The trouble with drafting goaltenders

During my look at the Sutter's draft history as the Flames GM, I commented that I was surprised the club drafted two goalies in a single year (Keetley and Lalande in '05). That and the preponderance of goaltending prospects the organization (the two above plus McElhinney, Irving and James Spratt) has got me wondering about goalies recently, in particular the draft/develop part.

Well, I've come to the shaky but ever strengthening conclusion that drafting goaltenders is just about a complete waste of time.

Bear with me.

Utility

Goaltending is a wholly unique position and one that is paradoxical by nature. It is arguably the most difficult role in team sports and probably the most important one in the game. On the other hand, no other position is more team dependent since a goalie can only exert influence on one half of the goal differential equation - goals against. In a game of six goalies versus six skaters, the former loses every single time because the latter can both score and defend. Goalies can only play for the shut-out: they can't check anyone or shoot from the point during the power-play.

A goalies influence is deep, therefore, but narrow. Outside of stopping the puck (which, of course, is a vital function) he is pretty much useless.

Various issues afflict the development of goaltenders. They have vastly different needs and parameters as they progress relative to skaters. The margin of error for prospective 'tenders is slimmer than any other position: there is no hiding a goalie on the 4th line, or with better line mates, or with a couple of shifts a game. A goalie's night is always 60+ minutes long (barring the hook) and the consequences of his mistakes are always significant (goal against). As such, goalies dont get the same opportunity to work their way up through a depth chart like forwards and defenders. There are usually 12 or 13 forwards and 6-8 defensemen on any given team, many with differing roles that are parceled out according to idiosyncratic abilities. Guys who can't score, defend. Guys who can't defend, score. Some do both. Others fight, draw penalties or pester. A few are only good at special teams. What's more, skaters can slowly grow into their roles, cushioned by the soft bosom of "depth", meaning older and better guys are there to carry the mail while the kid gains experience.

There are no such options for Mr.Sieve: if he can't reliably stop the puck, he's finished. Even those goalies relegated to back-up, playing a few contests a year, are mercilessly alone in the crease when the game starts. A single bad mistake - a slap shot from center ice that squeaks through your trapper - can end night or a career.

I can identify two resultant difficulties goalie developments:

1.) there is only 2 roster spots for goaltenders at each level - starter and back-up. An organization can't have a lot of goalies on hand with the hope of culling the few sharp ones from a wide field like they can with skaters. Brent Krahn, a Flames former first rounder into whom the club has sunk a bunch of time and money, is out the door this year because there just isn't any room for him anymore.

2.) High pressure development. Small number of spots + low margin for error = brutal development environment.

For an up-and-comer, displacing an established starter is very difficult. The nature of the position means teams are rarely willing or able to experiment with a new 'tender or allow him to "find his legs". No, a goalie has to be at least as good or better than the guy ahead of him in order to get the time and opportunity to play.

What all this means is:

- Excess goalies in a system are basically useless.

- Working your way up through a system as a goalie is a long, difficult, pressure-filled process.

- There are way more goalies than there are roster spots for goalies.

Value

Another apparent paradox: goalies are worth next to nothing on the trade market. Anything outside of an honest-to-goodness established top 5 puck-stopper might get you a prospect, a draft pick or even nothing at all. Again, despite the relative difficulty and importance of the position, the league-wide need is strictly limited. There are around 700 players in the NHL currently...several hundred forwards, several hundred defensemen and about 50 or 60 goalies. And a bunch of those are superfluous back-ups that could likely be swapped out for a whole host of prospects that are bubbling underneath (right Andrew Raycroft?). Maybe half of those are starters in the league. And maybe a small percentage of those guys have results that are worth trading for. And those guys are almost never available, meaning there's a median class of goaltenders that are good enough to be better than their back-ups, but virtually inter-changable with each other. Again, a team can always be looking for more scoring or more defense or the like...but there really isn't such a thing as "more goaltending". There's only better goaltending and a new goalie has to be a significant improvement above the current guy to garner any interest at all. Even then, a team that supplants their starter with someone else is almost always stuck with a player and contract that are suddenly expendable (Nikolai Khabibulin and Dwayne Roloson are good examples) but is worth jack squat on the trade market. Ilya Bryzgalov, Manny Legace and Manny Fernandez are all capable goalies who were acquired for little to nothing by their current teams. The former was actually 10th in the league in terms of SV% last year and the Ducks handed him to the Coyotes via waivers*.

*(tangentially related, how stupid was it for Brian Burke to go out and sign Jonas Hiller to a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract when he already had two capable puck-stoppers on the roster? He spent money he didn't need to and rendered an asset of already dubious value even more worthless)

If NHL caliber goalies aren't worth much, goalie prospects are worth even less (as much as that's possible). If the Flames decide to trade any of their current crop (including Leland Irving) they'd be lucky to find an interested partner, let alone any kind of return. Because, again, spots and opportunities are extremely limited. I'd be willing to wager pretty much every single NHL franchise has their own Keetleys and Spratts and Lalandes and Irvings. With a batch of undrafted back-stops in various junior, minor and European leagues to choose from besides.

Because of the various unique issues afflicting the goaltender position, draft order seems to have less predictive power in terms of future success. I say "seems" because I haven't done a thorough investigation on the topic, but the conclusion strikes me as intuitive. I did take a look at last year's results with an interest in how well a players draft position matched with his performance. First skaters:



This is fairly simple. I took the top 30 scorers from last year and looked at where each guy got drafted. Turns out, 21 of the top 30 scorers (70%) were former first rounders. Only four of the thirty were chosen outside the first 4 rounds.

