Good evening, friends. We're finally back with the final installment of our NHL trade deadline series of podcasts. This time, we're evaluating the winners, losers, and the catastrophe that was Scott Howson and the Columbus Blue Jackets.
We were also privileged to again be joined by Dirk Hoag of On the Forecheck to get his reaction to our take on Nashville's deadline dealings.
All four of us were able to get together to record this edition, so go ahead and give it a listen.
Download (Right Click and choose "Save Link As...")
Showing posts with label Columbus Blue Jackets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Columbus Blue Jackets. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Driving Play Podcast Take Deux
Hello, today. With the deadline fast approaching, the Driving Play podcast marches on. This time, we're privileged to be joined by none other than Derek Zona of The Copper & Blue to discuss the sellers of the Western Conference.
Though Jeff Carter was actually traded today, do your best to let it sink in that Scott Howson only got Jack Johnson and a first round pick in return.
Anyway, enjoy.
Download (Right Click and choose "Save Link As...")
Though Jeff Carter was actually traded today, do your best to let it sink in that Scott Howson only got Jack Johnson and a first round pick in return.
Anyway, enjoy.
Download (Right Click and choose "Save Link As...")
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
On the Blue Jackets' Struggling Power Play
Yesterday I made a short post on the Blue Jackets' low PDO, making the point that we should expect the Jackets to have a much better second half as their shooting and save percentages climb back towards the mean. In the comments, Rob Vollman brought to my attention this Hockey Prospectus article by Timo Seppa, which brings into question Columbus' Power Play production dropoff after the transition from Ken Hitchcock to Scott Arniel. Timo asserts that
Timo only looks at '08-09 onward, but I decided to include '07-08 under Hitchcock since I don't have the ability to break down the '09-10 season with splits before & after Hitchcock was let go. Regardless, it is clear from these numbers that Columbus actually increased their shot rate on the PP under Arniel to levels that the Hitchcock-coached team were never able to reach.
How, then, could have Columbus actually posted better scoring results under Hitchcock? The answer is simple: shooting percentage. As Jared has pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of luck involved in shooting percentages, especially in small sample sizes. When you're looking at results on the power play, it is important to keep in mind that PP shots are going to represent about 1/4 (or less) of a team's total shots throughout the regular season, enough where luck is still going to be a major factor in scoring goals. The fact of the matter is this: the shots were going in under Hitchcock, and they weren't under Arniel. Regardless of whether Rick Nash was playing in front of the net or on the half-wall, the team was still unlucky to shoot at such low rates under Arniel, which resulted in lower point production for the team.
Though there were definite shortcomings in Arniel's system, e.g. going into an absolute shell when up by 1 or 2 goals, this is more evidence that he was yet again on the wrong side of luck.
Arniel's track record wasn't favorable, particularly when compared to that of former coach Ken Hitchcock. In many aspects, the Blue Jackets had taken steps backwards since his departure, and they'd done no better than tread water elsewhere.In other words, the dropoff in scoring under Arniel signifies a dropoff in overall power play production since Hitchcock left. This is a fine assertion to make judging by what these numbers tell us on the surface, however, I actually believe the Blue Jackets were a better PP team under Howson than Hitchcock. Let's take a look at why with some numbers via Behind the Net and NHL.com:
One example is on the power play. Never a particular strength of the Jackets—you need star players to have a truly upper echelon man advantage—the production of several key contributors had taken a highly visible nosedive in a year-and-a-half under Arniel's watch:
| Season | 5v4 SF/60 (NHL Rank) | 5v4 SH% |
| 2007-2008 | 44.8 (24) | 11.4 |
| 2008-2009 | 47.2 (25) | 9.4 |
| 2009-2010 | 51.8 (12) | 12.9 |
| 2010-2011 | 53.7 (8) | 8.9 |
| 2011-2012 | 53.5 (6) | 9.1 |
Timo only looks at '08-09 onward, but I decided to include '07-08 under Hitchcock since I don't have the ability to break down the '09-10 season with splits before & after Hitchcock was let go. Regardless, it is clear from these numbers that Columbus actually increased their shot rate on the PP under Arniel to levels that the Hitchcock-coached team were never able to reach.
