Montreal – McKeen's Hockey

Kats Krunch: Tale of Two Power Plays

Gus Katsaros — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:24:13 +0000

Two teams, two power plays with two diverse results, while sharing a common affliction.

I had the opportunity to take in the Stars as they rolled in through the ACC to play the Maple Leafs on Dec 3, offering a glimpse into the abysmal Stars power play systems with some background through a live viewing to further decipher the reason for special teams futility. I had similar fortune with a live view of the Tampa Bay Lightning a couple of weeks back, offering the same opportunity to note the team’s power play systems – and potential flaws. The contrast in power play success here is striking.

They both have the same problem, a wide gap between shots on goal. Clearly, shot attempts are the best method of deciphering a power play and why it may not be firing on all cylinders, but what is presented below is a tale of two diverging successes despite the lack of shots.

This is the story of the potent Tampa Bay Lightning and futile Dallas Stars five-on-four power play.

I’m going to reserve the right to get into extensive video here, only because I’m trying to understand the power play in general on a more macro level. I’ll eventually get into the video breakdown but I’d like get it to another level with different teams playing different systems in zone – along with a different method of rushing through the neutral zone and gaining the blueline.

Below is a chart of the NHL power play as of Dec 2, 2014, after the Stars/Leafs game. Scales on either side represent power play efficiency and power play goals on the left and opportunities on the right.

Two bars are colored in red, two power plays with parallels despite two distinct styles. The Dallas Stars and Tampa Bay Lightning occupy a sizable gap in power play efficiency.

TampaBay has been humming along at a 23.6%, one standard deviation from the 18.57% NHL average and two standard deviations from Dallas sputtering at an abysmal 13.6%. both teams rank at the bottom of the league in power play shots with similar power play opportunities for each club. With a difference of eight minutes in 5v4 time has produced nine more goals for the Lightning than the Stars.

Team	GP	PP Opp	PP Shots	PPG	PP%	5v4 Time
TBL	26	89	91	21	23.6	131:50
DAL	25	88	79	12	13.6	140:02

Best illustrated in the image below, both teams take too long on average between shot attempts events on the 5v4 power play (for the purpose of this illustration I am only focusing on the one-man down situation, since a 5v3 carries a different dynamic). The Lightning and Stars take over 1:40 for a proper shot on goal.

In a direct comparison among the rest of the NHL, both teams are way above the pack in terms of time between shots on goal, comparing to the NHL averages as per the table below.

Tm	min/FF	min/CF	min/SF
TBL	1:08	0:50	1:43
DAL	1:15	0:48	1:48
NHL Av	0:53	0:38	1:12

The NHL average is 1:12 between a shot on goal, 53 seconds between Fenwick Events (unblocked shot attempts) and 38 for Corsi events. Historically, starting from the 2011-12 season, this is how the uniformity across the league looks year-to-year.

Fsh% and Csh% represent the percentage of shots that make up the underlying components of Fenwick and Corsi shot attempt metrics. I'll expand on the breakdown of Fenwick and Corsi events represented by shots for 2014-15 up to and including Dec 2, 2014 a little further down. For now this image is the comparison of time gap between shots on goal and the percentage of shots associated in Fenwick Events. Both Dallas and Tampa Bay are direct outliers here.

It’s different than a Pittsburgh that can set up and execute, or the Washington Capitals that are firing into a Corsi event every 28 seconds.

Some of the reasons I’ve observed to explain some of the team’s issues with the man-advantage are:

Tampa Bay Lightning

Lightning make it complicated to get into the zone from the breakout.
The setup for a breakout takes too long to get out of the defensive zone.
Options in the neutral zone aren’t always readily available and force the puckcarrier to gain the offensive zone as a result.
Wingers wait along the blueline to force back the defensemen, and may get a late pass to gain entry, otherwise set up as sentry posts without effect in the play.
Sometimes play with the puck at the top of the zone introducing a risk of penalty killers easily moving the puck out and forcing a regroup.
Less structure and more freelancing in the neutral zone on the regroup.
Once set up in the offensive zone, they pass it around too long looking for the perfect shot or the seam to send pucks through.
Too many blocked shots.

Dallas Stars

Dallas moves too slow through the neutral zone regardless of a formal breakout or a regroup from a dump out of the offensive zone by the penalty killing team.
Too many stationary players along the blueline waiting to get the zone instead of movement
Plays seem forced along the blueline.
Too much individualism, trying to gain the zone and not enough passing options.
Once gaining the zone, the tendency is to fire the puck around the boards to set up (seems a waste since they’ve already gained the zone.)
Stars also seem to switch the set up from new-wave traditional 1-3-1 into a modified 2-3 with two shooters at the top and three forwards a little lower in the zone (slot presence moves to the crease with the puck at the top of the zone and into the slot with the puck on either wing, with the weak side winger slightly edging towards the net as the set up to the slot man becomes the go-to play.)
Limiting the data to only shots on goal only limits the shot attempts function, so I wanted to see just what is happening with the shots in regards to overall shot attempts. The image below illustrates the percentage of shots comprising Fenwick (unblocked shot attempts) and Corsi (including blocked shots) events at 5v4. Both clubs fire less than 50% of their Corsi events as shots on goal. Tampa Bay has a slight edge over the Stars in terms of percentage of shots for their Corsi – although both are below the 50% threshold (Edmonton is the next closest bubble along the slope to the right of Tampa Bay).

Historically, within the BtN era (2007 - 2014), this is what the chart looks like up to and including 2014-15 data. Colorado has had the highest percentage of shots with Los Angeles, St. Louis and Dallas at the other end. Averages are in the blue box.

With the issue of gaining the zone eating up some valuable time off the clock during the 5v4, switching the focus from zone entry to in-zone time, both teams struggle to get shots on goal in comparison to the NHL average. Using data from BehindtheNet.ca sheds some light on what’s happening during shot attempts.

Dallas gets more shots on goal through to the net on a per-60 basis, yet fire more pucks that miss the net according to NHL average, but have half the rate of blocked shots at 5v4.

TampaBay, on the other hand, are almost three times as likely to have a shot blocked, pulling down the overall shots-for per 60 rate to almost half the NHL average. Not only are they taking a little too long to get shots through to the net, they’re struggling to get shots on goal.

Team	SF On/60	MF On/60	BF On/60
DAL	21.16	17.42	1.44
T.B	16.24	17.3	9.61
NHLAv	35.05	15.95	3.46

Taking it down one level from the team to position, the Lightning blueline seems to have a greater majority of shots blocked compared to the NHL average, while the forwards coast along the average, missing more shots than the average. It’s juxtaposition with the Stars and Lightning for missed shots, Stars forwards missing a lot more than defensemen and forwards firing past the net than Lightning defensemen.

Position	Team	SF On/60	MF On/60	BF On/60
Defense	DAL	18.69	21.71	1.35
Defense	T.B	13.69	14.78	12.53
Defense	NHLAv	36.65	15.98	2.47
Forward	DAL	22.48	15.13	1.49
Forward	T.B	21.58	21.78	3.43
Forward	NHLAv	34.18	15.94	3.99

There’s a possible shot quality argument that can be made at 5v4, exemplified by Tampa Bay, while Lightning writer, Kyle Alexander, makes a salient point of the Lightning’s power play.

@kalexanderRC I think shot quality matters more on the PP too but the data does suggest 5v4 SH% is almost all luck http://t.co/ZMlj1B2IHP

— Fear The Fin (@fearthefin) November 17, 2014

That chart in the link indicates that power play shooting percentages can be heavily influenced by ‘luck’ – a term I’m not apt to use without an explanation that ‘luck’ is more about the repeatability of a skillset to achieve similar results rather than pucks bouncing off of player’s asses into the gaping net.

More power play analysis is going to come down this pipeline.

Stats via Hockey Analysis and Behind The Net

************************

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:

@mckeenshockey
@KatsHockey

Kats Krunch: Q1 NHL Score-Adjusted Metrics & Situational TOI

Gus Katsaros — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:47:07 +0000

American Thanksgiving marked the unofficial end of the first quarter of the NHL season and time for some retrospection of some teams. Traditionally, I’d turn to typical Corsi and Fenwick along with derivative stats, but I've been enthusiastic by these newer score-adjusted metrics quickly establishing their value into the analytics discussion thus far around the quarter mark of the NHL season.

The original work by Eric Tulsky using the original data via behindthenet.ca has seen tweaks and enhancements to even suggestions that ‘close’ metrics may not necessarily be as predictive or originally though.

Steve Burtch expanded on this concept based off work by Micah Blake McCurdy and I’m intrigued to see where this is going. The nature seems to be to discard the limitations associated with ‘close’ parameters and supplement that with score, venue and schedule adjusted data.

There are even resources already doing the calculations for you, like Puck on Net, while and Puckalytics and original sister site Hockey Analysis already houses the raw data.

I like how the distinction here is between game-states, however, for the purposes of this writing, I’m not looking at the predictive value, only a snapshot of teams in different game states and keying in on some shorter team trends.

I like the fact we can break down specific game situations by time and events, when teams are tied, up or down by a goal, then by two or more goals. Let’s begin.

GAME TIED

Teams end up the majority of time with the game tied. There are outliers like the Pittsburgh Penguins who score first early and skew the time on ice by spending the majority of their time up a goal or two. The near past also shows a jump in the metrics based on time on ice with a deficit.

Minnesota, Carolina and Columbus also share this affinity, however that cluster of teams at the top of the chart, the bottom feeders of the NHL and the … Calgary Flames?

The chart (using data by Puck on Net) illustrates raw Corsi For and Corsi Against while the game is tied while bubble size represents time on ice. Teams in the lower left quadrant are playing less when the game is tied and more traveling along the x-axis. The cluster at the top is interesting due to the inclusion of the pesky Flames with that group. In short, while playing most of the game tied, the Flames along with the cluster of bottom feeding teams are allowing more Corsi Against events than Corsi For.

Time on ice is fairly consistent, the bubbles being very similar in size, albeit the ones in the lower left quadrant seem to be a bit smaller, mirrored by the low number of overall events. We will expand on the Hurricanes and Wild below.

GAME DOWN BY A GOAL

Here I’m more concerned with teams playing in traditional close situations and their individual components.

When the game starts to get away and teams start to lead by two or more goals, score effects kick in and we see teams with the lead press on a little less and teams playing without the lead apply more shooting pressure. Score effects are well documented and don’t need any expansion here.

The graph plots individual Corsi For events along the x-axis and the Corsi Against along the y-axis.

Most teams are clumped together in a range with outliers here are the Carolina Hurricanes and even the San Jose Sharks (while also playing at a high proportion of game tied minutes) with almost double the For events than Against. The Canes spend the majority of their game time down one goal and the cumulative effect over the season timeline has recently surpassed their time on ice while the game is tied (team charts are a rolling 3-game moving average).

The uptick with the team up by a goal and up by two goals, eerily corresponds to the return of team leader, Eric Staal from injury and even though the Hurricanes spend an inordinate amount of time playing from behind, the black line indicating being down by two or more goals has flatlined. Even with the Canes time on ice down by a goal their score-adjusted shot metrics are creeping up to over 50%.