This suggests that GMs significantly improve the chances of landing a viable scorer earlier the draft. Which, of course, makes perfect sense. Higher pick, better player.

Now goalies:



Much different results. Only 8 of the top 30 (27%) SV% guys were picked in the first round. Thirteen of the 30, however, were chosen in the 5th round or below (43%). In fact, Ty Conklin and Tim Thomas, who placed inside the top 5, weren't even drafted at all (I have a "9" beside them because I wanted to stick values. Plus, the 9th round doesn't even exist anymore, so the effect is the same). Tomas Vokoun and Henrik Lundqvist were two of the best goalies in the league last year: they were 9th round and 7th round picks, respectively.

This is a very basic and cursory look at the predictive value of draft order for goalies, but this first glance suggests it is significantly reduced for goalies versus skaters.

Altogether:

- Goalies are very important but have a low utility relative to skaters. There are only a precious few positions for goalies in an organization and they can't differentiate themselves from competitors for the spots, outside of simply being better at stopping the puck.

- Having lots of goalies in a system is rather pointless since goaltending isn't additive like scoring.

- A goalies development path is often difficult and long.

- Goalie supply far outweighs demand.

- Outside of the best in the biz, goalies have very little value as trade assets. Goalie prospects are worth even less by several orders of magnitude.

- It is very difficult to predict a goalie prospects future success. Current SV% leaders were liberally sprinkled through-out the draft.

Based on all this Im forced to conclude that drafting goalies is next to pointless. Trading even a first round pick for, say, a decent NHL goaltender whenever you need one (which isn't that often) seems to make WAY more sense than drafting a goalie prospect with the same pick. The first option is proven at the NHL level and ready to contribute now. The prospect probably wont be ready for many years and may not be a viable NHL back-stopper anyhow. Meaning a GM in that position has to address the need immediately anyways (trade, sign, waiver wire) and chances are his first round goalie will turn out to be an un-tradable dud a few years down the road.

This is a sensible strategy, because, as established, goalies can be had cheaply. The Leafs moved a couple of draft picks for Toskala. Martin Biron, Alex Auld, Nicklas Backstrom...all acquired for picks or nothing at all. The best goalie to play in LA colors last year was Erik Ersberg (in terms of SV%). He was an unsigned Swedish 'tender the Kings turned to in desperation. He put together far superior numbers in his brief stint than their former first round pick Jonanthan Bernier.

It's hard to develop goalies and hard to determine whether young goalies will turn into bona fide NHLers. And there's a whole bunch of them out there, to the degree that there are always seems to be quality guys looking for work every year.

Were I a NHL GM, I would focus on skaters and forbid the drafting of goalies, aside from perhaps the odd perfunctory 6th or 7th rounder every 4 years or so...

Am I out in left field here?

Experience: a first glance

Matt and Tom Benjamin, two of the blogosphere's more cerebral contributors, had a bit of a go at each other recently over the subject of "experience" and it's effect on winning in the NHL.

First, some background. Matt broached the subject a little while ago in response to the youth vs. experience narrative being peddled during the cup finals. To summarize:

Experience is valuable insofar as most NHL players get better at their jobs over their first few seasons, but past that, its value is equal parts marginal and mythical...

The mythical part is rather straightforward. Tomas Holmstrom has been through the wars, but you can count on Sidney Crosby to make better decisions with the puck and create more scoring chances, because he's Sidney Crosby -- he's a better hockey player. Holmstrom's experience probably makes him a bit better player than a 21-year-old with his same size and skill set, but it doesn't make him a better player than Sidney Crosby.

Meaning experience is a pertinent contributor to success inasmuch as it effects the progression and development of a given player. To be explicit: hockey players have a virtual "floor" and "ceiling" in terms of their abilities and output. The range/levels of their floor/ceiling is mainly determined by skill, ie; how good a hockey player they are. Crosby's floor, for example, is well above Wayne Primeau's ceiling, meaning a team of 21 year-old Crosbys is likely to beat up on a team of 27 year-old Primeaus every single time, despite the fact the Primreau club would have the experiential edge.

Of course, a player's abilities (relative to himself) tend to expand as they physically mature and gain at-bats. It's generally accepted wisdom that most players usually reach their ceiling - or peak - around the age of 27/28 (usually after 5 seasons worth of play). The best tend to plateau for awhile, others drop off due to injury, fatigue, wear-and-tear. If Im not misrepresenting him, Matt's point is two-fold:

1.) A players skill, rather than his experience, is the more consequential factor when it comes to performance and success. While a 27 year-old Crosby is superior to a 21 year-old Crosby, the younger version is still probably superior to most other players in the league - experienced or otherwise.

2.) Experience, as it's framed and conceptualized in the MSM's typical narrative, is mythical since it's gains don't actually tend to be additive or useful after a player reaches his peak. For example, play-off games number 100 and 101 probably weren't any more instructive or useful to Chris Chelios than games number 80 and 81. At a certain point, like painting a window black to block out the sun, progressive "layers" of experience become less and less relevant.

Tom's reponse:

Hockey is a game of mistakes. David Staples has started counting errors leading to goals as a new statistic. The number isn't particularly valid, but the salient point is that it is not hard for him - or anyone else - to find mistakes on every scoring play or scoring chance.

As players gain experience, they eliminate mistakes. This - more than anything else - is how players improve. They learn what they can and cannot do at the NHL level. They learn when they can force the play and when patience and the safe play is right. They learn when they can pinch and when they cannot. They are less likely to take stupid penalties.

Even experienced players make mistakes and a creative player like Crosby or Malkin can actually force errors. Therefore there is no such thing as a perfect game. But experienced teams recover quickly and minimize the impact of the inevitable gaffes. Inexperienced teams tend to compound errors.

