Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Who Needs Defencemen?
Lowetide has beaten me to the punch on looking at the defensive depth of the Carolina Hurricanes (and Black Dog brought up the Sabres in the comments and on his own site), but I had started working on this before the weekend, so I'm going to throw it up here anyway. Ironically, my inspiration came from Lowetide himself, and his persistent belief that the Oilers are going to need to make a trade for a defenceman. I disagree, and wanted to prove my point by comparison. What I wanted to do was look at two very successful teams from last year--the Buffalo Sabres and the Carolina Hurricanes. Both teams had similar characteristics: four, fast lines, solid goaltending, and a collection of serviceable, but not extraordinary, defencemen. Both teams had 100+ point seasons, and met in the Eastern Conference Final. The Canes won that series, thanks in large part to a depleted Sabres defensive core (the irony never stops), and eventually won the Stanley Cup. It is my belief that both teams are well run, and excellent models on which to build a franchise. It is also my belief that Oilers manager Kevin Lowe has the same opinion on these two teams. One difference between the post by Lowetide and this one is that I didn't bother to look at career games. Rather, I looked only at numbers from last year, for all three teams. I looked at Games Played, Goals, Assists, Points, Plus/Minus, Wins, Losses, Goals Against and Save Percentage. All are traditional metrics, and only scratch the surface on individual and team value. I don't even like the Plus/Minus statistic, to be honest. But I just wanted to take a cursory glance, not an in-depth view of things. I still haven't seen a full explanation and defence of EV+/-. Nor could I find those numbers in one place online, so I didn't include them. I took depth charts from both TSN and CBS Sportsline, and in the case of the Canes and Sabres, only included players who had played a substantial of NHL games last season. The players may be out of position, but that a) isn't my fault and, b) doesn't really matter. What matters is that we see the numbers for the key players, side by side.
Now obviously, defence is important. The question is, how important? If you can score six goals a night, does it really matter that you let in five? Not really, so let's refine the question: how important are defencemen to team success? Myself, I don't know. Others certainly have ideas, and I'd love to hear them (I actually really want to hear a full explanation and defence of EV+/-), but as it stands right now my opinion is that they are less important to team success than both forwards and goaltenders. The Canes and Sabres did very well in both the regular season and the playoffs last year, and did so without a single Grade A defencemen. Looking at their depth charts from last year, and the Oilers depth chart from this year, I am just wondering: can we do the same in 2006/2007?
For good measure, I am going to steal and add in Lowetide's numbers on Career Games Played:
Sabres
Teppo Numminen 1235
Jay McKee 582
Toni Lydman 364
Dmitri Kalinin 338
Brian Campbell 246
Rory Fitzpatrick 210
Henrik Tallinder 202
Canes
Glen Wesley 1311
Bret Hedican 872
Aaron Ward 552
Frantisek Kaberle 386
Niklas Wallin 273
Mike Commodore 147
Oilers
Jason Smith 786
Steve Staios 619
Daniel Tjarnqvist 278
Marc Andre Bergeron 134
Matt Greene 27
Jan Hejda 0
Ladislav Smid 0
Some Thoughts
• The Sabres had eleven players who scored over 40 points in 05/06. The Canes had ten. The Oilers have seven.
• The Sabres had six 20-goal scorers in 05/06. The Canes had seven. The Oilers have six, with Pisani and Hemsky knocking on the door.
• The starting goalies for both the Sabres and Canes had Save Percentages over .905. Roloson's was .908 last year, in limited playing time.
• Carolina's Goals For/Against Differential is unimpressive. They actually led the league in One Goal Game Wins.
• The Oilers could certainly use one more veteran defenceman to eat up minutes. Then again, Mike Commodore and Toni Lydman were castaways, and they ended up playing substantial minutes in the regular season and playoffs for both the Canes and Sabres. I see no reason why Hejda and Tjarnqvist can't have the same solid seasons for the Oilers.
• Apropos of nothing, the Oilers had 13 overtime losses last year. That puts us in solid company, alongside the Boston Bruins, Pittsburgh Penguins, Chicago Blackhawks, and St. Louis Blues. Eliminate even five of those, and our regular season results are very different. I hope to see a shootout lineup of Sykora, Pisani, and Hemsky this year, followed by Lupul and Schremp.
# posted by andy grabia @ 4:55 pm 
Comments:
The stats guys will agree fully with you that forwards and goalies drive the results better than defensemen do, which I suppose I can see... a two way forward is probably more useful in both ends of the ice than a two way defensman is, and a forward can play good D just by keeping the puck in the other teams zone, even if he's not so hot in his own end.
