August has come and gone. The leaves are already turning yellow and brown. Now that Giordano has left for the Plutonian shores of Russia, I'm thinking the Flames are just about done as far as off-season roster changes are concerned. With training camp fast approaching it's time to detail those changes as well as my personal evaluations of each:
What I liked:
The extensions -
Sutter had Iginla and Regehr inked to new contract extensions the first week of July. That's some good work. Both are significant contributors to the team's success and both were had at or below market value. The move(s) firms up the club's core and takes some serious anxiety and guess work out of the Franchise's upcoming 07/08 off-season. There'll be no Ryan Smyth type debacle round these parts come February...
Lombardi re-signing -
Lombardi's deal is looking like a steal compared to many of the deals signed by his cohorts this summer (*ahem* Dustin Penner). With a cap hit of 1.817, one can easily imagine Lombardi outperforming this contract, especially in the 2nd and 3rd years of the deal. Good stuff.
Sarich UFA Signing -
It's arguable whether this contract is inflated or not (3.6M/year) mainly because it's hard to quantify the contributions of a pure shut-down guy like Sarich. However, keep in mind Sarich was one of the younger guys available on the market AND he did a majority of the heavy lifting in Tampa Bay the last few years without being too deep under water. That's a significant accomplishment considering a.) Sarich doesn't score much, and b.) the Lightning's goaltending/defensive deficiencies. He played a lot of ES and SH time for Tampa Bay last year and should be an excellent partner for the Flames own defensive stalwart, Robyn Regehr. Combined, the two are 440 pounds of mean, hard-hitting muscle on the back-end. They won't score a lot of goals, but they won't allow many goals against either.
Hell, if this goes the way I think it will, this deal might actually look like a bargain down the road after all.
Playfair firing -
I'm going to let the results determine whether I'm happy about Keenan being hired or not, so I'll restrict my appreciation to the corollary event - Playfair's demotion. By the end of the season last year, I was an outspoken critic of Nervous Jimmy: he mishandled a number of players, he couldn't seem to execute any kind of cohesive strategy (particularly on the road) and didn't seem to command any respect from the players. In fact, it's a well-established rumor he was referred to as "Sutter lite" in the dressing room.
After the relatively disappointing season and now the first game debacle (which, quite honestly, could have been a double-digit raping had Kipper not been the lone bright spot for the Calgary squad) I have warring voices in my head in regards to the rest of the series. A cynical part of me wants the Flames to drop the next 3 straight and bow out in humiliating fashion. Such a turn of events would no doubt result in the cleaving of Nervous Jimmy's overripe melon by the inexorable descent of the ever-present Sword of Damocles that has been perilously dangling above him all season.
I wrote back in April in regards to the Flames spiritual de-pantsing at the hands of the Red Wings. So complete was the team's collapse down the stretch that I was certain Playfair would be a summer time casualty. And thankfully, I was right.
What I didn't like:
Primeau Signing -
Wayne Primeau is the prototypical checking vet: big body, works hard, modest skills. He can't really contribute much at the offensive end and is neither fast enough nor crafty enough to be an elite checker. He CAN win some face-offs and crash bodies in the corners. He can also kill penalties in a pinch.
Let's give some context to my assertions. Primeau's PGP pace over 646 games is a measly 0.27. That would have disqualified him from being considered a "contributor" (or, rather, counted as an NHLer at all) in my look at draft picks a few weeks back. That's bad. Primeau has never been a shut-down guy during his tenure in the league either and his cumulative career +/- rating is -88. Meaning he doesn't typically see tough competition, but is still apt to end up under water anyways (to be fair, he spent a lot of his earlier career on bad Sabres, Lightning and Penguins teams). His career high for goals is 11. His career high for points is 29.
So what're the Flames getting for their 1.4M over the next 3 seasons? Not a hell of a lot. Chances are, there are about 4 or 5 rookies who will play in Quad Cities this season (and onward) that could replace Primeau's contributions pretty easily and for a slightly cheaper price tag. None of them would be as BIG, but big is only an asset when it actually helps in producing results...which really isn't the case here.
In the end, the contract isn't prohibitively high or long...but it is, in my humble evaluation, needless. With this signing, Sutter plugged a roster hole that could've been taken by a youngster at a fraction of the price. Concurrently, the Flames lose out on some cap value and the ability to develop a prospect.
Adrian Aucoin trade -
I've gone back and forth on this one during the summer. I like that Andrei Zyuzin, probably the worst Flame last year, was ushered out of town through this swap. And I like that Aucoin has been a big minutes player in his career previously.
What I don't like is the fact he hasn't been a big minutes guy recently. In fact, he's been pretty much awful for the last 2 seasons. Injured, slow, bad, useless. The Hawks traded him for a terrible Andrei Zyuzin for a reason.
With that in mind, this looks like a bad gamble on Sutter's part. The problem is, Aucoin isn't simply a 6th defensemen insurance policy - with the departures of Hammer and Stuart, Calgary needs him to adequately fill a top 4 roll on the club. Something he hasn't been able to do for awhile now. In addition, his $4M/year contract is pretty fat and it continues through 08/09. If he can't deliver value on that number (and chances are he can't), the Flames will be stuck looking for a top 4 contributor again relatively soon, with the added bonus of trying to shoehorn another salary into a rapidly bloating budget. Aucoin won't be tradable at that cap-hit if he stumbles again, so the Flames will have no choice but to pay him the dollars and hope his knees give out for good so they can get him on long-term IR (think Rathje in Philly).
Losing Giordano -
I've said a lot on this already, so I'll re-state that the loss of Giordano to Russia isn't a grave one, but it does piss me off. The Flames looked like they were developing a 3 pairing, PP kind of guy in the mold of Tom Preissing last year. Now they have a pricier 32 year old journeyman in his stead. On a long enough time-line, that's a bad trade off.
Warrener Remains -
Rhett Warrener was pretty bad last season. He was chronically injured and couldn't seem to keep up with the play half the time. His primary asset, body-checking, pretty much abandoned him while his various weaknesses took over his game. He was usually the slowest player on the ice and had trouble making outlet passes. At 2.4M/year, Warrener has become a liability to the team. His contributions don't match his cap hit and I was hoping that Sutter would do whatever it took to get Rhett's dollars off the books this off-season. It was no to be, it seems.
If Warrener is healthy and effective next year, he might be a useful player. I don't have a lot of hope of that happening, however. At least we have Eriksson to fill in when appropriate...I guess...
Undecided:
Owen Nolan signing -
I would have preferred a younger, more able bodied plug for the 2nd line RW position. The Flames are mighty thin on the right side after Iginla, so I was hoping Sutter would snag one of the few decent available RWers from the UFA market to shore up that organizational weakness.
To his credit, Sutter got Nolan for pretty cheap and it's only a one year contract. If this experiment doesn't work out, not a lot of long-term harm done. In addition, Nolan put together a decent, if not spectacular, season with a pretty bad Phoenix team last year, which would suggest he isn't completely out of gas. Better players on a better team might just equate to a decent year for the aging warrior. If so, he's a welcome one year addition. If not, David Moss might just get another chance to play amongst the top 6 again.
Keenan Hiring -
As mentioned, the jury is still out on this topic. By mid-season, Im sure we'll have a clear indication where this team is headed with Keenan at the helm: top of the mountain or depths of the sea.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
GAH!!
As the new jersey designs trickle in, I find myself rather ambivalent about the whole thing: I like a couple and some others not-so-much. I'm not opposed to change per se like some "traditionalists", so my reactions are based solely on subjective, esthetic preferences.
That said, the new Vancouver Canucks jersey is awful. The bland color scheme and that ridiculous Orca crest are bad enough, but what glue-sniffing RBK marketing suit decided that scrawling "VANCOUVER!!" in needlessly bold letters across the chest was the way to go? Was there anyone unsure as to whom the team played for? And why not follow the principle to it's logical conclusion and have "CANUCKS!!" printed along the crotch-seam? How about a couple of meth pipes and Heroin needles emblazoned on Luongo's helmet?
Sheezus. Even the Buffaslug looks good by comparison.
I give this abortion 0 Venti, non-fat Lattes out of 5.
That said, the new Vancouver Canucks jersey is awful. The bland color scheme and that ridiculous Orca crest are bad enough, but what glue-sniffing RBK marketing suit decided that scrawling "VANCOUVER!!" in needlessly bold letters across the chest was the way to go? Was there anyone unsure as to whom the team played for? And why not follow the principle to it's logical conclusion and have "CANUCKS!!" printed along the crotch-seam? How about a couple of meth pipes and Heroin needles emblazoned on Luongo's helmet?
Sheezus. Even the Buffaslug looks good by comparison.
I give this abortion 0 Venti, non-fat Lattes out of 5.
Monday, August 27, 2007
BOOOOOOOOO!
The Globe and Mail is reporting that Mark Giordano has decided to sign a one-year, $800,000 contract with Dynamo Moscow.
Consider me unimpressed.
While this may seem rather ad hoc, I'm starting to think that Sutter saw this coming and signed Eriksson as a preventative measure. It just doesn't make any sense for Sutter to ignore Giordano and sign an aging depth journeymen with the Flames already rife with 5th and 6th role guys. Im starting to think the Moscow offer came up, the agent used it as leverage and Sutter decided to walk away.