How, then, could have Columbus actually posted better scoring results under Hitchcock? The answer is simple: shooting percentage. As Jared has pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of luck involved in shooting percentages, especially in small sample sizes. When you're looking at results on the power play, it is important to keep in mind that PP shots are going to represent about 1/4 (or less) of a team's total shots throughout the regular season, enough where luck is still going to be a major factor in scoring goals. The fact of the matter is this: the shots were going in under Hitchcock, and they weren't under Arniel. Regardless of whether Rick Nash was playing in front of the net or on the half-wall, the team was still unlucky to shoot at such low rates under Arniel, which resulted in lower point production for the team.
Though there were definite shortcomings in Arniel's system, e.g. going into an absolute shell when up by 1 or 2 goals, this is more evidence that he was yet again on the wrong side of luck.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
On the Firing of Scott Arniel
Yesterday the Columbus Blue Jackets announced that they had relieved head coach Scott Arniel of his duties. This shouldn't come as a surprise to many, the Jackets are in the midst of a disappointing 11-25-5 start, good for a league worst 27 points in the standings. After an exciting offseason, the Jackets were poised to make a run at the playoffs as predicted by a slew of excellent bloggers. Before the 'I told you so' comments start pouring in, however, let's take a look at a few of Columbus' underlying statistics (via BTN here and here):
For the past few weeks, Gabe Desjardins has been writing about the importance of PDO and its tendency to regress towards the mean as the season progresses. Columbus is currently rivaling the worst PDO we've seen over the past four seasons, yet their possession statistics indicate that GM Scott Howson has indeed built a strong group of skaters. In net, even though Steve Mason may not be very good, he is also well below his career ES SV% numbers. This is good news for interim coach Todd Richards should (when) the Jackets see a revival of sorts during the second half of the season. We've already seen Ken Hitchcock receive media praise for a turnaround in St. Louis that was bound to happen anyway, and don't be surprised if we see the same for Todd Richards in Columbus.
| ES SH% | ES SV% | PDO | Score-Tied Fenwick % |
| 7.3 | 0.905 | 978 | 50.7 |
For the past few weeks, Gabe Desjardins has been writing about the importance of PDO and its tendency to regress towards the mean as the season progresses. Columbus is currently rivaling the worst PDO we've seen over the past four seasons, yet their possession statistics indicate that GM Scott Howson has indeed built a strong group of skaters. In net, even though Steve Mason may not be very good, he is also well below his career ES SV% numbers. This is good news for interim coach Todd Richards should (when) the Jackets see a revival of sorts during the second half of the season. We've already seen Ken Hitchcock receive media praise for a turnaround in St. Louis that was bound to happen anyway, and don't be surprised if we see the same for Todd Richards in Columbus.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Driving Play Season Preview: 15-11, The Contendahhhs
We interrupt your regularly scheduled Brendan Shanahan suspension video to continue the Driving Play season previews for teams 15 through 11 in our countdown. I was assigned the ‘playoff’ tier of our rankings, consisting of teams who should have legitimate claims to playoff positioning come April.
Just as a quick refresher – I’ve listed a few basic stats that I like to use when evaluating teams as a whole. Each team’s Corsi and Fenwick percentages with the score tied at even strength will come first, followed by their shots for and shots against per 60 minutes at even strength. Finally, their special teams will play be accounted for with SF/60 numbers on the power play and SA/60 numbers on the penalty kill. All numbers are courtesy of Behind The Net, except the Corsi and Fenwick percentages which are courtesy of Time on Ice.
15. New York Rangers
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 48.9/47.8
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 29.2 (20)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 29.2 (11)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 48.6 (16)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 49.0 (11)
The Rangers slipped into the playoffs as the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference last year, due in most part to stellar goaltending, above-average defense and a fairly average offense. Their possession numbers weren’t anything special, and when push came to shove they just couldn’t manage to control the play against #1 seeded Washington, losing in five games.
Offseason Changes:
The Rangers landed C Brad Richards via free agency in the offseason with the hope that he can take their offense to the next level. The only problem with that is, Brad Richards doesn’t really seem to be a player who is carrying the play forward on his own at even strength. He was given fairly easy ice time in Dallas last season, yet he failed to put up a positive Corsi ON score despite a favorable zone start. On the power play, Richards should help the Rangers generate more scoring chances and improve what was a mediocre unit a season ago.
Season Outlook:
In order for the Rangers to take that next step, they needed a forward who could carry the play forward in some capacity at 5-on-5. Unfortunately, Brad Richards can’t. Will he be able to improve the power play scoring enough to have the same effect? Probably not, considering there’s so much luck that comes in to play with PP data. The Richards effect will most likely be negligible as the Rangers figure to be fighting for one of the final three playoff spots in the East.