Maybe it's just my nature, but I'm not quite so optimistic about the Canes and Sabres model of no name D working all the time. Playoff sucess can be quite fickle, and the results from those two teams could be mere flukes.
At the same time, it's certainly worth a shot, and if Edmonton can keep their solid forwards together instead of trading one in a desperate bid for a legit top four dman.... it's certainly worth a shot.
Playoff sucess can be quite fickle, and the results from those two teams could be mere flukes.
Totally agree. Billy Beane has commented that the problem with a 5 or 7 game series is that it is essentially just a crapshoot. Which is why I tried to look at the whole season, not just the playoffs. Neither Buffalo or Carolina squeaked into the playoffs. They had excellent regular seasons, as well as excellent playoffs. But yes, another year under the belt would give us a lot more to look at.
Yeah, they do have regular season success, so i suppose that bodes well.... i'm not sure how much credit people would give them though had they both gone out in the first round. I suppose people tend to give too much weight to playoff performace though.
It is my belief that both teams are well run, and excellent models on which to build a franchise. It is also my belief that Oilers manager Kevin Lowe has the same opinion on these two teams.
Aside from that whole young franchise goaltender business, right?
Not to mention the fact that the Hurricanes and Sabres both had plenty of experience on the blueline — it was just made up of underrated guys like Tallinder and Ward who had simply never had the opportunity to shine before.
Aside from that whole young franchise goaltender business, right?
We may not have them right now, but I believe we have two kids who are going to be excellent goaltenders. Patience, James.
As for the experienced defence, did you even see the list of career games played? About six of the thirteen defenceman on the Canes and Sabres have experience. A season ago, they had even less. And just because you have a lot of games under your belt, it doesn't automatically mean that you are any good. Igor Ulanov has played 739 games in the NHL, for example. It doesn't mean the Oilers should sign him. The whole point is that no one knew of these "underrated" guys a year ago, and that it may not even matter what defencemen you dress.
“I suppose people tend to give too much weight to playoff performace though.”
That is a very good point, which raises lots of other questions. I mean, it's kind of hard not to give weight to playoff performance, since that is the ultimate goal. But performing at a consistent basis for 82 games is a lot more difficult that doing so over 16-28. On the one hand you have the Senators. On the other you have, well, the Oilers. Really, you want both, and I think both the Sabres and Canes did that. If they both hold up again this year, we will know that they are for real.
“Getting to the play-offs isn't random: Over 162 games, if you have the right team, the odds work out. But once you get to the postseason, everything becomes random. In a 5-game series, you can flip a coin five times, and you might come up tails five times. In our market and many others, we can't build a team that's specifically geared for 162 games and also for a 5-game play-off. That I don't think we'll ever overcome."
--Billy Beane
I think the Cole's Notes version of Bean's argument is that over a 162 game season it is possible to design a team that score X amount of runs and this will result in us winning approximately Y amount of games.
What I can't tell is when this runs will be scored, or how many will be scored on any given night. In other words, his predictive power over an entire 162 game is season is far greater than it is for any one week stretch.
This is why his "shit" doesn't work in playoffs. The uncontrollable variance in events over a 7 game series is far greater than it is over an entire regular season (because of reasons of sample size, regression to the mean ect), thus the ability to control your team's performance over a 7 game series is diminished accordingly.
Is the same true for hockey? You could argue that hockey is different because the style played during the playoffs it noticeably different from the regular season. Following from this, you could then design a team that is suited to play "playoff hockey", thus resulting in a correspondingly higher probability of success during the post-season. The same isn't true for baseball, where the game played is essentially the same in both the regular season and playoffs (with the possible exception of more small ball and the premium on elite starting pitching).
with the possible exception of more small ball and the premium on elite starting pitching
That's a pretty big difference, especially in the first round. Imagine playing the Twins with a healthy Santana and Lirano in the first round, for example.
Following from this, you could then design a team that is suited to play "playoff hockey", thus resulting in a correspondingly higher probability of success during the post-season.
Well, you still have to make the playoffs. Designing two rosters isn't really a solution. You're better off doing what Beane does in Oakland. Let your team play for the first couple months, tweak and trade, then make the mad dash for the playoffs. It's essentially what Lowe did last year, to great effect.
Good post Andy.
Despite my own post I am on the fence.
Part of me thinks the Oilers may be ok - they need one guy to make the jump and I think they will have a good top four.
Part of me thinks I'm whistling past the graveyard - none of these guys has what it takes.
In Lowe I trust but man oh man, fingers crossed.
As for your theory in general - you can probably add Tampa to that mix as well - when they won their team had a mix of young and old - Cullimore, Sydor, Sarich, Boyle, Kubina, Lukowich (I think) - in other words you looked at them and said - meh. Hard to say if, as Mirtle says, they were just underrated guys waiting to shine (Dan Boyle would fit this) or if the days of needing a stud 30 minute per game guy are gone.