I still don't like losing Giordano like this. In fact, it sucks. I was looking forward to observing his progression during the upcoming season. Now we may never know if he could have fulfilled some of the promise he showed as a rookie...
In other depressing news, Warrener is still a Flame.
EDIT -
Matt and Mirtle chime in. Looks like we're all in agreement.
Consider me unimpressed.
While this may seem rather ad hoc, I'm starting to think that Sutter saw this coming and signed Eriksson as a preventative measure. It just doesn't make any sense for Sutter to ignore Giordano and sign an aging depth journeymen with the Flames already rife with 5th and 6th role guys. Im starting to think the Moscow offer came up, the agent used it as leverage and Sutter decided to walk away.
I still don't like losing Giordano like this. In fact, it sucks. I was looking forward to observing his progression during the upcoming season. Now we may never know if he could have fulfilled some of the promise he showed as a rookie...
In other depressing news, Warrener is still a Flame.
EDIT -
Matt and Mirtle chime in. Looks like we're all in agreement.
Round-up
Only a couple weeks left till training camp and the onset of the pre-season. Im not sure I have much left to talk about this off-season, so I think I'll let the MSM take up some blog space for me in the interim.
A Cory Sarich piece from nhl.com:
While he has a way to go to usurp the record of Skrastins, who, on February 8, 2007 played in his 487th consecutive game to pass Tim Horton for the longest playing streak in NHL history for a defenseman, Sarich has proved himself to be one of the League's most durable and dependable defenceman.
Russian Prospects interviews Andrei Taratukhin:
Do you know how many competitors you will be up against for a spot in Calgary’s lineup?
A. Taratukhin: Yes, the team already has five centers with one-way contracts. I understand that it won’t be easy to make the team. Still, the management did assure me that they will most certainly move up one or two guys from the farm club to the main team. I do believe that I have already played enough in the AHL.
And Scott Cruickshank takes a look behind the Iron Curtain:
During Keenan's introduction in June -- with locals trying to get their heads around the surprise hiring -- he'd volunteered a jarring nugget: "I'd love to stay here and end my career here."
A Cory Sarich piece from nhl.com:
While he has a way to go to usurp the record of Skrastins, who, on February 8, 2007 played in his 487th consecutive game to pass Tim Horton for the longest playing streak in NHL history for a defenseman, Sarich has proved himself to be one of the League's most durable and dependable defenceman.
Russian Prospects interviews Andrei Taratukhin:
Do you know how many competitors you will be up against for a spot in Calgary’s lineup?
A. Taratukhin: Yes, the team already has five centers with one-way contracts. I understand that it won’t be easy to make the team. Still, the management did assure me that they will most certainly move up one or two guys from the farm club to the main team. I do believe that I have already played enough in the AHL.
And Scott Cruickshank takes a look behind the Iron Curtain:
During Keenan's introduction in June -- with locals trying to get their heads around the surprise hiring -- he'd volunteered a jarring nugget: "I'd love to stay here and end my career here."
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Giordano a-go-go
Mark Giordano, the little (big-headed, undrafted) defensemen that could (outscore Jeff Friesen in half the games played last year) is as of yet unsigned. And it's starting to make me nervous. Message board rumblings indicate that Gio is entertaining offers from overseas clubs. If true, that is bad news for the Flames.
The rumor is a sensible one because the Flames are up to their eye-balls in NHL defensemen right now:
Regehr
Phaneuf
Aucoin
Sarich
Warrener
Hale
Eriksson
Giordano
The complex rules governing waivers are tough to follow, but I know that none of the vets could be sent down to the farm without being exposed on the waiver-wire. None except for Giordano Im guessing* . Meaning Sutter might well be angling for a 2-way contract, something that Giordano would understandably balk at.
(*may not be true)
Looking at the roster, Im not sure what Sutter's plan is here. Ever since the horrible spate of injuries the Flames experienced during the 03/04 play-off run, Sutter has been very obvious and vocal in his attitude that one can never have too many defensemen right now. That always seemed sensible to me, but...it really looks like the Flames have too many defensemen. There's a chance that Sutter's protecting against potential long-term injuries to the injury-prone (Aucoin and Warrener), but that does little to assuage (my or) Giordano's concerns about sitting in the press-box or playing in the AHL for a majority of the year.
Look, Giordano isn't a big-time difference maker in the overall scheme of things. He is, however, a viable asset the Flames have converted from an undrafted defenseman. He's also the type of player that is a good bet to outperform his next contract (unlike, say, Warrener or Eriksson) and you can never have enough of those guys on a capped roster. He's young, has a knack for scoring, and, according to some anecdotes, is one of the best conditioned guys on the team. It would be a ridiculous waste to lose Giordano to a European club because Sutter failed to give him due priority. At this point, considering contract values and potential, guys like Eriksson and Warrener (and probably even Hale) should be considered more expendable in my view.
Of course, this is all speculation fed by a lack of information. There's also a chance that Sutter and *agent* are simply haggling over minor details and the signing will be announced shortly. Make no mistake, though, I will be thoroughly unimpressed if this all turns out badly...
The rumor is a sensible one because the Flames are up to their eye-balls in NHL defensemen right now:
Regehr
Phaneuf
Aucoin
Sarich
Warrener
Hale
Eriksson
Giordano
The complex rules governing waivers are tough to follow, but I know that none of the vets could be sent down to the farm without being exposed on the waiver-wire. None except for Giordano Im guessing* . Meaning Sutter might well be angling for a 2-way contract, something that Giordano would understandably balk at.
(*may not be true)
Looking at the roster, Im not sure what Sutter's plan is here. Ever since the horrible spate of injuries the Flames experienced during the 03/04 play-off run, Sutter has been very obvious and vocal in his attitude that one can never have too many defensemen right now. That always seemed sensible to me, but...it really looks like the Flames have too many defensemen. There's a chance that Sutter's protecting against potential long-term injuries to the injury-prone (Aucoin and Warrener), but that does little to assuage (my or) Giordano's concerns about sitting in the press-box or playing in the AHL for a majority of the year.
Look, Giordano isn't a big-time difference maker in the overall scheme of things. He is, however, a viable asset the Flames have converted from an undrafted defenseman. He's also the type of player that is a good bet to outperform his next contract (unlike, say, Warrener or Eriksson) and you can never have enough of those guys on a capped roster. He's young, has a knack for scoring, and, according to some anecdotes, is one of the best conditioned guys on the team. It would be a ridiculous waste to lose Giordano to a European club because Sutter failed to give him due priority. At this point, considering contract values and potential, guys like Eriksson and Warrener (and probably even Hale) should be considered more expendable in my view.
Of course, this is all speculation fed by a lack of information. There's also a chance that Sutter and *agent* are simply haggling over minor details and the signing will be announced shortly. Make no mistake, though, I will be thoroughly unimpressed if this all turns out badly...
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Reasonable Expectations
With the exception of perhaps one more move to bring in a vet up front (and get rid of a vet on the back-end), the Flames are pretty much set. As such, I've been mulling over my own expectations for the club going into the 07/08 season. First let's deal with some of the individuals:
Damond Langkow/Kristian Huselius:
I put these guys together because they both experienced similar career seasons last year. Langkow's been a consistent 50-60 point getter for ages now, so while his jump up to 77 wasn't a huge one, it was unprecedented. Conversely, Juice's previous career high was in the 40 point range, meaning he skipped a couple of grades in one fell swoop.
This all shrieks "regression to the mean" to me. Huselius' shooting percentage was a very good 19.7% last year, nearly 6% above his previous best. That just doesn't seem sustainable, despite his undeniable puck skills. And while Langkow's SP of 13.4% was pretty much right in line with his career average, he somehow managed to shoot much MORE than usual last season: his 247 shots on net are the most he's posted in his career, a full 25 more than his previous high and nearly 60 shots higher than his previous career average (187).
Let's say they both fall back into their "career norms". Juice shooting at 14% over 170 shots yields about 24 goals. Langkow managing 190 shots at about a 13% shooting accuracy yields roughly 25 goals. That's a 10 and 8 goal reduction, respectively. Since they play together a lot, let's assume each assists on 50% of the other's goals. That's another 4 points gone for Langkow and 5 points gone for Huselius. Altogether, I think it's sensible to assume about a 15 point drop for each guy next year. That would return Langkow back to his usual 60-odd point standard and correct that big hockey stick in Huselius' career-point graph.
There'll likely be some external mitigating factors as well. If Nolan can be a slightly more capable line-mate than, say, Amonte or Moss, he might contribute to each guys assist totals and soften the regression a bit. Of course, there's also the Keenan factor: if Huselius gets dropped from the first unit PP (which is where he really excels), his point totals with further plummet. On the other hand, if Langkow ends up between Iginla and Tanguay at ES he'll be in line for another career year.
Anyways, all things being equal, I expect both guys points totals to drop, relative to last season. They stepped outside of established norms in 06/07, meaning the rubber band is bound to snap back to some degree next year.
Jarome Iginla/Alex Tanguay:
Iginla had a monster season last year where he was amongst the leagues elite in terms of PPG and ESP. Tanguay certainly had something to do with that: he's a proven performer at ES and his presence helped wrench the Flames top-6 forwards more than a few steps towards offensive respectability.