The San Jose Sharks started off fairly hot, but signs over the near term are trending negative. Travis Yost, the analytics writer over at TSN does a good job expanding on the Sharks off season transactions after the disastrous playoff exit and just how well Joe Thornton has performed for the scrutiny he’s faced seemingly his entire career in the Bay Area.

This is how the Sharks situational season looks.

We can see early on how they played more with a wide lead and then (scoring 3.8 goals per game) and sputtered (down to 2.7 goals per game) – while even losing to Buffalo 2-1 at home. At the quarter point, the down one goal line begins to trend up – sharply, coinciding with a rise in time down two or more goals. Both metrics indicating playing with the lead are a lot flatter than a winning team desires.

A 3-game moving average of score adjusted Corsi, Fenwick and even shots, are all trending down after swooping upswing earlier on in the season. Something to watch for the California based club.

GAME UP BY A GOAL

Let's look at now at the game state of being up by a goal. There’s a little more separation here from the chart down one goal, with two main clusters.

It's no surprise Buffalo with a very small bubble is also shown your with very few Corsi For events, just over 50, and having almost four times the same amount of Corsi Against events. In fact, bubble size expands the further the bubble appears from the y-axis, with Winnipeg looking like Jupiter sized bubble compared to the Mars and Mercury-like size of the bubbles in the lower left quadrant.

Not pictured here, since these values are as of the American Thanksgiving, is the November 28 Buffalo game against Montreal featured the Sabres with a one goal lead for 30 minutes. Heading into the contest, having amassed an unassuming 118 minutes up one goal, the 30 minute increase represented an increase their time by almost 25% of the season total.

The real outlier here is the Winnipeg Jets, tracing the knife’s edge between winning and losing while only really being up a goal for the majority of their playing time (other than a tie game). Their situational season timeline is in the chart below.

The Jets were going down by more than two goals very early in the season and then between the fifth and 10th game something began to limit their defense affecting their down by two or more goals line to plateau, with a corresponding ascension in both game tied and up one goal situations.

Winnipeg started the season with a 1-4 record - scoring at a rate of 1.8 goals per game and allowing three - only to win six of their next eight games, allowing 11 goals (1.375 per game) and scoring only two per game – a very thin margin. They rallied along to a .500 record and a mark of (5-4-3) record in the last dozen games. To maintain any semblance of success the run after the break away from the pattern of being stuck in the zone between game tied in plus-1 situations. Their individual score-adjusted Corsi, Fenwick and Shots 3-game rolling average has seen the increase from the beginning of the season to peak just over 51% overall for all three metrics.

Let's move on to our final team, the Minnesota Wild. A hot start has become a staple for the Wild, only to tail off and struggle for a playoff spot.

Not so in 2014-15 where they started off with consecutive shutouts against last year’s surprising Colorado Avalanche. The Wild sustained some immediate success finding some scoring touch early on (averaging 3.4 goals in the first 10 games and only 2.3 since then up to American Thanksgiving) exemplified by their up two goals line in the chart below.

There’s a hiccup during a four game stand that saw them score only three goals, while allowing 14, indicated by the flat segment of the up two goals line and sharp upturn in the down two goals line. In the near past, that down two goals line has once again taken an immediate sharp upturn as the Wild defense hasn’t shown the same stinginess it did in the early part of the season.

When taking the individual Score-Adjusted Corsi, Fenwick and Shots moving average, the trend is negative from an unsustainable 60% clip early in the campaign. Even at this 55% clip, there is still some room for a negative correction with the result being a loss of standings points. It’s a good bet to keep a watch on the Wild.

************************

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:

@mckeenshockey
@KatsHockey

NHL Weekly Breakdown 2013-14

Gus Katsaros — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 05:29:53 +0000

For poolies, save those players games for late in the season, as the end of the 2013-14 season is very heavy in games and could be an opportunity lost. Take into consideration how many games your players are likely to capitalize on and plan accordingly.

This is especially true for those in head to head fantasy leagues since this period represents playoff time. Planning accordingly is a requirement for the final few weeks, especially if you can pluck key players that are likely to dress in late season games on teams with heavy schedules.

I’ve prepared a Google doc cutting it a little close but with the season set to start, it’s definitely a good time to publish the weekly schedule and make it available for a full season.

The Google doc has two tabs, with the suggestion to add the actual start and end dates for the weeks implemented.

Pay attention closely to the final five weeks feature five straight 100+ weekly games after the Olympics, while averaging 105 games per week. Weeks 22 and 26 are tied for the season high of 108 games.

Edmonton, Florida and Pittsburgh are all at home in the final week of the season, while Toronto and Colorado are on the road. San Jose has a back and forth pattern of home and road swings making for an interesting schedule that includes a lot of home dates.

Other highlights include.

The first 21 weeks average about 92 games with the high water mark at 102 (twice – in Week 9 and 11) and another 100 week once (Week 17). Week 1 has the lowest amount of games with 68 as the league opens up on rare Tuesday.

The Sochi Olympics take place between Weeks 19 and 20; things get jam-packed when they return.

In 2012-13 there were 110 games per week twice (Weeks 7 and 11).

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:

@KatsHockey
@mckeenshockey

AHL: 2013-14 3-in-3 Sets

Gus Katsaros — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 05:21:33 +0000

This post highlighting the AHL schedules was scheduled earlier in the rotation, originally constructed before I presented the CHL 3-in-3 sets for all member clubs.

The NHL feeder league that schedules three games in three nights is the American Hockey League, housing the minor league affiliates for NHL clubs.

This post breaks down the number of 3-in-3 sets for each AHL team. There are a lot of key differences from the CHL, but I’ve kept the criteria similar and just present the data as is, with some commentary.

I had broken this down for 2012-13 which also has a historical look at from the previous season (2011-12).

2013-14 SEASON SETS

Teams average eight sets in ’13-14. Perennial leaders in the category, Providence Bruins (14) slipped to number two, while over two standard deviations from the average. The minor league affiliate for the Boston Bruins is actually tied for second with Hershey Bears (Washington) and Manchester Monarchs (Los Angeles).

This season, the Worcester Sharks, minor league affiliate of the San Jose Sharks is the AHL leader with 15 sets.

Providence and Manchester start off the 2014 calendar year with a 3-in-3 set every weekend in January.

Hershey has a killer stretch of 24 straight games of 3-in-3’s.

The breakdown by month has consequences as well.

For instance, a younger Toronto Marlies club in comparison to the previous seasons will play six sets of 3-in-3, with the first set after the turn of the calendar.

Toronto’s first set appears in game number 40, playing the entire first half of the season without a 3-in-3 set. The two straight sets begin in January 24 in Hamilton against the Bulldogs before completing the first set with two home dates. The second set has them traveling to Oklahoma City, then down to San Antonio and Texas.

The down side of half a season advantage are a bunched amount of four sets after March 7, including three straight sets over a 9-game period starting March 28 through to mid April, right on the eve of the playoffs.

In essence, the Marlies play 12 of their final 21 games as 3-in-3 sets – one set entirely on the road all with possible playoff consequences.

Portland (affiliate to the Phoenix Coyotes) dress for three sets in April, an AHL high. Check out Manchester as the opponent in Game 2 in two sets and the final game of the season.

GAMES 1 2 & 3

Of course, advantages also exist with similarities to the CHL scheduling. That is, scheduling has the residual benefit of playing an opponent in Game 3, a distinct advantage.

The Hershey Bears face an opponent playing in game 3 of a 3-in-3 set 18 times to lead the league. In a 76-game schedule, that amounts to about 24% of their schedule. Manchester (17) and Providence (16) trail the leader.

At the opposite end, the Rochester Americans (Buffalo Sabres) is the only team that will not face an opponent at all playing Game 3 of a 3-in-3 set.

Oklahoma City Barons (Edmonton) play three games and Abbotsford (Calgary) Charlotte (Carolina), Grand Rapids (Detroit), Hamilton (Montreal) and St John’s (Winnipeg) all have four (4) such games.

The full breakdown, including the monthly supplemental is located in the table below. The headings Road and Home signify if the sets are all at home or on the road. the VS GmX is the amount of games played with the opponent playing games 1 thru 3.

TEAM	3in3	OCT	NOV	DEC	JAN	FEB	MAR	APR	ROAD	HOME	VS Gm1	VS Gm2	VS Gm3
Abbotsford	4	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	4	0	3	4	4
Adirondack	9	0	1	1	0	1	4	2	2	1	13	14	8
Albany	11	0	0	1	3	2	3	2	3	1	9	10	13
Binghamton	8	1	2	0	2	0	1	2	1	0	11	5	6
Bridgeport	13	0	2	3	3	1	2	2	0	0	6	12	14
Charlotte	5	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	3	2	2	1	4
Chicago	6	0	0	1	1	2	1	1	0	0	2	6	10
Grand Rapids	6	1	0	0	1	1	3	0	3	1	7	6	4
Hamilton	9	1	0	2	2	1	3	0	2	1	3	4	4
Hartford	9	0	0	1	2	1	4	1	1	0	14	11	8
Hershey	14	0	1	1	4	3	3	2	2	0	9	11	18
Iowa	6	0	2	0	1	1	1	1	2	2	5	6	7
Lake Erie	5	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	2	0	3	3	5
Manchester	14	1	1	3	3	3	2	1	1	2	13	12	17
Milwaukee	9	0	1	2	1	2	2	1	2	0	6	4	10
Norfolk	10	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	7	0	6	5	8
Oklahoma City	5	0	0	2	1	1	1	0	3	2	6	5	3
Portland	12	0	1	1	2	2	3	3	0	2	11	12	11
Providence	14	0	2	2	4	0	4	2	1	0	13	10	16
Rochester	3	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	11	9	0
Rockford	6	0	0	1	2	1	1	1	0	0	9	12	5
San Antonio	3	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	8	5	7
Springfield	9	0	1	0	2	3	2	1	1	1	13	12	9
St. John's	6	1	1	0	1	2	1	0	6	0	4	6	4
Syracuse	7	0	0	0	1	1	4	1	0	0	11	13	5
Texas	3	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	6	7	6
Toronto	6	0	0	0	1	1	2	2	2	0	6	7	11
Utica	6	0	0	1	0	2	2	1	1	1	8	4	6
W-B/Scranton	10	1	0	0	3	2	2	2	3	0	10	12	10
Worcester	15	0	2	3	3	2	4	1	3	1	15	15	10

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:
@KatsHockey
@mckeenshockey

Rate Stats Relative to 3-Year Average Ratios – Overperformers

Gus Katsaros — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:46:48 +0000

I put up a post describing the use of a comparative ratio using players ’12-13 production rate stats (per 60 minutes) divided by their 3- and 5-year averages – excluding the shortened season.

The point of the exercise was to have an independent comparison of the shortened season production, without extrapolating totals to simulate production per-82 games. I went into the details in the previous post so I’ll just put an excerpt here.

Data provided by www.stats.hockeyanalysis.com

The essential driving factor here is shots on goal per 60 minutes, tweaking the filtering criteria depending on the ratio.

To isolate underperformers, I used the following criteria:

SOG/60 > 1

Goals/60 <1

This returned a list of players that fired pucks at a rate greater than their 3-year average but didn’t score at the same clip than in the past (despite the uptick in shots/60 ratio)

For outperformers:

SOG/60 < 1

Goals/60 >1

The returned players fired less than their 3-year average, yet scored at a clip greater than their 3-year average.

