Humble Beginnings, and Critical Player Evaluation
by R O on Aug 24, 2009 11:04 PM PDT
Email
PrintThe creator of this fine blog, Kent Wilson, has kindly invited me to contribute some content to this site. It's an honor and pleasure to do so. I go by the alias R O although you may call me Richard if you prefer. I've been a Flames fan for a while but only within the last season have I come to understand the game more deeply than "he shoot he score" and "oh what a save". Let me show you what I mean.
I love reading fiction, so every day I visit HFBoards to get the latest predictions on who will score how much, which team will win and in what quantities. But as our grade school teachers taught us, there are five W's and the most important, as one learns in life, is "why?" (followed closely by the W's bastard son "how?"). Therein lies the amusement and bemusement.
If opinions are like assholes then some hockey opinions have dingleberries on them. A lot of bold proclamations are left unsupported and unresearched, sometimes it feels like you're debating politics. Except hockey as a concept is a lot simpler than politics.
When it comes to evaluating a player's worth to a team there needs to be a distinction between how he helps you win hockey games and then everything else. And believe me "everything else" isn't chopped liver and we Flames fans are living proof. Our team has awesome character guys like Iginla and Regehr and that is extremely important to us as fans. Our foes on the west coast are riddled with douchebags like Luongo and the Sedins and that is also extremely relevant to us as rival fans.
But when it comes to the winning of the games, it's actually quite simple how: score more goals. So a player who helps you win helps you score more goals. We have some tools to measure this, they're not perfect but they do fine when applied with care. All those intangibles like leadership, grit, heart, clutchiosity and momentum - they most certainly exist but unless they contribute to the tangible goal of outscoring, then what good are they in helping the team win?
Let me make this clear: I do believe in some of these concepts, grit and heart especially. I think they contribute to outscoring, the thing is I have no idea how. And I don't care, I don't concern myself with this particular "how" because I'm not aiming to become an outscorer. I'm aiming to measure it, and trying to measure the immeasurable is a fool's errand.
And I think that's where a lot of fans go astray. It's very easy and not at all wrong to be inspired by the intangibles: your local playoff hero(es) leading you to a Cup/Finals berth/Game 7 OT win/first playoff berth in 10 years. It's a lot more compelling than shots for minus shots against that's for sure. But no one has yet come up with a clutch/60 metric and until they do we're all going to argue past each other about how these things contribute to winning, and even more tediously, how our favorite players rank on this scale. Better stick to what we know, y'know?
And what do we know?
Roughly, I could probably summarize my knowledge of hockey, in very broad brushstrokes, like so:
- You win by outscoring the opponent.
- Scoring chances lead to scoring.
Simple no? From this you can derive all sorts of ideas like quality of competition and quality of teammates (i.e. the best players outscore the most, it's easier to outscore when you're playing with good players and against bad players). If you accept a slight assumption that scoring chances are easier to come by the closer you are to the opposing net, you can derive the ideas of possession and where the coach tells you to start your shifts matters.
Once you accept that performance is measurable and context can be applied to it, the rest is just figuring out how to do that. I liken this to taking the red pill in the Matrix: once you do that all you gotta do is learn Kung Fu and shit. It's not easy but it's fun and at the end of the day, you have a fuller understanding of how things work.
---
Which leads me to some specific Flames-related analysis. I direct your attention, regrettably, to various opinions on our esteemed Jay Bouwmeester:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=674431
Quite a few, erm, unkind opinions about him. Random shit mostly about Bouwmeester being 11th in Norris voting once and never in the playoffs, unsubstantiated claims about locker room presence and general lack of "elite-ness", which, as enlightened fans, means a lack of ability to help outscore. The rejoinders are equally uninspired - a lot of emoticons and other Internet attention-diverting devices without much in the way of reasoned argument.
Having not seen the guy play more than a game or two, I investigate. By Corsi, Bouwmeester was shit. 2nd worst among D, the only guy worse was his regular D partner Skrastins (I haven't confirm this but they are the closest in terms of high-event-ness - that can't be a coincidence). By the way, ignore Eminger, he only played 9 games with the Panthers so his numbers really skew things to shit.