However, last season was hardly perfect for both players. Tanguay struggled during his first 3 weeks as a Flame (2 goals, 5 points in 10 GP) and he never managed to get it going on the PP: his production rate with the man advantage actually lagged behind his 5on5 production efficiency for the first half of the year! So while his 06/07 point total of 81 represents a career high (only 2 higher than previous best of 79), I think it's reasonable to expect as good or better from Tanguay next year. He's all but guaranteed significant ice-time with Jarome Iginla, and it's unlikely he'll go through any more "growing pains". In addition, one can sensibly predict an increase in his PP efficacy: the Flames have a strong cast for the first unit PP (Phaneuf, Iginla, Huselius, etc.) and typically difference makers nearly double their efficiency rates on the PP. Tanguay's PPP/60 rate was a mere 3.82 (21 points in 330 minutes), which is all of 0.54 more than his ESP/60 rate of 3.28 (60 points in 1097 minutes). That's an inexplicably poor ratio and, to my way of thinking, an unsustainable one considering his talent and teammates. Let's say he makes a two point jump in PP efficiency in 07/08 to something like 5.30 PPP/60: 330 PP minutes over the course of the season would mean an extra 10 PP points or so. Assuming Tanguay's ES production remains pretty stable, a 90+ point year for him isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
As for Iginla, he was injured for a ten game stretch in January and never really seemed to regain his form. By no means was he bad (19 points in 14 games in Feb.), but he certainly wasn't as dominant after January as he was prior. His ES differential in particular took the biggest hit: after returning to action on February 2, Iginla was a cumulative -2 for the rest of the regular season. If I remember correctly, his ESP rate dropped during that time (although his PP efficiency improved a bit) and he was getting scored on a lot more...
Does this mean one can expect the same from Jarome next year? More points assuming a full season? On the other hand, Iginla's numbers were pretty close to the career best stats he put up way back in 01/02, so should we instead assume a return to earth? Iggy has proven to be a bit of a yo-yo in the past - he followed up 01/02 with a 35 goal, 67 point performance. In fact, since 2000 his stats line reads like this: 71-96-67-73-67-94. Down-up-down-up.
That pattern doesn't speak well for next year. Course, this roster is probably the best assortment of players Jarome's played with so far in his career. So that means he may be insulated from a big drop by the surrounding talent.
Hmm...lots of conflicting stuff to consider in Iginla's case. Im going to go with "everything cancels out" and he puts up similar raw numbers to last season. I think he'll be hard pressed to replicate that PPG pace, but Im guessing he'll play more than 70 contests. So let's say another 94 points over 80 or so games.
Matthew Lombardi:
Lombardi was one of the best forwards during the Flames early season struggles in October 06. He scored 10 points in the first 10 games and was +7, despite the fact the team was playing on the road and losing. In fact, he was a minus player only once in the first 25 games, a stretch in which he also scored 18 points. He scored another 15 points in 22 games before stepping into quicksand in February. During a 10 game stretch from Jan.30 - Feb. 17, he scored just 4 points and was a -1. He would go on to score only 2 goals and 9 points for the rest of the year (22 games) after that.
So, Conroy was acquired in February, which resulted in Lombardi's average ice time sinking (he twice played less than 8 minutes in March and was scratched outright once) and with it the quality of his teammates and his confidence. The coincidence of the Conroy trade with Lombardi's reduction in effectiveness is a striking one: The Flames got Conroy back on January 29th. Starting January 30th, Lombardi didn't score any points in the next 4 games and he didn't garner more than 15:30 of ice in any of those contests (in contrast to the prior 4 games: 16:30, 19:40, 18:10 and 17:06). In fact, prior to Conroy re-joining the team, Lombardi's ice had dropped below the 15 minute mark only 5 times total, the last occurrence being Nov.25. After Jan.29th, Lombardi played 15 minutes or less 16 times.
The point of all this is: Lombardi played less and played with lesser players once he got bumped from the top 6. And it hurt it him pretty badly. Expectations for Lombo should be mediated by his place in line-up and will therefore depend on where he gets deployed in the roster. Unlike established difference makers who can "play themselves out of" the bottom-six, Lombardi is an all-or-nothing kind of guy. He can be sunk by lesser teammates and he's not going to drive the bus on the bottom-lines all by himself. With some ice and some linemates, Lombardi can be a pretty decent producer: he's scary fast, has a good shot and some deft hands around the net. He's not big, he's doesn't grind in the corners too well and he's definitely not going to beat anyone up. He's wasted among the bottom-six and it's my hope he'll usurp the aging Conroy and land amongst the top half of the roster this coming season.
Assuming that happens, expect a career year from Lombardi. Nothing like a 30+ Huselius-like gain, of course, but maybe in the 50-55 point range. From Oct.5th '06 to January 28th '07, Lombardi was a 0.65 PPG player. If he can keep that up over the entire 07/08 season, he'll score about 53 points. That would represent an encouraging step forward for the young centerman and for the organizational depth chart in general.
Course, if Lombardi wins the lottery and gets placed between Iginla and Tanguay for a majority of the year, expect a bigger jump. Conversely, if he lands amongst the bottom-6, make sure to trade/sell/waive him from your fantasy team post haste.
Dion Phaneuf:
Phaneuf has been pretty consistent during his first 2 years: Great offence, so-so defence. He was sheltered a bunch by Sutter his rookie year and took on middling competition last season after his first month of playing with Regehr didn't go too well.
If Dion can take the next step, he'll be more reliable at ES and will probably garner more minutes. Course, that could end up costing him PP time (though considering Keenan's penchant for riding the big horses hard, I doubt it).
Certain signs suggest this may happen. Phaneuf has 160+ games under his belt and is entering a contract season and you can bet Keenan's going to push him as hard as Sutter (or harder). If he can respond to these pressures, expect his point total to go up a tad and his GA/60 rate to go down. The latter stat is the more significant when it comes to these considerations and is the one to watch as the season goes on.
Team Stuff:
First and foremost, I expect a better penalty kill from the Flames next year. Considering the personnel (particularly the goaltender) this should be, at the very least, a team in the top half the league in terms of PK efficiency. Calgary floundered when down a man last year and somehow managed to be amongst the worst 8 teams in the league. Teams that were superior to the Flames (80.4%) included:
Columbus (81.2%)
Boston (81.7%)
NY Islanders (81.8%)
Florida (82.4%)
Chicago (82.6%)
Philadelphia (84.5%)
That's right...at least 6 terrible teams (4 of which with suspect goaltending) outperformed the Flames on the PK. And I didn't include Carolina (84.6%) or Edmonton (84.6%) because they were actually in the top 10 in the league.
Part of the issue was Kipper's PK SV% . He dropped from a top notch .932 SV% at ES to a very mediocre 0.885 SV% at 4on5. Assuming that stat isn't wholly dependent on team effects, a return to form by Kipper would go a long way to helping the PK out.
Naturally, the surrounding skaters do exert a sizable measure of influence on PK success or failure. There were a number obvious issues that led the Flames lack luster penalty kill:
- Struggles of Stephane Yelle and Marcus Nilson. Two guys who were either injured, or strugged to regain their form after injury last year. Both are highly capable defensive forwards when they're on their games.
- Rhett Warrener's presence on the PK. Ignoring Brad Stuart, Warrener averaged the 2nd most SH minutes (3:20/game) of any Calgary blueliner behind Robyn Regehr (4:13/game). This, despite the fact he was frequently hobbled by chronic injuries that slowed him significantly. Warrener was never the best skater or puck mover even in the prime of life - slowed by pain and restricted by the obstruction crack-down, Rhettsky was frequently detrimental on the ice last year. He had problems keeping up with the play, battling in the corners and, especially, clearing the puck. If the additions of Aucoin and Sarich (and the development of Phaneuf) can reduce Warrener's SH ice-time, Im willing to bet the PK will be all the better for it.
- Robyn Regehr's difficulty acclimating to life without Jordan Leopold. Reggie had issues for the first half of the season, particularly on the PK. He made a number of simple errors during that time frame that had me thinking I had overestimated his abilities. Of course, he was also paired with less-than-capable partners those days as well: first Dion Phaneuf and then the aforementioned Rhett Warrener. He really settled down after Brad Stuart was brought in and was easily the best defender down the stretch. He finished the season with a team leading +27 rating and was far and away the best defenseman at oppressing goals against (1.87 GA/60).
As such, I believe if Regehr is consistently paired with a capable partner the PK will markedly improve.
(The man for the job looks to be Corey Sarich. He led the Lightning in terms of average SH minutes last year and was on of the best on the team in terms of GA/60 rates).
Of course, the most pressing team weakness last season was the abysmal road performance. Everything about the Flames was MUCH WORSE away from the saddledome: power play (20.5% vs 15.6%), penalty kill (82.3% vs. 78.7%), goals for (142 vs. 113) and goals against (91 vs. 130). That's right...the Flames were +51 at home and -17(!) on the road. That's an incredible 68 point differential.
Coaching issues and such aside, the kind of Jekyll and Hyde routine evidenced above is so absurdly lopsided it can't possibly continue into 07/08. Not to that degree. The rules favoring the home team as they do means almost everyone experiences a drop in their stats on the road - but I'm betting you'd be hard pressed to find another club in the league that differed this widely.