The third filter was to determine consistency – particularly in shooting rates. This required incorporating 5-year average ratios as well, adding another long(er) term ratio filtering down the listings. In the end, 26 players made the final filter, some interesting names, some others negligible in the grand scheme

Today we are looking at players that outperformed their 3-year average of goals/60 while shooting at a reduced rate (SOG/60 < 1).

A total of 122 players make the cut here, split 89/33 forwards to defensemen.

Relative to 3-yr average - Defensemen
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
FRANCOIS BEAUCHEMIN	Anaheim	2.57	2.42	1.95	1.37	2.06	0.94
SHELDON SOURAY	Anaheim	2.10	1.30	0.76	0.38	0.96	0.62
DENNIS SEIDENBERG	Boston	2.21	2.01	0.79	0.62	1.04	0.90
ZDENO CHARA	Boston	2.05	1.85	0.60	1.19	0.80	0.90
ALEXANDER SULZER	Buffalo	4.90	3.88	0.74	0.00	1.87	0.79
ANDREJ SEKERA	Buffalo	1.44	1.08	1.50	1.33	1.39	0.75
DENNIS WIDEMAN	Calgary	1.05	1.05	0.77	0.95	0.83	1.00
JOE CORVO	Carolina	2.16	2.08	1.21	0.43	1.43	0.97
BRENT SEABROOK	Chicago	2.72	2.03	0.58	0.54	0.85	0.75
FEDOR TYUTIN	Columbus	1.74	1.32	2.00	3.41	1.79	0.76
JAMES WISNIEWSKI	Columbus	1.50	1.29	0.97	1.61	1.00	0.86
NIKITA NIKITIN	Columbus	1.24	1.03	0.45	0.00	0.58	0.83
PHILIP LARSEN	Dallas	2.35	2.19	0.59	0.54	0.73	0.93
COREY POTTER	Edmonton	2.71	2.23	0.00	0.00	0.75	0.82
TOM GILBERT	Minnesota	2.72	1.93	1.13	0.65	1.25	0.71
ALEXEI EMELIN	Montreal	1.84	1.62	3.80	3.25	2.90	0.88
ANDREI MARKOV	Montreal	1.72	1.37	0.34	0.20	0.46	0.80
HENRIK TALLINDER	New Jersey	1.16	1.15	0.39	0.00	0.58	0.99
RADEK MARTINEK	NY Islanders	6.81	5.56	0.00	0.00	1.58	0.81
MARK STREIT	NY Islanders	3.95	3.44	0.97	0.60	1.15	0.88
MARC STAAL	NY Rangers	1.68	1.11	2.14	2.66	1.92	0.66
KIMMO TIMONEN	Philadelphia	1.10	1.07	0.91	0.27	0.93	0.96
PAUL MARTIN	Pittsburgh	9.45	7.85	1.24	1.33	1.84	0.82
KRIS LETANG	Pittsburgh	1.38	1.37	1.82	2.18	1.75	0.98
DOUGLAS MURRAY	Pittsburgh	2.25	1.41	1.34	0.57	1.34	0.63
MARC-EDOUARD VLASIC	San Jose	1.70	1.61	0.43	0.28	0.68	0.94
BARRET JACKMAN	St. Louis	11.76	9.82	0.81	1.13	1.11	0.83
KEVIN SHATTENKIRK	St. Louis	1.06	1.05	0.99	0.60	0.99	0.98
MATT CARLE	Tampa Bay	2.25	1.69	0.84	0.77	0.91	0.75
DION PHANEUF	Toronto	2.92	2.03	0.84	0.92	1.20	0.70
DAN HAMHUIS	Vancouver	2.00	1.61	1.18	1.61	1.26	0.81
ALEXANDER EDLER	Vancouver	1.44	1.34	0.82	0.41	0.91	0.94
TOBIAS ENSTROM	Winnipeg	2.48	1.71	0.76	0.35	0.93	0.69

Relative to 3-yr average - forwards
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
BRAD STAUBITZ	Anaheim	2.20	1.76	1.76	3.09	1.77	0.80
DANIEL WINNIK	Anaheim	1.68	1.65	1.30	1.05	1.41	0.98
NICK BONINO	Anaheim	2.37	2.19	1.05	1.83	1.36	0.92
ANDREW COGLIANO	Anaheim	1.52	1.50	1.18	1.04	1.31	0.99
MATT BELESKEY	Anaheim	1.38	1.35	0.88	1.25	1.09	0.98
BRAD MARCHAND	Boston	1.29	1.15	1.34	1.70	1.26	0.89
JAROMIR JAGR	Boston	1.34	1.21	0.96	0.84	1.04	0.91
SHAWN THORNTON	Boston	1.37	1.20	0.92	0.28	1.02	0.87
STEVE OTT	Buffalo	1.41	1.30	1.29	0.93	1.30	0.92
STEVE BEGIN	Calgary	2.60	2.58	2.29	0.00	2.39	0.99
ALEX TANGUAY	Calgary	1.46	1.07	0.71	0.69	0.83	0.73
ERIC STAAL	Carolina	1.77	1.57	1.90	1.71	1.78	0.89
VIKTOR STALBERG	Chicago	1.07	1.04	1.22	1.63	1.13	0.97
MARIAN HOSSA	Chicago	1.15	1.05	0.89	0.79	0.96	0.92
DAVE BOLLAND	Chicago	1.58	1.23	0.71	0.81	0.93	0.77
DAN CARCILLO	Chicago	1.03	1.02	0.40	0.69	0.67	0.99
AARON PALUSHAJ	Colorado	1.54	1.17	2.05	3.51	1.88	0.76
TOMAS VINCOUR	Colorado	3.71	2.32	1.55	0.00	1.85	0.63
PIERRE PARENTEAU	Colorado	1.74	1.68	0.88	0.93	1.13	0.96
DEREK DORSETT	Columbus	1.55	1.34	1.72	0.48	1.56	0.86
ARTEM ANISIMOV	Columbus	1.86	1.75	0.78	0.75	1.17	0.94
VACLAV PROSPAL	Columbus	1.14	1.05	1.11	0.42	1.09	0.92
RYAN GARBUTT	Dallas	1.56	1.50	0.00	0.00	5.03	0.96
VERNON FIDDLER	Dallas	1.02	1.01	1.57	2.15	1.41	0.99
RAY WHITNEY	Dallas	1.56	1.29	0.95	0.85	1.06	0.82
ERIC NYSTROM	Dallas	1.28	1.11	1.00	1.66	1.06	0.86
JONATHAN ERICSSON	Detroit	1.97	1.34	1.39	1.46	1.37	0.68
TODD BERTUZZI	Detroit	2.19	1.94	0.64	0.00	1.16	0.89
JUSTIN ABDELKADER	Detroit	1.51	1.46	0.47	0.30	0.86	0.97
JORDIN TOOTOO	Detroit	1.24	1.01	0.40	0.53	0.57	0.82
LENNART PETRELL	Edmonton	1.13	1.08	2.03	0.41	1.63	0.96
MAGNUS PAAJARVI	Edmonton	1.63	1.52	1.25	1.51	1.36	0.93
SAM GAGNER	Edmonton	1.36	1.11	0.82	0.25	0.92	0.81
KRIS VERSTEEG	Florida	1.94	1.49	0.47	0.00	0.87	0.77
TOMAS KOPECKY	Florida	1.20	1.00	0.77	0.67	0.86	0.83
COLIN FRASER	Los Angeles	1.94	1.00	1.53	3.15	1.33	0.52
JEFF CARTER	Los Angeles	1.74	1.36	0.49	0.77	0.99	0.78
ANZE KOPITAR	Los Angeles	1.27	1.02	0.90	1.11	0.94	0.80
DEVIN SETOGUCHI	Minnesota	1.25	1.01	2.16	4.32	1.51	0.81
DANY HEATLEY	Minnesota	1.62	1.19	0.60	0.75	0.85	0.73
TORREY MITCHELL	Minnesota	1.45	1.16	0.53	1.03	0.77	0.80
DAVID LEGWAND	Nashville	2.31	1.65	0.80	0.66	1.10	0.72
NICK SPALING	Nashville	1.91	1.71	0.38	0.31	1.01	0.90
GABRIEL BOURQUE	Nashville	1.35	1.19	0.59	1.19	0.84	0.88
MIKE FISHER	Nashville	1.39	1.08	0.43	0.48	0.76	0.78
ANDREI LOKTIONOV	New Jersey	2.53	2.36	0.67	0.67	1.52	0.93
TOM KOSTOPOULOS	New Jersey	1.46	1.33	0.00	0.00	0.45	0.91
JOHN TAVARES	NY Islanders	1.70	1.69	0.72	0.98	1.13	0.99
MICHAEL GRABNER	NY Islanders	1.40	1.35	0.46	0.23	0.99	0.97
BRAD BOYES	NY Islanders	1.42	1.33	0.82	0.78	0.98	0.94
TRAVIS HAMONIC	NY Islanders	1.42	1.36	0.39	0.00	0.51	0.95
MATS ZUCCARELLO	NY Rangers	1.67	1.55	0.97	1.29	1.19	0.93
JIM O_BRIEN	Ottawa	1.70	1.67	0.00	0.00	0.84	0.98
JAKUB VORACEK	Philadelphia	1.50	1.41	1.17	1.09	1.26	0.94
MAXIME TALBOT	Philadelphia	1.19	1.06	0.84	0.80	0.94	0.89
KYLE CHIPCHURA	Phoenix	2.04	2.03	1.42	2.03	1.58	0.99
NICK JOHNSON	Phoenix	2.11	2.08	0.77	0.99	1.23	0.98
BOYD GORDON	Phoenix	1.25	1.10	1.05	1.37	1.06	0.88
RADIM VRBATA	Phoenix	1.55	1.48	0.65	0.66	1.02	0.95
ANTOINE VERMETTE	Phoenix	1.58	1.53	0.65	0.41	0.93	0.97
MICHAEL STONE	Phoenix	1.24	1.18	0.29	0.15	0.58	0.95
CHRIS KUNITZ	Pittsburgh	1.36	1.09	1.80	1.82	1.46	0.80
BRENDEN MORROW	Pittsburgh	2.17	1.64	1.26	1.47	1.42	0.76
JOE VITALE	Pittsburgh	1.31	1.02	0.57	1.02	0.73	0.78
TOMMY WINGELS	San Jose	1.40	1.14	1.19	1.14	1.18	0.81
JOE PAVELSKI	San Jose	1.49	1.10	0.62	0.63	0.85	0.74
SCOTT GOMEZ	San Jose	1.52	1.40	0.63	0.38	0.75	0.92
RYAN REAVES	St. Louis	1.53	1.45	1.21	0.60	1.36	0.95
CHRIS STEWART	St. Louis	1.20	1.00	1.01	0.72	1.00	0.83
PATRIK BERGLUND	St. Louis	1.59	1.01	0.85	0.93	0.93	0.63
MARTIN ST._LOUIS	Tampa Bay	1.38	1.05	1.12	0.88	1.10	0.77
RYAN MALONE	Tampa Bay	1.51	1.25	0.17	0.00	0.56	0.82
MATT FRATTIN	Toronto	1.80	1.69	2.25	0.75	1.93	0.93
JAY MCCLEMENT	Toronto	1.45	1.04	1.52	0.49	1.31	0.72
PHIL KESSEL	Toronto	1.29	1.07	1.25	1.26	1.16	0.83
JAMES VAN_RIEMSDYK	Toronto	1.35	1.28	0.95	0.65	1.09	0.95
TYLER BOZAK	Toronto	1.26	1.06	0.94	0.69	0.99	0.84
MIKHAIL GRABOVSKI	Toronto	1.23	1.08	0.23	0.21	0.56	0.88
ZACK KASSIAN	Vancouver	1.56	1.27	0.61	0.25	0.90	0.81
HENRIK SEDIN	Vancouver	1.35	1.18	0.65	0.50	0.76	0.87
CHRIS HIGGINS	Vancouver	1.44	1.05	0.50	0.46	0.75	0.73
JOEL WARD	Washington	2.11	1.85	1.58	1.15	1.65	0.88
BROOKS LAICH	Washington	2.81	1.14	0.98	1.48	1.03	0.41
MIKE RIBEIRO	Washington	1.65	1.10	0.76	0.52	0.85	0.67
MATT HENDRICKS	Washington	1.45	1.19	0.56	0.31	0.83	0.82
ANDREW LADD	Winnipeg	1.20	1.00	1.98	1.41	1.48	0.84
KYLE WELLWOOD	Winnipeg	1.38	1.17	0.98	1.36	1.06	0.85
CHRIS THORBURN	Winnipeg	3.41	1.57	0.72	1.01	0.98	0.46
ANTTI MIETTINEN	Winnipeg	1.47	1.12	0.62	0.00	0.84	0.76

Filtering this list down further to isolate players was accomplished by adding criteria for shooting percentage, splitting players with a ratio above or below 1.5.