14. Columbus Blue Jackets
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 50.8/50.1
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 29.5 (18)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 28.9 (10)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 53.7 (8)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 53.4 (24)
The Blue Jackets finished 13th in the West last season, despite having fairly average possession numbers and an above-average defense. Their main problems were found in their below average offense and terrible goaltending. The Jackets also suffered from a bit of bad luck, shooting just 7.9% at even strength.
Offseason Changes:
Columbus GM Scott Howson wasn’t afraid to shake things up this offseason, trading for Jeff Carter in exchange for Jakub Voracek and two draft picks. Howson also signed defenseman James Wisnewski to a 6-year/$33 million contract in an attempt to shore up both his blue-line and power play. He imported Vinny Prospal from New York to help the team's secondary scoring, a move that has a bit of upside considering Carter’s added tough-minutes production. Columbus' lineup up front should definitely be able to improve their shooting totals from a year ago.
Season Outlook:
There seems to be at least one surprise team to make it to the playoffs every April, and we’re casting this role to the Columbus Blue Jackets. Jeff Carter gives the Jackets an elite forward to complement both Rick Nash and the rest of their secondary scoring. If Steve Mason can somehow figure out how to stop a puck or two, Columbus will be a legitimate playoff team.
13. Buffalo Sabres
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 51.7/50.9
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 32.3 (3)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 29.6 (14)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 55.3 (6)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 50.9 (16)
Buffalo finished 7th in the East last season and boasted one of the league’s most prolific attacks at generating shots. Unfortunately, a 7.8% shooting percentage at even strength is going to hinder that a bit. Still, Buffalo’s offensive numbers were above average, while their defensive totals fell more toward the middle of the pack. Ryan Miller & Co. gave the Sabres fairly solid play between the pipes, providing Buffalo what it needed to be a playoff team.
Offseason Changes:
Let’s get one thing clear – these aren’t the same Sabres we saw at the end of last season. In a move that proved new Sabres ownership was serious aboutburning spending money, they signed Ville Leino to a 6 year, $27 million contract. They also imported Christian Ehrhoff (10 years, $40 million*) and Robyn Regehr (peanuts to Calgary) from Western Canada in an effort to shore up their blue-line. While the Regehr move probably figures to be the best of these three major changes, backing up the truck for two soft-minute players might not give this team the boost that the front office is hoping for.
*Not a typo.
Season Outlook:
While they may not be allocating their money in the most optimal fashion, Buffalo certainly didn’t make itself any worse with their offseason moves. If Tyler Myers continues to get better, a Regehr type shutdown player should improve their defense from a season ago. As long as they can stay relatively healthy, this team certainly lays claim to legitimate playoff aspirations.
12. Philadelphia Flyers
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 52.0/51.6
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 31.6 (6)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 30.3 (18)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 46.1 (26)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 42.9 (1)
Last season saw the Philadelphia Flyers burst out of the gate to the best record in the NHL on the heels of a surprising Stanley Cup Finals run a season before. Problem was, Chris Pronger went down with a hand injury soon thereafter and the Flyers weren’t the same team without him. They would struggle mightily in his absence, nearly losing the Atlantic Division lead to Pittsburgh by the end of the season. In the end, the Flyers would prevail as the #2 seed and go on to face Buffalo in the first round. After erasing a 3-2 series deficit to the Sabres, they moved on to the second round where I seem to have lost all memory of what happened. How strange.
Offseason Changes:
Who would have thought a hand injury could have triggered so much disaster? In a reactionary move to whatever it was that happened against the Boston Bruins, the Flyers traded captain Mike Richards to Los Angeles and Jeff Carter to Columbus. In addition to the infusion of youth that he received back in the trades (Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, Jakub Voracek, and Sean Coutirier), GM Paul Holmgren also awarded new contracts to former Penguins Jaromir Jagr and Maxime Talbot, and steady D-man Andreas Lilja. He was also quick to make good on his opportunity to sign Ilya Bryzgalov for a small fee, perhaps the Flyers’ cornerstone move of the 2011 offseason.
Season Outlook:
Losing Richards and Carter is a big deal for this team. Some of the Flyers’ new talent is promising, but there are a lot of question marks going into the season. It is still unclear how some of the rookies (and veterans) on the roster will be able to hold up during such a long season. Richards and Carter played an important role on both offense and defense, and it may be a few years until Schenn, Simmonds, Voracek, Couturier & Co. are able to fully replace what the Flyers lost. Unfortunately, Bryzgalov also figures to only be a slight improvement over Sergei Bobrovsky from last season. For now, they’ll most likely make the playoffs in the bottom half of the East.
