On The Strange Results Of The Winnipeg Thrashers

Some people may have forgotten this, but in December of 2010, the Thrashers were primed for a playoff berth. Mainstream journalists sat up and took notice. After their game against the Maple Leafs on December 20th, the Thrashers were 19-11-5, with a point percentage of .614. This was finally the year for them - they'd gotten rid of Ilya Kovalchuk, acquired Dustin Byfuglien, and the team was better off. We know what happened next; they went 13-25-7 over their remaining 45 games and finished with the 6th worst overall record in hockey. Then they moved to Winnipeg.

But something strange happened along the way - by 'advanced metrics', the team got better, even as it did worse. Here's a look at Atlanta/Winnipeg's first half and second half even-strength Fenwick with the score tied by player, with a minimum of 10 total games. Fenwick % is shots on goal + missed shots on goal by Team X (here, Atlanta) divided by the total number of shots and missed shots taken. A player's Fenwick % is shots on goal + missed shots FOR while he is on the ice divided by total shots on goal + missed shots by both teams. We're only looking at the results while the score is tied because teams change their strategies when ahead or behind, which fouls up the numbers. (All numbers here courtesy of timeonice.com)

Player	GP	1st Half Fenwick	GP	2nd Half Fenwick	Difference
Andrew Ladd	39	0.513	40	0.515	0.002
Dustin Byfuglien	40	0.5	39	0.558	0.058
Johnny Oduya	37	0.425	40	0.532	0.107
Chris Thorburn	36	0.452	40	0.532	0.08
Anthony Stewart	39	0.479	36	0.456	-0.023
Ron Hainsey	35	0.461	40	0.521	0.06
Bryan Little	33	0.496	41	0.531	0.035
Tobias Enstrom	40	0.477	31	0.526	0.049
Nik Antropov	31	0.46	40	0.514	0.054
Evander Kane	34	0.467	34	0.545	0.078
Zach Bogosian	30	0.456	38	0.514	0.058
Alex Burmistrov	36	0.398	32	0.592	0.194
Eric Boulton	28	0.496	31	0.503	0.007
Rich Peverley	39	0.474	18	0.488	0.014
Brent Sopel	33	0.48	19	0.444	-0.036
Niclas Bergfors	29	0.488	22	0.513	0.025
Tim Stapleton	8	0.469	34	0.543	0.074
Fredrik Modin	23	0.379	10	0.535	0.156
Jim Slater	32	0.465
Ben Eager	31	0.375	1	0.333	-0.042
Blake Wheeler			23	0.598
Mark Stuart			22	0.561
Patrice Cormier	2	0.238	18	0.465	0.227
Rob Schremp			15	0.592
Freddy Meyer	7	0.344	7	0.5	0.156
Radek Dvorak			12	0.608
Ben Maxwell			12	0.516

We see that in the first half, Atlanta was well into the negative - only two players managed to hit 50%. Their goal differential, however, was +3 despite a 46.3% Fenwick percentage. In the second half, the story was reversed - few players were in the red. Yet their goal differential with the score tied was -2 in spite of a .529 Fenwick %. We know that Fenwick % with the score tied is a better predictor of future results than Goal %, so by these measures, Atlanta/Winnipeg could be looking at a resurgence next year.

A nice chart contributed by JaredL shows the relationship between Fenwick % and Goal % as the season progressed:

We see the Fenwick % rising as the Goal % drops. What could cause the Fenwick to jump? I can think of three things that would cause the improvement:

A: Personnel Changes - The Thrashers made a few moves towards the end of the year, they brought in Radek Dvorak, Mark Stuart, and Blake Wheeler while they shipped out Brent Sopel , Niclas Bergfors, and Rich Peverley. Wheeler and Dvorak's 2nd half Fenwick while tied definitely beats Bergfors's and Peverley's.

B: Coaching Adjustments - It was Craig Ramsay's first year coaching the Thrashers, and perhaps the players had not figured out his system until the second half.

C: Player Improvement - Dustin Byfuglien played some defense for the Blackhawks last year, but this was his first year playing defense full-time. Promising youngsters Zach Bogosian, Evander Kane, and Alex Burmistrov had not played very much in the NHL. Burmistrov's jump was especially impressive.