The listing gets interesting for forwards and defensemen in this regard and takes a good look at the wide gap between ratios by position.

Defensemen shooting percentages skyrocket to an average of 3.29 times their 3-year average, while forwards averaged a ratio of 1.91. That’s a fairly significant distinction however two players with bloated ratios skew results. Removing Barret Jackman (11.76) and Paul Martin (9.45) reduces the overall average to 2.63, which is still higher than the forwards average.

The highest forward was Tomas Vincour (3.71) with Chris Thorburn following with 3.41. Tables below show the full listing.

Once again, to reiterate, these tables were starting points, jumping off into other parts of analysis that led to a better overall picture of the player’s performance isolated in ’12-13.

Relative to 3-yr average - forwards sh% ratio < 1.5
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
JOE PAVELSKI	San Jose	1.49	1.10	0.62	0.63	0.85	0.74
ANTTI MIETTINEN	Winnipeg	1.47	1.12	0.62	0.00	0.84	0.76
ALEX TANGUAY	Calgary	1.46	1.07	0.71	0.69	0.83	0.73
TOM KOSTOPOULOS	New Jersey	1.46	1.33	0.00	0.00	0.45	0.91
MATT HENDRICKS	Washington	1.45	1.19	0.56	0.31	0.83	0.82
TORREY MITCHELL	Minnesota	1.45	1.16	0.53	1.03	0.77	0.80
JAY MCCLEMENT	Toronto	1.45	1.04	1.52	0.49	1.31	0.72
CHRIS HIGGINS	Vancouver	1.44	1.05	0.50	0.46	0.75	0.73
BRAD BOYES	NY Islanders	1.42	1.33	0.82	0.78	0.98	0.94
TRAVIS HAMONIC	NY Islanders	1.42	1.36	0.39	0.00	0.51	0.95
STEVE OTT	Buffalo	1.41	1.30	1.29	0.93	1.30	0.92
TOMMY WINGELS	San Jose	1.40	1.14	1.19	1.14	1.18	0.81
MICHAEL GRABNER	NY Islanders	1.40	1.35	0.46	0.23	0.99	0.97
MIKE FISHER	Nashville	1.39	1.08	0.43	0.48	0.76	0.78
MATT BELESKEY	Anaheim	1.38	1.35	0.88	1.25	1.09	0.98
KYLE WELLWOOD	Winnipeg	1.38	1.17	0.98	1.36	1.06	0.85
MARTIN ST._LOUIS	Tampa Bay	1.38	1.05	1.12	0.88	1.10	0.77
SHAWN THORNTON	Boston	1.37	1.20	0.92	0.28	1.02	0.87
SAM GAGNER	Edmonton	1.36	1.11	0.82	0.25	0.92	0.81
CHRIS KUNITZ	Pittsburgh	1.36	1.09	1.80	1.82	1.46	0.80
HENRIK SEDIN	Vancouver	1.35	1.18	0.65	0.50	0.76	0.87
GABRIEL BOURQUE	Nashville	1.35	1.19	0.59	1.19	0.84	0.88
JAMES VAN_RIEMSDYK	Toronto	1.35	1.28	0.95	0.65	1.09	0.95
JAROMIR JAGR	Boston	1.34	1.21	0.96	0.84	1.04	0.91
JOE VITALE	Pittsburgh	1.31	1.02	0.57	1.02	0.73	0.78
BRAD MARCHAND	Boston	1.29	1.15	1.34	1.70	1.26	0.89
PHIL KESSEL	Toronto	1.29	1.07	1.25	1.26	1.16	0.83
ERIC NYSTROM	Dallas	1.28	1.11	1.00	1.66	1.06	0.86
ANZE KOPITAR	Los Angeles	1.27	1.02	0.90	1.11	0.94	0.80
TYLER BOZAK	Toronto	1.26	1.06	0.94	0.69	0.99	0.84
BOYD GORDON	Phoenix	1.25	1.10	1.05	1.37	1.06	0.88
DEVIN SETOGUCHI	Minnesota	1.25	1.01	2.16	4.32	1.51	0.81
MICHAEL STONE	Phoenix	1.24	1.18	0.29	0.15	0.58	0.95
JORDIN TOOTOO	Detroit	1.24	1.01	0.40	0.53	0.57	0.82
MIKHAIL GRABOVSKI	Toronto	1.23	1.08	0.23	0.21	0.56	0.88
CHRIS STEWART	St. Louis	1.20	1.00	1.01	0.72	1.00	0.83
ANDREW LADD	Winnipeg	1.20	1.00	1.98	1.41	1.48	0.84
TOMAS KOPECKY	Florida	1.20	1.00	0.77	0.67	0.86	0.83
MAXIME TALBOT	Philadelphia	1.19	1.06	0.84	0.80	0.94	0.89
MARIAN HOSSA	Chicago	1.15	1.05	0.89	0.79	0.96	0.92
VACLAV PROSPAL	Columbus	1.14	1.05	1.11	0.42	1.09	0.92
LENNART PETRELL	Edmonton	1.13	1.08	2.03	0.41	1.63	0.96
VIKTOR STALBERG	Chicago	1.07	1.04	1.22	1.63	1.13	0.97
DAN CARCILLO	Chicago	1.03	1.02	0.40	0.69	0.67	0.99
VERNON FIDDLER	Dallas	1.02	1.01	1.57	2.15	1.41	0.99

Relative to 3-yr average - defensemen sh% ratio > 1.5
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
BARRET JACKMAN	St. Louis	11.76	9.82	0.81	1.13	1.11	0.83
PAUL MARTIN	Pittsburgh	9.45	7.85	1.24	1.33	1.84	0.82
RADEK MARTINEK	NY Islanders	6.81	5.56	0.00	0.00	1.58	0.81
ALEXANDER SULZER	Buffalo	4.90	3.88	0.74	0.00	1.87	0.79
MARK STREIT	NY Islanders	3.95	3.44	0.97	0.60	1.15	0.88
DION PHANEUF	Toronto	2.92	2.03	0.84	0.92	1.20	0.70
TOM GILBERT	Minnesota	2.72	1.93	1.13	0.65	1.25	0.71
BRENT SEABROOK	Chicago	2.72	2.03	0.58	0.54	0.85	0.75
COREY POTTER	Edmonton	2.71	2.23	0.00	0.00	0.75	0.82
FRANCOIS BEAUCHEMIN	Anaheim	2.57	2.42	1.95	1.37	2.06	0.94
TOBIAS ENSTROM	Winnipeg	2.48	1.71	0.76	0.35	0.93	0.69
PHILIP LARSEN	Dallas	2.35	2.19	0.59	0.54	0.73	0.93
DOUGLAS MURRAY	Pittsburgh	2.25	1.41	1.34	0.57	1.34	0.63
MATT CARLE	Tampa Bay	2.25	1.69	0.84	0.77	0.91	0.75
DENNIS SEIDENBERG	Boston	2.21	2.01	0.79	0.62	1.04	0.90
JOE CORVO	Carolina	2.16	2.08	1.21	0.43	1.43	0.97
SHELDON SOURAY	Anaheim	2.10	1.30	0.76	0.38	0.96	0.62
ZDENO CHARA	Boston	2.05	1.85	0.60	1.19	0.80	0.90
DAN HAMHUIS	Vancouver	2.00	1.61	1.18	1.61	1.26	0.81
ALEXEI EMELIN	Montreal	1.84	1.62	3.80	3.25	2.90	0.88
FEDOR TYUTIN	Columbus	1.74	1.32	2.00	3.41	1.79	0.76
ANDREI MARKOV	Montreal	1.72	1.37	0.34	0.20	0.46	0.80
MARC-EDOUARD VLASIC	San Jose	1.70	1.61	0.43	0.28	0.68	0.94
MARC STAAL	NY Rangers	1.68	1.11	2.14	2.66	1.92	0.66