With the addition of Keenan, the demoting of Playfair and the jettisoning of dead weight from the bottom-six, I expect the Flames to be at least passable away from the Dome in 07/08. Is a 0.500 road record too much ask from this roster? I don't think so...
Anyways, those are my rather rambling thoughts on the subject(s). Overall, I think all signs point to "improvement"....
Feel free to disagree in the comments.
Damond Langkow/Kristian Huselius:
I put these guys together because they both experienced similar career seasons last year. Langkow's been a consistent 50-60 point getter for ages now, so while his jump up to 77 wasn't a huge one, it was unprecedented. Conversely, Juice's previous career high was in the 40 point range, meaning he skipped a couple of grades in one fell swoop.
This all shrieks "regression to the mean" to me. Huselius' shooting percentage was a very good 19.7% last year, nearly 6% above his previous best. That just doesn't seem sustainable, despite his undeniable puck skills. And while Langkow's SP of 13.4% was pretty much right in line with his career average, he somehow managed to shoot much MORE than usual last season: his 247 shots on net are the most he's posted in his career, a full 25 more than his previous high and nearly 60 shots higher than his previous career average (187).
Let's say they both fall back into their "career norms". Juice shooting at 14% over 170 shots yields about 24 goals. Langkow managing 190 shots at about a 13% shooting accuracy yields roughly 25 goals. That's a 10 and 8 goal reduction, respectively. Since they play together a lot, let's assume each assists on 50% of the other's goals. That's another 4 points gone for Langkow and 5 points gone for Huselius. Altogether, I think it's sensible to assume about a 15 point drop for each guy next year. That would return Langkow back to his usual 60-odd point standard and correct that big hockey stick in Huselius' career-point graph.
There'll likely be some external mitigating factors as well. If Nolan can be a slightly more capable line-mate than, say, Amonte or Moss, he might contribute to each guys assist totals and soften the regression a bit. Of course, there's also the Keenan factor: if Huselius gets dropped from the first unit PP (which is where he really excels), his point totals with further plummet. On the other hand, if Langkow ends up between Iginla and Tanguay at ES he'll be in line for another career year.
Anyways, all things being equal, I expect both guys points totals to drop, relative to last season. They stepped outside of established norms in 06/07, meaning the rubber band is bound to snap back to some degree next year.
Jarome Iginla/Alex Tanguay:
Iginla had a monster season last year where he was amongst the leagues elite in terms of PPG and ESP. Tanguay certainly had something to do with that: he's a proven performer at ES and his presence helped wrench the Flames top-6 forwards more than a few steps towards offensive respectability.
However, last season was hardly perfect for both players. Tanguay struggled during his first 3 weeks as a Flame (2 goals, 5 points in 10 GP) and he never managed to get it going on the PP: his production rate with the man advantage actually lagged behind his 5on5 production efficiency for the first half of the year! So while his 06/07 point total of 81 represents a career high (only 2 higher than previous best of 79), I think it's reasonable to expect as good or better from Tanguay next year. He's all but guaranteed significant ice-time with Jarome Iginla, and it's unlikely he'll go through any more "growing pains". In addition, one can sensibly predict an increase in his PP efficacy: the Flames have a strong cast for the first unit PP (Phaneuf, Iginla, Huselius, etc.) and typically difference makers nearly double their efficiency rates on the PP. Tanguay's PPP/60 rate was a mere 3.82 (21 points in 330 minutes), which is all of 0.54 more than his ESP/60 rate of 3.28 (60 points in 1097 minutes). That's an inexplicably poor ratio and, to my way of thinking, an unsustainable one considering his talent and teammates. Let's say he makes a two point jump in PP efficiency in 07/08 to something like 5.30 PPP/60: 330 PP minutes over the course of the season would mean an extra 10 PP points or so. Assuming Tanguay's ES production remains pretty stable, a 90+ point year for him isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
As for Iginla, he was injured for a ten game stretch in January and never really seemed to regain his form. By no means was he bad (19 points in 14 games in Feb.), but he certainly wasn't as dominant after January as he was prior. His ES differential in particular took the biggest hit: after returning to action on February 2, Iginla was a cumulative -2 for the rest of the regular season. If I remember correctly, his ESP rate dropped during that time (although his PP efficiency improved a bit) and he was getting scored on a lot more...
Does this mean one can expect the same from Jarome next year? More points assuming a full season? On the other hand, Iginla's numbers were pretty close to the career best stats he put up way back in 01/02, so should we instead assume a return to earth? Iggy has proven to be a bit of a yo-yo in the past - he followed up 01/02 with a 35 goal, 67 point performance. In fact, since 2000 his stats line reads like this: 71-96-67-73-67-94. Down-up-down-up.
That pattern doesn't speak well for next year. Course, this roster is probably the best assortment of players Jarome's played with so far in his career. So that means he may be insulated from a big drop by the surrounding talent.
Hmm...lots of conflicting stuff to consider in Iginla's case. Im going to go with "everything cancels out" and he puts up similar raw numbers to last season. I think he'll be hard pressed to replicate that PPG pace, but Im guessing he'll play more than 70 contests. So let's say another 94 points over 80 or so games.
Matthew Lombardi:
Lombardi was one of the best forwards during the Flames early season struggles in October 06. He scored 10 points in the first 10 games and was +7, despite the fact the team was playing on the road and losing. In fact, he was a minus player only once in the first 25 games, a stretch in which he also scored 18 points. He scored another 15 points in 22 games before stepping into quicksand in February. During a 10 game stretch from Jan.30 - Feb. 17, he scored just 4 points and was a -1. He would go on to score only 2 goals and 9 points for the rest of the year (22 games) after that.
So, Conroy was acquired in February, which resulted in Lombardi's average ice time sinking (he twice played less than 8 minutes in March and was scratched outright once) and with it the quality of his teammates and his confidence. The coincidence of the Conroy trade with Lombardi's reduction in effectiveness is a striking one: The Flames got Conroy back on January 29th. Starting January 30th, Lombardi didn't score any points in the next 4 games and he didn't garner more than 15:30 of ice in any of those contests (in contrast to the prior 4 games: 16:30, 19:40, 18:10 and 17:06). In fact, prior to Conroy re-joining the team, Lombardi's ice had dropped below the 15 minute mark only 5 times total, the last occurrence being Nov.25. After Jan.29th, Lombardi played 15 minutes or less 16 times.
The point of all this is: Lombardi played less and played with lesser players once he got bumped from the top 6. And it hurt it him pretty badly. Expectations for Lombo should be mediated by his place in line-up and will therefore depend on where he gets deployed in the roster. Unlike established difference makers who can "play themselves out of" the bottom-six, Lombardi is an all-or-nothing kind of guy. He can be sunk by lesser teammates and he's not going to drive the bus on the bottom-lines all by himself. With some ice and some linemates, Lombardi can be a pretty decent producer: he's scary fast, has a good shot and some deft hands around the net. He's not big, he's doesn't grind in the corners too well and he's definitely not going to beat anyone up. He's wasted among the bottom-six and it's my hope he'll usurp the aging Conroy and land amongst the top half of the roster this coming season.
Assuming that happens, expect a career year from Lombardi. Nothing like a 30+ Huselius-like gain, of course, but maybe in the 50-55 point range. From Oct.5th '06 to January 28th '07, Lombardi was a 0.65 PPG player. If he can keep that up over the entire 07/08 season, he'll score about 53 points. That would represent an encouraging step forward for the young centerman and for the organizational depth chart in general.
Course, if Lombardi wins the lottery and gets placed between Iginla and Tanguay for a majority of the year, expect a bigger jump. Conversely, if he lands amongst the bottom-6, make sure to trade/sell/waive him from your fantasy team post haste.
Dion Phaneuf:
Phaneuf has been pretty consistent during his first 2 years: Great offence, so-so defence. He was sheltered a bunch by Sutter his rookie year and took on middling competition last season after his first month of playing with Regehr didn't go too well.
If Dion can take the next step, he'll be more reliable at ES and will probably garner more minutes. Course, that could end up costing him PP time (though considering Keenan's penchant for riding the big horses hard, I doubt it).
Certain signs suggest this may happen. Phaneuf has 160+ games under his belt and is entering a contract season and you can bet Keenan's going to push him as hard as Sutter (or harder). If he can respond to these pressures, expect his point total to go up a tad and his GA/60 rate to go down. The latter stat is the more significant when it comes to these considerations and is the one to watch as the season goes on.
Team Stuff:
First and foremost, I expect a better penalty kill from the Flames next year. Considering the personnel (particularly the goaltender) this should be, at the very least, a team in the top half the league in terms of PK efficiency. Calgary floundered when down a man last year and somehow managed to be amongst the worst 8 teams in the league. Teams that were superior to the Flames (80.4%) included:
Columbus (81.2%)
Boston (81.7%)
NY Islanders (81.8%)
Florida (82.4%)
Chicago (82.6%)
Philadelphia (84.5%)
That's right...at least 6 terrible teams (4 of which with suspect goaltending) outperformed the Flames on the PK. And I didn't include Carolina (84.6%) or Edmonton (84.6%) because they were actually in the top 10 in the league.