Time to look at QualComp. Bouwmeester faced the toughest comp and did so with Skrastins. The QualComp metric is a little flawed as it relies on +/- but the problems aren't nearly as bad as the current QualTeam metric.
Time to look at shift starts. Bouwmeester was tapped by the coach 161 more times for the defensive zone starts than offensive zone starts. The guy closest to him was Skrastins at 116. That's a lot.
We could apply JLikens' method to correct the Corsi for this (ignoring Eminger). Bouwmeester rockets up to 3rd (out of 6) among Dmen, behind Ballard and Boynton, both of whom play against weaklings. Skrastins is 5th.
And just in case you were entertaining the notion that Skrastins was the guy driving the bus, Bouwmeester did this all of the previous season, and I believe Bryan Allen was his regular partner (again can't confirm this 100% but going off of their shared metrics).
Bouwmeester appears to be the real deal. Performance with context applied suggests that he is a very very good defenceman who was on a very very bad team. At this point I really just wish the Florida goaltenders were poorer so that we could've killed his counting numbers more and gotten him for cheaper. But he's worth it.
And that's how I evaluate players.
30 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good stuff RO. Thanks for coming aboard and I look forward to more of your posts going forward.
Also, thanks for doing some of the work with Bouwmeester. That saves me from having to write the inevitable “do you think Bouwmeester could win a Norris Trophy as a Flame?” article (short answer: yes).
Not a problem, I enjoy doing it.
I believe Bouwmeester could win the Norris but the way the award is given out now Kipper will have to have a fairly strong season at some point to inflate Bouwmeester’s +/-. With more offensive zone starts Bouwmeester could help himself a little, though.
I think a good question might be, would Lidstrom have won all of his Norris trophies in Florida?
I’m glad you are taking us (me) through this because I still feel like I have a hard time seeing the conclusions. It’s particularly interesting because I just returned from scouting the Midget Rep team out here and we are involved in the process of making cuts. I always think of how the objective data (if I had it for these players) would reinforce or conflicts with the subjective.
Let’s look at four players. Green, Jbo, Skratis, Phaneuf
W-Corsi:18.6, QComp:-0.01, Qteam:0.11, SS: -108,GAON/60:2.21 Corr. Corsi: -107
X – Corsi: -10.8, QComp:0.07, Qteam:0.12, SS: 161, GAON/60:2.44 Corr. Corsi: 97.7
Y – Corsi: -12.5, QComp:0.06, Qteam:-0.03, SS: 116, GAON/60:2.15 Corr. Corsi: 78.0
Z – Corsi:10.3, QComp:-0.03, Qteam:0.08, SS: -97, GAON/60:3.48 Corr. Corsi: -75.2
or should the adjusted be W: 165.9, X:97.7, Y: 78.0, Z: 98.3?
I get a disagreement with the “-” shift start. In JLikens formula am I not adding corsi to (shift start * .8)? This gives me a negative.
Anyway, these results tell me that Mike Green was incredible offensively last year, that J-Bo is decent but he had great teammates, and at 6mil I would rather have Skrastins for 1.3mil (he’s scored against less and had considerably worse teammates no, and the corsi isn’t hugely different?) and that basically Phaneuf had good teammates, faced 5th competition, got scored on a ton and is about as good as Jbo moving the puck out even though he had favorable conditions….so he sucks?
I’m still not sure I grasp this entirely, but it suddenly doesn’t make me feel good at all about the Flames defense.
I want to get this stuff, and I’m new to it from about 6 months ago, but it never seems to add up for me. Maybe I just need to live in a subjective world. I can tell you who isn’t going to make the team and who is in 5 minutes of watching a kid skate, but this adjusted corsi just doesn’t seam to add up.
What’s going wrong here?
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Hi Lawrence,
The Corsi you posted is a per/60 rate. The formula JLikens applies uses raw Corsi uncorrected for icetime. You can access this from the Blogroll to the left.
You are correct that it’s Corsi (raw) + 0.8 * shift start. And then you divide by the icetime, or total shifts in JLikens case as Vic’s site doesn’t give icetime. He multiplies by 1000 to make the numbers readaboe but I’d multiplu by 45 to get it closer to time.