Just so you know, your NHL Stats links both go to their Stats homepage. In order to get the right link, you have to right-click on the page you generate, click View Page Info (Firefox) or Properties (IE), and copy and paste that URL.
Ahem (or rather, apropos of nothing), but the Oilers had 13 overtime Wins last season, good for T3rd in the league. Eliminate even 5 of those, and your regular season results are a lot different, not to mention MacT being out of a job right now.
Come to think of it, but eliminate 5 of those OTLs -- by making them reg. Ls -- and same deal.
Look, we all want our teams to bat .700 or so in OT, but on balance, it's a lot better to have your close games settled in overtime.
The Buffalo model is probably more fascinating to look at because their goals against were sterling 10th. Their system, which deployed the 4 fast lines as you suggest, was as succesful on the backcheck.
Carolina's post-season adjustment included more fast backchecking and basically deploying Rod BrindAmour for half the game. The result -- they came to hold their own at ES, and won the special teams battle against all their opponents.
Carolina got to the playoffs using vigourous outscoring (and their PP wasn't that good). I haven't looked at the stats -- but I bet their PK was pretty good throughout. More importantly -- they got to ride their cheesy opponents in the Southeast.
My guess is that Buffalo looked like the ideal regular season team and the ideal playoff team throughout.
Like Edmonton, Carolina rode some luck and opportunity to get there (struggled quite a bit after the loss of Cole and the add of Weight and Rechhi). Then, come playoffs -- they had a rookie goaltender who just decided to do it and a team that all of a sudden learned to play team defence. Same with Edmonton but substitute journeyman goaltender for rookie.
I would bet the coaches would prefer Buffalo level of certainty 10 times out of 10. Look for the same type of systems they used in the playoffs in more regular season games. I think the team gives the coach 100% buy-in.
Overall, Edmonton's ES play took a beating this past season -- which was odd for a MacT coached team WITH Chris Pronger in it. With better goaltending, count on the ES play to be a strength of this team. MacT will demand it.
PK has always been a strength and despite the loss of Peca, Dvorak in this regard -- I have faith that the coach knows how to develop this. Smyth-Horcoff, Stoll-Pisani, Reasoner-Moreau are three pretty good pairs. Pouliout to see some time out there too.
PP is the key. The Sykora signing assures that we are 4 forwards on Unit#1. Maybe even on both units. AG -- you espoused on the merits of this.
We are relying a lot on Craig Simpson coaching this group with some creativity.
It's great how everyone focuses on 'successful' teams with mediocre defenses (oh, the Buffalo model, the TB '04 model, the Canes), while somewhat ignoring the fact that there also have been some crummy teams with mediocre defenses also.
This is not to say that this blueline won't work for the Oil, but there is a lot of selective-comparison going on, methinks, working backwards from the conference finals and ignoring the crapshoot process that got them there in the first place.
Maybe had the ECF been Ottawa-Philly, then you guys would be lamenting being in a Carolina-Buffalo-style rut.
Earl Sleak said;
Maybe had the ECF been Ottawa-Philly, then you guys would be lamenting being in a Carolina-Buffalo-style rut.
Very good point Earl. I'm trying to think of some other teams that, on paper, had an impressive collection of forwards and a suspect looking defense. I can't think of any.
Minny certianly had a bunch of no-name defensman and yet they performed very well I thought. Lemaire can take some credit there.
Their Poisson standings were much better than the Oil. They should have made the playoffs, not EDM. Phew!!!
If you can think of any other comparisons I'd be interested in hearing them. My brain must be turned off here.
Andy;
Over at HF there's a huge post where I got into the merits of EV+/- regarding Stoll. I kind of beat our boy up a little actually. It's not a complete arguement but RiversQ commented in it as well as provided some links to some other posts by Vic/igor that get into more detail. If you have the time to get through all 5-6 pages, it'll give you a good start. Might be another idea for another post here too. Hope so.
T
AG;
Here's the link
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=275641
T
I love that the two 'castaways' you mentioned are former Flames blueliners...
And I am very much in agreement with Matt about the whole OT thing... Some teams would kill to have had .500 overtime records (like anyone that played Dallas)...
- Randy
Thanx Doogie. I think the links are fixed.
This is not to say that this blueline won't work for the Oil, but there is a lot of selective-comparison going on, methinks, working backwards from the conference finals and ignoring the crapshoot process that got them there in the first place.