Part of the issue was Kipper's PK SV% . He dropped from a top notch .932 SV% at ES to a very mediocre 0.885 SV% at 4on5. Assuming that stat isn't wholly dependent on team effects, a return to form by Kipper would go a long way to helping the PK out.
Naturally, the surrounding skaters do exert a sizable measure of influence on PK success or failure. There were a number obvious issues that led the Flames lack luster penalty kill:
- Struggles of Stephane Yelle and Marcus Nilson. Two guys who were either injured, or strugged to regain their form after injury last year. Both are highly capable defensive forwards when they're on their games.
- Rhett Warrener's presence on the PK. Ignoring Brad Stuart, Warrener averaged the 2nd most SH minutes (3:20/game) of any Calgary blueliner behind Robyn Regehr (4:13/game). This, despite the fact he was frequently hobbled by chronic injuries that slowed him significantly. Warrener was never the best skater or puck mover even in the prime of life - slowed by pain and restricted by the obstruction crack-down, Rhettsky was frequently detrimental on the ice last year. He had problems keeping up with the play, battling in the corners and, especially, clearing the puck. If the additions of Aucoin and Sarich (and the development of Phaneuf) can reduce Warrener's SH ice-time, Im willing to bet the PK will be all the better for it.
- Robyn Regehr's difficulty acclimating to life without Jordan Leopold. Reggie had issues for the first half of the season, particularly on the PK. He made a number of simple errors during that time frame that had me thinking I had overestimated his abilities. Of course, he was also paired with less-than-capable partners those days as well: first Dion Phaneuf and then the aforementioned Rhett Warrener. He really settled down after Brad Stuart was brought in and was easily the best defender down the stretch. He finished the season with a team leading +27 rating and was far and away the best defenseman at oppressing goals against (1.87 GA/60).
As such, I believe if Regehr is consistently paired with a capable partner the PK will markedly improve.
(The man for the job looks to be Corey Sarich. He led the Lightning in terms of average SH minutes last year and was on of the best on the team in terms of GA/60 rates).
Of course, the most pressing team weakness last season was the abysmal road performance. Everything about the Flames was MUCH WORSE away from the saddledome: power play (20.5% vs 15.6%), penalty kill (82.3% vs. 78.7%), goals for (142 vs. 113) and goals against (91 vs. 130). That's right...the Flames were +51 at home and -17(!) on the road. That's an incredible 68 point differential.
Coaching issues and such aside, the kind of Jekyll and Hyde routine evidenced above is so absurdly lopsided it can't possibly continue into 07/08. Not to that degree. The rules favoring the home team as they do means almost everyone experiences a drop in their stats on the road - but I'm betting you'd be hard pressed to find another club in the league that differed this widely.
With the addition of Keenan, the demoting of Playfair and the jettisoning of dead weight from the bottom-six, I expect the Flames to be at least passable away from the Dome in 07/08. Is a 0.500 road record too much ask from this roster? I don't think so...
Anyways, those are my rather rambling thoughts on the subject(s). Overall, I think all signs point to "improvement"....
Feel free to disagree in the comments.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Fun With Keyword Analysis
To escape the oppressive nothing that's going on in hockey right now I took a virtual stroll through the Site Meter stats...
Among other things, I learned that the blogs title acts as a bit of siren to a tiny fraction of anonymous perverts that travel Ye Olde Intraweb. To those horny few that stumble upon this site by accident...I'm sorry, but I can't help you in your quest for "strapon fanatics", "fanatics sex", "hole sex" (Is there any other kind?) and "straight glory holes in Edmonton".
For info on the latter subject, perhaps click the "covered in oil" link at right...
Among other things, I learned that the blogs title acts as a bit of siren to a tiny fraction of anonymous perverts that travel Ye Olde Intraweb. To those horny few that stumble upon this site by accident...I'm sorry, but I can't help you in your quest for "strapon fanatics", "fanatics sex", "hole sex" (Is there any other kind?) and "straight glory holes in Edmonton".
For info on the latter subject, perhaps click the "covered in oil" link at right...
Friday, August 10, 2007
On Draft Picks
Newly formed fears of the offer-sheet specter have given rise to questions regarding the true value of draft picks. What's a 1st round pick really worth anyways? What are the chances a team is going to actually get a future NHLer?
Here's how I decided to tackle the question...
First, I collected the data from the first 3 rounds from each entry draft starting in 1990 and ending in 2000. I figured that would be a generous sample size and it would yield players that are basically set on their career paths. Some guys from 2001 and upwards are still establishing themselves in the league and it would likely skew the results if I were to include those years.
I wanted to look at things from a pure, basic probabilistic model: like randomly choosing cards from a deck. I defined a "desired result" a little differently for every position...
For defencemen, I considered a "hit" to be a player that managed to play 160 games or more at the NHL level. That's it. I thought of including further parameters, such as production stats, but ran the risk of needlessly excluding useful players since the value of defencemen isn't tpyically captured in counting numbers like goals and assists.
For forwards, I used the same 160 GP line in the sand and added a minimum 0.30 career PPG pace parameter. Basically, I wanted to cull the Rico Fata-type players that manage to stick around long enough as journeymen (Fata played 230 games), but never really make any kind of impact to the unfortunate teams that get stuck with them.
For goalies, I dropped the "games played" requirement down to 100 and stuck with that. This seemed to seperate the actual players from the busts well enough .
Granted, the boundaries are somewhat arbitrary: I could have chosen 100 GP and a career pace of 0.50 PPG for forwards and gotten different results. However, I think the 160 GP is a fair minimum - it's about 2 seasons of work for a skater. If a guy couldn't stick around for at least 2 years of work in the league, it's fair to say he wasn't much of a player. Also, the 0.30 PPG rate managed to capture most of the effective forwards over the decade, even so-called "defensive specialists", while excluding the Rico Fata's and Tyler Wright's of the world. I think it's intuitive and reasonable to expect a forward to have some sort of offensive impact over a career. Fair to say, your Franchise hasn't gained much if it drafts Shawn Antoski (183GP, 3G, 5A, 8P).
Goaltending is a different matter altogether. Stats are very team dependent (and even "era" dependent) meaning I couldn't well rely on any kind of GAA or SV% line in the sand to cull the wheat from the chaffe. Since it's so singular and important a position, I figured any goalie that could play at least 100 games in the league could likely be considered an NHL caliber player.
I also added a subjective measure to the analysis by counting the number of players I personally recognized as "significant contributors" (ie stars and superstars). Sure there's probably an element of bias, but it gives at least some idea of the chances of hitting a "home-run".
The results:
(click to enlarge)
Round 1 -
From 1990 to 2000, there were 282 players chosen in the first round: 89 defencemen, 170 forwards and 22 goalies. Of the 282 players, 163 proved to be "contributors" at the NHL as defined by the criterion above. Sixty-four were defenders, 88 were forwards and 11 were goalies.
163/282 = 59% gross success rate across 11 first rounds. That's not too shabby.
Of the 163 contributors, 63 were "stars" by my personal estimation. That's a 22% success rate in terms of the total players chosen and a 39% chance you get a big-time difference maker as opposed to just Joe-Schmo NHLer.
Round 2 -
There were 302 players selected in the 2nd round during the decade in question. 104 , 175 and 24 of defencemen, forwards and goalies, respectively. As would be expected, the success rate declined significantly as compared to round 1: 74 players went on to become NHL players (only 25 of them stars).
74/302 = 24.5% chance of garnering a useful player from the second round. The probability of grabbing a star is a mere 8%.
Round 3 -
The difference between the second and third rounds wasn't as drastic. From 1990 to 2000, 288 players were chosen in round 3, 85 of which were defenders, 176 forwards and another 27 goaltenders. Eighteen blueliners went on to be players, as well as 32 forwards and just 5 goalies, for a total of 55 contributors.
55/288 = 19% chance of drafting an NHLer in the 3rd round. Twenty-four of the 55 were big time contributors by my count, making it an 8.3% chance of getting a front-liner (or top two defender, etc) when choosing in the 50's and 60's.
Admittedly, not the best of odds.
All Picks Aren't Created Equal
Of course, having the first choice overall isn't the same as having the 25th choice overall. Clearly, as the draft progresses the talent is whittled down. To generate more specific probabilities, I parsed the data into Top 5 picks, top 10 picks and top 15 picks.
Not surprisingly, Choosing in the top 5 meant a 98% chance of yielding an NHL player . Of the 55 players picked, only 3 failed to become NHL regulars (Alex Volchkov, Pavel Brendl and Jason Bosignore). Twenty-eight of the 52 went on to become stars (51%).
A top 10 choice was only slightly worse. 82 of the 110 players became contributors (75%) and 35 of them became stars (31%). The probability of getting an NHLer within the top 15 dropped down to 68% (112 of 165) with a 27% chance of grabbing a star (45/112).
Course, sample size becomes an issue here, but the general trend is hard to ignore: A top 5 pick seems to all but ensure a future NHL player.