Relative to 3-yr average - forwards sh% > 1.5
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
BRAD STAUBITZ	Anaheim	2.20	1.76	1.76	3.09	1.77	0.80
DANIEL WINNIK	Anaheim	1.68	1.65	1.30	1.05	1.41	0.98
NICK BONINO	Anaheim	2.37	2.19	1.05	1.83	1.36	0.92
ANDREW COGLIANO	Anaheim	1.52	1.50	1.18	1.04	1.31	0.99
STEVE BEGIN	Calgary	2.60	2.58	2.29	0.00	2.39	0.99
ERIC STAAL	Carolina	1.77	1.57	1.90	1.71	1.78	0.89
DAVE BOLLAND	Chicago	1.58	1.23	0.71	0.81	0.93	0.77
AARON PALUSHAJ	Colorado	1.54	1.17	2.05	3.51	1.88	0.76
TOMAS VINCOUR	Colorado	3.71	2.32	1.55	0.00	1.85	0.63
PIERRE PARENTEAU	Colorado	1.74	1.68	0.88	0.93	1.13	0.96
DEREK DORSETT	Columbus	1.55	1.34	1.72	0.48	1.56	0.86
ARTEM ANISIMOV	Columbus	1.86	1.75	0.78	0.75	1.17	0.94
RYAN GARBUTT	Dallas	1.56	1.50	0.00	0.00	5.03	0.96
RAY WHITNEY	Dallas	1.56	1.29	0.95	0.85	1.06	0.82
JONATHAN ERICSSON	Detroit	1.97	1.34	1.39	1.46	1.37	0.68
TODD BERTUZZI	Detroit	2.19	1.94	0.64	0.00	1.16	0.89
JUSTIN ABDELKADER	Detroit	1.51	1.46	0.47	0.30	0.86	0.97
MAGNUS PAAJARVI	Edmonton	1.63	1.52	1.25	1.51	1.36	0.93
KRIS VERSTEEG	Florida	1.94	1.49	0.47	0.00	0.87	0.77
COLIN FRASER	Los Angeles	1.94	1.00	1.53	3.15	1.33	0.52
JEFF CARTER	Los Angeles	1.74	1.36	0.49	0.77	0.99	0.78
DANY HEATLEY	Minnesota	1.62	1.19	0.60	0.75	0.85	0.73
DAVID LEGWAND	Nashville	2.31	1.65	0.80	0.66	1.10	0.72
NICK SPALING	Nashville	1.91	1.71	0.38	0.31	1.01	0.90
ANDREI LOKTIONOV	New Jersey	2.53	2.36	0.67	0.67	1.52	0.93
JOHN TAVARES	NY Islanders	1.70	1.69	0.72	0.98	1.13	0.99
MATS ZUCCARELLO	NY Rangers	1.67	1.55	0.97	1.29	1.19	0.93
JIM O_BRIEN	Ottawa	1.70	1.67	0.00	0.00	0.84	0.98
JAKUB VORACEK	Philadelphia	1.50	1.41	1.17	1.09	1.26	0.94
KYLE CHIPCHURA	Phoenix	2.04	2.03	1.42	2.03	1.58	0.99
NICK JOHNSON	Phoenix	2.11	2.08	0.77	0.99	1.23	0.98
RADIM VRBATA	Phoenix	1.55	1.48	0.65	0.66	1.02	0.95
ANTOINE VERMETTE	Phoenix	1.58	1.53	0.65	0.41	0.93	0.97
BRENDEN MORROW	Pittsburgh	2.17	1.64	1.26	1.47	1.42	0.76
SCOTT GOMEZ	San Jose	1.52	1.40	0.63	0.38	0.75	0.92
RYAN REAVES	St. Louis	1.53	1.45	1.21	0.60	1.36	0.95
PATRIK BERGLUND	St. Louis	1.59	1.01	0.85	0.93	0.93	0.63
RYAN MALONE	Tampa Bay	1.51	1.25	0.17	0.00	0.56	0.82
MATT FRATTIN	Toronto	1.80	1.69	2.25	0.75	1.93	0.93
ZACK KASSIAN	Vancouver	1.56	1.27	0.61	0.25	0.90	0.81
JOEL WARD	Washington	2.11	1.85	1.58	1.15	1.65	0.88
BROOKS LAICH	Washington	2.81	1.14	0.98	1.48	1.03	0.41
MIKE RIBEIRO	Washington	1.65	1.10	0.76	0.52	0.85	0.67
CHRIS THORBURN	Winnipeg	3.41	1.57	0.72	1.01	0.98	0.46

Relative to 3-yr average - Defensemen sh% ratio < 1.5
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
ANDREJ SEKERA	Buffalo	1.44	1.08	1.50	1.33	1.39	0.75
DENNIS WIDEMAN	Calgary	1.05	1.05	0.77	0.95	0.83	1.00
JAMES WISNIEWSKI	Columbus	1.50	1.29	0.97	1.61	1.00	0.86
NIKITA NIKITIN	Columbus	1.24	1.03	0.45	0.00	0.58	0.83
HENRIK TALLINDER	New Jersey	1.16	1.15	0.39	0.00	0.58	0.99
KIMMO TIMONEN	Philadelphia	1.10	1.07	0.91	0.27	0.93	0.96
KRIS LETANG	Pittsburgh	1.38	1.37	1.82	2.18	1.75	0.98
KEVIN SHATTENKIRK	St. Louis	1.06	1.05	0.99	0.60	0.99	0.98
ALEXANDER EDLER	Vancouver	1.44	1.34	0.82	0.41	0.91	0.94

Rate Stats Relative to 3-Year Average Ratios – Underperformers

Gus Katsaros — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:54:37 +0000

During the time period when writing the Yearbook, some basic fundamentals used in some element of analysis don’t ever see the light of day. Summer 2013 was no different, particularly, with scoring in the shortened season requiring extrapolation over 82 games – which isn’t a very good indication of a true production, overlooking a variety of variables affecting game outcomes

There has to be a starting point however and instead of normalizing 2012-13 over 82 games, I took an approach that leaned heavily on ratios rather than hard numbers.

I also wanted to keep the shortened season data separate from the longer term averages to maintain integrity of independent running average directly compared to the short season. This meant using 2012-13 5v5 production rate stats (on a per60 basis) in relative comparison to the player’s 3-year and 5-year averages ending with the season 2011-12 – excluding ’12-13.

The key to this exercise wasn’t to make a definitive determination of the player’s future value, but rather an analytic starting point with a goal of answering the initial question, ‘how did players produce in the shortened season, relative to longer term trends. This was a beginning point, not the end result.

I won’t include a lot of commentary on players considering the amount of detail already prevalent in the McKeen’s Yearbook write-ups, however all those poolies (and writers looking for previews) may want to keep an eye on the players listed based on these preliminary results.

RATIOS

As an example, I will use goals/60. All the results here are based on 5v5 data via hockeyanlaysis.com.

Dividing ’12-13 goals/60 by the 3-year average (’12-13/3yr average) will result in a comparative ratio of the shortened season’s production relative to the player’s 3-year average. There are one of three possible results.

A one (1) indicates the player’s scoring ratio matched the 3-year goals/60 rate. A number greater than one meant the player outperformed his 3-year average. Less than one meant he underperformed.

SHOTS/60

The essential driving factor here is shots on goal per 60 minutes, tweaking the filtering criteria depending on the ratio.

To isolate underperformers, I used the following criteria:

SOG/60 > 1

Goals/60 <1

This returned a list of players that fired pucks at a rate greater than their 3-year average but didn’t score at the same clip than in the past (despite the uptick in shots/60 ratio)

For outperformers:

SOG/60 < 1

Goals/60 >1

The returned players fired less than their 3-year average, yet scored at a clip greater than their 3-year average.

The third filter was to determine consistency – particularly in shooting rates. This required incorporating 5-year average ratios as well, adding another long(er) term ratio filtering down the listings. In the end, 26 players made the final filter, some interesting names, some others negligible in the grand scheme.

Each category list can be quite big, so I’m going to split this into separate posts. This first one focuses on players that underperformed with a goals/60 ratio less than 1 and SOG/60 ration greater than 1.

Underperformed

A quick note here. Players like Matt Calvert has been developing over the 3-year period, so tht in itself must be taken into consideration when looking at the raw numbers. Bubble players like Kaspars Daugavins has an effect here too, with increased ice time instead of small samples comprising the overall 3-year averages. To reiterate, this analysis is a starting point, not the end means.

Across the NHL, 86 players underperformed their goals/60 ratio, a value less than one (with a shooting percentage greater than zero) while firing at a SOG/60 ratio greater than 1.

Of those 86 two NHL teams were unrepresented, Calgary and Toronto. When including players with a zero shooting percentage 149 were ranked, including multiple Flames and only one Leaf player made the list, Mark Fraser.

When prepping for your draft or looking at production comparisons for the shortened season, keep these ratios in mind (look at David Jones!!).

Here's the complete list broken down by forwards and defensemen.

Forwards Relative to 3-yr average
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
KYLE PALMIERI	Anaheim	0.78	0.97	2.03	1.82	1.37	1.25
PATRICE BERGERON	Boston	0.67	0.76	1.14	0.77	1.00	1.13
KASPARS DAUGAVINS	Boston	0.41	0.52	1.74	0.00	0.98	1.27
TYLER SEGUIN	Boston	0.79	0.89	0.92	0.74	0.91	1.13
JORDAN CARON	Boston	0.43	0.48	0.81	0.81	0.66	1.14
RICH PEVERLEY	Boston	0.70	0.70	0.55	0.54	0.61	1.00
JORDAN STAAL	Carolina	0.89	0.94	0.75	0.69	0.83	1.06
DRAYSON BOWMAN	Carolina	0.72	0.81	0.63	0.63	0.73	1.13
JEFF SKINNER	Carolina	0.46	0.58	0.57	0.74	0.57	1.24
TIM WALLACE	Carolina	0.46	0.62	0.31	0.47	0.42	1.37
MICHAEL FROLIK	Chicago	0.68	0.76	1.18	1.16	1.01	1.12
MICHAL HANDZUS	Chicago	0.49	0.58	0.88	1.12	0.77	1.19
PAUL STASTNY	Colorado	0.86	0.86	0.45	0.13	0.59	1.00
DAVID JONES	Colorado	0.13	0.15	0.85	1.05	0.47	1.12
MATT CALVERT	Columbus	0.71	0.92	0.67	1.05	0.78	1.30
MARIAN GABORIK	Columbus	0.55	0.62	0.41	0.50	0.52	1.14
CORY EMMERTON	Detroit	0.85	0.92	0.86	1.29	0.90	1.08
VALTTERI FILPPULA	Detroit	0.61	0.69	0.64	0.77	0.66	1.14
JORDAN EBERLE	Edmonton	0.81	0.97	0.85	1.01	0.90	1.20
ALES HEMSKY	Edmonton	0.68	0.75	0.74	0.64	0.75	1.11
TOMAS FLEISCHMANN	Florida	0.88	0.88	0.97	0.86	0.92	1.00
MARCEL GOC	Florida	0.58	0.60	0.68	1.13	0.65	1.04
PETER MUELLER	Florida	0.52	0.73	0.58	0.68	0.64	1.41
BRAD RICHARDSON	Los Angeles	0.64	0.70	2.48	1.74	1.74	1.09
DUSTIN PENNER	Los Angeles	0.30	0.36	1.75	1.57	1.10	1.22
DWIGHT KING	Los Angeles	0.56	0.57	0.41	0.48	0.48	1.02
PIERRE-MARC BOUCHARD	Minnesota	0.87	0.90	0.96	1.07	0.94	1.04
CAL CLUTTERBUCK	Minnesota	0.69	0.70	0.91	1.02	0.79	1.01
ZACH PARISE	Minnesota	0.77	0.79	0.79	1.02	0.79	1.03
MATT HALISCHUK	Nashville	0.73	0.83	0.82	1.50	0.82	1.14
PAUL GAUSTAD	Nashville	0.35	0.37	0.58	0.44	0.49	1.06
DAVID CLARKSON	New Jersey	0.79	0.92	1.04	0.73	0.97	1.16
PATRIK ELIAS	New Jersey	0.80	0.89	0.70	0.77	0.77	1.11
ADAM HENRIQUE	New Jersey	0.90	0.98	0.28	0.59	0.50	1.08
MATT MOULSON	NY Islanders	0.48	0.55	2.24	3.21	1.25	1.15
MATT MARTIN	NY Islanders	0.88	0.97	1.09	1.86	1.03	1.11
FRANS NIELSEN	NY Islanders	0.47	0.50	1.24	1.02	0.99	1.07
KEITH AUCOIN	NY Islanders	0.57	0.91	0.49	0.73	0.62	1.60
RYANE CLOWE	NY Rangers	0.30	0.33	1.26	1.16	0.90	1.10
CARL HAGELIN	NY Rangers	0.71	0.91	0.85	1.10	0.88	1.28
MILAN MICHALEK	Ottawa	0.89	0.91	1.30	0.43	1.10	1.03
ZACK SMITH	Ottawa	0.58	0.64	1.12	1.28	0.89	1.10
ERIK CONDRA	Ottawa	0.70	0.72	0.85	0.37	0.80	1.04
CHRIS NEIL	Ottawa	0.62	0.70	0.60	0.69	0.65	1.14
CLAUDE GIROUX	Philadelphia	0.66	0.70	1.01	1.17	0.90	1.06
MIKKEL BOEDKER	Phoenix	0.45	0.54	1.37	0.61	1.01	1.19
LAURI KORPIKOSKI	Phoenix	0.66	0.92	0.59	0.78	0.73	1.39
JAROME IGINLA	Pittsburgh	0.76	0.76	1.02	1.21	0.90	1.00
JAMES SHEPPARD	San Jose	0.74	0.94	1.88	0.94	1.52	1.27
RAFFI TORRES	San Jose	0.89	0.93	1.43	1.63	1.19	1.04
T.J. GALIARDI	San Jose	0.70	0.81	1.34	1.87	1.10	1.15
JOE THORNTON	San Jose	0.58	0.65	0.82	0.91	0.78	1.12
PATRICK MARLEAU	San Jose	0.87	0.95	0.56	0.18	0.75	1.10
ANDREW DESJARDINS	San Jose	0.72	0.83	0.15	0.23	0.32	1.15
CHRIS PORTER	St. Louis	0.72	0.88	1.75	2.30	1.32	1.21
ADAM CRACKNELL	St. Louis	0.57	0.65	1.29	0.86	0.96	1.13
JADEN SCHWARTZ	St. Louis	0.73	0.99	0.85	0.00	0.92	1.35
ALEX BURROWS	Vancouver	0.84	0.96	0.82	1.11	0.89	1.14
JAY BEAGLE	Washington	0.43	0.47	3.32	4.96	1.32	1.09
MATHIEU PERREAULT	Washington	0.45	0.54	1.47	1.99	0.98	1.21
WOJTEK WOLSKI	Washington	0.61	0.67	0.49	0.67	0.55	1.11
NIK ANTROPOV	Winnipeg	0.50	0.59	1.00	1.23	0.83	1.17
ERIC TANGRADI	Winnipeg	0.83	0.87	0.43	0.29	0.52	1.04