Tom's point is, I think, technically less principled and more pragmatic on the team-building front: a club with too many kids and rookies is more apt to be error-prone, as a larger portion of the team will be closer to it's "floor" than it's "ceiling". So while skill may be a a greater contributing factor - as in the Crosby vs. Primeau example - the issue is: there is a distribution of skill across players on a team (and the league in general) and the Crosbys and Malkins of the world are outliers, or, exceedingly rare. Therefore, a team with a lot of inexperienced players - players near the onset of their careers - is likely to be worse than the experienced squad since, all things being equal, the average NHLer at 27 is better than the average NHLer at 21.

Anyways, I promised in Tom's comment thread to put together some of the data to see what could be found. Here's what I cobbled together so far:

Experience (regular season games played) and points (07-08) by Team



Graphed


Method:

basically, I went through and summed the cumulative games played (regular season) of every player for each team's roster as a metric for experience. I considered using "age", but that seems like a pale proxy for experience as opposed to actually playing games.

I smoothed the data-set out a bit by excluding goaltenders and paring each roster down to just 23 skaters (roster sizes were variable, depending on trades, call-ups, injuries, etc.). The "23" figure was fairly arbitrary, though it seemed to capture all of the significant contributors while excluding cup-o-coffee guys. Probably anything from 18-22 would have worked as well.

Even though I posited earlier that experience becomes less relevant past a certain threshold, I decided to use cumulative games played as the independent variable because I initially wanted to investigate the prevailing (or "mythical") conception of experience and it's contribution to success. Perhaps, for example, there are benefits to being "veteran" beyond landing on the meaty portion of a player's career arc: dressing room presence, "leadership", respect for and from teammates, etc.

Not that this investigation speaks to that in any meaningful way. As you can see, the data yielded a positive correlation between "total games played" and "regular season points" for the prior year of 0.53. Not perfect, but hardly inconsequential. Unfortunately, as it's set-up now, the analysis probably conflates a lot of the factors we're trying to separate out and doesn't necessarily elucidate any causal relationships. This is more a beginning of the discussion than the conclusion I guess.

A more thorough investigation (by someone more math savvy) would be in order. I have the raw data, which can be be further parsed and correlated by anyone else interested. I may or may not do my own follow-up on the subject...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

There's a famous SNL skit about the Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper", featuring Christopher Walken and Will Ferrell. In it, Walken plays producer Bruce Dickinson who "has a fever for the cowbell". No doubt a fair measure of the skit's comedic value comes from the juxtaposition between Ferrel's typical obnoxious flailing and Walken's now iconic flat stare and wooden delivery. However, the underlying joke the skit is predicated upon is Dickinson's (Walken's) manic and nonsensical obsession with the cowbell, which is a relatively inconsequential aspect of the track.

In a way, I think a lot of fans and even coaches or GM's have their own "cowbells": those factors they foreground and elevate above and beyond their true values. Personally, when I played hockey myself, I was under-sized and I survived via speed and agility. Now, the smaller, quicker players are the ones that elicit my sympathies (which likely explains my continued quest to insulate Lombardi from criticism). One of the reasons the above inquiry was interesting to me is I consider "experience" to be one of Darryl Sutter's cowbells: he seems to have a fever for it, even though it's contributions to the tune may be minimal.

Of interest to Flames fans is the fact that Calgary was one of the most experienced clubs in the league last year, in terms of total career games played, but had only middling results. Most notably, Calgary had the fewest number of roster players with less than 410 games played (the equivalent of 5 full seasons of hockey), at 9. An unofficial per-team average for "inexperienced" players (less than 410 games) was about 12 or 13. A lot of teams with a greater number of inexperienced players did better than Calgary last year (though, a lot of teams with inexperienced players also did worse).

I see Sutter's experience fetish as a cowbell* because it seems to override the contribution of skill - the "floor/ceiling" factor - in a lot of cases. As previously discussed, guys like Eriksson, Primeau, Friesen etc. were given higher salaries and preference over younger potential replacement level players despite the fact they wouldn't be getting any better and were pricier. Beyond creating a hostile development environment (as previously discussed), the other problem in light of this discussion is Eriksson et al. sucked, experience or no. Their ceilings were low. The totality of events, that treasure trove of games played, didn't amount to much because, well - they just weren't very good players.

I think - and further explication of this issue may or may not prove this accurate - that Sutter can pound on that cowbell all he wants, but it wont make the track any better without taking into account other, salient factors (like skill-level, cap efficiency, etc).

*(Other Sutter cowbells include: Western Canadian guys, former first round draft picks and former "Sutter" players).

Flames Season Review - Part One.

I've decided to separate the season review into a couple of parts. This first post is centered on explicating the general processes that informed the Flames year, largely from the management perspective. In the second part, I'll concentrate on the particular manifestations of managements efforts in the Flames roster.

The best way to start off may be to establish that the 07-08 Calgary Flames weren't a bad team. They contended for the NW title for awhile in mid-season. They scored a couple more goals than they gave up. And they made the play-offs despite playing in a tough division and competitive conference.

The best way to continue may be to be to acknowledge that the 07-08 Calgary Flames weren't a good team either. They had the second worst GD of any WC play-off squad. They didn't even have average special teams. And they squeaked into the play-offs by the hairs of their chiny-chin-chin.

One of Darryl Sutter's favorite hobbies when granting interviews is to glibly dismiss the bleating of the press or fanbase as short-sighted or ill-informed. This year, as the club stumbled down the stretch and the possibility of missing the play-offs loomed large in March, Sutter answered the faithful's anxiety by peddling "parity": the team's tenuous grasp on a play-off position was attributed to the league's increasingly large middle class.