Skrastins looked as good as Bouwmeester last year because they played together. The year before Allen looked as good as Bouwmeester because they played together. I’m putting money on Bouwmeester driving the bus.
I’m not that impressed by Green, I will look into it tomorrow but you can see he had VERY favorable conditions (poor comp, lots of ozone starts) on his side. And Washington was a good team, drove possession like crazy. So he had the benefit of good teammates. Do note I am not looking at his QualTeam at all to come to this conclusion – I’ll explain in a second.
Bouwmeester’s teammates were just horrid. We know he’s not part of the problem because he ranks highest on his team’s DCorps once context is considered. The QualTeam measure is just horrid as constructed because it’s subject to the percentages on a single team. At least QualComp kinda averages it conference-wide so the noise is reduced and the metric is somewhat useful.
I haven’t looked at Phaneuf in depth but I think an earlier post by Kent suggested he was mediocre this season.
by R O on Aug 25, 2009 1:05 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Thanks RO, very informative. Stats to this level are new to me as well but I could appreciate the way they were presented.
Given that Bouwmeester will be surrounded by numerous quality team mates, it should be interesting to see how this will effect his stats. One would have to suppose however, that Bouwmeesters’ role in Calgary may change considerably. If he isn’t paired up with a Regehr regularly, I suspect that may change his defensive shift starts.
Do you feel that may be true?
Even if Bouwmeester plays in tandem with Regehr, his circumstances will probably improve. One, because Reggie is a great player. Two, because the Flames will likely move the puck in the right direction a great deal more than the Panthers did. For example, Regehr had the worst zone start stat on the Flames last year at -9 (offensive – defensive zone draws). Bouwmeester was at -161 with the Panthers, as noted by RO. That’s a big, big difference.
If Bouwmeester lands on another pairing and gets cherry, Phanuef-like circumstances, his stats will improve even more.
Rates?
Doesn’t accounting for rates also improve J Bo’s corsi even before taking into account the faceoff context? I thought he played ridonkulous minutes with the Panthers last year (28/gm?) And that many minutes on a bad team will murder your corsi.
by CalTach on Aug 25, 2009 6:58 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Ok, let’s try this again:
W – Corsi: 354 (18.6), QComp:-0.01, Qteam:0.11, SS: -108,GAON/60:2.21 Corr. Corsi: 422.7 / 19.0
X – Corsi: -279 (-10.8), QComp:0.07, Qteam:0.12, SS: 161, GAON/60:2.44 Corr. Corsi: -124.3 / -5.60
Y – Corsi: -278 (-12.5), QComp:0.06, Qteam:-0.03, SS: 116, GAON/60:2.15 Corr. Corsi: -179.8 / -8.09
Z – Corsi: 272 (10.3), QComp:-0.03, Qteam:0.08, SS: -97, GAON/60:3.48 Corr. Corsi: 217.2 / 9.77
I hope my calculations are now correct. The thing is, it still doesn’t change much in my interpretation. From these numbers I see that Green wasn’t on the ice nearly as much as Phaneuf (starting EV face-offs) and faced tougher comp with slightly better mates and was scored on/60 by the tune of -1.27 goals. That to me all adds up to Green being a descent defensive defenseman. Then I look at shift start (-108) high quality of teammates (0.11) and Washingtons team and think, ok, he’s an offensive use player, and still even a much more dominant offensive defenseman than Phanuef (..or?)
Now in terms of Fla’s d-men. I can see now how it appears that JBo is ‘driving the bus’, but it’s the QualTeam that still gets me. Am I reading it backwards? Doesn’t this say that Skrastins played with much, much worse teammates and was scored on less than Jbo. Yes, in terms of Corsi…he’s behind by about 2 shots/60, but defensively looks stonger (roughly the same Qual Comp, worse teammates, less GA/60 and many more starting EV faceoffs than Phaneuf or Green)
This is where I get a bit frustrated looking at only the numbers because I feel like I am missing the ‘next big piece’
Otherwise, I would rank them W, Y, X, Z: Green first (based on offensive merit, and ability to sustain defensively) then Skrastins for value (because he makes 1.3 vs 6.7) and seemed able to hold within reach of Jbo for performance, as well as counting numbers (s% – he just took less shots, and raw +/-) while he faced very tough competition with much worse linemates, and had a ton of ice time. Then Jbo, who was good, logged tons of minutes, faced very tough competition. Lastly, Phaneuf, who I struggle to find anything remotely good about objectively. He faced easist comp, had good teammates, started in the off. zone more, gaon/60 is a country mile worse and had an unimpressive corsi compared to Green who was used offensively as well. This about jived with my subjective assessment last year. Add to that his paycheck and the lights just went out on Neon Dion.