But what of the drop in goals? I can think of two reasons for that:

A: Blind Luck - The Thrashers simply didn't get the bounces. Over such a small sample, chance will always be a factor. No one said that hockey was fair.

B: Changing Strategy - What if the Thrashers were responding to their difficulty in scoring goals by simply firing more pucks at the net? It's possible, but I doubt very much that it would result in such a wild change in Fenwick.

Still, this change in goal differential involving score tied Fenwick is one thing, but you don't get to a 14-19-6 second half record without other things going wrong, and it seems like just about everything else did. Here's a look at their Special Teams split into first and second halves:

Special Teams	Power Play	Penalty Kill
First Half	20.9%	80.9%
Second Half	14.0%	74.3%

And here's a graph showing Fenwick shooting percentage, both for and against, for the season:

We can see, again, that the opponent's shooting percentage improves while Atlanta's gets worse.

So who are the Winnipeg Jets going to be next season? It's difficult to say. They moved to a different city and switched coaches, but the personnel are going to remain pretty much intact. The team is still in the Eastern Conference despite moving to Winnipeg, which will lead to increased travel. They've yet to sign Zach Bogosian. Frankly, I don't know. For our upcoming series on Driving Play predicting the 2011-12 season, I inexplicably ranked them as #15 in the Conference - last overall. I doubt they'll make it there, but in spite of their second half Fenwick, I still think it will be a long winter in Winterpeg.

With Or Without You: Patrick Sharp

            The usage of Patrick Sharp has been a hot topic in Hawkland for the better part of two years now.  Sharp was used primarily as the 2^nd line Center during Chicago’s cup run, and placing him on the wing of Kane and Toews confused many Hawks fans last year, especially down the stretch, when David Bolland was injured.  Loading up the top line then meant that Michael Frolik or Tomas Kopecky would play Center alongside Marian Hossa.  Center depth is still somewhat a concern for the Hawks, and this same conversation about where to put Sharp in the line-up lingers on.  Our goal is to use possession numbers to identify whether loading things up by playing Sharp with Kane and Toews actually resulted in an appreciable difference in the team’s ability to drive the play. 

            The results show that Chicago’s pure possession numbers take a slight hit when Sharp plays with Kane and Toews compared with when somebody else plays with the pair.  Sharp – Toews – Kane were together for 427 Even Strength minutes last year.  When those three were on the ice, the Hawks’ Corsi/60 was 15.155 against a Quality of Competition of -0.734.  Kane and Toews as a pair played 930 minutes with any other teammate not named Patrick Sharp, their Corsi/60 and Corsi Quality of Competition were 19.4 and 0.458, respectively.   What makes the decision to load up even more questionable is the impact on Marian Hossa.  Mr. Hossa has played 618 even strength minutes with none of Kane, Toews, or Sharp.  The Hawks still had a positive Corsi in that sample, though it was much lower, coming in at a Corsi/60 of 4.7. 

Now that we’ve established that splitting the pair up makes the most sense, the question becomes how to split them up.  The two primary options are either:

·      Other – Toews – Hossa / Other – Sharp – Kane

OR

·      Other – Toews – Kane / Other – Sharp – Hossa

Toews was paired with Hossa and somebody not named Patrick Sharp or Patrick Kane for 259 EV minutes.  The pair did well for themselves, putting up a Corsi/60 of 13.7.  This is all the more impressive when realizing this pair was generally out against the opponent’s toughest competition.  The Quality of Competition rating was 1.76. In other words, Toews and Hossa took on tough competition and still dominated possession.  Sharp and Kane were also impressive, with a Corsi/60 of 20.8.  The pair generally faced weaker competition.

The other alternative is pairing Toews with Kane and then Sharp with Hossa.  Toews and Kane (and no Sharp/Hossa) put up a Corsi/60 of 19.4 in 929 EV minutes.  The pair faced tough competition, though it was not nearly as tough as the minutes that Toews and Hossa played.  Sharp and Hossa have been together for 570 minutes, putting up a Corsi/60 of 15.5.  It is interesting to note the drop in the quality of Marian Hossa’s opponents when he plays with Toews compared with Sharp.  The Quality of Competition rating of Toews – Hossa is 1.76 compared to -0.7 when the Slovak winger is paired with Sharp. 