It's seems a legitimate argument on the face of it. Thanks to three-point games and the salary cap's influence on the concentration of talent, the difference between the "haves" and "have nots" has indeed been eroded since the lock-out. For exmaple, the Minnesota Wild won the NW Division with 98 points this year. The Canucks, who were a mere 10 points back, placed last. The difference between the two teams goal differentials was 7.

Even with that in mind, When I first heard the Sutter interview in March his claim struck me as a bit of ass-covering sophistry. "Okay is not okay" was one of his famous lines from the previous off-season. "Okay is simply inevitable" seemed to be the new Franchise motto come the end the regular season, however.

I guess the question is: is just okay...okay? Should fans and pundits be adjusting their expectations for the Flames given the landscape of the "new NHL"?

Bull-shit I say. I have a few weeks between me and that Sutter interview and it still strikes me as utter bullshit. The increased parity in the league hasn't eliminated elite teams; it doesn't ensure mediocrity across the board, nor does it explain the Flames second straight season as first-round fodder. The Calgary Flames have elite players at every level of their roster. Iginla, Tanguay, Regehr, Phaneuf, Kiprusoff. Two of those guys are top 10 forwards in terms of ES production, another 2 are top 10 defensemen (albeit in different ways) and Kipper is two years removed from a Vezina trophy. This isn't the foundation of a middling squad. This is a talent core Sutter has gone to pains to lock-up long-term, and for good reason - most GMs would kill for it.

Let's look at it another way. The Nashville Predators, who finished in 8th place, just behind Calgary, sold off a bunch of their difference makers last year. They dealt their #1 goalie, their #1 defensemen, a couple of younger pieces (Hartnell, Upshall) and lost Forsberg and Kariya in the summer. Due to ownership and budgetary concerns, the free agent signings and roster expenses were scaled back. Nashville ended up with a $36M team - a full 12M less than Sutter's roster. They muddled along with Dan Ellis and Chris Mason in net. Dan Hamhuis was their #1 defenseman and Shea Weber was injured half the year. Jason Arnott and JP Dumont were two thirds of their #1 line (not exactly beasts at taking on the tough competition) and Mike Sullivan didn't play a game thanks to his back issues...

Nashville ended the season with 3 less points than the Flames, and 1 less win. The team's goal differentials were virtually identical (+1, +2). Granted, the Predators played in the relatively weaker Central Division...but they also had less difference makers at key positions, a vastly cheaper roster and more injuries to significant pieces.

To my eye, the issue isn't simply "achieving a moderate level of success" that can be reasonably expected of most teams. The Flames aren't most teams. More accurately, they don't have to be. They don't have the budgetary concerns of a Nashville or Phoenix. They have an enviable core of talent - arguably superior than a number of clubs that sit above them in the standings (and are still playing in the post-season). The apparent "win-now" attitude of Sutter and management the last two seasons was not ill-advised given the quality of core players on hand. Ill-executed, perhaps. But sensible considering where guys like Kipper, Iginla, Regehr and Tanguay were (are) in their careers.

Ironically, it's been Sutter's flavor of "go for it" that has sunk the team into mediocrity since 03/04, and painted the franchise into the cap-strapped corner it's in now. His tendency to fill roster spots with known commodities - ex-Sutterites and veterans - has bloated the roster's budget and bled the team of cheap talent. As Darryl has gone about locking up key pieces to long-terms deals and exponentially more expensive contract extensions, he's also surrounded them with slowing vets (Nilson, Yelle, Primeau, Eriksson, Aucoin, Amonte) and dubious reclamation projects (Zyuzin, Friesen), many of whom for multi-year, multi-million dollar deals. The results, both this season and last, were two-fold:

- A cap inefficient roster - At various points this year, the Flames had Rhett Warrener (2.35M), Marcus Nilson (1M), Wayne Primeau (1.4M) and Anders Eriksson (1.5M) sitting in the press-box as healthy scratches. That's 6.25M (or difference-maker money) worth of dead-weight on any given night.And I didn't include 4M worth of Adrian Aucoin playing in the 3rd pairing, or guys like Smith (400k) or Godard (400k) skating around pointlessly. All of the bad money listed in the first sentence carries forward to next season, by the way.

- A relatively hostile development environment - The preponderance of million dollar vets makes for a crowded roster. Rookies and prospects not named "Dion Phaneuf" need some at bats to establish themselves as NHL caliber players. They require roster spots and time on the ice to develop. Spot duty on the 4th line with Godard or banishment to the press-box after a rough game - if you make the team at all of course - doesn't cut it. Mark Giordano outplayed a couple of vets (Zyuzin, Hale...Warrener arguably) last season on an already crowded blueline, despite being an undrafted freshman. Sutter, naturally, responded by offering him a nominal two-way deal and then signing useless tit Anders Eriksson to a one-way, multi-year, multi-million dollar contract in a sudden fit of "my cock is bigger than yours" when Gio understandably balked. Getting a fringe player like Eriksson for that long and for that kind of cash is questionable management on it's own. Losing a cheap, young, relatively effective replacement level player as a result is that much worse.

Even if the kids aren't any better than the incumbent vets initially, they have the advantages of being cheaper and potentially improving. Mark Giordano at 800k > Eriksson at 1.5M, even if their performance levels are comparable for the season, due in part to the cap-savings and in part to the potential development and progression of the youngster going forward. Eriksson at 1.5M and 30+ years old is, at best, a diminishing asset. You pay for the experience but the BEST he can do is play up to the value of his contract. Rookies are riskier in terms of the range and variance of their performance, but the gamble is accompanied by the attendant reward of a guy out-performing his salary. Which is gold in a capped environment.