Thoughts?
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Yeah, no kidding. I’m only trying to learn the preferred language here, because I think it’s been quite obvious what I call my ‘systems’ approach vs this ‘drill-hole’ approach just ain’t gonna cut it anymore. I think others call my ‘systems’ approach the delusional or ‘rose-coloured glasses’ look.
So nerd me up Richard and Kent, then I’m coming at you like a spider monkey!
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Regehr – Corsi: 142 (6.2), QComp:0.01, Qteam:0.07, SS: 9,GAON/60:2.37 Corr. Corsi: 154.8 / 6.96
S.Neidr. – Corsi: 35 (-1.8), QComp:0.05, Qteam:-0.28, SS: 30, GAON/60:2.52 Corr. Corsi: 65.5 / 2.95
Ok, so I figured out my beef. Looking at these two data sets in isolation the better defensive defenseman in my mind is Neidermeyer (which is what I assumed the data would lead us to) and the better offensive (Regehr). The problem is, the formula needs a team qualifier or something of the sort. We all know and value Robyns performance, but he is not an offensive player, he eliminates and moves the puck the right way (+ corsi) but, we can’t kid ourselves that his stats are helped by the offensively talented Flames.
What I’m getting at is this: Neidermeyer is insanely good by these measures, which he should be, but I think the corsi measure for defenseman is not the best because it skews attention to offense on offensive teams – favouring guys like Green, Phaneuf and Regehr. Whereas, measuring the defensive stats of Phaneuf (raw +/-: 11 and GAON/60: 3.48) he was awful and Neidermeyer was still great QualComp: 0.05(!) + Teammates: -0.28(!). He played the toughest competition with awful teammates and still put in a positive corsi while having a respectable GAON/60 of 2.52, but a +/: -8.
How can we distinguish between Neidermeyer and Skrastins using these numbers, knowing that JBo also got buried in -Corsi due to the weakness of his team?
As well, how can we justify the idea that Phaneuf brought any value at all if even Regehr gets an adjusted Corsi of 154 yet he has 1.18GAON/60 less?
Lastly, if this exercise didn’t make me less confident in JBo initially, comparing him to Scott Neidermeyer has just sealed the deal. I always envisioned them as similar players with JBo having more size. Well, not anymore.
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Holy cow, I’m going crazy with this stuff. Another interesting side analysis:
Dman EVsv%* On Ice: sv%dif OISh% sh% Diff net %difference
Green .915 .926 + .011 8.6 (.076-.086) = +.010 +.021
JBo .932 .936 + .005 8.4 (.084-.084) = +.000 +.005
Skras .932 .939 + .007 8.3 (.084-.083) = – .001 +.006
Phan .909 .896 – .013 9.2 (.084-.092) = +.008 – .005
RR .909 .922 +.013 8.2 (.084-.082) = .002 +.011.079) =
SNei .924 .919 – .005 7.9 (.083.004 – . 009.078) = -.006 +.014
Sarich .909 .929 +.020 7.8 (.084
- I looked only at the starter evsv% for CGY and WSH (both) and both for ANA and FLA.
So, I can see it clearly now, Phaneuf and Vandy killed Kipper and Phaneuf’s offense did little to make up for it, so he was a net liability. All the defenseman listed, with the exception of Neidermeyer (interestingly) made for a marked improvement in percentages. Notice Sarich and Green leading the way and Kipper’s sv% with Sarich and Reggie on is more to be expected .929 and .922 even though they faced the toughest comp. Phaneuf and Kipper’s evsv% is outstandingly low compared to all the other d combos on the list, even w/ Neidermeyer’s downturn. This leads me to speculate that the use of Phaneuf or Phaneuf’s play was horrendous and he needed to be sheltered more than he was.