Defensemen Relative to 3-yr average
Player Name	Team	Sh%	G/60	A/60	1stA/60	Pts/60	SOG/60
ADAM MCQUAID	Boston	0.79	0.79	0.56	0.68	0.63	1.01
CHRISTIAN EHRHOFF	Buffalo	0.77	0.79	1.19	1.93	1.06	1.04
JAMIE MCBAIN	Carolina	0.50	0.51	1.06	1.11	0.92	1.03
JAY HARRISON	Carolina	0.58	0.60	1.10	1.32	0.91	1.03
MARC-ANDRE BERGERON	Carolina	0.58	0.75	0.71	0.75	0.73	1.29
JAN HEJDA	Colorado	0.40	0.49	1.10	1.47	0.93	1.23
JACK JOHNSON	Columbus	0.76	0.79	1.26	1.38	1.13	1.05
ALEX GOLIGOSKI	Dallas	0.70	0.73	1.51	1.04	1.24	1.04
LADISLAV SMID	Edmonton	0.64	0.71	0.43	0.00	0.50	1.11
DREW DOUGHTY	Los Angeles	0.35	0.48	0.51	0.57	0.49	1.36
FRANCIS BOUILLON	Montreal	0.68	0.86	1.83	2.84	1.59	1.25
JONATHON BLUM	Nashville	0.31	0.38	1.41	1.13	1.01	1.21
ROMAN JOSI	Nashville	0.37	0.45	1.05	1.51	0.81	1.21
ANDY GREENE	New Jersey	0.80	0.91	0.65	0.23	0.68	1.15
LUBOMIR VISNOVSKY	NY Islanders	0.41	0.53	0.44	0.34	0.48	1.32
MICHAEL DEL ZOTTO	NY Rangers	0.18	0.28	1.59	2.93	1.11	1.53
DAN GIRARDI	NY Rangers	0.44	0.56	1.08	0.63	0.97	1.27
SERGEI GONCHAR	Ottawa	0.48	0.54	1.66	1.29	1.41	1.14
ERIK KARLSSON	Ottawa	0.57	0.88	1.30	1.63	1.15	1.54
BRUNO GERVAIS	Philadelphia	0.52	0.61	1.12	0.47	0.98	1.18
LUKE SCHENN	Philadelphia	0.34	0.41	0.73	0.43	0.66	1.20
OLIVER EKMAN-LARSSON	Phoenix	0.64	0.68	1.52	1.56	1.21	1.06
ERIC BREWER	Tampa Bay	0.76	0.78	1.55	1.98	1.20	1.04

NHL ’13-14 B2B Rested/Tired: Alberta Dirty Little Secret Edition

Gus Katsaros — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:35:45 +0000

Continuing the tradition, this is the annual back-to-back breakdown the NHL schedule between rested and tired teams. The 2013-14 version features an NHL post-lockout #1 record based around the Battle of Alberta .. sort of. I won't get into the heavy details here simply I'll just try to present breakdown by teams.

I’ve written about this extensively in the past including effects and impact on NHL realignment.

The underlying data is in a google doc here. There are three tabs in the document that correlate to the information described below.

The definitions are below.

Rested – team that has not played the previous night facing a team in the second night of a back-to-back set on consecutive nights.
Tired – a team playing its second game on consecutive nights versus a team that is rested and not played the previous night.

This season's leader is the Calgary Flames, with 20 games as a rested team. We’ll explore in a little more detail just a little further down the post the interesting little twist.

Divisional rivals Anaheim and San Jose rank second and third. Rounding out the bottom of the list is Washington with five games as a rested team, followed by Montréal, Nashville and Dallas (7).

In total, 325 games played features a rested versus tired team making up a slight uptick over 25% of the schedule.

Turning our attention to the other end, the New Jersey Devils lead the league with 16 games as a tired team. The Vancouver Canucks and defending Stanley Cup champions Chicago Blackhawks are tied for second with 15. Taken at the bottom is the Colorado Avalanche with six, followed by a four way tie between Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Tampa Bay and San Jose.

Over the entire spectrum of the NHL the average amount of games as a rested team is 10.8 meaning Calgary doubles the NHL average with 20.

NHL realignment missed the divisional impact to teams where an opponent would be traveling through an area, let's say Alberta, playing the Edmonton – Calgary or vice versa combination, effectively giving the team playing the first night a disadvantage over the team that's playing on the second night.

Rested teams have a tendency to win at about 0.596% clip.

Alberta's Dirty Little Secret

The Calgary Flames in 2013-14 are beneficiaries of a number of teams traveling through Edmonton first on the first night of a back-to-back and then skipping right over to Calgary for the second game in two nights.

Of the 20 games as a rested team, 13 feature a team that played Edmonton the night before - representing a new NHL post-lockout record. Five of those individual instances involve a divisional rival. Only four teams end up playing Calgary and then traveling to Edmonton, causing this to be one of the greatest imbalances perhaps even in the post-lockout NHL and a cause of concern especially with a different playoff format.

To put that into context how high 13 games really is, Edmonton on night one and Calgary on night two combination has occurred 28 times in the 6-year span between the lockouts not including the lockout shortened season of 2012-13.

Those 13 games represent slightly less than 50% of the total amount of games spanning six seasons. Reversing the combination produces 37 total games representing 35% of the six season total where Edmonton has the advantage of being a team on the second night.

Edmonton has led this category three times (Tied with Anaheim in ’11-12) over the six season span with the LA Kings leading twice – both instances in double digits, both against the Anaheim Ducks. LA had the previous high of 12 games in the 2008-09 season.

Now, one could try to make a case and justify this from a scheduling perspective that Calgary is in a position where they're trying to rebuild and the outcome here really doesn't matter. From a more sinister perspective, perhaps the schedule makers considered the impact it could have on Edmonton making the playoffs and tipping the scales to the team that isn’t as likely to be involved in the playoff race.

The situation could become very different if Calgary was to somehow make a run. Edmonton is already on the bubble to make the dance in Spring 2014 and it’s not like they need added divisional pressure. This is also an issue to monitor moving forward.

Florida and Tampa Bay have a similar back-and-forth, historically and that trend continues in 2013-14. Florida faces a team on the second night of a back-to-back after they've played Tampa Bay the previous night. That's three times less than the five teams that travel to Tampa Bay after playing Florida the previous night.

In general the Pacific division is affected most. In fact the Florida teams are the only others outside of the Pacific that feature this combination of teams playing through divisional rivals over three times.

Congratulations to the Flames setting records before the season even began.

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:
@KatsHockey
@mckeenshockey

NHL Playoffs Preview: West

Gus Katsaros (stats/graphics), Carl Lemelin (writeups) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:43:01 +0000

Welcome to the playoffs!

This preview is fairly simple to navigate through, but there are some elements that require some explanation.

Stats and graphics were compiled and prepared by Gus Katsaros and the writeups were written by Carl Lemelin

Each image can be blown up to a larger size by clicking on the graphic. The first click will take you to a splash page, and then clicking on the same image on that page will blow it up to its original size.

Every series preview has the same format.

All data was compiled using timeonice.com and NHL.com

The images are as follows:

A game-by-game Corsi breakdown by components, with the colors defined by the legend at the bottom.

Underneath is the head-to-head matchup broken down by their basic Corsi makeups.

The main image is a side by side comparison of the team's season plotted using the Fenwick Close. (Note; Archiving for FenClose began Feb 18 which will produce and N/A for games prior to that date.

Underneath all the visuals is a table with the head-to-head matchups. Most of the headings are self-explanatory, but the structure has the team that placed higher in the standings as the 'team', with the Decision, home/road and other columns based on that team versus their opponent.
Clicking on the team in the column will open a new window with the gamesheet for that game (hover over the team for a title).

TS is 'times shorthanded'.

The FenClo columns are the Fenwick Close for each of the sides, as they entered the game against their opponents.

Colored rows are as follows:
A BLACK row indicates the 'Team' column played the previous night as part of a back-to-back set, while the 'OPP' was rested.
A BLUE row indicates both teams played the previous night as part of a back-to-back set.

Enjoy the preview and if you're team is in the playoffs, enjoy round 1.

**********************
Via Carl Lemelin

Most of the playoff previews you’ll read will post series opponents’ records during the season series. This has proven to be a very bad indicator of the eventual outcome in recent years; too many outside factors can influence the results, regular season series being spread out over 6 months (4 this year). But there is one thing the past 6 Stanley Cup finalists have in common: they’ve all finished the regular season on a high note.

All but one of these teams were at least 3 games over .500 during their final 10 regular season games. The 2010 Philadelphia Flyers (4-5-1) were the exception, but even they finished well going 3-1 in their final 4 games. The collective .642 points percentage of the group in the final stretch is enough to convince me that strong finishing squads have much better odds of making a significant run in the post-season.

In this year’s Wild West, Chicago St-Louis and Detroit fall into this category of momentum builders. Here are the Western Conference first round match-ups as we see them (Last-10 records in parentheses).