I've heard arguments that Sutter has been constrained by the Flames rather lackluster collection of young talent during his reign. To some degree, that's true. Calgary's prospect cupboard was pretty bare when Sutter ascended to office in 04. He's spent time gathering draft picks and establishing a capable farm system the last 4 or 5 years. And good on him. But the fact that the Flames don't have a lot of sure-fire NHLers makes the loss of guys like Giordano and Taratukhin that much more egregious since the basic tenants of any given marketplace are: low supply/high demand. As such, if you don't have a great deal of high quality prospects, you should probably protect and covet the ones you DO have. Insisting your lone NHL ready defensive prospect agree to a two-way deal, for example, is a silly hill to die on.

Of course, suppressing the kids hasn't been Sutter's lone folly. That would be forgivable if he was loading up on good value vets in the kids stead. But he hasn't done that either. I think part of the reason Owen Nolan has been so favorably received this year is because he looked positively herculean when compared to many of Sutter's other recent acquisitions (Amonte, Friesen, Eriksson, Zyuzin, McCarty, Eriksson, Aucoin, Primeau, Lundmark, Boucher, Leclerc). Look at that list again. That's a whole lot of SUCK that's passed through here the last couple of years and a great deal of it wasn't (isn't) cheap. In the same time frame, the Flames have lost guys like Commodore, Lydman, Reinprecht, Kobasew, Ference, Gelinas, Donovan and the aforementioned defectors (Gio, Taratukhin) for little or nothing. And none of them are or were prohibitively expensive (Lydman and Gelinas are the priciest at about 2.8M each).

Sutter has done a great job of identifying and locking up the core big boys during his time here. Alternatively, he's done a fairly terrible job of identifying and installing good-value guys at the roster's edges. Which is why the results have been so average the last few years. There's been a couple decent contracts (Huselius @ 1.4, Lombardi @ 1.817 and Langkow @ 2.4), but not enough to overcome the sheer volume of bad-value guys. It's why the organization is at the precipice of it's most difficult and contentious off-season in Sutter's time here: a lot of the good value contracts go away and a lot of the dead-weight needs to be purged. The former is a guarantee to happen. The latter will require a small miracle.

Improvement Through Nothing

The Anaheim Ducks won the Stanley Cup last year for various reasons. They had capable primary (Selanne, McDonald) and secondary (Penner, Getzlaf, Kunitz, Perry) scoring, a couple Norris winners on the blueline and a Conn Smythe winner in net.

They also had (have) one of the best checking lines in hockey. Casual fans in California probably call the Moen-Pahlsson-Neidermayer combination a "third line". Those a little more hardcore probably know them as a "shut-down" line. Recently, Gabriel Desjardins gave them a new, more appropriate monkier - The "Nothing" line.

It's interesting to watch this line play because they are expectionally good at forechecking and shutting down the opposing team's offense...they are all among the league leaders in preventing the other team from scoring, this despite facing the other team's top lines every night.

On the other side of the puck, they also produce next to no goals. All three players are in the bottom 2% among scorers this season. Moen, in particular, is in the 99th percentile, league-wide, both in preventing the other team from scoring and in not scoring himself.

A capable Nothing Line like the one above can both deter and promote scoring: deter, by suppressing the opposition's best scorers below their typical scoring rates. And promote by freeing their own team's best players from playing tough competition, thereby potentially increasing their scoring rates. In addition, this strategy sequesters all the team's offensive voids onto a single line, resulting in a natural congregation of the more effective scorers on other scoring units.

I think the Flames have a burning need for a Nothing Line of their own. Despite the current winning streak, they could stand to cut back on the shots/chances/goals against. Hell, we're heading into the 2nd week of January and Kipper doesn't have a single shut-out yet! The Flames have allowed the 3rd most GA in the conference so far this year (126), less than only Edmonton and LA. And while the team has certainly improved in this category since December first, they've still allowed 45 goals during that 17 game span (2.65 GPG). That's not terrible, but it certainly isn't great which makes their results over that period even more impressive (and unlikely) (12-1-4).

That the Flames have clearly been outscoring their problems during the recent upswing masks the fact that they have virtually zero secondary offense after the primary attack. During the same span as mentioned above, Jarome Iginla (19G, 26P), Kristian Huselius (13G, 28P) and Damond Langkow (7G, 18P) managed 72 points combined. In contrast, Craig Conroy (1G, 9P), Owen Nolan (3G, 5P), Alex Tanguay (3G, 10P), Matt Lombardi (2G, 5P), Eric Nystrom (0G, 1P) and Dustin Boyd (3G, 4P) have combined for just 34 points. Huselius alone had 28 points by himself. And that's despite the fact that Conroy and Nolan spent significant time skating with guys like Huselius, Iginla or Langkow.

I've chosen to focus on that period of games specifically because it's notable that so many forwards were struggling even though the team was winning games. The contrast between those excelling (Iginla, Huselius and Langkow) and those not (everyone else) is stark and telling. It also suggests this success is probably more a transient "streak" than permanent "correction".

As per the original premise: a Flames Nothing Line. Originally postulated by myself in the now somewhat infamous "STONEHANDS" post, I surmised then (and still posit now) that a Nystrom-Conroy-Nolan troika might possibly result in the two primary effects I detailed earlier: deter scoring by suppressing the opposition's top lines and promote scoring by freeing Calgary's other lines from the tough assignments (as well as sequestering the offensive voids onto a single unit).