Considering injuries and Phaneuf’s “star-status” I don’t see how that was possible.
This is ugly though:
The difference between Sarich and Phaneuf evsv%on: .033 and Regehr: .026 and Phaneuf faced the 5th toughest Qual Comp with the Best Teammates. Sarich 2nd toughest Qual Comp with the second worst teammates and a better corsi/60 @ 10.9.
Lastly GAON/60 – Phaneuf: 3.48, Sarich 1.67
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Lawrence – SV% isn’t a great way to evaluate players because, from what work has been done, it looks like individuals assert less influence on a goalies SV% than randomness (or luck) itself. It’s counter-intuitive, but the guys doing the heavy lifting on the math side haven’t been able to find a significant contribution to SV% from single players.
I actually looked at contribution to total shots against at FHF while ago, to potentially isolate an players contribution to defense (ie; preventing shots on/at the net). Basically, I divided the total shots directed at the Flames net while each player was on the ice and converted it to a per/60 rate. The results fall in line with what we know about the players (and again, speak poorly of Phaneuf).
Yeah, I kinda thought the same, however I think it can’t be totally meaningless. Anyway, outside of sv% by players, I’m starting to wonder why we have all been kinda ganging up on ‘trade Sarich’, myself included, as he is really looking more impressive by the numbers. 2nd toughest Qual Comp. Decent Corsi for a defensive d-man, good raw +/-, and your numbers: Best rate of shots against/60 @ 43.71, crazy good GAON/60 – 1.67, he is a fierce hitter and was a warrior in the playoffs. With those numbers his contract isn’t super bad. I say we keep all the d for a long time (unless Phaneuf continues his suckage)
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
Sarich is a pretty good player and he had a whale of a season last year (although the bounces certainly went in his favor). The issue is: how much can the Flames reasonably spend on a guy who is bound to get limited minutes against 2nd tier opposition now that the team boasts Bouwmeester, Regehr and Phaneuf? Especially considering the veritable wealth of prospects bubbling underneath?
Calgary has one of the most unbalanced budgets in the league in terms of dollars allocated towards defense vs forwards. They can sort of afford to do that as long as guys like Moss, Bourque, Glencross, Conroy etc are outperforming their cap hits, but at some point they’ll inevitably have to move one of the significant salaries from the back end. Either to re-balance the equation and gather more forward depth, or to simply make room for one of them umpteen kids they have pushing for an NHL job (probably both). Sarich is the matural choice (that is, unless Phaneuf continues down the Jovo path. Then you keep Sarich and move Dion).
by Kent Wilson on Aug 25, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Whoa Lawrence you did a lot of analysis here. I’ve only been able to prepare a response to your first question about Green vs. Phaneuf vs. Bouwmeester vs. Skrastins.
There’s a few things going on here simultaneously that complicate the problem. I’ll try to separate them and then clarify.
First off, we probably agree that the concept is sound. We’re looking at the ability to outscore but we have to compensate for three major factors:
1.) To separate out puck luck, we analyze the ability to outchance.
2.) To separate out coaching decisions, we remove the tilt of the ice.
3.) To separate out team effects, we remove quality of competition and teammates.
Now let’s look at how this concept is implemented:
1.) We’re using Corsi as a proxy for outchancing and it works pretty well as per numerous articles on vhockey.blogspot.com
2.) Adjusting Corsi for ZoneShift seems reasonable. There are a couple of problems. One, the 0.8 factor came from something Vic said without data so that factor may have to be calibrated (future project). Two, shifts don’t necessarily start in faceoffs. Typically though the guys who are trusted to take a lot of D-zone draws are also getting tapped to go over when the puck’s heading south. I have no idea if the 0.8 factor takes that into account – it would if Vic just did a regression to find the number but it wouldn’t if he just analyzed events after faceoffs.
3.) The QualComp/Team values are derived from +/-. Over a single season that is wildly subjected to luck. This really affects QualTeam since it’s using a single team’s percentages. It can be really deceiving. QualComp isn’t as bad since it uses data from 29 teams (e.g. if you are playing against the same skill level opposition every night, then the good luck that one guy is having this season is approximately cancelled by the bad luck another one is having).
