Outside of Niklas Lidstrom’s playing status next year, no story will dominate the hockey world quite like the fast-growing goalie controversy in Vancouver. The Canucks certainly have an awkward situation on their hands – on one hand they have an elite goalie who has fallen out of favor with the majority of the fanbase, (unfairly) becoming the scapegoat for a team that has come up short on their expectations. On the other hand, they have a younger, cheaper goalie that has shown great promise, winning over the Vancouver fanbase in the process. I make two assumptions here, one is Vancouver will not keep both, the other is that other teams will make offers for Schneider. I do believe Luongo will be the odd man out, but I certainly do not believe that as strongly as others, and I will explain this below.
Ostensibly, Vancouver will begin the process by comparing the value of Luongo’s contract to a range of contracts that they theoretically see themselves giving to Schneider. But there is more – and at this point is where I believe many stop the analysis. The very factors that make Schneider more valuable than Luongo to the Vancouver Canucks also make him more valuable to every other team.
As outsiders, there is no way we can accurately speculate on just how much more valuable they see Schneider. It’s easier (but still more difficult, and still beyond the scope of this article) to identify each player’s relative trade value. What we can do, though, is talk about how the trade value of one impacts the necessary value of the other, and from there, how that relationship impacts Vancouver’s ultimate decision.
We begin with obvious – there is a whole lot of uncertainty in the market for Roberto Luongo. On production alone he is a hot commodity, but his contract precludes many teams (and possibly teams that have been speculated as trade partners) from acquiring him. There are other teams that both need goaltending and can handle the financial burden (Chicago and Edmonton), but it is not clear that Vancouver is willing to trade an elite player to one of their biggest rivals. I believe the decisions of these smaller market teams (Columbus, Florida, Tampa Bay) on whether or not they are willing to take on the burden to be one of the biggest factors in Vancouver’s ultimate decision, because if the market for Luongo becomes liquid, then we can almost guarantee that he’s gone. But if Vancouver finds the offers to be lacking, then the possibility of an offer for Schneider that closes the gap between the value I mentioned earlier becomes more and more likely.
In other words, there is an inflection point in this scenario – some point where Schneider’s advantage over Luongo is mitigated by the value Vancouver could acquire by trading Schneider. What that exact point is can only be known by Vancouver, but assuming that Luongo has played his last game as a Canuck neglects a very important part of this calculus.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Devils - Flyers Podcast Preview
In this two-part preview, Chase, Corey from Shutdownline and I were joined by friend of the blog Geoff Detweiler from Broad Street Hockey to talk about the gong show that was the Pens - Flyers series and the Flyers' second-round matchup against the Devils. Chronology be damned, we also talked about the Devils side with our own Triumph less than an hour after their game-seven win over Florida.
Download (Right Click, Save As)
Click Here to subscribe on iTunes.
Download (Right Click, Save As)
Click Here to subscribe on iTunes.
Capitals - Rangers Podcast Preview
Chase, Matt, Corey from Shutdownline and I were joined by Neil Greenberg from the Washington Post and ESPN Insider. Listen in for a breakdown of the Caps upset win over Boston and preview of the Capitals - Rangers series. Plenty of #fancystats to go around and even a couple stray observations from watching games.
Download (Right Click, Save As)
Click Here to subscribe on iTunes.
Download (Right Click, Save As)
Click Here to subscribe on iTunes.
Friday, April 27, 2012
WC Second Round Preview Podcast
Chase, Triumph and I were joined by podcast regular Corey (@ShutdownLine) from Shut Down Line for a breakdown of the Western Conference first-round series and previews of Nashville - Phoenix and Los Angeles - St. Louis.
Download (Right Click, Save Link As)
Click Here to subscribe on iTunes.