**********************

Date

Team

Dec

Opp

PPG

PPOpp

PPGA

FenClo LAK

FenClo StL

2/11/2013

STL

LAK

#N/A

3/5/2013

STL

LAK

55.11

58.55

3/28/2013

STL

LAK

54.46

58.14

4-ST-LOUIS (7-3-0) vs 5-LOS-ANGELES (5-3-2)
This may be a homer series. Both teams are very comfortable on their own ice. The difference may be that the Blues are almost as confident on the road (14-9-1), but not the Kings (8-12-4). The Kings did sweep the Blues in last spring’s second round, but Ken Hitchcock is a master at making adjustments. Jonathan Quick and Drew Doughty, key playoff contributors for the champs, have been shadows of themselves in this short season. St-Louis may have the deepest overall roster in the league and they’re playing hungry; they look like last year’s Kings. Carl says: Blues in 5.

**********

Date

Team

Dec

Opp

PPG

PPOpp

PPGA

FenClo Van

FenClo SJS

1/27/2013

VAN

SJS

#N/A

3/5/2013

VAN

SJS

53.68

52.27

4/1/2013

VAN

SJS

53.67

51.54

3-VANCOUVER (5-4-1) vs 6-SAN JOSE (5-5-0)
Attention to details will determine the winner of this series. Of these two evenly matched teams, the Sharks have an edge in scoring depth. Derek Roy and Ryan Kesler must help spread the Canucks’offense, preventing San Jose from concentrating all their checking efforts on the Sedin twins. Kevin Bieksa must also find his 2011-12 form, help move the puck north efficiently and put shots on net from the point on the PP, a unit that has struggled all season. We believe these ‘ifs’ will materialize and like Vancouver’s depth on defense; Corey Schneider over Antti Niemi. Carl says: Canucks in 6.

*******************

Date

Team

Dec

Opp

PPG

PPOpp

PPGA

FenClo CHI

FenClo MIN

1/30/2013

CHI

MIN

#N/A

3/5/2013

CHI

MIN

55.31

45.9

4/9/2013

CHI

MIN

55.7

47.88

1-CHICAGO (7-2-1) vs 8-MINNESOTA (4-5-1)
The Wild backed into the playoffs and were plagued by inconsistent play throughout the season. By contrast, the Hawks have had one of the most dominant regular seasons in NHL history. The major indicators all point toward the Windy City: 5-on-5 play (CHI-1st, MIN-24th), PK% (CHI-3rd, MIN-18th) and SV% (Crawford-.926, Backstrom-.909). Minny simply doesn’t have an answer for Chicago’s overall depth, especially on defense once you get past Ryan Suter. The three-headed monster of Patrick Kane-Jonathan Toews-Marian Hossa dominates this unfair fight. Carl says: Blackhawks in 5.

***********************

Date

Team

Dec

Opp

PPG

PPOpp

PPGA

ANA FenCl

Det FenClo

2/15/2013

ANA

DET

#N/A

3/22/2013

ANA

DET

46.55

51.54

3/24/2013

ANA

DET

46.58

51.52

2-ANAHEIM (5-4-1) vs 7-DETROIT (5-2-3)
Besides the obvious points difference (10 more for the Ducks), there are only two key areas in which these well matched opponents have had a clear edge on each other: Anaheim’s 4th ranked PP vs Detroit’s 15th and The Wings’ Jimmy Howard out-stopping Jonas Hiller (.923 to .913 SV%). Both teams possess proven warriors on their top lines, but Mike Babcock has more quality forward depth to draw upon (specifically Johan Franzen and Valtteri Filppula). Anaheim’s defense is stronger individually, but Babcock’s system seems to have taken hold lately and his forwards are better backcheckers. Carl says: Red Wings in 6.

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:
@KatsHockey
@mckeenshockey

NHL Playoff Preview: East

Gus Katsaros (stats/graphics), Peter Harling (writeups) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42:46 +0000

Welcome to the playoffs!

This preview is fairly simple to navigate through, but there are some elements that require some explanation.

Stats and graphics were compiled and prepared by Gus Katsaros and the writeups were written by Peter Harling

Every series preview has the same format.

All data was compiled using timeonice.com and NHL.com

The images are as follows:

A game-by-game Corsi breakdown by components, with the colors defined by the legend at the bottom.

Underneath is the head-to-head matchup broken down by their basic Corsi makeups.

The main image is a side by side comparison of the team's season plotted using the Fenwick Close. (Note; Archiving for FenClose began Feb 18 which will produce and N/A for games prior to that date.

TS is 'times shorthanded'.

The FenClo columns are the Fenwick Close for each of the sides, as they entered the game against their opponents.

Enjoy the preview and if you're team is in the playoffs, enjoy round 1.

********

Date	Team	Dec	OS	HR	Opp	GF	GA	PPG	PPOpp	PPGA	TS	SF	SA	FenClo BOS	FenClo TOR
2/2/2013	BOS	W		R	TOR	1	0	0	2	0	3	34	21	#N/A	#N/A
3/7/2013	BOS	W		H	TOR	4	2	0	3	0	3	25	27	55.81	44.79
3/23/2013	BOS	L		R	TOR	2	3	0	1	0	2	33	13	54.51	45.34
3/25/2013	BOS	W	SO	H	TOR	2	2	0	1	1	3	29	25	54.87	44.98

The Bruins have owned the Leafs since the Kessel trade. That trade will overshadow this series and may be a psychological edge for the Bruins. However, Boston is struggling right now, and looks nothing like the team that won the Cup two years ago. This season Toronto has had some success against the Bruins but the Leafs will need James Reimer to best Tuukka Rask in goaltending. As well the Leafs will rely heavily on a few select players (Kessel, Lupul, and Kadri) for offense. Phil Kessel has been a top six scorer in the regular season for the past two years, but has had little success in his ten games against his former team.

This series will play a role in how history views the infamous Kessel-Seguin/Hamilton trade, and may even have an influence on how much longer Kessel remains a Leaf.

Another important factor could be Boston’s powerplay. Toronto plays an aggressive, physical game and will give the Bruins some power play chances. Boston’s power play is dead last in the NHL despite all their offensive weapons. If it does not make the Leafs pay for taking penalties, it could cost them.
Despite recent history between the two teams where the Bruins have totally dominated, this could be a close series, and if the Leafs were to beat Boston, now could be the time as they are not playing their best.

Fantasy outlook: Boston has too much depth and experience in the playoffs to be denied. The playoffs are all about momentum, and while Boston has none right now, that can change in one shift. Best fantasy bets, Bergeron, Marchand, Chara, Seguin, Lupul, Bozak, and James Van Riemsdyk.

*********************

Date	Team	Dec	OS	HR	Opp	GF	GA	PPG	PPOpp	PPGA	TS	SF	SA	FenClo MTL	FenClo OTT
1/30/2013	MTL	L		R	OTT	1	5	1	6	2	5	32	27	#N/A	#N/A
2/3/2013	MTL	W		H	OTT	2	1	0	5	1	3	32	33	#N/A	#N/A
2/25/2013	MTL	O	SO	R	OTT	1	1	1	4	0	1	45	24	52.67	51.68
3/13/2013	MTL	W	SO	H	OTT	3	3	2	5	2	3	45	32	52.77	50.85

This will be an interesting series to keep an eye on. On one hand, the Habs end up in second in the East, a year removed from finishing at the bottom of the conference. On the other hand, despite lengthy injuries to the Sens number one centre, starting goalie, the reigning Norris trophy winner and top winger, the Sens still managed to win games enough to earn a post season seeding.

Montreal has struggled during the home stretch and Carey Price in particular has not been playing very well. Unless Price can flip the switch immediately and rediscover his game, Montreal could be in trouble. Montreal will be depending heavily on rookie sensations Brendan Gallagher and Alex Galchenyuk to continue their strong play. P.K. Subban has also been a force for Montreal and has had a Norris Trophy calibre season. The loss to injury of Alexei Emelin will be significant.

Ottawa managed to push the Rangers to seven games last year in the playoffs largely on the shoulders of Craig Anderson’s outstanding performance. If Anderson can deliver the elite level stats he has produced when healthy this season it may be enough to upset the second seed Habs. Ottawa also has a rally cry around “win it for Alfie”. Aside from Spezza, the Senators have returned to health, most notably Erik Karlsson. Karlssons return will address the offense issue for Ottawa who finished 27th in goals for in the NHL during the regular season.

Because Ottawa was so depleted by injury may be the only reason they are below Montreal in the standings. Ottawa has elite goaltending, speed, grit, leadership, and the acquisition of Cory Conacher has provided them with some more secondary scoring.

Fantasy outlook: These two teams split the regular season series, during which time the Sens were ravaged by injuries. Ottawa can adapt to play a variety of styles of hockey and match up very well against Montreal. This has the potential to be a seven game series, with Ottawa prevailing. Best fantasy bets, Erik Karlsson, Craig Anderson, Subban, and Price.

******************

Date	Team	Dec	OS	HR	Opp	GF	GA	PPG	PPOpp	PPGA	TS	SF	SA	FenClo PIT	FenClo NYI
1/29/2013	PIT	L		H	NYI	1	4	0	3	2	2	38	24	#N/A	#N/A
2/5/2013	PIT	W		R	NYI	4	2	1	3	0	7	26	34	#N/A	#N/A
3/10/2013	PIT	W		H	NYI	6	1	2	4	0	3	28	24	51.97	49.18
3/22/2013	PIT	W		R	NYI	4	2	0	2	0	2	25	35	51.34	49.77
3/30/2013	PIT	W		H	NYI	2	0	0	2	0	4	27	35	51.24	49.7

The New York Islanders have returned to the post season, and their reward is a first round match up against the heavily favoured Pittsburgh Penguins. The Islanders are an underrated team with young talented players like Matt Moulson, Josh Bailey, Frans Nielsen, and Kyle Okposo, veteran leaders such as Lubomir Visnovsky, Mark Streit, Brad Boyes and Evgeni Nabokov and a budding super star in John Tavares. After years of stockpiling high draft picks and prospects, the Islanders boast surprising depth. While it is refreshing to see this dynasty franchise of yester years beginning to return to respectability, they are horribly out gunned in this series against the Penguins.

Pittsburgh’s overwhelming top end talent lead by two of best players on the planet in Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are insulated by an all-star cast consisting of Kris Letang, James Neal, Kris Kunitz, and Marc-Andre Fleury. Not to mention their deadline acquisitions of Brendan Morrow, Doug Murray and Jarome Iginla. The talent Pittsburgh boasts will be more than the Islanders can handle in my opinion.

Fantasy outlook: Pittsburgh wins this series and has the ability to win several games in blow-out fashion. The only concern about picking Pittsburgh players in round one is they may only play four games.

********************

Date

Team

Dec

Opp

PPG

PPOpp

PPGA

FenClo WSH

FenClo NYR

2/17/2013

WSH

NYR

#N/A

3/10/2013

WSH

NYR

47.19

53.99

3/24/2013

WSH

NYR

45.95

53.37

The return of Alex Ovechkin to elite status has vaulted the Caps to first in the South East division and the third seed. Washington has had a tremendous second half while the Rangers have squeaked in. Despite this, look for the Rangers to see second round action. Washington has had plenty of regular season success in the past only to flame out against a superior defensive team with a hot goalie in the playoffs. History should repeat itself again as the Rangers are a superior defensive team who hits, blocks shots and boasts arguably the best goalie in the NHL in Henrik Lundquist.