Regardless a few issues have been raised elsewhere, including the inability to compare QualComp between teams. You can kinda get around that by looking at how players are ranked within their respective teams.
Right onto the players. I needed to get raw Corsi, ZoneStart, QualComp and even strength time on ice (ESTOI).
Raw Corsi: http://www.timeonice.com/playershots.php?team=CGY&first=20001&last=21230
Change the three letter team variable to your team of choice. It takes a while to load at first. Only for 08/09.
ZoneStart: http://www.timeonice.com/faceoffsCGY.html
Change the three letter team variable to your team of choice. Only for 08/09.
QualComp: http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/basic_5_on_5.php?sort=9
You can filter based on team, position and games played. Beware, this is only 5 on 5 so other ES situations are not presented here, there will be minor differences between this site and TimeOnIce. You can go back to 07/08 too.
ESTOI: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/200809players/index.php
Very handy site for getting the bulk ESTOI numbers.
Apply JLikens method to compensate for ZoneStart and you get what I’m going to call adjusted Corsi. Divide by ESTOI, multiply by 60 and you get an adjusted Corsi/60 rate. You’ve done all this already.
However this Corsi has only been adjusted for shift starting locations (and likely imperfectly at that). QualComp is available as a ranking, but I don’t trust QualTeam. Luckily, the three teams in question (CGY, WSH and FLA) are either mostly good across the board (CGY and WSH) or mostly shit across the board (FLA). Obviously this is a big generalization here and the analysis is going to lose some power but that’s how it goes.
Lastly, since Corsi can’t be compensated (only contextualized) for quality of competition and team, we can’t compare it between teams. We’ll compare rankings though. Hell pretty much all the analysis here will be comparing intra-team rankings.
Here we go (ranked by AdjCorsi/60):
Calgary
************
Name…………ZoneStart……QualCompRank……RawCorsi/60……AdjCorsi/60
Giordano………-90………………………2/3/4…………………22.4………………..16.5
Aucoin…………..-29………………………2/3/4…………………13.0………………..11.8
Pardy…………….-38…………………………6…………………….13.2………………..11.0
Sarich……………-48………………………2/3/4…………………11.5…………………9.4
Phaneuf………..-97…………………………5…………………….11.4…………………8.1
Vandermeer….-45…………………………7…………………….11.4…………………8.0
Regehr…………..9…………………………1……………………. +6.8………………….7.1
Surprised to see Aucoin so high up – I think a lot of my frustrations with him may have been related to shorthanded chances against. Phaneuf did have a terrible season – he couldn’t do anything with his sheltered minutes. Which is weird because we have data from the season before that says Keenan was matching him up against the toughs. It’s either injuries or a step back, hope it’s the former.
Regehr’s dead last here although he had a heavy workload. Still, Bouwmeester’s minutes were even tougher than Regehr’s relative to the rest of his teammates and he managed a higher ranking. That could just be a function of how terrible the rest of Florida was.
Washington
************
Name…………ZoneStart……QualCompRank……RawCorsi/60……AdjCorsi/60
Green……………-108……………………3/4…………………..17.7………………..13.4
Alzner……………….-8………………………2……………………12.8………………..12.0
Jurcina……………-38………………………6……………………11.6………………..10.0
Morrisonn……….-61………………………5……………………11.7…………………8.9
Erskine……………-16……………………..7…………………….6.2………………….5.2
Poti………………….-27……………………..1…………………….6.1………………….4.4
Schultz…………….-80…………………….3/4…………………..4.1………………….0.3
Green was heavily sheltered like Phaneuf, but unlike Phaneuf he was able to capitalize. Good on him. You may be regretting having Phaneuf instead of Green but Green looks awfully close to Giordano at even strength. Green’s a monster on the PP and that’s basically the reason he’s earning an extra 4 million over Giordano.