I didn't ignore how the Oilers got to the Conference Finals at all. In fact, in the comments, I said that the Oilers rode a high in the playoffs. I don't understand where this thing about working from the Conference Finals backwards comes from, Earl. Don't go all Teemu on me now.
And of course we are going to look at the successful models in Buffalo and Carolina. Isn't that the idea? I agree that there have been teams with good scoring and bad defence that have done poorly, but there are teams that fit every combination possible. I don't think I'm going to model a franchise on the Flames, just because they have a good defence. Look how far that got them.
I love that the two 'castaways' you mentioned are former Flames blueliners...
Exactly, which is why Sutter should have fired himself as GM, too.
I don't understand where this thing about working from the Conference Finals backwards comes from, Earl. Don't go all Teemu on me now.
Aw, forget it. Your examples are fine.
Just being a bugger, that's all.
You could argue that hockey is different because the style played during the playoffs it noticeably different from the regular season. Following from this, you could then design a team that is suited to play "playoff hockey", thus resulting in a correspondingly higher probability of success during the post-season.
How'd that work out for Calgary? ;)
For the record, I'm one of the number guys... we're fine on the backend, and if Mihknov can come in and be anything near what he's been hyped to be, we're going to have a fun season in Edmonton.
Are you sick, Earl? You never back off that easy.
Nah, but my point wasn't worth pushing.
It's fine to say that the teams can succeed with deficiencies on the blueline and use CAR/BUF/TB as models, but I'm not sure it's necessarily a model on how to succeed.
Like Gus Hansen. Just because he wins with crap cards doesn't mean I should be following his lead.
But as you say, it's tough to think about other teams with blueline troubles; there's always another story. Atlanta? Vancouver? They to some degree fit the mold but didn't make it, but they had other issues as well.
So all in all, it's fine to use the comparison set you did. It does kind of hide some of the story, though. Maybe the worst I can call this is a "convenient comparison", but the point is valid: success is not dependent on blueline resumes.
So all in all, it's fine to use the comparison set you did. It does kind of hide some of the story, though. Maybe the worst I can call this is a "convenient comparison", but the point is valid: success is not dependent on blueline resumes.
I know I keep harping on the baseball angle. but it is the easiest way for me to explain my thoughts. If you have unlimited resources, obviously you can afford to get the best of everything. The Yankees get the best starters, hitters, fielders and relievers because they can afford to. The A's, on the other hand, have a limited budget. They therefore have to figure out what strategies lead to the most victories, for the cheapest amount.
The Oilers are also on a budget. They had their own self-inflicted budget before the lockout, and they share a league mandated one with the other teams now. As such, they only have a certain amount of money to spend on building a winning team. Because others are competing with them for players, and because they can only spend so much on those players, they have to identify which players will provide them with the greatest return. In baseball, the current information tells us the most important thing a player can do is get on base. His defensive skills are important, obviously, but only secondarily. In hockey, it appears that this is also the case. Offence matters more than defence. Therefore, for the most part, forwards are more important than defencemen. If you can't afford to buy everything you want, and the numbers tell you that forwards matter more than defencemen, then you load up on forwards. This is especially the case when the current market for defencemen is, shall we say, extremely exaggerated. It is only one year into a new NHL system, so it may be the wrong strategy to pursue. But the new system--with it's attempted emphasis on offence and consequent increase in powerplays--appears ready to reward a team that builds around forwards who can put the puck in the net. It also helps when two teams--the Sabres and the Canes--also seem to be following that model. And they did quite well with what the common consensus would describe as an average defensive group. So I feel comfortable with the comparison, though I do know that I could be totally wrong and out to lunch, and that there are indeed flaws in both the Canes and Sabres games.
" If you can't afford to buy everything you want, and the numbers tell you that forwards matter more than defensemen, then you load up on forwards."
This will be the cycle for the new NHL:
1) Teams develop systems that prove to be successful.
2) Other teams notice their success and emulate their model.
3) The price for the players that are most valuable in this model shoots up because the competition for their services increases with the number of teams implementing the system.
4) The system becomes prohibitively expensive because of inflated player costs and the salary cap.
5) Teams explore other systems that utilize the now undervalued assets (defensemen in your example)
6) Rinse, repeat.
I know this is over simplified, but this basically how it works.
And has anyone else notice that Oakland is 19th in the majors in OBP; just ahead of the Kansas City Royals? Looks like Billy found a different way to win in response to all the monkey see, monkey do general managers bidding up the price of "moneyball" players.
And has anyone else notice that Oakland is 19th in the majors in OBP; just ahead of the Kansas City Royals? Looks like Billy found a different way to win in response to all the monkey see, monkey do general managers bidding up the price of "moneyball" players.