First, the "void" part:

Conroy, Nolan and Nystrom have a combined total 13 goals and 38 points between them in 115 games played this year (Huselius - 28 points - 17 games - just sayin'). That equates to ES scoring rates of 1.87/60, 1.47/60 and 0.86/60 for each guy respectively. Stunningly, their PP rates are even worse: Conroy's rate dips a bit, dropping to 1.62/60 while both Nolan and Nystrom have yet to tally a single goal or assist on the PP.

The point here is...none of these guys can score. If you subtract Nolan's 2 empty net goals, his ES scoring rate falls to 1.22/60. That's David Mossian type production. Dustin Boyd is more efficacious (1.56/60), and he's a 21 year old rookie with lesser linemates. Conroy leads the pack here, but he's had the benefit of playing between 3 of the best players on the team (two of whom have been the hottest players in the entire league) for a majority of the year. Even so, his rate is barely above the somewhat maligned Matthew Lombardi, he who has been saddled with two rookies at ES for the last 5 weeks or so.

Nolan and Conroy have had the benefit of the doubt through the first half of the year. Both have been amongst the top 6 for a majority of the first 40 odd games and both have convincingly proven that neither can get the job done on the score-sheet anymore. There's no overriding contextual influence oppressing their abilities here: this isn't the 05/06 Flames. Tanguay, Iginla, Huselius and Langkow...if you can't produce with those players this season, you probably can't produce...

"I so very much want this square peg to fit into this hole!" The NHL coach screeched, pounding away with furious abandon, "but it appears that the latter is just so stubbornly and unyieldingly round!"

Indeed. Look, if these guys can't score, then it makes sense to a.) give them some other role to play and b.) put them together so their offensive dampening fields stop affecting the other players.

I guess the question remains...could Nystrom/Conroy/Nolan actually be effective at the shut-down role? Both Conroy and Nolan are strong on face-offs, meaning they aren't a big risk when it comes to own-zone draws. Conroy is still fast and strong on his skates while Nolan manages to a do a lot of little things right on the ice (forecheck, dump-ins, board-work), his performance in LA aside. Nystrom has a pretty ugly stat line, but has remained in the line-up and on the team thanks to his tenacious checking and ability to block shots. He's also pretty fast and strong on his skates and has the lowest GA/60 rate short-handed of any regular penalty-killer on the team (3.05). So, it seems some of the tools are there.

The ES stats for each player are less convincing but harder to interpret.

Conroy - 2.42 GA/60
Nolan - 1.96 GA/60
Nystrom - 2.25 GA/60

Not terrible, though they certainly don't compare to the "suppressor" figures of the Moen/Pahlsson/Neidermayer trio (.97/1.83/1.28). Keep in mind, however, we're using the best checking line in the league playing in front of a superior SV% AND Chris Pronger as a point of comparison. Anyways, I dont think the Conroy/Nolan/Nystrom combo would have to be as good as the Pahlsson line - just good enough not to get killed and allow Iginla, Tanguay and whoever else to beat up on their match-ups.

Break up the Kids -

Another happy side effect of the Conroy Nothing Line would be the abolishment of the Flames "Kid" line - Boyd/Lombardi/Nystrom. The youngsters are fast and eager and rambunctious. And, together, they are getting consistently beaten up at ES. It's a tough assignment for anyone to carry a couple of NHL rookies night in and night out. It's an impossible one for a guy like Lombardi, who I really like, but still has a few steps to take before he can be considered a difference maker in his own right.

Since he's played with Boyd and Nystrom, Lombo's stats have dropped like a stone. In November, he was actually one of the better Flames for a 10 games span. He had an ES scoring rate above 2 and was a healthy +10. He's now down 1.81 ESP/60 and is a negative player (-1). His linemates predictably have just 5 points since December 1st, with Nystrom managing a single assist in that 17 game span.

I've looked at that combination a couple different ways and I can't decipher what Keenan hopes to get out of it. Scoring? No - Lombardi is the lone "vet" and has only broken the 40 point plateau once. As for Nystrom, he didn't even manage to get 40 points at the AHL level. And while Boyd has scoring potential in him, he's still very young and very green - a 4th line+PP type assignment would suit him best. Softest possible competition is the more likely way to get numbers out of Boyd right now.

So, it must be checking then? Well, no - two rookies and a smallish center (who's better known for scoring off the rush than anything else) aren't going to challenge any competent scoring line most nights. In fact, the only thing the Lombardi unit resembles right now is a big, enticing "come get some!" sign to opposing coaches (particularly on the road). I've been watching this groups CORSI figures since they've been assembled, and they are consistently in the red most games. Near the onset of their seasons, both Boyd and Lombardi were positive players by this measure (Boyd did it while playing against shlubs with Yelle and Godard) but have fallen underwater since being paired (-7.5, -5.0 respectively).

Basically, as it stands, the Flames have two guys who can't score needlessly bunging up the scoring units (Nolan and Conroy), with a line of kids that can neither score nor defend getting the hell beat out of them behind them. Now maybe Keenan is waiting for Moss to return (though he's just a younger, slightly faster Nolan as far as production is concerned) or maybe he doesn't have any faith in Lombardi in the top 6. But I can't see how the current configuration helps the team or a number of the players succeed. The bottom 6 is currently a wasteland of suck and there's little chance of the 4th liners getting any better. The 3rd line, the kid line, is doomed to fail. They don't have enough experience or strength to properly check anyone and they don't have the offense to outscore anyone. Something has to change, because I dont see Iginla and Huselius putting up this torrid pace forever.