Monday, April 23, 2012
How Often Were Suspendable Plays In The Regular Given Penalties On The Ice? (And Some Ideas On How To Change This)
The world seems to have moved on from suspension talk - the playoffs are back to being the focus of the NHL bloggers and media. Still, I find it interesting how within the debates about the length of suspensions and size of fines, how little talk there is about the NHL's responsibility to the team against whom a suspendable foul was committed. NHL suspensions, after all, are served during a random set of games during the regular season - a player commits a suspendable foul, his foul and history are spun around on the NHL's Wheel of Justice, and he gets suspended for a length of time. But what about the team against whom his foul is committed? Odds are, the suspended player won't miss a game against the team whose player was fouled. The NHL's system is a deterrent towards committing suspendable acts, yes, but the team whose player may have incurred an injury as a result of a suspendable hit finds little or no redress. One of the only ways it might find redress is if the referees have determined that the suspendable incident is worthy of a penalty when it occurred on the ice - whether it merits a penalty, and what length of penalty.
I recognize that officiating an NHL game is difficult, and it's precisely those sorts of suspendable plays that referees tend to miss because they are behind the play, away from the puck, and so forth. Still, let's look at the numbers from this year in the regular season:
I think the no penalty number is mildly acceptable. Part of the reason for suspensions is the fact that referees are going to miss incidents behind the play and/or away from the puck, and that linesmen are not often authorized to call penalties. I think what's more egregious are the number of minor penalties - penalties where the referees, in real time, couldn't determine that the play was dangerous enough to merit a major penalty (and I assume that all suspendable hits are eo ipso major penalties). Still, between the no calls and the minor penalty calls, of the 34 incidents the NHL deemed suspendable plays, only 41% resulted in a major penalty power play for the opposing team. I find that's far too low, especially since that's often the only real benefit a team might get for a dangerous/suspendable play. Here are a few ideas that are aimed at either trying to change this practice:
A. If the suspension is minor, suspend players only for games against the team they committed the foul against: I've heard this proposed elsewhere and I kind of like the idea. It's not really fair if, say, you're locked in a playoff race with team B, and yet one of team C's best players commits a foul against your team, that player gets suspended, then team C plays team B next game. I recognize this is a rare scenario, but the point is that suspending a player for only games against the team against which he committed the foul makes it fairer. Perhaps the aggrieved team could pick which games the suspended player is set to miss, for instance.
B. Allow linesmen more latitude to call penalties. I'm not sure how I feel about this, because the linesmen have their own job to do, but I feel that those two sets of eyes aren't used often enough by the other referees.
C. Change the penalty structure. Doogie2k suggested this on mc79hockey - the OHL makes head hits a mandatory 2 minute minor, plus a 10 minute misconduct. I'd apply this rule to illegal head hits, boarding, elbowing, and checking from behind. It seems ridiculous to me that often a little tug on a player's jersey with a stick and a violent, illegal hit into the boards usually draw the same penalty. Furthermore, I wonder if a 5 minute major is really the best way to penalize a team whose player commits an egregious foul. Perhaps the penalty should instead be an automatic 2 minute 5 on 3 power play where a goal scored does not change the manpower situation. Of course, one is faced with the problem that referees hate impacting games even when they should, and therefore we might see even fewer major penalties called.
These are all just ideas - I think we can recognize that the NHL is trying, at least a little bit, to alter the culture. I'm just not sure that outside-the-box ideas will be broached or considered, when perhaps that's precisely what's needed to alter the culture.