            The numbers ultimately bear out that splitting up Sharp and Toews is the optimal solution given Chicago’s current line-up.  From there, decisions on personnel get a bit murky, though there are some important implications.  First, is that none of Sharp’s minutes at Center can be considered tough.  This is interesting, as the defensive reputations of his two potential right wingers are quite different, yet the quality of opposition has not impacted who plays the right side on Sharp’s line.  We do, however, see a big drop in the quality of opposition when we compare Toews’ minutes with Kane to Toews’ minutes with Hossa.  The captain faced tough minutes regardless, though the 0.458 quality of competition when playing with Kane was a relative cake walk compared to the quality of competition he faced when paired with Hossa. 

            My personal belief is that the Blackhawks should pair Sharp with Kane and Toews with Hossa.  We can see that any line that Sharp centers will generally get softer minutes; given this, why not load up in both directions?  A line based Toews and Hossa features two elite two-way forwards who have shown the ability to crush territorially despite playing absurdly tough minutes; Sharp and Kane would reap the benefits of the other pair’s tough minutes.  It is also important to note that a Sharp – Kane pairing is considerably better than a Sharp – Hossa pairing in terms of puck possession even though the quality of minutes are effectively the same.

            In the end, this, to quote The Wire’s Marlo Stanfield, ‘sounds like one of them good problems’.  As a team that likes to play with the puck (and does so better than everybody else), the Blackhawks have an embarrassment of riches in top end talent.  The only thing that can undermine that would be playing Patrick Sharp on the left wing.

            

Hey! Speak Up!

It's been a roller coaster ride over the last 50 days since Driving Play was founded. We've experienced the dizzying highs, the terrifying lows, the creamy middles. We've gotten way more hits than we thought we would, and the right people are noticing what we're doing over here.

Still, one thing that's a little disappointing is the lack of comments on the posts. Are people not interested? That's cool - the last two articles I wrote were on Anton Stralman and Jack Hillen; I don't expect many people to be interested in that. Are people afraid to comment, maybe? A fair amount of thought goes into the analysis here, but that doesn't mean your rebuttal has to be a dissertation, complete with WOWY analysis. We're interested in hearing what the readers have to say, even if it's not full of numbers and jargon. At the very least, it could give us ideas about future posts.

So, I'm going to open up the floor: What would the readers like to see a post about? I can't promise anything, but I'm curious about what you guys are interested in.

Part I.V: The Aftermath... Jakub Voracek and Rick Nash WOWY Analysis

Chase asked me to do some number crunching on Voracek. To be honest, I found the results surprising. The numbers indicate that Voracek is highly underrated and was a great pickup. It appears that he, not Rick Nash, was Driving Play at even strength in Columbus.

Here is how Columbus did at even strength with both goalies in net with both Nash and Voracek on the ice, one of them on and neither of them:

2010-2011 ES	Corsi	Time (mins)	Corsi/60	OppCorsi
Both	67	690.2	5.824	0.499
Nash only	-6	405.1	-0.889	-0.136
Voracek only	71	414.3	10.283	0.399
Neither	-11	2453.9	-0.269	0.214

It surprised me that in the 20 periods worth of ice time he was without Voracek, the guy with the sixth most shots taken in the league (including PP) was negative, albeit slightly. It's too small of a sample to take the exact numbers seriously, but it's interesting to note that when Voracek was off the ice not only was Nash a negative-Corsi player but Columbus actually did better without him than with him. Voracek, on the other hand, did quite well without Nash. He did so against tougher competition.

This pattern also held if you look only at situations where the score was tied:

2010-2011 tied	Corsi	Time	Corsi/60	OppCorsi
Both	55	256.9	12.844	0.192
Nash	-13	155.3	-5.023	0.002
Voracek	15	140.5	6.408	0.66
Neither	-52	946.9	-3.295	0.021

Let's expand the sample by throwing in 2009-2010, when they spent more time apart. Here's all 5-on-5 minutes:

2009-2011	Corsi	Time (mins)	Corsi/60	OppCorsi
Both	59	713.2	4.963	0.528
Nash only	-61	1507.2	-2.428	1.325
Voracek only	65	1421.1	2.744	0.773
Neither	-253	4184.4	-3.628	0.497

and when the score was tied:

2009-2011 Tied	Corsi	Time (mins)	Corsi/60	OppCorsi
Both	55	262.8	12.559	0.265
Nash	-20	584	-2.055	1.439
Voracek	34	508.9	4.009	0.646
Neither	-164	1585.8	-6.205	0.468

Nash had tougher competition in his time without Voracek than vice versa, but Voracek's numbers are far better. I'll write a lot more on quality of competition later and come up with something more precise, but according to my rough calculations it looks like Voracek was somewhere between 4 and 4.5 Corsi shots better per 60 when you take the tougher opposition into account. Maybe a little higher if you only look at tied-score minutes.

Before the flood of angry emails from Jackets' fans comes in, I'd like to point out that this is all for 5-on-5 play. It appears that Nash was carrying the water on the Power Play, maybe the fans yelling "SHOOT" for the entire damn power play are smarter than we think, and he also played about 19% of Columbus' PK time. In both cases, the Jackets had better Corsi numbers when he was on the ice than off.

Expect Voracek to play a big role for the Flyers at 5-on-5 this season.

On The Non-Linearity Of Contracts And The Fallacy Of The Known Quantity

Let's look at the numbers of three defensemen who played last season. All three were eligible to be unrestricted free agents. One signed a deal before reaching free agency, the two others became free agents and signed with other teams. All numbers courtesy of hockey-reference.com:

Name	GP	G	A	P	PIM	+/-	SOG	TOI
Player A	42	1	6	7	41	0	21	15:10
Player B	62	2	12	14	74	-15	57	18:12
Player C	64	4	18	22	45	-5	81	18:49

Whatever the case, we don't see that much difference between these three players, do we? Player A only got into about half the games (he was also injured for some time), but still played infrequently when he did get in. Players B and C didn't get into all the games either, but they got more ice time. In all, wouldn't we expect these players to be paid about the same? And no, I'm not pulling any tricks here - their previous years really aren't that much different from one another, and it's not like one guy is 38 years old - all are within or close to an NHL prime.

It may be surprising to learn that Player A received a 2 year contract worth $1.225M per season, Player B received a 1 year deal at $1M, and Player C received a two-way contract worth $650K. What gives? How does Andrew Alberts (aka Player A) merit a 2 year contract, at more than double the league minimum, by playing 15 minutes a game? It's somewhat simple - Alberts is being paid that way because he's accepting that he will likely be the Canucks' 7th defenseman next year. It's possible that he could've left Vancouver and gotten a promise to play in the top 6 somewhere, but he would've given up money to do so. Alberts has played nearly 400 games for 4 different teams; you know what you are getting when you sign him.

Player B, Jim Vandermeer, didn't know he was going to be the 7th defenseman when he signed with the Sharks, but with the addition of Colin White, that's now likely. Vandermeer has over 400 games of NHL experience with 4 organizations, so he's somewhat of a known quantity at this point. He wasn't able to get more than 18 minutes a game for the worst team in the NHL.

Player C is Jack Hillen, a player who got nearly 21 minutes a game for a bad Islanders team in 2010. Hillen was mysteriously non-tendered by the Islanders this part off-season - are the Islanders really in a position where they can just give up players? Apparently so, and it took until August for Hillen to sign somewhere. However, Hillen only has 175 NHL games under his belt, and he's only played for the Islanders. Even though Vandermeer and Alberts are likely worse players than Hillen, it appears that few teams were willing to gamble that Hillen can fill a top six role. One can imagine the rhetorical question appearing in a general manager's mind: 'If the Islanders don't want him, how good could he be?' And perhaps Hillen himself rejected offers from places with 6 defensemen likely to be on the depth chart above him, because he doesn't have a career history to fall back on - one poor season and he might be looking at offers from the KHL and Swiss leagues as his only options.

I fully expect Jack Hillen to outperform both Alberts and Vandermeer this season. The Predators may not have as much money as the Canucks and Sharks, but they know a good investment when they see it.

A Look at the Shea Weber Arbitration Deal

We teamed up on this article. Chase wrote the first part and JaredL wrote the end, starting at "The Good News and Bad News for Nashville".