11. Boston Bruins
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 50.4/50.7
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 32.4 (2)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 32.1 (29)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 50.7 (11)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 52.9 (23)
Boston made the playoffs as the Northeast Division Champions sporting a very good offense, terrible defense and stellar goaltending. As they progressed through the playoffs, their ability to put the puck in the net held true as Tim Thomas cemented one of the greatest seasons by a goaltender in recent memory. The Bruins would capture the Stanley Cup in 7 games over the Vancouver Canucks.
Offseason Changes:
Not too much to report on here. Fake-shot master Tomas Kaberle jumped ship to Carolina, and in to replace him is Joe Corvo, acquired from the Hurricanes for a 4th round draft pick. The team also signed Benoit Pouliot to a 1-year contract to help replace the departed Michael Ryder and retired Mark Recchi. Corvo should provide a slight improvement over Kaberle, but this team looks fairly identical to the one that lifted the Cup in June.
Season Outlook:
The only problem with the team that lifted the Cup in June is that it wasn’t very good defensively. That doesn’t figure to change, so Tim Thomas and Tukka Rask will be asked to stop quite a few pucks this season. If Thomas can keep playing like Dominik Hasek, this team has a good chance to repeat. Problem is, while Thomas may be a very good goalie I’m skeptical he has another all-time great season in him. Boston should be a solid middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the East.
I’ll be back with teams 10 through 7 onSaturday Sunday! Our list so far:
30. Edmonton
29. Colorado
28. Dallas
27. NY Islanders
26. Minnesota
25. Ottawa
24. Toronto
23. Florida
22. Phoenix
21. Winnipeg
20. Anaheim
19. Carolina
18. Calgary
17. St. Louis
16. Nashville
15. New York Rangers
14. Columbus Blue Jackets
13. Buffalo Sabres
12. Philadelphia Flyers
11. Boston Bruins
Just as a quick refresher – I’ve listed a few basic stats that I like to use when evaluating teams as a whole. Each team’s Corsi and Fenwick percentages with the score tied at even strength will come first, followed by their shots for and shots against per 60 minutes at even strength. Finally, their special teams will play be accounted for with SF/60 numbers on the power play and SA/60 numbers on the penalty kill. All numbers are courtesy of Behind The Net, except the Corsi and Fenwick percentages which are courtesy of Time on Ice.
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 48.9/47.8
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 29.2 (20)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 29.2 (11)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 48.6 (16)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 49.0 (11)
The Rangers slipped into the playoffs as the 8th seed in the Eastern Conference last year, due in most part to stellar goaltending, above-average defense and a fairly average offense. Their possession numbers weren’t anything special, and when push came to shove they just couldn’t manage to control the play against #1 seeded Washington, losing in five games.
Offseason Changes:
The Rangers landed C Brad Richards via free agency in the offseason with the hope that he can take their offense to the next level. The only problem with that is, Brad Richards doesn’t really seem to be a player who is carrying the play forward on his own at even strength. He was given fairly easy ice time in Dallas last season, yet he failed to put up a positive Corsi ON score despite a favorable zone start. On the power play, Richards should help the Rangers generate more scoring chances and improve what was a mediocre unit a season ago.
Season Outlook:
In order for the Rangers to take that next step, they needed a forward who could carry the play forward in some capacity at 5-on-5. Unfortunately, Brad Richards can’t. Will he be able to improve the power play scoring enough to have the same effect? Probably not, considering there’s so much luck that comes in to play with PP data. The Richards effect will most likely be negligible as the Rangers figure to be fighting for one of the final three playoff spots in the East.
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 50.8/50.1
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 29.5 (18)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 28.9 (10)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 53.7 (8)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 53.4 (24)
The Blue Jackets finished 13th in the West last season, despite having fairly average possession numbers and an above-average defense. Their main problems were found in their below average offense and terrible goaltending. The Jackets also suffered from a bit of bad luck, shooting just 7.9% at even strength.
Offseason Changes:
Columbus GM Scott Howson wasn’t afraid to shake things up this offseason, trading for Jeff Carter in exchange for Jakub Voracek and two draft picks. Howson also signed defenseman James Wisnewski to a 6-year/$33 million contract in an attempt to shore up both his blue-line and power play. He imported Vinny Prospal from New York to help the team's secondary scoring, a move that has a bit of upside considering Carter’s added tough-minutes production. Columbus' lineup up front should definitely be able to improve their shooting totals from a year ago.
