’t provide scorepower just yet- but I do want to say that regardless of whether he knows how to score or not, he’s not doing it.

Wednesday night will see Gagner skate out against his old franchise (unless, of course, the mystery player swapped out for Kyle Chipchura as this week’s healthy scratch is Gags himself, in which case I give up on hockey), which will hopefully give fans a stronger sample size to look at based on how effectively he skates and plays the game.

If he walks away from the game with 6 additional SOG and still no goals? We can assume that Edmonton is in no way at fault for his shoddy, inconsistent play, and Arizona should start to look for additional third-line center options. If he refuses to shoot at all, we can assume he’s got no work ethic, and should also look at a Plan B. If he scores, though… we might actually have some information to work with.