Yup. We've noticed. But I think by the time Moneyball came out, they had already moved past OBP. And that was five years ago. Plus, he's never stuck to a singular strategy, anyway.
Your take on the cycle seems dead on, Cam. It does assume rationality, though. But I think you are right. Successful teams will have GMs who are successful arbitrageurs. It's like Beane says in that article I linked to in an earlier comment:
"Arbitrage. We don't use that word too much in baseball, but that's what it is. In a market where people are competing for scarce assets -- for us, it's players or, really, the things that players can do -- there's always going to be some inefficiency. We're always going to have to find that dark corner, the stone that hasn't been turned over."
"Successful teams will have GMs who are successful arbitrageurs."
The thing with arbitrage is that each arbitrage opportunity has a short shelf life. Once you identify a market inefficiency, the window of opportunity to exploit it is very small because people are quick to notice success. The price of the once undervalued assets or then quickly bid up and the opportunity is lost, leaving you to search for a new strategy.
Once the opportunity is lost, you are left with two alternatives:
1)You can discover a new market inefficiency and take advantage of players that are undervalued by the market or
2) create a system that leverages the performance of players so that they are more valuable in your system than outside of it. The small difference here being you are looking for undervalued asset, but rather you are paying for players at their market value, but getting more than market value out of them by sticking them in your system (both alternatives are obviously not mutually exclusive).
The best examples of teams that do this well are in football with the Bronco’s turning any running back with two legs into a 1,200 yard back behind their offensive line, and the Steelers use of the 3-4 defense to leverage the abilities of linebackers with a certain skill set that they can acquire for peanuts. Both teams turn above-average players into great players by plugging them into their system.
The Flames also tried this to a degree by having mediocre players play "flames hockey" in front of Kipprusoff.
Post a Comment
<< Home
The stats guys will agree fully with you that forwards and goalies drive the results better than defensemen do, which I suppose I can see... a two way forward is probably more useful in both ends of the ice than a two way defensman is, and a forward can play good D just by keeping the puck in the other teams zone, even if he's not so hot in his own end.
Maybe it's just my nature, but I'm not quite so optimistic about the Canes and Sabres model of no name D working all the time. Playoff sucess can be quite fickle, and the results from those two teams could be mere flukes.
At the same time, it's certainly worth a shot, and if Edmonton can keep their solid forwards together instead of trading one in a desperate bid for a legit top four dman.... it's certainly worth a shot.
# posted by 
: August 15, 2006 5:34 pm
: August 15, 2006 5:34 pm Playoff sucess can be quite fickle, and the results from those two teams could be mere flukes.
Totally agree. Billy Beane has commented that the problem with a 5 or 7 game series is that it is essentially just a crapshoot. Which is why I tried to look at the whole season, not just the playoffs. Neither Buffalo or Carolina squeaked into the playoffs. They had excellent regular seasons, as well as excellent playoffs. But yes, another year under the belt would give us a lot more to look at.
Yeah, they do have regular season success, so i suppose that bodes well.... i'm not sure how much credit people would give them though had they both gone out in the first round. I suppose people tend to give too much weight to playoff performace though.
# posted by : August 15, 2006 7:12 pm
: August 15, 2006 7:12 pm It is my belief that both teams are well run, and excellent models on which to build a franchise. It is also my belief that Oilers manager Kevin Lowe has the same opinion on these two teams.
Aside from that whole young franchise goaltender business, right?
Not to mention the fact that the Hurricanes and Sabres both had plenty of experience on the blueline — it was just made up of underrated guys like Tallinder and Ward who had simply never had the opportunity to shine before.
Aside from that whole young franchise goaltender business, right?
We may not have them right now, but I believe we have two kids who are going to be excellent goaltenders. Patience, James.
As for the experienced defence, did you even see the list of career games played? About six of the thirteen defenceman on the Canes and Sabres have experience. A season ago, they had even less. And just because you have a lot of games under your belt, it doesn't automatically mean that you are any good. Igor Ulanov has played 739 games in the NHL, for example. It doesn't mean the Oilers should sign him. The whole point is that no one knew of these "underrated" guys a year ago, and that it may not even matter what defencemen you dress.
“I suppose people tend to give too much weight to playoff performace though.”
That is a very good point, which raises lots of other questions. I mean, it's kind of hard not to give weight to playoff performance, since that is the ultimate goal. But performing at a consistent basis for 82 games is a lot more difficult that doing so over 16-28. On the one hand you have the Senators. On the other you have, well, the Oilers. Really, you want both, and I think both the Sabres and Canes did that. If they both hold up again this year, we will know that they are for real.