Season Outlook:
There seems to be at least one surprise team to make it to the playoffs every April, and we’re casting this role to the Columbus Blue Jackets. Jeff Carter gives the Jackets an elite forward to complement both Rick Nash and the rest of their secondary scoring. If Steve Mason can somehow figure out how to stop a puck or two, Columbus will be a legitimate playoff team.
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 51.7/50.9
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 32.3 (3)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 29.6 (14)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 55.3 (6)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 50.9 (16)
Buffalo finished 7th in the East last season and boasted one of the league’s most prolific attacks at generating shots. Unfortunately, a 7.8% shooting percentage at even strength is going to hinder that a bit. Still, Buffalo’s offensive numbers were above average, while their defensive totals fell more toward the middle of the pack. Ryan Miller & Co. gave the Sabres fairly solid play between the pipes, providing Buffalo what it needed to be a playoff team.
Offseason Changes:
Let’s get one thing clear – these aren’t the same Sabres we saw at the end of last season. In a move that proved new Sabres ownership was serious about
*Not a typo.
Season Outlook:
While they may not be allocating their money in the most optimal fashion, Buffalo certainly didn’t make itself any worse with their offseason moves. If Tyler Myers continues to get better, a Regehr type shutdown player should improve their defense from a season ago. As long as they can stay relatively healthy, this team certainly lays claim to legitimate playoff aspirations.
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 52.0/51.6
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 31.6 (6)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 30.3 (18)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 46.1 (26)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 42.9 (1)
Last season saw the Philadelphia Flyers burst out of the gate to the best record in the NHL on the heels of a surprising Stanley Cup Finals run a season before. Problem was, Chris Pronger went down with a hand injury soon thereafter and the Flyers weren’t the same team without him. They would struggle mightily in his absence, nearly losing the Atlantic Division lead to Pittsburgh by the end of the season. In the end, the Flyers would prevail as the #2 seed and go on to face Buffalo in the first round. After erasing a 3-2 series deficit to the Sabres, they moved on to the second round where I seem to have lost all memory of what happened. How strange.
Offseason Changes:
Who would have thought a hand injury could have triggered so much disaster? In a reactionary move to whatever it was that happened against the Boston Bruins, the Flyers traded captain Mike Richards to Los Angeles and Jeff Carter to Columbus. In addition to the infusion of youth that he received back in the trades (Brayden Schenn, Wayne Simmonds, Jakub Voracek, and Sean Coutirier), GM Paul Holmgren also awarded new contracts to former Penguins Jaromir Jagr and Maxime Talbot, and steady D-man Andreas Lilja. He was also quick to make good on his opportunity to sign Ilya Bryzgalov for a small fee, perhaps the Flyers’ cornerstone move of the 2011 offseason.
Season Outlook:
Losing Richards and Carter is a big deal for this team. Some of the Flyers’ new talent is promising, but there are a lot of question marks going into the season. It is still unclear how some of the rookies (and veterans) on the roster will be able to hold up during such a long season. Richards and Carter played an important role on both offense and defense, and it may be a few years until Schenn, Simmonds, Voracek, Couturier & Co. are able to fully replace what the Flyers lost. Unfortunately, Bryzgalov also figures to only be a slight improvement over Sergei Bobrovsky from last season. For now, they’ll most likely make the playoffs in the bottom half of the East.
Last Season’s Results:
5-on-5 Fenwick/Corsi %: 50.4/50.7
5-on-5 SF/60 (NHL Rank): 32.4 (2)
5-on-5 SA/60 (NHL Rank): 32.1 (29)
PP SF/60 (NHL Rank): 50.7 (11)
SH SA/60 (NHL Rank): 52.9 (23)
Boston made the playoffs as the Northeast Division Champions sporting a very good offense, terrible defense and stellar goaltending. As they progressed through the playoffs, their ability to put the puck in the net held true as Tim Thomas cemented one of the greatest seasons by a goaltender in recent memory. The Bruins would capture the Stanley Cup in 7 games over the Vancouver Canucks.