The benefits of choosing near the top of the rotation dissipate beyond the first round, however. I gathered together the first 5 picks from the various 2nd rounds and discovered that only 17 of the 55 players in question became contributors (31%) and 5 became stars (9%), which pretty closely mirrors the general 2nd round probabilities. That suggests to me that future quality players are more or less randomly distributed amongst the turds after round 1, and organizational factors (quality of scouting, developmental system) are probably more important than draft position.
Issues
- Clearly this investigation is neither air-tight, nor exhaustive. I don't have the will or the mathematical chops to put this data through a more rigorous (and valid) analysis.
- Keep in mind that draft position changed as the league expanded. A 2nd round pick in 1991 was a first round pick in 1999.
- As mentioned, the "minimum requirements" for a player to be considered an NHLer, and therefore of future value (a "contributor") were pretty arbitrary. There's probably a more valid method of determining cut-off points within the data set itself, but I think the qualitatively intuitive parameters I chose work well enough for an initial inquiry like this one.
- In the future, a larger representative sample size, including equal round lengths (1-30, 31-61, etc) might smooth out some wrinkles.
- Treating the draft as a purely probabilistic event isn't very accurate. GM's don't just choose names out of hat (although the Flames Franchise probably would have done BETTER during the 90's had they done that). Quality of an organization's scouting staff and development system no doubt have an effect on a given team's success rate.
- Draft quality varies by year. Some summers yield numerous high quality NHLers (1997), while others are less fecund (1996). The depth of a given draft will no doubt effect success rates.
Conclusions
Assuming the limitations of my investigation don't render it completely worthless, there did seem to be some interesting observable trends. A first rounder looks to be slightly better than a coin flip overall, with a top 5 choice representing an almost sure-fire future player. The reduction in "talent density" in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as compared to the first is considerable, with the basic 3rd rounder representing roughly a 19% chance of choosing a contributor at any position.
Based on this info, the best strategy would seem to be gathering as many draft picks as possible in order to increase your chances of a "hit", or alternatively, banishing single picks beyond the first round for established NHLers. I think the percentages suggest that a lone 3rd (or even 2nd) rounder on it's own doesn't seem to have a great deal of utility.
EDIT - For anyone who wants to play with this stuff themselves, I've published the raw data at google spreadsheets here.
Here's how I decided to tackle the question...
First, I collected the data from the first 3 rounds from each entry draft starting in 1990 and ending in 2000. I figured that would be a generous sample size and it would yield players that are basically set on their career paths. Some guys from 2001 and upwards are still establishing themselves in the league and it would likely skew the results if I were to include those years.
I wanted to look at things from a pure, basic probabilistic model: like randomly choosing cards from a deck. I defined a "desired result" a little differently for every position...
For defencemen, I considered a "hit" to be a player that managed to play 160 games or more at the NHL level. That's it. I thought of including further parameters, such as production stats, but ran the risk of needlessly excluding useful players since the value of defencemen isn't tpyically captured in counting numbers like goals and assists.
For forwards, I used the same 160 GP line in the sand and added a minimum 0.30 career PPG pace parameter. Basically, I wanted to cull the Rico Fata-type players that manage to stick around long enough as journeymen (Fata played 230 games), but never really make any kind of impact to the unfortunate teams that get stuck with them.
For goalies, I dropped the "games played" requirement down to 100 and stuck with that. This seemed to seperate the actual players from the busts well enough .
Granted, the boundaries are somewhat arbitrary: I could have chosen 100 GP and a career pace of 0.50 PPG for forwards and gotten different results. However, I think the 160 GP is a fair minimum - it's about 2 seasons of work for a skater. If a guy couldn't stick around for at least 2 years of work in the league, it's fair to say he wasn't much of a player. Also, the 0.30 PPG rate managed to capture most of the effective forwards over the decade, even so-called "defensive specialists", while excluding the Rico Fata's and Tyler Wright's of the world. I think it's intuitive and reasonable to expect a forward to have some sort of offensive impact over a career. Fair to say, your Franchise hasn't gained much if it drafts Shawn Antoski (183GP, 3G, 5A, 8P).
Goaltending is a different matter altogether. Stats are very team dependent (and even "era" dependent) meaning I couldn't well rely on any kind of GAA or SV% line in the sand to cull the wheat from the chaffe. Since it's so singular and important a position, I figured any goalie that could play at least 100 games in the league could likely be considered an NHL caliber player.
I also added a subjective measure to the analysis by counting the number of players I personally recognized as "significant contributors" (ie stars and superstars). Sure there's probably an element of bias, but it gives at least some idea of the chances of hitting a "home-run".
The results:
(click to enlarge)From 1990 to 2000, there were 282 players chosen in the first round: 89 defencemen, 170 forwards and 22 goalies. Of the 282 players, 163 proved to be "contributors" at the NHL as defined by the criterion above. Sixty-four were defenders, 88 were forwards and 11 were goalies.
163/282 = 59% gross success rate across 11 first rounds. That's not too shabby.
Of the 163 contributors, 63 were "stars" by my personal estimation. That's a 22% success rate in terms of the total players chosen and a 39% chance you get a big-time difference maker as opposed to just Joe-Schmo NHLer.
Round 2 -
There were 302 players selected in the 2nd round during the decade in question. 104 , 175 and 24 of defencemen, forwards and goalies, respectively. As would be expected, the success rate declined significantly as compared to round 1: 74 players went on to become NHL players (only 25 of them stars).
74/302 = 24.5% chance of garnering a useful player from the second round. The probability of grabbing a star is a mere 8%.
Round 3 -
The difference between the second and third rounds wasn't as drastic. From 1990 to 2000, 288 players were chosen in round 3, 85 of which were defenders, 176 forwards and another 27 goaltenders. Eighteen blueliners went on to be players, as well as 32 forwards and just 5 goalies, for a total of 55 contributors.
55/288 = 19% chance of drafting an NHLer in the 3rd round. Twenty-four of the 55 were big time contributors by my count, making it an 8.3% chance of getting a front-liner (or top two defender, etc) when choosing in the 50's and 60's.
Admittedly, not the best of odds.
All Picks Aren't Created Equal
Of course, having the first choice overall isn't the same as having the 25th choice overall. Clearly, as the draft progresses the talent is whittled down. To generate more specific probabilities, I parsed the data into Top 5 picks, top 10 picks and top 15 picks.
Not surprisingly, Choosing in the top 5 meant a 98% chance of yielding an NHL player . Of the 55 players picked, only 3 failed to become NHL regulars (Alex Volchkov, Pavel Brendl and Jason Bosignore). Twenty-eight of the 52 went on to become stars (51%).
A top 10 choice was only slightly worse. 82 of the 110 players became contributors (75%) and 35 of them became stars (31%). The probability of getting an NHLer within the top 15 dropped down to 68% (112 of 165) with a 27% chance of grabbing a star (45/112).
Course, sample size becomes an issue here, but the general trend is hard to ignore: A top 5 pick seems to all but ensure a future NHL player.
The benefits of choosing near the top of the rotation dissipate beyond the first round, however. I gathered together the first 5 picks from the various 2nd rounds and discovered that only 17 of the 55 players in question became contributors (31%) and 5 became stars (9%), which pretty closely mirrors the general 2nd round probabilities. That suggests to me that future quality players are more or less randomly distributed amongst the turds after round 1, and organizational factors (quality of scouting, developmental system) are probably more important than draft position.
Issues
- Clearly this investigation is neither air-tight, nor exhaustive. I don't have the will or the mathematical chops to put this data through a more rigorous (and valid) analysis.
- Keep in mind that draft position changed as the league expanded. A 2nd round pick in 1991 was a first round pick in 1999.
- As mentioned, the "minimum requirements" for a player to be considered an NHLer, and therefore of future value (a "contributor") were pretty arbitrary. There's probably a more valid method of determining cut-off points within the data set itself, but I think the qualitatively intuitive parameters I chose work well enough for an initial inquiry like this one.
- In the future, a larger representative sample size, including equal round lengths (1-30, 31-61, etc) might smooth out some wrinkles.
- Treating the draft as a purely probabilistic event isn't very accurate. GM's don't just choose names out of hat (although the Flames Franchise probably would have done BETTER during the 90's had they done that). Quality of an organization's scouting staff and development system no doubt have an effect on a given team's success rate.
- Draft quality varies by year. Some summers yield numerous high quality NHLers (1997), while others are less fecund (1996). The depth of a given draft will no doubt effect success rates.
Conclusions
Assuming the limitations of my investigation don't render it completely worthless, there did seem to be some interesting observable trends. A first rounder looks to be slightly better than a coin flip overall, with a top 5 choice representing an almost sure-fire future player. The reduction in "talent density" in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as compared to the first is considerable, with the basic 3rd rounder representing roughly a 19% chance of choosing a contributor at any position.
Based on this info, the best strategy would seem to be gathering as many draft picks as possible in order to increase your chances of a "hit", or alternatively, banishing single picks beyond the first round for established NHLers. I think the percentages suggest that a lone 3rd (or even 2nd) rounder on it's own doesn't seem to have a great deal of utility.
EDIT - For anyone who wants to play with this stuff themselves, I've published the raw data at google spreadsheets here.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Sex Sells
Just because I don't think this is getting enough attention (and also because there's not a lot else worth talking about out there at the moment) I thought I'd swipe this provocative little poster from A2Y:
Seems there was some general dissatisfaction amongst Detroit fans when it came to their ill-advised "Fire on Ice" marketing campaign. Apparently IwoCPO has been soliciting readers and such for more viable alternatives.