“Getting to the play-offs isn't random: Over 162 games, if you have the right team, the odds work out. But once you get to the postseason, everything becomes random. In a 5-game series, you can flip a coin five times, and you might come up tails five times. In our market and many others, we can't build a team that's specifically geared for 162 games and also for a 5-game play-off. That I don't think we'll ever overcome."
--Billy Beane
I think the Cole's Notes version of Bean's argument is that over a 162 game season it is possible to design a team that score X amount of runs and this will result in us winning approximately Y amount of games.
What I can't tell is when this runs will be scored, or how many will be scored on any given night. In other words, his predictive power over an entire 162 game is season is far greater than it is for any one week stretch.
This is why his "shit" doesn't work in playoffs. The uncontrollable variance in events over a 7 game series is far greater than it is over an entire regular season (because of reasons of sample size, regression to the mean ect), thus the ability to control your team's performance over a 7 game series is diminished accordingly.
Is the same true for hockey? You could argue that hockey is different because the style played during the playoffs it noticeably different from the regular season. Following from this, you could then design a team that is suited to play "playoff hockey", thus resulting in a correspondingly higher probability of success during the post-season. The same isn't true for baseball, where the game played is essentially the same in both the regular season and playoffs (with the possible exception of more small ball and the premium on elite starting pitching).
# posted by : August 15, 2006 10:57 pm
: August 15, 2006 10:57 pm with the possible exception of more small ball and the premium on elite starting pitching
That's a pretty big difference, especially in the first round. Imagine playing the Twins with a healthy Santana and Lirano in the first round, for example.
Following from this, you could then design a team that is suited to play "playoff hockey", thus resulting in a correspondingly higher probability of success during the post-season.
Well, you still have to make the playoffs. Designing two rosters isn't really a solution. You're better off doing what Beane does in Oakland. Let your team play for the first couple months, tweak and trade, then make the mad dash for the playoffs. It's essentially what Lowe did last year, to great effect.
Good post Andy.
Despite my own post I am on the fence.
Part of me thinks the Oilers may be ok - they need one guy to make the jump and I think they will have a good top four.
Part of me thinks I'm whistling past the graveyard - none of these guys has what it takes.
In Lowe I trust but man oh man, fingers crossed.
As for your theory in general - you can probably add Tampa to that mix as well - when they won their team had a mix of young and old - Cullimore, Sydor, Sarich, Boyle, Kubina, Lukowich (I think) - in other words you looked at them and said - meh. Hard to say if, as Mirtle says, they were just underrated guys waiting to shine (Dan Boyle would fit this) or if the days of needing a stud 30 minute per game guy are gone.
Just so you know, your NHL Stats links both go to their Stats homepage. In order to get the right link, you have to right-click on the page you generate, click View Page Info (Firefox) or Properties (IE), and copy and paste that URL.
Ahem (or rather, apropos of nothing), but the Oilers had 13 overtime Wins last season, good for T3rd in the league. Eliminate even 5 of those, and your regular season results are a lot different, not to mention MacT being out of a job right now.
Come to think of it, but eliminate 5 of those OTLs -- by making them reg. Ls -- and same deal.
Look, we all want our teams to bat .700 or so in OT, but on balance, it's a lot better to have your close games settled in overtime.
The Buffalo model is probably more fascinating to look at because their goals against were sterling 10th. Their system, which deployed the 4 fast lines as you suggest, was as succesful on the backcheck.
Carolina's post-season adjustment included more fast backchecking and basically deploying Rod BrindAmour for half the game. The result -- they came to hold their own at ES, and won the special teams battle against all their opponents.
Carolina got to the playoffs using vigourous outscoring (and their PP wasn't that good). I haven't looked at the stats -- but I bet their PK was pretty good throughout. More importantly -- they got to ride their cheesy opponents in the Southeast.
My guess is that Buffalo looked like the ideal regular season team and the ideal playoff team throughout.
Like Edmonton, Carolina rode some luck and opportunity to get there (struggled quite a bit after the loss of Cole and the add of Weight and Rechhi). Then, come playoffs -- they had a rookie goaltender who just decided to do it and a team that all of a sudden learned to play team defence. Same with Edmonton but substitute journeyman goaltender for rookie.
I would bet the coaches would prefer Buffalo level of certainty 10 times out of 10. Look for the same type of systems they used in the playoffs in more regular season games. I think the team gives the coach 100% buy-in.
Overall, Edmonton's ES play took a beating this past season -- which was odd for a MacT coached team WITH Chris Pronger in it. With better goaltending, count on the ES play to be a strength of this team. MacT will demand it.
PK has always been a strength and despite the loss of Peca, Dvorak in this regard -- I have faith that the coach knows how to develop this. Smyth-Horcoff, Stoll-Pisani, Reasoner-Moreau are three pretty good pairs. Pouliout to see some time out there too.