When Shea Weber was awarded a 1-year, $7.5 million contract in salary arbitration this past Wednesday, it left me wondering whether or not the Predators’ superstar defenseman was deserving of such a high salary. After all, $7.5 million ties him for the 7th highest cap hit in the league for 2011-2012 and is #1 amongst his fellow blueliners. What is it that Weber continually brings to the table for Nashville? Per nhl.com, let’s take a look at his ice time in all situations last year:

Player	Games Played	ES TOI/Game	Team Rank	PP TOI/Game	Team Rank	SH TOI/Game	Team Rank	Total TOI/Game	Team Rank
Weber	82	19:33	2	3:38	1	2:06	3	25:19	1

As we can see, Nashville relies heavily upon Weber in all situations. Ranking number one among defensemen teammates in total ice time per game, Weber allows coach Barry Trotz to lean on him no matter the pinch that the team may find themselves in.

In an attempt to bestow some context upon these minutes, I wandered over to Behind the Net and ran a query for the CorsiRelQoC score of all NHL defenseman with a minimum of 20 games played last season. The results are below:

RK	NAME	TEAM	Corsi Rel QoC
1	NICKLASLIDSTROM	DET	1.807
2	MARCSTAAL	NYR	1.602
3	DANGIRARDI	NYR	1.583
4	BRADSTUART	DET	1.501
5	NICKLASGROSSMAN	DAL	1.468
6	ROBYNREGEHR	CGY	1.452
7	STEPHANEROBIDAS	DAL	1.422
8	JASONGARRISON	FLA	1.412
9	MIKEWEAVER	FLA	1.381
10	JAYBOUWMEESTER	CGY	1.307
11	WILLIEMITCHELL	L.A	1.3
12	MATTIASOHLUND	T.B	1.275
13	TONILYDMAN	ANA	1.239
14	BARRETJACKMAN	STL	1.12
15	KEITHAULIE	TOR	1.119
16	KARLALZNER	WSH	1.106
17	JOHNCARLSON	WSH	1.088
18	SAMISALO	VAN	1.071
19	ZDENOCHARA	BOS	1.047
20	KIMMOTIMONEN	PHI	1.024
21	BROOKSORPIK	PIT	0.996
22	RYANSUTER	NSH	0.971
23	SHEAWEBER	NSH	0.942
24	BRENTSEABROOK	CHI	0.928
25	JOHNNYBOYCHUK	BOS	0.927
26	LUBOMIRVISNOVSKY	ANA	0.907
27	RYANO'BYRNE	COL	0.888
28	DEREKMORRIS	PHX	0.883
29	BRAYDONCOBURN	PHI	0.88
30	CHRISPHILLIPS	OTT	0.847

Weber sits 23rd, perhaps unsurprisingly attached at the hip to his frequent defensive partner Ryan Suter. Browsing some of the names on this list, we can see that Weber is in elite league-wide company with the toughness of his minutes. Putting Weber’s score in a team context, here is the CorsiRelQoC of all Nashville skaters with the same games played requirement:

RK	NAME	TEAM	Corsi Rel QoC
1	JOELWARD	NSH	1.126
2	RYANSUTER	NSH	0.971
3	MARTINERAT	NSH	0.961
4	SHEAWEBER	NSH	0.942
5	JERREDSMITHSON	NSH	0.83
6	DAVIDLEGWAND	NSH	0.805
7	NICKSPALING	NSH	0.633
8	KEVINKLEIN	NSH	0.621
9	MIKEFISHER	NSH	0.564
10	JONATHONBLUM	NSH	0.522
11	MATTHALISCHUK	NSH	0.51
12	SERGEIKOSTITSYN	NSH	0.436
13	JORDINTOOTOO	NSH	0.306
14	FRANCISBOUILLON	NSH	0.177
15	STEVESULLIVAN	NSH	0.055
16	MARCELGOC	NSH	0.01
17	CALO'REILLY	NSH	-0.02
18	PATRICHORNQVIST	NSH	-0.02
19	COLINWILSON	NSH	-0.035
20	SHANEO'BRIEN	NSH	-0.247
21	JPDUMONT	NSH	-0.487
22	CODYFRANSON	NSH	-0.673
23	BLAKEGEOFFRION	NSH	-1.217

We see just how important Weber is to his team. He and Suter face competition in the conversation with the league’s elite, and Nashville would certainly struggle to replace his minutes if they were to lose his services. With tough-minutes eater Joel Ward leaving for Washington in the offseason, it will only make Weber all the more important to Nashville’s success in 2011-2012. Having noted the context of Weber’s minutes, just how well is he doing with his given role?