Offseason Changes:
Not too much to report on here. Fake-shot master Tomas Kaberle jumped ship to Carolina, and in to replace him is Joe Corvo, acquired from the Hurricanes for a 4th round draft pick. The team also signed Benoit Pouliot to a 1-year contract to help replace the departed Michael Ryder and retired Mark Recchi. Corvo should provide a slight improvement over Kaberle, but this team looks fairly identical to the one that lifted the Cup in June.
Season Outlook:
The only problem with the team that lifted the Cup in June is that it wasn’t very good defensively. That doesn’t figure to change, so Tim Thomas and Tukka Rask will be asked to stop quite a few pucks this season. If Thomas can keep playing like Dominik Hasek, this team has a good chance to repeat. Problem is, while Thomas may be a very good goalie I’m skeptical he has another all-time great season in him. Boston should be a solid middle-of-the-pack playoff team in the East.
I’ll be back with teams 10 through 7 on
30. Edmonton
29. Colorado
28. Dallas
27. NY Islanders
26. Minnesota
25. Ottawa
24. Toronto
23. Florida
22. Phoenix
21. Winnipeg
20. Anaheim
19. Carolina
18. Calgary
17. St. Louis
16. Nashville
15. New York Rangers
14. Columbus Blue Jackets
13. Buffalo Sabres
12. Philadelphia Flyers
11. Boston Bruins
Friday, September 2, 2011
A Voracek and Nash Follow Up
Once again I find myself writing an article on the Flyers. I'm not, as Jackets Cannon somewhat offensively suggests, a Philly Blogger. In fact, the Flyers sit just above the Iceland Junior Goodwill team in the as-yet-unpublished hockey teams JaredL likes rankings. When I started looking into Voracek's stats for Chase's series on the Flyers offseason self destruction moves (part 1, part 2), I was quite surprised, especially at how his numbers compared to the much more famous Rick Nash. After I posted my initial article, the not only literate but astute readers at broadstreet (I kid, I kid) raised some valid points: I didn't consider teammate and zone-start effects. I will address those here.
Teammates
With teammates, we have the same pattern over and over. Every forward that played at least 60 minutes with each of Voracek and Nash, excluding time spent with both of them together, did better with Voracek than Nash. Typically Nash faced much tougher competition, but it seems that the gap is large enough that we can say that Voracek did better. For defensemen, the pattern is pretty much the same, with Tyutin as the exception.
Here are two charts with the results. The first column gives the teammate in question, the second whether the row corresponds to Voracek or Nash being on the ice, the third is the overall Corsi and the fourth how many minutes the player and Voracek/Nash were on the ice together. You should focus on the fifth, giving the Corsi rate. The last column is provided to give some extra context. It gives the average Corsi quality of competition, according to BTN.
Forwards:
Defensemen:
Zones
For zone-start analysis, the obvious first place to look is at balanced Corsi by the Philly bloggers over at broadstreet. Here are their balanced corsis from each of the last two seasons, the total and average, weighted by 5-on-5 TOI:
This might lead one to conclude that zone starts completely make up this difference. There is, however, a problem. While I really like balanced Corsi as a metric, a drawback is that players with different starts are compared to different players. They had very similar zone starts in 2010-2011, which makes sense because they were often linemates. In 2009-2010, Voracek had an Ozone% of 54.5% compared to 49.8% for Nash. It's always very difficult to say because getting more offensive-zone starts leads to better numbers, but I suspect Voracek's group of comparable players to be better than Nash's.
I'll take a different approach from the Broadstreet guys and Bettman's Nightmare and Gabe from arcticicehockey. Instead of doing something more complicated, I'll just look at how each did when the most recent faceoff was in the offensive zone, neutral zone and defensive zone. I'll be introducing a fancy new metric based on this idea in the next few days, so consider this a sneak peek. This metric isn't perfect, but I think it's a solid indicator of how good a guy is in each zone.
Almost every player in the league has a negative Corsi when they are on the ice during or following a defensive-zone faceoff. Cutting your losses is the name of the game. Here is a chart with the Jackets' Corsi stats with both Voracek and Nash on the ice, one of them and neither when the most recent faceoff was in their defensive zone.
You can see that Voracek appears to be substantially better than Nash in his own end. Given that the difference is so large, it seems likely that Columbus could have improved by giving Voracek more defensive-zone starts.
Here's how they did following neutral-zone starts:
This comes very close to matching the overall numbers. We have Voracek nearly 4 Corsi shots better per 60 minutes, but not facing as tough competition.
