On Thursday the 10th of March, the Philadelphia Flyers announced a five-year contract extension for Rasmus Ristolainen that totals $5.1 million annually. That ranks – at the moment – as the 52nd largest annual cap hit for a defenseman in the 2022-23 season. A lot can be said about Ristolainen’s contract, but the best thing to say is that it’s a bet.
Chuck Fletcher’s betting that the former Buffalo Sabres defenseman, for the first time in his career, is on the ice for more goals for than against. That, for the first time in Ristolainen’s career, he creates more scoring chances for his team than he allows for the other. Finally, that the Finnish defender finally lives up to the potential people thought he had when he entered the league almost a decade ago. Conventional wisdom and most modern player evaluation tools are skeptical. While I’ve heard arguments as to why that thinking is wrong, there is one thing that may be the most telling statistic about his career… goals.
Why Am I Talking About Goals
Hockey is about goals, and while I am a massive believer in advanced analytics in sports, the game is about putting the puck in the net at the end of the day. Generally, good players are on the ice for more goals for than against or significantly outperform the average goals for versus against percentage than the rest of their teammates. Ristolainen has never done this in his career.
In Ristolainen’s 2019-20 season, he ended at an even 50% of an on-ice goal share, mainly led by a career on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage (these are both career highs in these categories for Ristolainen). This same season he had the worst scoring chance for percentage of any Sabre that played more than 400 minutes or over half the season. Without uncharacteristically strong goaltending and shooting, while he was on the ice, Ristolainen was likely staring down another season where he’s on the ice for many more goals against than he scored.
Notably, two other defensemen on the Sabres had a better on-ice goals percentage than Ristolainen that same season. The current Philadelphia Flyer was either moderately or heavily outscored every other year he played Buffalo. In 2018-19, he was on the ice for 51 goals for and 74 against. In 2017-18, the Sabres scored 42 goals while the Finn was on the ice and allowed 58 against. This trend continues in every season he played in but one, and we’ve already talked about the year. He simply doesn’t keep the puck out of his net when he’s on the ice.
How Does This Affect the Flyers
Currently, nine Flyers have had better on-ice goal impacts than Ristolainen (min. 300 minutes). Two of them are defensemen Travis Sanheim and Ivan Provorov. Unfortunately, the Flyers have lacked top-four defenseman talent this year. Some may argue Provorov lacks the confidence, but Sanheim has driven his defensive pair in each of the last three seasons, unlike any other Flyers defenseman.
So why does that make Ristolainen’s work this year more concerning? Well, he has played the majority of his season with Sanheim. The Canadian defenseman has been on the ice for more goals for the Flyers than against this season. Sanheim is doing that while almost having equal chance creation and prevention across the season. Generally, when one half the pair is significantly outperforming the other, then it means the player playing worst, Ristolainen, is the one hurting the unit.
Ok, But He Plays Physically
Physicality is important if it benefits your game. Ilya Lyubushkin, Victor Hedman, and Adam Pelech all use their physical tools to aid their game and drive goals for their teams. The point of using your body and having an imposing presence is to win puck battles, and while Ristolainen likes to use his body in play, he uses it ineffectually. We’ve seen him lose duels against Brad Marchand and Nick Suzuki, we’ve seen him screen goalies out of plays, and we’ve watched him chase checks and blow defensive coverages. He might be, in theory, physical, but at what cost.
As much as hitting and being tough is part of the game, he doesn’t use his body effectively; he’s tall and occasionally makes a booming collision. When he does cross his red line and starts playing offense, he provides some value, but getting to that section of the ice is arduous. Is that worth $5.1 million? Absolutely no.
Why Am I Annoyed Then?
There is value to what he brings but as a third pairing, thirteen-minute-a-night guy, like how Darryl Sutter deploys his third pairing in Calgary. However, the player I’m referencing, Erik Gudbranson has a one-year, $1.95 million annual cap hit. That contract is most likely an overpay, and Fletcher just gave over double that amount of money to a player who does about the same thing as Gudbranson. The issue with Ristolainen’s contract is another example of confusing asset management or understanding. Physicality should either be a bonus to a player or something you don’t spend this much money on, but Fletcher decided to splurge.
Ristolainen gets a lot of credit because he occasionally makes flashy plays that remind people of the more physical days of hockey and, more importantly, is an ex-highly touted first-round draft pick with physical tools. However, that potential has never led to him being on the ice for more goals for than against. Ristolainen has never even had a season where he outperforms his teammates in goal share. Simply, the player has never driven results for his team, and whichever way you would like to argue against that, I can merely point to goals, the point of the game.
Yes, he has been on bad teams, has had strange deployment, and has never played for much, but other players have been in the same scenario and succeeded. Ristolainen hasn’t. Before anything else, Fletcher picked tools, the locker room, and possibly a sunken cost over scoring more goals than his opponents. That is a bad bet and one that, most likely, will not end well.