Huselius - Langkow/Lombardi - Iginla
Tanguay - Langkow/Lombardi - ? (Boyd)
Nystrom - Conroy - Nolan
Smith - Yelle - Godard

(Nilson, Moss)

Throw out the Conroy and/or Iginla lines against the toughest competition and save the softer underbelly for Tanguay's unit. The Conroy trio doesn't have to worry about scoring (since they can't) and Lombardi is in a better position to exploit his abilities. Boyd is tentatively penciled into the 2nd RWer position, though I still think that's a hole Sutter needs to plug. As mentioned, 4th liner minutes with Yelle plus some PP time is the optimal situation for Boyd right now.

Does this make sense to anybody else or am I a madman screaming obscenities at a parking meter? This all reads right in the echo chamber in my head, but maybe I've been squinting at the computer screen too long...

Taratukhin Speaks Out

Andrei Taratukhin recently elaborated on his reasons for bolting back to Russia this summer.

Russian link here.

Relevent bits:

I wanted, of course, to play in NHL, but there was no hundred per-cent guarantee that I would remain in "Calgary". I have a wife, two children - it is hard to leave them constantly. The past season was very difficult due to problems with the visas. At first I didn’t get to see my children together, only separately. I didn’t get to see my daughter for the first time until she was already 6 months old! That’s no way to live. Plus, in Calgary there are now five key centers with the one-way contracts, and then me – on a two way contract. It could be assumed that the guys on one way deal would be more likely to be chosen for the team. To me they said there was a lot of movement at center. Also proposals from UFA’s. The team has good leadership, and is trying to win a championship. Good players, and a good coach who has taught me a lot. Even my contract was good. But I must have some stability. They conferred with family, and wife said: "give to remain here"!

I passed summer training camp with Calgary. And then they said to me that one, can, two players of farm club will remain with the Flames. And only when rumors started that I would remain in Russia, did the statements of Calgary management appear. They did begin to indicate in the press that I was one of the most promising rookies. - you do understand? They began to fuss only after I had left. What it was to be expected. We did begin conversation from the fact that none of the rookies made the NHL.

- Translation courtesy of Babel and poster 'Flashpoint' on Calgarypuck.com

A family man's preference for his home country is expected and predictable. The pertinent info for Flames fans is contained in the hilighted portion: Andrei's perception that his chances of making the team were slim echoes something I wrote back around the time his defection from the Flames was announced:

Taratukhin's possible flight is apropos to my previous post detailing my annoyance with the Wayne Primeau signing and Matt's recent post on the loss Giordano: Sutter's penchant for filling the roster with veterans over rookies, despite the fact the young players in question are a.) cheaper and b.) likely to outperform (or at least provide greater cap value than) the incumbent vet is proving to be a damaging strategy. The result is the draining of future assets as they bolt due to the perception that there is no room for them on the roster.

This is not an encouraging trend, to say the least.

At the time, I was unsure whether Taratukhin left over purely monetary concerns, but his flight combined with the needless signings of Nilson and Primeau (not to mention a smiliar loss of Giordano) raised alarm bells. This interview further validates my theory.

Some may see this as the Sour Grapes whining of a spurned Prima Donna. And that might well be true to an extent. But one only need look over his current Flames roster, or his acquisitions and signings over the last few years, to see that Sutter (and therefore, Flames organization) values veteran skaters to young players. Experience before exuberance. Naturally this is true of every GM to an extent...proven performance being a better bet than mere potential. But Sutter has seemingly pursued this preference to a damaging degree. Marginal NHLers such as Zyuzin, Amonte, Friesen, McCarty and recently Eriksson, Primeau, Nilson, Mark Smith and (potentially) Aucoin have taken their turn in Flames colors, many at the expense of a younger, cheaper, potentially more productive players in their stead.

Calgary currently has two players below the age of 25 on the roster - back-up Curtis McElhinney (24) and Dion Phaneuf (22). Sophomore David Moss is 25 and made the team last year thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances: strong showing in the AHL, plus Kobasew being ineffective and injured, plus McCarty being injured, plus Amonte being ineffective plus scoring in his first 3 games as a call-up. A lot of injuries and suck from the incumbents AND good AHL numbers AND a healthy dose of the Primacy Effect (also known as a "good first impression") had to conspire to get Moss up to the bigs. That's a lot of good breaks.

Finally, Warren Peters, who managed to make the club out of training camp (but was a healthy scratch last night), is also 25.

Sutter has done some good things for the club's developmental system since he took over. He re-stocked a prospect cupboard that was almost completely bare. He's established a strong AHL team. He's collected some decent players from later in the draft. But the whole thing looks to be stagnating thanks to a sort of glass ceiling erected above the kids heads. Prospects not named "Dion Phaneuf" are met with a sort of guarded ambivalence about their position in the organization, even if their performance seems to indicate they could contribute at the NHL level if actually afforded the opportunity (see: Mark Giordano).

Instead, veteran journeymen are used to plug roster holes, despite boasting higher price-tags and minimal ability. Ask yourself: why does Wayne Primeau deserve a 3 year, one-way, multi-million dollar contract? Why is he preferable to say, Boyd, Taratukhin or even Warren Peters? Sure, he has a bunch more experience, but many, many years in the NHL has proven one thing as evidenced by a glance at his stats-line: he's a mediocore player. At best. Same with Mark Smith and arguably Marcus Nilson, who was also re-signed this summer even though he was all sorts of brutal last year. And don't get me started on the 2 year, $3M Eriksson contract: a mistake that was stamped in the exact same footprint as the Zyuzin gaffe the previous year.

Take a look at a number of "contenders" rosters and register the contrast between their developmental policy and Calgary's...

- The San Jose Sharks have 8 players 24 years old or younger on their starting roster. And only one of them (Patzold) is a rookie. At least 3 of them are already counted on to be difference makers for the squad (Michalek, Carle, Vlasic).