Mission accomplished.
Seems there was some general dissatisfaction amongst Detroit fans when it came to their ill-advised "Fire on Ice" marketing campaign. Apparently IwoCPO has been soliciting readers and such for more viable alternatives.
Mission accomplished.
Bargain Hunting
In a capped league one of the keys to success is garnering value for dollars spent. This recent Lowetide post on the 05/06 Oilers club inspired me to take a look at the current Flames roster with an eye to predicting the potential high value players for the upcoming season.
Matthew Lombardi:
Prior to all this RFA craziness instituted by a desperate man up north, Sutter managed to ink Lombo to a shiny, new 3 year deal worth an average of 1.87M per year. In light of some of the contracts handed out to Matthew's cohorts this summer (Penner - 4.3M, Parise - 3.125M, Scott Hartnell - 4.2M) the deal is a relative bargain. As such, the probability that Lombardi will deliver a high results to dollar ratio is a good one: given the current market, even if he treads water this season and duplicates his 06/07 performance (20G, 46 points), he will deliver "full value" for his cap number.
Should Lombardi take a step or two forward, he will considerably outperform his contract. And it's probably not unreasonable to expect a break-out season from the fourth year pro either: he's 25 and on the crest of his peak years. He's a season removed from breaking the 20 goal barrier and is poised to once and for all break into the Flames top-6 forwards, which is a relatively strong set of point producers. He's got experience and a decent supporting cast. He proved himself capable of skating with the big boys during his successful stint in the World Championships. All signs point to "yes", as the magic 8-ball would say.
Kristian Huselius:
His 1.4M/year deal is absurd. Mike Ribeiro makes more than that. So does Steve Rucchin, Chris Gratton and Brett McLean. At this price point, Keenan would have to bench Juice for the half the season to drain his contract of value.
Huselius is coming off a break-out season of his own (34 goals, 77 points). He and Langkow drove the results on the 2nd unit and they even excelled as the top dogs with Tanguay while Iginla was injured in January. If there hadn't been a rotating tie-rack of less than capable RWers on that 2nd line all year (Kobasew, Amonte, Moss), Huselius would likely have been at least a PPG player.
That's a mighty fine production/dollar rate, particularly considering the current market. Heading into 07/08, The "Keenan risk" remains as does the potential for Juice to regress back to the mean a little, but I wouldn't bet against another 60+ point campaign for the chinless magician. He's consistently put up good to great results on the PP since becoming a Flame, and Calgary should have a top 10 unit again next season if a couple of things go right.
Damond Langkow:
The 30 year old pivot has managed 50 or more points for 7 straight seasons, including the career-best numbers he put up last year (33G, 77P). His GF/GA +/- rate at ES was the best of any regular forward on the team (+1.49 G/60), resulting in an impressive +23 stat in 06/07 as well.
Langkow is the undisputed #1 center on the Flames depth chart. He has consistently put up good (or better) results, even on crappy teams: during his 3 years in the desert, Langs managed 68 goals, 166 points and a cumulative +42 rating in 243 GP for the Coyotes. So while his contract isn't in the bargain basement like Lombardi's and Juice's, comparatively he's a much smaller risk to produce just middling results next year. Another step in the same footprint would represent high value.
Dion Phaneuf:
This will be the last season of his rookie capped salary. Phaneuf has already delivered outstanding results relative to his pay-scale the last two seasons and hopefully the Flames will see more of the same (or better) this year. Dion has led the Flames d-corps in minutes played for two straight years, and has been amongst the best in other categories as well: PP production, goals (by defencemen), hits and blocked shots. He scored 99 points in his first 161 games, a PPG rate over and above many young forwards (0.614), let alone rearguards.
If Phaneuf can step into a top 4 role and consistently suppress scoring as well as he promotes it in 07/08, he will significantly galvanize the Flames back-end and further outperform his cap hit (0.785). There's no question he will again be Calgary's #1 PP option on the blueline and likely the ice-time leader thanks to his 4+ minutes of PP time a game. He'll therefore produce nice looking counting numbers again, which is all you can reasonably ask out of those kinds of dollars. Course, should he take a step forward and start excelling against tougher opponents at ES, Phaneuf will represent the best value on the team (and the league?).
Mark Giordano:
I've beat the drum for Giordano in this space for awhile now. I thought he was excellent during his limited time in Calgary last year. He's quick and has great offensive instincts. I love his first pass and ability to read and react to a play, especially off the rush. His shot isn't hard, but it's laser-beam accurate. He scored two goals in a game in his home town of Toronto last year, the second of which was a ballsy, cut-out-of-the-corner move that half the forward roster would be hard pressed to execute.
That said, he has the expected deficiencies of a young, inexperienced player: he battles with inconsistency at times and struggles against the tougher opponents. There's no question that Giordano should be sheltered from the big boys, but his (expected - he's yet to sign a new contract) low price point makes it hard to complain too loudly. He put up decent scoring rates at ES and the PP last season and did well against the lesser lights in his rookie campaign, despite frequently skating with poorer linemates (Zyuzin and an injured Warrener). Should he be granted a full-time roster spot and decent PP minutes, I expect Gio to outperform his contract pretty handily (assuming he's re-signed to something below 1M/year).
Miika Kiprusoff:
Top 3 goaltender in the league. Makes 3.33M/season.
David Moss:
Moss was a surprise to make the team last year and even then he managed to distinguish himself well enough to make Chuck Kobasew expendable. As a rookie, he scored at a rate that would have had him at 20 goals for the season had he played the full year. He proved adept at a lot of the "little things" around the rink, making him less of an ES risk than most rooks (doubtlessly owing to the fact that he's a late blooming 24 year old), which is probably the reason he was allowed to stick on the 2nd line with Huselius and Langkow, despite the fact he's not ideally top 6 material. He's decent in the corners in the offensive zone and in front of the net. Overall, he doesn't have an elite skillset, however, which is one of the reasons I expect him to be bumped down the depth chart in October. He isn't particularly fast or agile. His shot is mediocre. He's not going to beat most defenders one on one.
What he can do is chip in around the net and keep his nose clean otherwise. His cap hit is just about as small as it gets, too: $550,000. That means, even if he just manages to keep his head above water at ES, he will meet or exceed his contract value. Anything beyond that is gravy.
A couple of these guys are almost guaranteed to deliver top value for dollar (Langkow, Kipper, Phanuef) while a few of them have question marks (Lombardi, Huselius, Giordano). Should the stars align, the Flames will have a half dozen overachievers, resulting in a roster worth well more than it's 47M+ cap hit in terms of production, likely paving the way for a decent amount of success.
Naturally, The flip side is this will be the last season for the Franchise to take advantage of many of these underpaying deals. Kipper, Phanuef, Langkow and Huselius are all in line for fat raises in the summer of 08, and the team will no doubt lose at least two of those players due to budget constraints (Langkow and Huselius). Sutter has planted the seed for on-going competitiveness this off-season by locking up Regehr and Iginla long-term. However, to my eye this coming year looks to be the best chance for the Flames to be a genuine contender, considering all the latent value currently residing on the roster. Replacing the contributions of Langkow and Huselius while getting no better than market value production from Kirusoff (assuming Sutter get's his signature on an extension as well) and Phaneuf in 08/09 will represent a significant organizational challenge and will no doubt cripple Calgary's chances of contending for the Stanley Cup thereafter.
Matthew Lombardi:
Prior to all this RFA craziness instituted by a desperate man up north, Sutter managed to ink Lombo to a shiny, new 3 year deal worth an average of 1.87M per year. In light of some of the contracts handed out to Matthew's cohorts this summer (Penner - 4.3M, Parise - 3.125M, Scott Hartnell - 4.2M) the deal is a relative bargain. As such, the probability that Lombardi will deliver a high results to dollar ratio is a good one: given the current market, even if he treads water this season and duplicates his 06/07 performance (20G, 46 points), he will deliver "full value" for his cap number.
Should Lombardi take a step or two forward, he will considerably outperform his contract. And it's probably not unreasonable to expect a break-out season from the fourth year pro either: he's 25 and on the crest of his peak years. He's a season removed from breaking the 20 goal barrier and is poised to once and for all break into the Flames top-6 forwards, which is a relatively strong set of point producers. He's got experience and a decent supporting cast. He proved himself capable of skating with the big boys during his successful stint in the World Championships. All signs point to "yes", as the magic 8-ball would say.
Kristian Huselius:
His 1.4M/year deal is absurd. Mike Ribeiro makes more than that. So does Steve Rucchin, Chris Gratton and Brett McLean. At this price point, Keenan would have to bench Juice for the half the season to drain his contract of value.
Huselius is coming off a break-out season of his own (34 goals, 77 points). He and Langkow drove the results on the 2nd unit and they even excelled as the top dogs with Tanguay while Iginla was injured in January. If there hadn't been a rotating tie-rack of less than capable RWers on that 2nd line all year (Kobasew, Amonte, Moss), Huselius would likely have been at least a PPG player.