PP is the key. The Sykora signing assures that we are 4 forwards on Unit#1. Maybe even on both units. AG -- you espoused on the merits of this.
We are relying a lot on Craig Simpson coaching this group with some creativity.
# posted by : August 16, 2006 9:16 am
: August 16, 2006 9:16 am It's great how everyone focuses on 'successful' teams with mediocre defenses (oh, the Buffalo model, the TB '04 model, the Canes), while somewhat ignoring the fact that there also have been some crummy teams with mediocre defenses also.
This is not to say that this blueline won't work for the Oil, but there is a lot of selective-comparison going on, methinks, working backwards from the conference finals and ignoring the crapshoot process that got them there in the first place.
Maybe had the ECF been Ottawa-Philly, then you guys would be lamenting being in a Carolina-Buffalo-style rut.
Earl Sleak said;
Maybe had the ECF been Ottawa-Philly, then you guys would be lamenting being in a Carolina-Buffalo-style rut.
Very good point Earl. I'm trying to think of some other teams that, on paper, had an impressive collection of forwards and a suspect looking defense. I can't think of any.
Minny certianly had a bunch of no-name defensman and yet they performed very well I thought. Lemaire can take some credit there.
Their Poisson standings were much better than the Oil. They should have made the playoffs, not EDM. Phew!!!
If you can think of any other comparisons I'd be interested in hearing them. My brain must be turned off here.
Andy;
Over at HF there's a huge post where I got into the merits of EV+/- regarding Stoll. I kind of beat our boy up a little actually. It's not a complete arguement but RiversQ commented in it as well as provided some links to some other posts by Vic/igor that get into more detail. If you have the time to get through all 5-6 pages, it'll give you a good start. Might be another idea for another post here too. Hope so.
T
# posted by : August 16, 2006 11:48 am
: August 16, 2006 11:48 am AG;
Here's the link
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=275641
T
# posted by : August 16, 2006 12:02 pm
: August 16, 2006 12:02 pm I love that the two 'castaways' you mentioned are former Flames blueliners...
And I am very much in agreement with Matt about the whole OT thing... Some teams would kill to have had .500 overtime records (like anyone that played Dallas)...
- Randy
# posted by : August 16, 2006 3:16 pm
: August 16, 2006 3:16 pm Thanx Doogie. I think the links are fixed.
This is not to say that this blueline won't work for the Oil, but there is a lot of selective-comparison going on, methinks, working backwards from the conference finals and ignoring the crapshoot process that got them there in the first place.
I didn't ignore how the Oilers got to the Conference Finals at all. In fact, in the comments, I said that the Oilers rode a high in the playoffs. I don't understand where this thing about working from the Conference Finals backwards comes from, Earl. Don't go all Teemu on me now.
And of course we are going to look at the successful models in Buffalo and Carolina. Isn't that the idea? I agree that there have been teams with good scoring and bad defence that have done poorly, but there are teams that fit every combination possible. I don't think I'm going to model a franchise on the Flames, just because they have a good defence. Look how far that got them.
I love that the two 'castaways' you mentioned are former Flames blueliners...
Exactly, which is why Sutter should have fired himself as GM, too.
I don't understand where this thing about working from the Conference Finals backwards comes from, Earl. Don't go all Teemu on me now.
Aw, forget it. Your examples are fine.
Just being a bugger, that's all.
You could argue that hockey is different because the style played during the playoffs it noticeably different from the regular season. Following from this, you could then design a team that is suited to play "playoff hockey", thus resulting in a correspondingly higher probability of success during the post-season.
How'd that work out for Calgary? ;)
For the record, I'm one of the number guys... we're fine on the backend, and if Mihknov can come in and be anything near what he's been hyped to be, we're going to have a fun season in Edmonton.
# posted by : August 16, 2006 4:57 pm
: August 16, 2006 4:57 pm Are you sick, Earl? You never back off that easy.
Nah, but my point wasn't worth pushing.
It's fine to say that the teams can succeed with deficiencies on the blueline and use CAR/BUF/TB as models, but I'm not sure it's necessarily a model on how to succeed.
Like Gus Hansen. Just because he wins with crap cards doesn't mean I should be following his lead.
But as you say, it's tough to think about other teams with blueline troubles; there's always another story. Atlanta? Vancouver? They to some degree fit the mold but didn't make it, but they had other issues as well.
So all in all, it's fine to use the comparison set you did. It does kind of hide some of the story, though. Maybe the worst I can call this is a "convenient comparison", but the point is valid: success is not dependent on blueline resumes.