- The Detroit Red Wings, an admittedly old team with lots of established vets, has two youngsters below 24 (Hudler, Filpula) on their roster, with Kopecky (25) and Brett Lebda (25) and Kronvall (26) and Henrik Zetterberg (26) just beyond the mark. All homegrown Red Wings players.

- The Anaheim Ducks won the Stanely cup last year with 21 year olds Getzlaf and Perry playing major roles as well as Dustin Penner (24) and Travis Moen (24). You can add Bobby Ryan (20) and Ryan Carter (23) to the mix for them this season.

- The Ottawa Senators are favored to be the best team in the East after making it to the cup finals last year. Their roster includes: Nick Foligno (18), Josh Hennessy (20), Patrick Eaves (23), Antoine Vermette (24), Jason Spezza (24), Andrej Meszaros (21) and Ray emery (24).

Clearly, not all these guys are rookies...but they were only a short-time ago. The organizations in question obviously made concerted efforts to develop their pups at an NHL level. They didn't sign doddering vets or marginal grinders when it was clear that a youngster could replace those contributions AND take a few valuable steps forward. They didn't bury them behind 30 year-olds with one-way contracts...

This is not a grave indictment of Sutter. I've really liked many of things he's done as a GM here in Calgary. But some cracks are beginning to form in the veneer of "hockey genius" that coats his tenure here. Rookies are fleeing and the payroll is soaring. One wonders how much currency remains from the '04 play-off run and whether it will be enough to sustain his reign should this season end up playing out like the last one.

Bobby Clarke's Rant

TSN interviewed Flyer's GM Clarke in the wake of his somewhat controversial decision to offer the Canucks RFA Ryan Kessler a $1.9 million one year contract. Apparently, this is the first time in 8 years that someone has bothered to pony up an offer sheet to a RFA - partially due to the facts that the player's original team is free to match the offer and, also, the compensation due to the original club (should they choose not to match) can be prohibitive, depending on the level of the player in question.

Course, there seemed to be an additional deterrent in the mix - you see, GM's kinda think its an asshol-ish thing to do. Largely because pursuing another team's RFA's either means that:

a.) You're stealing away a young guy and therefore development investment, or
b.) You're unnecessarily driving up the other's teams payroll.

The result was a sort of "unwritten rule" among the NHL team's brass - RFA are OB.

Cue the Clarke rebuttal:

"I don't give a (expletive deleted) if nobody likes me, I could care less," Clarke told TSN. "But they shouldn't be getting mad at me, I didn't put the (offer sheet) rule in the collective bargaining agreement. If they're mad, they should call Gary Bettman and complain to him. Get mad at Gary Bettman. He's in charge of the rules, not me. I didn't realize there were some rules we're not allowed to use."

And he has a point. Technically, Kesler is fair game according to the official CBA rules. Maybe Vancouver should have done a better job of wrapping up Kesler to begin with?

Further, I kind of think this is a savvy move by Clarke. He has nothing to lose and a lot to gain. If the Canucks don't match, he gets the guy he's after - it may be for a tad above market value (Kesler scored 10 goals last year), but since the dollar figure involved is low enough and the potential of the player is high enough, the overpayment thing becomes a nominal issue. However, if the Canucks DO decide to match the offer, the 1.9 million will serve to drive the Vancouver organization periously close to the salary cap, thereby enabling Clarke to deal from a position of power and potentially get Kesler in a trade from the Canucks anyways. At the very least he's causing a significant inconvenience to a rival NHL hockey club.

So if Clarke ended there, I'd have no quibble with him. But of course, he doesn't.

"To me, our thinking is completely backward," Clarke said. "I lost Kim Johnsson to (unrestricted) free agency because the Minnesota Wild gave him $4.8 million. Well, the Flyers had to give (revenue sharing) money to Minnesota and other teams and I don't like that but it's the rules. And then Minnesota takes that money and signs my player and there are no rules to say I can keep him if I match. I wish I had all the options with Kim Johnsson that Vancouver has with Kesler. They can match and keep him or they can let him go. It's up to them."

C'mon Bobby. You're just pissing in the wind with this kind of stuff. For one, I doubt Minnesota received any kind of payments from the "big market" teams last year. Blessed by a ravenous fanbase, the Wild have been selling out since their inception. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were in the upper half of the revenue earners in the league. Secondly, you could have matched or even exceeded the Wild's offer to Johnsson if you didn't have a couple of 500 pound anchors named "Hatcher" and "Rathje" weighing down your payroll ($3.5 million each). Who's fault is that?

Anyways, Clarke's tirade does end on an interesting note:

"I'm just playing by the rules that are there. To be honest, I'm surprised more teams aren't doing it.”

Which makes one wonder if this will spark the end to RFA's being sacrosanct in the NHL. Currently, there are a couple of relatively desirable RFA's lingering in the League's contract-less purgatory, including:

- Brian Gionta
- Paul Martin
- Dan Hamhuis
- Nikolai Zherdev
- Tim Gleason

Hell, if I was Carolina I'd be tendering offer sheets to the likes of Hamhuis, Martin and Gleason rather than looking to deal blue chip prospect Jack Johnson. And why hasn't anyone taken a run at Brian Gionta? He's a 48 goal scorer who currently belongs to a team that has precisely 0 cap space - thereby making it near impossible for the Devils to match any reasonable offer made to the diminuitive sniper.

Hmmm...should be interesting times ahead if Bobby has truly opened the "Offersheet" floodgates...

(For those interested, check out the more educated thoughts of Tom Benjamin and James Mirtle on the Clarke/Kesler situation).