That's a mighty fine production/dollar rate, particularly considering the current market. Heading into 07/08, The "Keenan risk" remains as does the potential for Juice to regress back to the mean a little, but I wouldn't bet against another 60+ point campaign for the chinless magician. He's consistently put up good to great results on the PP since becoming a Flame, and Calgary should have a top 10 unit again next season if a couple of things go right.
Damond Langkow:
The 30 year old pivot has managed 50 or more points for 7 straight seasons, including the career-best numbers he put up last year (33G, 77P). His GF/GA +/- rate at ES was the best of any regular forward on the team (+1.49 G/60), resulting in an impressive +23 stat in 06/07 as well.
Langkow is the undisputed #1 center on the Flames depth chart. He has consistently put up good (or better) results, even on crappy teams: during his 3 years in the desert, Langs managed 68 goals, 166 points and a cumulative +42 rating in 243 GP for the Coyotes. So while his contract isn't in the bargain basement like Lombardi's and Juice's, comparatively he's a much smaller risk to produce just middling results next year. Another step in the same footprint would represent high value.
Dion Phaneuf:
This will be the last season of his rookie capped salary. Phaneuf has already delivered outstanding results relative to his pay-scale the last two seasons and hopefully the Flames will see more of the same (or better) this year. Dion has led the Flames d-corps in minutes played for two straight years, and has been amongst the best in other categories as well: PP production, goals (by defencemen), hits and blocked shots. He scored 99 points in his first 161 games, a PPG rate over and above many young forwards (0.614), let alone rearguards.
If Phaneuf can step into a top 4 role and consistently suppress scoring as well as he promotes it in 07/08, he will significantly galvanize the Flames back-end and further outperform his cap hit (0.785). There's no question he will again be Calgary's #1 PP option on the blueline and likely the ice-time leader thanks to his 4+ minutes of PP time a game. He'll therefore produce nice looking counting numbers again, which is all you can reasonably ask out of those kinds of dollars. Course, should he take a step forward and start excelling against tougher opponents at ES, Phaneuf will represent the best value on the team (and the league?).
Mark Giordano:
I've beat the drum for Giordano in this space for awhile now. I thought he was excellent during his limited time in Calgary last year. He's quick and has great offensive instincts. I love his first pass and ability to read and react to a play, especially off the rush. His shot isn't hard, but it's laser-beam accurate. He scored two goals in a game in his home town of Toronto last year, the second of which was a ballsy, cut-out-of-the-corner move that half the forward roster would be hard pressed to execute.
That said, he has the expected deficiencies of a young, inexperienced player: he battles with inconsistency at times and struggles against the tougher opponents. There's no question that Giordano should be sheltered from the big boys, but his (expected - he's yet to sign a new contract) low price point makes it hard to complain too loudly. He put up decent scoring rates at ES and the PP last season and did well against the lesser lights in his rookie campaign, despite frequently skating with poorer linemates (Zyuzin and an injured Warrener). Should he be granted a full-time roster spot and decent PP minutes, I expect Gio to outperform his contract pretty handily (assuming he's re-signed to something below 1M/year).
Miika Kiprusoff:
Top 3 goaltender in the league. Makes 3.33M/season.
David Moss:
Moss was a surprise to make the team last year and even then he managed to distinguish himself well enough to make Chuck Kobasew expendable. As a rookie, he scored at a rate that would have had him at 20 goals for the season had he played the full year. He proved adept at a lot of the "little things" around the rink, making him less of an ES risk than most rooks (doubtlessly owing to the fact that he's a late blooming 24 year old), which is probably the reason he was allowed to stick on the 2nd line with Huselius and Langkow, despite the fact he's not ideally top 6 material. He's decent in the corners in the offensive zone and in front of the net. Overall, he doesn't have an elite skillset, however, which is one of the reasons I expect him to be bumped down the depth chart in October. He isn't particularly fast or agile. His shot is mediocre. He's not going to beat most defenders one on one.
What he can do is chip in around the net and keep his nose clean otherwise. His cap hit is just about as small as it gets, too: $550,000. That means, even if he just manages to keep his head above water at ES, he will meet or exceed his contract value. Anything beyond that is gravy.
A couple of these guys are almost guaranteed to deliver top value for dollar (Langkow, Kipper, Phanuef) while a few of them have question marks (Lombardi, Huselius, Giordano). Should the stars align, the Flames will have a half dozen overachievers, resulting in a roster worth well more than it's 47M+ cap hit in terms of production, likely paving the way for a decent amount of success.
Naturally, The flip side is this will be the last season for the Franchise to take advantage of many of these underpaying deals. Kipper, Phanuef, Langkow and Huselius are all in line for fat raises in the summer of 08, and the team will no doubt lose at least two of those players due to budget constraints (Langkow and Huselius). Sutter has planted the seed for on-going competitiveness this off-season by locking up Regehr and Iginla long-term. However, to my eye this coming year looks to be the best chance for the Flames to be a genuine contender, considering all the latent value currently residing on the roster. Replacing the contributions of Langkow and Huselius while getting no better than market value production from Kirusoff (assuming Sutter get's his signature on an extension as well) and Phaneuf in 08/09 will represent a significant organizational challenge and will no doubt cripple Calgary's chances of contending for the Stanley Cup thereafter.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Happy Dustin Penner Day!
It's now 12:30 with no word from Brian Burke. CHED in Edmonton is saying there is no matching offer from Anaheim and Dustin Penner is now an Edmonton Oiler.
The highest paid Edmonton Oiler at that.
For the second time this summer, I get to say "YAY!!" to a Kevin Lowe acquisition.
A Glance Back in Time
Five years ago, prior to Darryl Sutter taking the organizational reins, the Flames roster looked something like this:
Gelinas - Conroy - Iginla
Lowry - Drury - Clark
Saprykin - Yelle - Donovan
Begin - Nichol - Sloan
(Berube, Kobasew)
Regehr - Leopold
Lydman - Gauthier
Ference - Boughner
(Montador, Buzek)
Turek
McLennan
(Sabourin)
That year, the Flames somehow managed to have four 20+ goals scorers: Iginla (35), Conroy (22), Drury (23) and Gelinas (21). Only Iginla broke the 60 point barrier (67).
Toni Lydman led the defense in scoring with 6 goals and 26 points. A young Robyn Regehr and rookie Jordan Leopold were just starting to form a decent top pairing duo on the back-end, but weren't quite ready for prime time. Chuck Kobasew was a rookie who saw action in 23 contests: mainly because the roster was so desperate for some kind of scoring ability. The goaltending was just alright, and not good enough to hold together such a patch-work line-up. As you can plainly see, there was little depth and a lot of "role players" and flat-out prayers.
That club managed 75 points during the regular season and missed the play-offs by a touch down or so. They had a -42 GD and terrible special teams.
Of course, Sutter went about remaking the team in 03/04, acquiring Kipper, Nieminen, Nilson, Simon, McAmmond, Reinprecht and Warrener and dropping some dead weight (he'd also added Ference and Donovan during his brief stint in the org the year before if memory serves). The rest is history. Granted, that team couldn't seem to score either, but the firming up of the roster was a step in the right direction.
With exclusion of the odd miscalculation here and there (Rhino and Sauve for Boucher and Leclerc, Amonte/Friesen signings, Lydman for 3rd rounder, the Playfair thing) the Franchise has been in an upward swing ever since. And now, 5 seasons later, as the Oilers prepare to welcome their newest overpriced, ill-advised addition, I can't help but sit back and think 'Thank God for Sutter".
Gelinas - Conroy - Iginla
Lowry - Drury - Clark
Saprykin - Yelle - Donovan
Begin - Nichol - Sloan
(Berube, Kobasew)
Regehr - Leopold
Lydman - Gauthier
Ference - Boughner
(Montador, Buzek)
Turek
McLennan
(Sabourin)
That year, the Flames somehow managed to have four 20+ goals scorers: Iginla (35), Conroy (22), Drury (23) and Gelinas (21). Only Iginla broke the 60 point barrier (67).
Toni Lydman led the defense in scoring with 6 goals and 26 points. A young Robyn Regehr and rookie Jordan Leopold were just starting to form a decent top pairing duo on the back-end, but weren't quite ready for prime time. Chuck Kobasew was a rookie who saw action in 23 contests: mainly because the roster was so desperate for some kind of scoring ability. The goaltending was just alright, and not good enough to hold together such a patch-work line-up. As you can plainly see, there was little depth and a lot of "role players" and flat-out prayers.
That club managed 75 points during the regular season and missed the play-offs by a touch down or so. They had a -42 GD and terrible special teams.
Of course, Sutter went about remaking the team in 03/04, acquiring Kipper, Nieminen, Nilson, Simon, McAmmond, Reinprecht and Warrener and dropping some dead weight (he'd also added Ference and Donovan during his brief stint in the org the year before if memory serves). The rest is history. Granted, that team couldn't seem to score either, but the firming up of the roster was a step in the right direction.
With exclusion of the odd miscalculation here and there (Rhino and Sauve for Boucher and Leclerc, Amonte/Friesen signings, Lydman for 3rd rounder, the Playfair thing) the Franchise has been in an upward swing ever since. And now, 5 seasons later, as the Oilers prepare to welcome their newest overpriced, ill-advised addition, I can't help but sit back and think 'Thank God for Sutter".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)