Here is the attacking end:
The gap here is much smaller. Actually, given the other numbers I suspect that if we looked only at offensive-zone play then Nash's numbers would be better despite facing tougher competition. Remember that the above includes time well after a faceoff. If he's better than Nash in the other two zones then Voracek will put up better Corsi figures when they jump on the ice after an offensive-zone faceoff but with the puck elsewhere.
To that end, here is a table giving their Corsi stats within a minute of an offensive-zone faceoff:
I didn't include the same for the defensive zone because it is very similar to the overall. To be honest, that Columbus did best when neither were on the ice according to this measure makes me uneasy. I think a lot of that may be due to faceoffs; cutting it to within a minute of the faceoff means it's tough to get something positive to count if you lose the faceoff or even win it but not cleanly. As I said, this is all a work in progress.
Conclusion
If I've done my job at all with the writing, a picture has emerged. Voracek appears to be more than capable of carrying the load, particularly in the defensive and neutral zones. His offensive numbers are not as strong. For further evidence of that, his points percentage is not very good. This indicates that he's mainly relying on teammates to convert possession in the offensive zone into goals. The Flyers would do well to put him with a scorer like Giroux or Briere.
In the next few days I'll post a full list of performance after each type of faceoff for every player in the league last year.
Teammates
With teammates, we have the same pattern over and over. Every forward that played at least 60 minutes with each of Voracek and Nash, excluding time spent with both of them together, did better with Voracek than Nash. Typically Nash faced much tougher competition, but it seems that the gap is large enough that we can say that Voracek did better. For defensemen, the pattern is pretty much the same, with Tyutin as the exception.
Here are two charts with the results. The first column gives the teammate in question, the second whether the row corresponds to Voracek or Nash being on the ice, the third is the overall Corsi and the fourth how many minutes the player and Voracek/Nash were on the ice together. You should focus on the fifth, giving the Corsi rate. The last column is provided to give some extra context. It gives the average Corsi quality of competition, according to BTN.
Forwards:
| Player | With | Corsi | Time | Rate | Corsi QoC |
| Vermette | Voracek | 63 | 309.1 | 12.23 | 0.346 |
| Vermette | Nash | -23 | 976.2 | -1.414 | 1.607 |
| Brassard | Voracek | 24 | 827.1 | 1.741 | 0.711 |
| Brassard | Nash | -15 | 218.5 | -4.118 | 0.85 |
| Huselius | Voracek | 15 | 133.1 | 6.762 | 0.053 |
| Huselius | Nash | 40 | 869.1 | 2.761 | 1.126 |
| Umberger | Voracek | -3 | 620 | -0.29 | 0.649 |
| Umberger | Nash | -14 | 427.2 | -1.966 | 1.414 |
| Pahlsson | Voracek | -20 | 101.2 | -11.854 | 2.733 |
| Pahlsson | Nash | -20 | 78.8 | -15.232 | 1.726 |
| None of Above | Voracek | 8 | 71.3 | 6.732 | 1.09 |
| None of Above | Nash | -14 | 39 | -21.538 | 0.515 |
Defensemen:
| Player | With | Corsi | Time | Rate | Corsi QoC |
| Stralman | Voracek | 30 | 426.8 | 4.217 | 1.432 |
| Stralman | Nash | 19 | 458.4 | 2.487 | 1.718 |
| Tyutin | Voracek | 12 | 461.6 | 1.56 | 1.191 |
| Tyutin | Nash | 36 | 578.9 | 3.731 | 1.706 |
| Hejda | Voracek | -14 | 347.4 | -2.418 | 0.987 |
| Hejda | Nash | -88 | 501.3 | -10.532 | 1.267 |
| Russell | Voracek | 61 | 440.1 | 8.317 | -0.417 |
| Russell | Nash | -6 | 334.1 | -1.078 | 0.511 |
| Methot | Voracek | -10 | 346.8 | -1.73 | 0.895 |
| Methot | Nash | -36 | 368.5 | -5.862 | 0.767 |
| Commodore | Voracek | -17 | 248.1 | -4.111 | 2.23 |
| Commodore | Nash | -43 | 278 | -9.281 | 2.752 |
| Roy | Voracek | 12 | 123.1 | 5.851 | -0.873 |
| Roy | Nash | 9 | 120.3 | 4.489 | 0.744 |
Zones
For zone-start analysis, the obvious first place to look is at balanced Corsi by the Philly bloggers over at broadstreet. Here are their balanced corsis from each of the last two seasons, the total and average, weighted by 5-on-5 TOI:
| Year | Voracek | Nash |
| 2009-2010 | -5.12 | -2.09 |
| 2010-2011 | 0.75 | -1.66 |
| Total | -4.37 | -3.75 |
| Weighted Avg. | -2.109 | -1.882 |
This might lead one to conclude that zone starts completely make up this difference. There is, however, a problem. While I really like balanced Corsi as a metric, a drawback is that players with different starts are compared to different players. They had very similar zone starts in 2010-2011, which makes sense because they were often linemates. In 2009-2010, Voracek had an Ozone% of 54.5% compared to 49.8% for Nash. It's always very difficult to say because getting more offensive-zone starts leads to better numbers, but I suspect Voracek's group of comparable players to be better than Nash's.