Washington will have to rely on their power play. It was deadly in the regular season and will have to be in the post season. Ovechkin is the catalyst with the man advantage, either scoring off the one timer or forcing the opposition to over defend him, leaving a teammate open.

There is a reason why the Rangers were preseason favorites to be Stanley Cup Champions this year. They are built for the playoffs and added superstar Rick Nash. After their deadline additions of Ryane Clowe and Derik Brassard they have addressed their depth concerns and should be dangerous.

Fantasy outlook: This could also be a full seven game series but a low scoring one. These two teams met in last year’s playoffs in the second round with the Rangers prevailing. Best fantasy bets, since his arrival from Columbus Brassard has exploded. Brad Richards has had a miserable season, but always brings it in the playoffs and should be a reliable option again. Ovechkin is red hot and should be motivated to prove he can do it in the playoffs as well or better.

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:
@KatsHockey
@mckeenshockey

The Bettman Mechanism

Gus Katsaros — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:44:47 +0000

As the season winds down and playoff hopes extinguish quick, the Bettman point and three-point games effects on the standings drive teams and fans nuts. All for the sake of parity. It’s an extra point created out of nothing.

Creation of the extra point without an underlying hard asset has a similar dilution to another concept.

Fiat money

G. Edward Griffin in the book The Creature from Jekyll Island points this out in what he describes as the Mandrake mechanism. Money is created without any hard asset to which its valued and as a result new currency dilutes the rest of the currency in circulation.

Mandrake was a comic strip character known to the author, so he chose to name this sleight of hand technique after him.

Gary Bettman is no magician, even if under his watch, a full season disappeared and two were shortened in front of his customer’s eyes.

The Bettman Point is similar to the Mandrake mechanism, only instead of Fiat money, it creates an extra point out of nothing. Fiat money devalues currency.

The ‘Bettman mechanism’ (as I shall refer to it going forward) devalues game winning goals according to Bruce McCurdy.

Meanwhile, in Gary Bettman's NHL a game winning goal has been effectively devalued

How did we get here?

TIES, OVERTIME AND EXTRA POINTS

In 2013 the trend to go into extra time has actually declined. It’s too early to interpret a small sample as a trend, especially with the variables attributed to a shortened season, like the logjam of points for teams trying to vie for a playoff spot.

This late in the season, it would be prudent to ensure getting to overtime to at least guarantee a standings point.

The table below breaks down the amount of extra time games versus total games played during the same time period late in each of the seasons.

In April the percentage of the schedule that required extra time game dipped below 20%, an NHL low since the shootout was born. Games going into overtime up to March 31, 2013: 126 games out of 520 total games - 24.23% of the schedule. A total of 126 extra points were created magically by the Bettman mechanism.

Season	Extra Time	Games Played	% of Sched
200506	64	257	24.90
200607	41	179	22.91
200708	38	155	24.52
200809	44	200	22.00
200910	61	206	29.61
201011	47	190	24.74
201112	53	182	29.12
201213	30	157	19.11

Dubbed the loser point was ironic considering the underlying reason the NHL employed it was actually as an incentive to win, and not a contentious point in an unfair scoring system.

The NHL made two fundamental changes in the league’s history. The first change was the implementation of overtime in 1983-84. Motivation was the incentive for teams to make an all-out push to win the game – but meant losing the point if they were scored against.

Overtime was a result of a rather steep incline in the occurrences of ties after post-1967 expansion through to the end of the 1970’s. By decade’s end, as the NHL was annexing the WHA to bloat to 21 teams, tie games were about to peak. In 1983-84 overtime became reality. Teams now had an extra five minutes to all out win. Or, they could bank the point and avoid the risk of losing the game.

The image below shows the steep incline from post-expansion to the end of the decade and points out the increase in ties up until the 1999 introduction of the Bettman mechanism

TIES POST EXPANSION

Overtime may have reduced the rate and amount of real tie games, but the steady creep to higher levels is fairly evident (the dip represents the lockout shortened 1995 season),

The NHL changed during the 1990’s too, with expansion adding new teams at regular intervals. This growth emerged amid adoption of the neutral zone trap. ‘The trap’ effectively reduced the ability to score goals and pulled scoring down.

Tie games crested at just fewer than 300 per season before spiking and crossing.

The view via percentage shows the steep incline in the mid-1990s from 16% to over 22% at its peak that necessitated league intervention. The trap was becoming more common place and as scoring declined, holding a lead increased the occurrence of clutching and grabbing prompting Mario Lemieux to utter the infamous quote ascribing the NHL to a "garage league".

Teams entering overtime had little incentive to go all for the win, especially with a point on the line. One mistake in overtime cost your team a point rather than gaining a full two, it wasn’t wise to take risks.

The Bettman mechanism was supposed to address this as an attempt to encourage teams to go for the extra point in overtime instead of playing to bank a single point.

The Bettman mechanism had an adverse and undesirable effect.

Stimulating teams to go for the win with one point banked didn’t have a positive effect. Teams were taking advantage of the free point and overtime games were still on the rise.

Research into this topic was conducted in depth by Phil Birnbaum in his Overtime Incentive Study. The study’s focus was to determine if teams were incentivized to play for overtime, causing the numbers to increase as in the graph above. Birnbaum had this to say about overtime games.

“With the new system, it would be in every team's interest to play a lot of overtime games. Currently, a team which loses as many OT games as it wins would capture 1.5 points for each such game. To match that in non-overtime games, the team would have to win 75% of its non-overtime games – and hardly any teams are that good. Even back when OT games were worth only 2.5 points, a non-OT team would have to have a .625 winning percentage to match the points of an average OT team.

The data supported the theory. The implementation of the guaranteed point inflated the occurrence of overtime games.

A different approach was required. Ties were still too frequent and the proliferation of overtime games needed tinkering.

Not before the 2004-05 lockout where the earth opened up, swallowed the NHL brain trust and from that emerged from the void with the idea to implement a shootout. Games would no longer end with a tie; there would be a definitive winner, every game

SHOOTOUTS

The introduction of the extra point in 1999 raised the proportion of overtime games from about 18% to about 21%. Then, the introduction of the shootout bumped it up even further, to about 26%.

Via Phil Birnbaum Overtime study

A similar conclusion was determined by Behind The Net founder Gabriel Desjardins after the implementation of the shootout.

Teams seem to have figured out that dragging 10 games to the shootout is as good as winning five more games in regulation and can vault a team into the playoffs.

Gabe’s research showed a dip in the scoring rate late in games, pushing further the notion that teams are playing for a regulation tie, banking at least a point.

Bruce McCurdy explained the value thrust upon the game-tying goal, an in relation to a game-winner.

Bruce concludes that a game-tying goal is actually worth 1.5 standings points, effectively devaluing the game-winning goal to a value of 1 point in the standings. A similar conclusion emerged from Birnbaum’s research, effectively labeling an overtime game as worth 1.5 points.

There’s the explanation in there about the “3-point must system”, awarding three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime/shootout win with a guaranteed point going to the losing team in extra time

@katshockey By getting to OT,team guarantees itself 1 pt with a chance at "the" 2nd. Under 3-point must, OT also guarantees sacrificing 1 pt

— Bruce McCurdy (@BruceMcCurdy) April 16, 2013

Bruce names this the ‘three point must’ system. Every game ends in three points and it balances the universe, thus genuinely restoring .500 as a true indication of a mediocre team. The Bettman mechanism artificially inflates win percentage.

@katshockey "3-point must" system would instantly restore .500 (a.k.a. .50000000000) to its meaningful position at centre of reference frame

— Bruce McCurdy (@BruceMcCurdy) April 16, 2013

That seems to be the obvious step to make the changes mathematically compatible. Most feel the 3-point system is the answer, but I feel there’s deeper motivation than strictly math that incorporates current trends in scoring. Mathematical motivation aside, in one game, with one set of circumstances, the mathematical equilibrium isn't what players and coaches are pondering. They are trying to maximize points.

@katshockey You make a shootout win worth less than a regulation win,& teams are less likely to be happy to wait for SO & take their chances

— Bruce McCurdy (@BruceMcCurdy) April 16, 2013

While merited, is there a clear motivational factor to win games in overtime if they are worth the same amount of points as a shootout win? There isn’t any incentive in that regard. I also think that teams that intentionally play for the shootout are relatively low.

Give a team three points in a regulation win and the enticement is to end the game in regulation. At all costs. I feel this is an enticement to go back to modified forms of the trap earlier in games, instead of looking for ways to score and create offense.

Scoring trends are clear; and they’re all in decline.

There’s a corresponding dip in goals against in wins as well.

A decline in scoring is the first step in the downward spiral into another dead puck era. Instead of clutching and grabbing, it will just be something else, blocked shots for example. Power plays are already declining and there’s more obstruction creep than when the league first clamped down. These aren’t exactly signs that the NHL is adapting to open up offense, but the opposite.

Between lockouts, teams fired less than 30 shots on average in regulation games. (note the image has flipped the values for 2010-11 where 31.96 and 31.56 are displayed for the incorrect data point. They should be reversed).

Power plays are also on the downtrend. Unless any new rule changes are introduced that offers a paradigm shift on the calling of penalties, this trend is likely to even out at this point, never to return to the lofty heights of the first season after the '04-5 lockout.

And there’s been a corresponding drop in shots on goal and overall scoring.

If RTSS reports can be trusted, the trend for blocked shots was rising, but evening out by the end of the first lockout period. The pace for this lockout shortened season over an 82 game season has about 33673 blocked shots, somewhere a little closer to the top of the rankings rather than at the bottom.

The Bettman Mechanism wasn't the ideal solution as it was first meant to be once implemented. I feel with the introduction of guaranteed win/loss component when the shootout came to be, the Bettman point has lost it's original intention and is now a deterrent rather than an aid.

Perhaps the 3-point system is finally due.

But where's the motivation?

Follow the McKeen's team on Twitter:
@KatsHockey
@mckeenshockey

Montreal – McKeen's Hockey

Kats Krunch: Tale of Two Power Plays

Tampa Bay Lightning

Dallas Stars

Kats Krunch: Q1 NHL Score-Adjusted Metrics & Situational TOI

GAME TIED

GAME DOWN BY A GOAL

GAME UP BY A GOAL

NHL Weekly Breakdown 2013-14

AHL: 2013-14 3-in-3 Sets

2013-14 SEASON SETS

GAMES 1 2 & 3

Rate Stats Relative to 3-Year Average Ratios – Overperformers

Relative to 3-yr average - Defensemen

Relative to 3-yr average - forwards

Relative to 3-yr average - forwards sh% ratio < 1.5

Relative to 3-yr average - defensemen sh% ratio > 1.5

Relative to 3-yr average - forwards sh% > 1.5

Relative to 3-yr average - Defensemen sh% ratio < 1.5

Rate Stats Relative to 3-Year Average Ratios – Underperformers

RATIOS

SHOTS/60

Underperformed

Forwards Relative to 3-yr average

Defensemen Relative to 3-yr average

NHL ’13-14 B2B Rested/Tired: Alberta Dirty Little Secret Edition

Alberta's Dirty Little Secret

NHL Playoffs Preview: West

NHL Playoff Preview: East

The Bettman Mechanism

TIES, OVERTIME AND EXTRA POINTS

TIES POST EXPANSION

SHOOTOUTS