Florida
************
Name…………ZoneStart……QualCompRank……RawCorsi/60……AdjCorsi/60
Ballard…………….15…………………..3/4/5………………….-2.79………………-2.29
Boynton……………-23……………………..6……………………..-3.19………………-4.38
Bouwmeester……..161……………….1…………………….-10.63…………….-5.72
McCabe…………….12………………..3/4/5……………………-6.59……………..-6.12
Cullimore………….44………………..3/4/5……………………-9.87……………..-7.78
Skrastins…………+116…………………..2……………………..-12.14…………….-8.09
Now this is what I’m talkin’ about. Bouwmeester, toughest ZoneStart on his team (and I believe in the top 20 hardest ZoneStarts in the league too), toughest comp on his team and he clocks in 3rd on his team. Now the rest of the team isn’t any great shakes but the NHL is a giant selection bias machine – you don’t get to the show unless you have some tools. And, damn, just look at the guy in second (Boynton). Weakest comp and the only guy who got to start more in the ozone. He got the polar opposite job of Bouwmeester and yet Bouw is only a shot and a half behind per hour. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen by chance.
And look at Skrastins too. He took on the toughs too, presumably with Bouwmeester, and he finished last. Now that’s nothing to be ashamed of (as we saw with Calgary and Washington)… but in the 200+ minutes that Bouwmeester played without Skrastins he managed to drag his Corsi up from 6th to 3rd on his team. That doesn’t happen by chance either.
by R O on Aug 25, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Meeting up for pints? I wish I could join but I don’t live in Calgary, I live where there isn’t an NHL hockey team – in Vancouver – Snap! If any of you ever come out to see a Heat game then I would gladly raise a pint or two. Plus, I’m itching to see Leland Irving this year.
D for 3 and now goal for 21 years, of course I'm a goaltender apologist.
i might come to a heat game, to be honest…. i’ll keep you posted. :)
by walkinvisible on Aug 25, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Great analysis, but even as an engineer I started going cross-eyed somewhere around the 10th paragraph. I’m glad that since I’m too lazy to do the math, so many of you do a great job with it which allows me time just to write baseless comments like “Reggie is the best and that whole table should be turned upside down”.
Of course, then WI will slam me for dropping Gio to the bottom! :-) And since her comment about pints brought be back into focus (and reminded me to take a sip before writing this comment), I’d hate to get on her wrong side!!
hey, hey, hey…. i don’t SLAM.
and i’m okay with any gio comments that don’t include “let’s trade that guy.” … still, it’s nice to have a reputation.
:)
but seriously, i’m gonna suggest pints early on, this season. pre-season, even (maybe).
by walkinvisible on Aug 25, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Phanuef - Non statistical evaluation
You guys are the experts on stats. But I am a season ticket holder and watched 30 live games last year and another 40+ on TV. The verdict is that Phaneuf was the number one liability on the team. I saw somewhere he was voted as most over-rated in the league and for good reason. I doubt that his problems last year can be chalked up to injuries and worry that he will be just as bad again this year.
The good news is that maybe with JBo here he has fallen from top 2 Dman and maybe can be better with less minutes. Maybe the Brent Sutter system will help him improve his defense. Maybe he will be healthy and motivated by the prospect of playing in the Olympics. Maybe he will have a good rest when he does not make the Olympic team.
That’s alot of maybes so we shall see. I am skeptical but whatever happens we should try to pad his stats in the first half of the season and unload him for a top 6 forward.
FYI – Gio will be good this year and Sarich will be good although I worry about him slowing down while the game gets faster.
Once again…great posts and comments!
Man…some of you guys have a lot of time on your hands :)
I like the wait and see approach from D Sutter. If Dion can’t clean up his act within the first half, we should have a few dance partners willing to gamble on him. Hopefully that will mean a very good top 6 and pick. If he does play like we all hope he can, Sarich gets the axe. Even he should net a decent return.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Flames Schedule
Last 5 Games
Anaheim
|
Sat 04/07 | W 5 - 2 |
|
Vancouver
|
Thu 04/05 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 03/31 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
Colorado
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Wed 03/28 | L 0 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Jersey Fouls: Penner Pancakes; Attack of the FrankenJerseys; Winnipeg’s beer tribute
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: LA Kings juggernaut; Oilers coaching scenario; Game Show Friday!
- Will Mike Green return to the Washington Capitals?
- Jamaica’s Winter Olympic ice hockey dream bolstered by IIHF acceptance
- Penalties in 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Who’s drawing them, and who’s taking them?
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Hejduk staying with Avalanche
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- Milano takes over NHL's Twitter feed for Game 3