I'll take a different approach from the Broadstreet guys and Bettman's Nightmare and Gabe from arcticicehockey. Instead of doing something more complicated, I'll just look at how each did when the most recent faceoff was in the offensive zone, neutral zone and defensive zone. I'll be introducing a fancy new metric based on this idea in the next few days, so consider this a sneak peek. This metric isn't perfect, but I think it's a solid indicator of how good a guy is in each zone.
Almost every player in the league has a negative Corsi when they are on the ice during or following a defensive-zone faceoff. Cutting your losses is the name of the game. Here is a chart with the Jackets' Corsi stats with both Voracek and Nash on the ice, one of them and neither when the most recent faceoff was in their defensive zone.
| Defensive Zone | Corsi | Time | Rate | Corsi QoC |
| Both | -23 | 221.8 | -6.223 | 0.955 |
| Voracek | -58 | 427 | -8.151 | 1.073 |
| Nash | -136 | 464.8 | -17.555 | 1.65 |
| Neither | -466 | 1267.8 | -22.055 | 0.739 |
You can see that Voracek appears to be substantially better than Nash in his own end. Given that the difference is so large, it seems likely that Columbus could have improved by giving Voracek more defensive-zone starts.
Here's how they did following neutral-zone starts:
| Neutral Zone | Corsi | Time | Rate | Corsi QoC |
| Both | 14 | 274.5 | 3.061 | 0.119 |
| Voracek | -16 | 564.4 | -1.701 | 0.87 |
| Nash | -53 | 580.3 | -5.48 | 1.549 |
| Neither | -76 | 1650.1 | -2.763 | 0.488 |
This comes very close to matching the overall numbers. We have Voracek nearly 4 Corsi shots better per 60 minutes, but not facing as tough competition.
Here is the attacking end:
| Offensive Zone | Corsi | Time | Rate | Corsi QoC |
| Both | 68 | 217 | 18.8 | 0.608 |
| Voracek | 139 | 429.7 | 19.41 | 0.347 |
| Nash | 128 | 462.1 | 16.62 | 0.717 |
| Neither | 289 | 1266.5 | 13.691 | 0.267 |
The gap here is much smaller. Actually, given the other numbers I suspect that if we looked only at offensive-zone play then Nash's numbers would be better despite facing tougher competition. Remember that the above includes time well after a faceoff. If he's better than Nash in the other two zones then Voracek will put up better Corsi figures when they jump on the ice after an offensive-zone faceoff but with the puck elsewhere.
To that end, here is a table giving their Corsi stats within a minute of an offensive-zone faceoff:
| Recent Offensive Zone | Corsi | Time | Rate | Corsi QoC |
| Both | 71 | 156.1 | 27.293 | 0.158 |
| Voracek | 88 | 263.6 | 20.032 | 0.308 |
| Nash | 110 | 312.9 | 21.094 | 0.73 |
| Neither | 369 | 754.4 | 29.348 | 0.16 |
I didn't include the same for the defensive zone because it is very similar to the overall. To be honest, that Columbus did best when neither were on the ice according to this measure makes me uneasy. I think a lot of that may be due to faceoffs; cutting it to within a minute of the faceoff means it's tough to get something positive to count if you lose the faceoff or even win it but not cleanly. As I said, this is all a work in progress.
Conclusion
If I've done my job at all with the writing, a picture has emerged. Voracek appears to be more than capable of carrying the load, particularly in the defensive and neutral zones. His offensive numbers are not as strong. For further evidence of that, his points percentage is not very good. This indicates that he's mainly relying on teammates to convert possession in the offensive zone into goals. The Flyers would do well to put him with a scorer like Giroux or Briere.
In the next few days I'll post a full list of performance after each type of faceoff for every player in the league last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)