So all in all, it's fine to use the comparison set you did. It does kind of hide some of the story, though. Maybe the worst I can call this is a "convenient comparison", but the point is valid: success is not dependent on blueline resumes.
I know I keep harping on the baseball angle. but it is the easiest way for me to explain my thoughts. If you have unlimited resources, obviously you can afford to get the best of everything. The Yankees get the best starters, hitters, fielders and relievers because they can afford to. The A's, on the other hand, have a limited budget. They therefore have to figure out what strategies lead to the most victories, for the cheapest amount.
The Oilers are also on a budget. They had their own self-inflicted budget before the lockout, and they share a league mandated one with the other teams now. As such, they only have a certain amount of money to spend on building a winning team. Because others are competing with them for players, and because they can only spend so much on those players, they have to identify which players will provide them with the greatest return. In baseball, the current information tells us the most important thing a player can do is get on base. His defensive skills are important, obviously, but only secondarily. In hockey, it appears that this is also the case. Offence matters more than defence. Therefore, for the most part, forwards are more important than defencemen. If you can't afford to buy everything you want, and the numbers tell you that forwards matter more than defencemen, then you load up on forwards. This is especially the case when the current market for defencemen is, shall we say, extremely exaggerated. It is only one year into a new NHL system, so it may be the wrong strategy to pursue. But the new system--with it's attempted emphasis on offence and consequent increase in powerplays--appears ready to reward a team that builds around forwards who can put the puck in the net. It also helps when two teams--the Sabres and the Canes--also seem to be following that model. And they did quite well with what the common consensus would describe as an average defensive group. So I feel comfortable with the comparison, though I do know that I could be totally wrong and out to lunch, and that there are indeed flaws in both the Canes and Sabres games.
" If you can't afford to buy everything you want, and the numbers tell you that forwards matter more than defensemen, then you load up on forwards."
This will be the cycle for the new NHL:
1) Teams develop systems that prove to be successful.
2) Other teams notice their success and emulate their model.
3) The price for the players that are most valuable in this model shoots up because the competition for their services increases with the number of teams implementing the system.
4) The system becomes prohibitively expensive because of inflated player costs and the salary cap.
5) Teams explore other systems that utilize the now undervalued assets (defensemen in your example)
6) Rinse, repeat.
I know this is over simplified, but this basically how it works.
And has anyone else notice that Oakland is 19th in the majors in OBP; just ahead of the Kansas City Royals? Looks like Billy found a different way to win in response to all the monkey see, monkey do general managers bidding up the price of "moneyball" players.
# posted by : August 17, 2006 1:38 am
: August 17, 2006 1:38 am And has anyone else notice that Oakland is 19th in the majors in OBP; just ahead of the Kansas City Royals? Looks like Billy found a different way to win in response to all the monkey see, monkey do general managers bidding up the price of "moneyball" players.
Yup. We've noticed. But I think by the time Moneyball came out, they had already moved past OBP. And that was five years ago. Plus, he's never stuck to a singular strategy, anyway.
Your take on the cycle seems dead on, Cam. It does assume rationality, though. But I think you are right. Successful teams will have GMs who are successful arbitrageurs. It's like Beane says in that article I linked to in an earlier comment:
"Arbitrage. We don't use that word too much in baseball, but that's what it is. In a market where people are competing for scarce assets -- for us, it's players or, really, the things that players can do -- there's always going to be some inefficiency. We're always going to have to find that dark corner, the stone that hasn't been turned over."
"Successful teams will have GMs who are successful arbitrageurs."
The thing with arbitrage is that each arbitrage opportunity has a short shelf life. Once you identify a market inefficiency, the window of opportunity to exploit it is very small because people are quick to notice success. The price of the once undervalued assets or then quickly bid up and the opportunity is lost, leaving you to search for a new strategy.
Once the opportunity is lost, you are left with two alternatives:
1)You can discover a new market inefficiency and take advantage of players that are undervalued by the market or
2) create a system that leverages the performance of players so that they are more valuable in your system than outside of it. The small difference here being you are looking for undervalued asset, but rather you are paying for players at their market value, but getting more than market value out of them by sticking them in your system (both alternatives are obviously not mutually exclusive).
The best examples of teams that do this well are in football with the Bronco’s turning any running back with two legs into a 1,200 yard back behind their offensive line, and the Steelers use of the 3-4 defense to leverage the abilities of linebackers with a certain skill set that they can acquire for peanuts. Both teams turn above-average players into great players by plugging them into their system.
The Flames also tried this to a degree by having mediocre players play "flames hockey" in front of Kipprusoff.
# posted by : August 17, 2006 4:00 pm
: August 17, 2006 4:00 pm Post a Comment
<< Home