| No Penalty | 10 |
| Minor Penalty | 10 |
| Major Penalty | 14 |
I think the no penalty number is mildly acceptable. Part of the reason for suspensions is the fact that referees are going to miss incidents behind the play and/or away from the puck, and that linesmen are not often authorized to call penalties. I think what's more egregious are the number of minor penalties - penalties where the referees, in real time, couldn't determine that the play was dangerous enough to merit a major penalty (and I assume that all suspendable hits are eo ipso major penalties). Still, between the no calls and the minor penalty calls, of the 34 incidents the NHL deemed suspendable plays, only 41% resulted in a major penalty power play for the opposing team. I find that's far too low, especially since that's often the only real benefit a team might get for a dangerous/suspendable play. Here are a few ideas that are aimed at either trying to change this practice:
A. If the suspension is minor, suspend players only for games against the team they committed the foul against: I've heard this proposed elsewhere and I kind of like the idea. It's not really fair if, say, you're locked in a playoff race with team B, and yet one of team C's best players commits a foul against your team, that player gets suspended, then team C plays team B next game. I recognize this is a rare scenario, but the point is that suspending a player for only games against the team against which he committed the foul makes it fairer. Perhaps the aggrieved team could pick which games the suspended player is set to miss, for instance.
B. Allow linesmen more latitude to call penalties. I'm not sure how I feel about this, because the linesmen have their own job to do, but I feel that those two sets of eyes aren't used often enough by the other referees.
C. Change the penalty structure. Doogie2k suggested this on mc79hockey - the OHL makes head hits a mandatory 2 minute minor, plus a 10 minute misconduct. I'd apply this rule to illegal head hits, boarding, elbowing, and checking from behind. It seems ridiculous to me that often a little tug on a player's jersey with a stick and a violent, illegal hit into the boards usually draw the same penalty. Furthermore, I wonder if a 5 minute major is really the best way to penalize a team whose player commits an egregious foul. Perhaps the penalty should instead be an automatic 2 minute 5 on 3 power play where a goal scored does not change the manpower situation. Of course, one is faced with the problem that referees hate impacting games even when they should, and therefore we might see even fewer major penalties called.
These are all just ideas - I think we can recognize that the NHL is trying, at least a little bit, to alter the culture. I'm just not sure that outside-the-box ideas will be broached or considered, when perhaps that's precisely what's needed to alter the culture.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The Driving Play Podcast - Now Available on iTunes!
Just as a quick note, we've finally added our podcasts to iTunes. Special glove-tap to 2+2 poster sylar for pointing out how easy it was.
Click here to be able to launch iTunes and subscribe to all new updates.
Click here to be able to launch iTunes and subscribe to all new updates.
Odds And Ends On First Round Series
I had this long article planned about how the head to head matchup went in the regular season isn't correlated with the first round playoff record. That's true - it isn't. However, it sure does look like it matters, to some degree, since no one cares whether their team went 4 or 7 games if they ended up losing - a series loss is a series loss.
I sorted the 96 post-lockout playoff teams into first-round series winners and losers. I don't think it's particularly significant, but the first-round series winners had a .583 regular season winning percentage (OT/Shootout results removed and called 'ties') against first-round losers. They had a .569 winning percentage against everyone else. The team with the better head to head record in the regular season was 23-10 in first round playoff series.
Goal differential appears to be huge - the team with the better OT/shootout removed goal differential is 35-13 in first-round playoff series post-lockout.
Meanwhile, better Fenwick Tied doesn't appear to be an enormous advantage, as the better Fenwick Tied team is only 18-13.
Let's put all of this into a helpful table:
I sorted the 96 post-lockout playoff teams into first-round series winners and losers. I don't think it's particularly significant, but the first-round series winners had a .583 regular season winning percentage (OT/Shootout results removed and called 'ties') against first-round losers. They had a .569 winning percentage against everyone else. The team with the better head to head record in the regular season was 23-10 in first round playoff series.
Goal differential appears to be huge - the team with the better OT/shootout removed goal differential is 35-13 in first-round playoff series post-lockout.
Meanwhile, better Fenwick Tied doesn't appear to be an enormous advantage, as the better Fenwick Tied team is only 18-13.
Let's put all of this into a helpful table:
| Criteria | 1st R W | 1st R L |
| Better H2H Record | 23 | 10 |
| Better Goal Differential | 35 | 13 |
| Better Fenwick Tied | 18 | 14 |
None of this is predictive - we don't know that GD is more predictive than Fenwick Tied from these results - but it will be interesting to see how things shake out this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)