	ES Goals	ES Assists	ES Points	PP Goals	PP Assists	PP Points
Stat	9	21	30	6	11	17
Team Rank	1	1	1	1	2	T-1
NHL Rank	T-3	T-11	7	T-9	T-29	T-23

Corsi ON	CorsiRel	Fenwick %	CorsiRelQoC	Zone Start %	Zone Finish %
2.69	7.2	53.4	0.942	45.3	48.4

The table should be fairly self-explanatory: Weber is the best offensive producer amongst the defenseman on his team and ranks in the top-30 league-wide in every category. What is more, despite a 45% zone start and a hefty CorsiRelQoC number, the majority of the shots while he is on the ice are being directed at the opponent’s net. Weber is certainly handling his minutes in the manner of an elite NHL defenseman, and without him Nashville would be in a pinch for tough-minutes help in all situations and production from their back-end. On one hand, the numbers don’t indicate that he’s the best defenseman in the league, though he appears to be among them, so it seems the ruling overpays him. On the other it doesn’t seem like the contract will keep Nashville from signing anyone given their cap situation and the timing. Perhaps they are less likely to make a trade that takes on more salary for this season due to an internal cap. I would have to conclude that Shea Weber’s new 1-year contract is a win-win for all parties involved. What he signs next year will be more interesting.

The Good News and Bad News for Nashville

How important is Weber to the Predators? This question doesn't quite equate to value but is certainly a big part of how their fans and front office will view the extension. To speculate, it seems likely that Nashville GM David Poile chose arbitration because he thinks Shea Weber is very important to the Predators - he didn't want to risk losing him due to another team tabling an unmatchable offer sheet, despite compensation the Preds would get if that happened.

On that front, there is good news and potentially some bad news for Nashville. I'll start with the good news. Using play-by-play data from the last two seasons, WOWY stats indicate that the Predators were far better off with Weber on the ice in every situation. Let's break this down.

Here are the overall even-strength numbers with both goalies in net:

ES	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60	Corsi QoC
Weber On	+204	2,965.4	4.128	1.155
Weber Off	-153	5,112.7	-1.796	0.425

Weber is facing tough competition and Nashville does far better with him on; their Corsi rate goes up by 5.92 shots per 60 when he jumps onto the ice. Let's go ahead and break this down further. What about when facing tough or weak competition? To look at that, we've broken down the ice time into situations where the average Corsi of the opposing players, according to BTN, is positive and those where it is negative. Here is the breakdown:

ES	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60	Corsi QoC
Tough, Weber On	-136	1,714.2	-4.760	6.037
Tough, Weber Off	-440	2,689.4	-9.816	5.794
Easy, Weber On	+340	1,251.2	16.304	-5.533
Easy, Weber Off	+287	2,423.3	7.106	-5.533

Looking at the overall picture, Weber has had success despite having a really high qualcomp. While he is obviously doing well against the above-average players, to the tune of increasing his team's Corsi rate by 5.1 per 60, a much larger WOWY difference comes against weaker competition - his presence on the ice increased Nashville's Corsi against below average players by 9.2 per. Given his offensive skills, this is perhaps not too surprising.

Now let's move on to zone starts. Using faceoff information, we can look only at times where there was a faceoff in the offensive/defensive zone within the last minute. That should serve as a pretty good indicator of how good he is in each zone. We also include all situations where either the most recent faceoff was more than a minute before or was in the neutral zone.

Off Zone	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60	Corsi QoC
Weber On	+295	539.9	32.782	1.283
Weber Off	+406	945.5	25.765	0.357

Def Zone	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60	Corsi QoC
Weber On	-219	665.6	-19.741	1.574
Weber Off	-494	1,014.0	-29.230	0.782

Neutral	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60	Corsi QoC
Weber On	+62	922.7	4.032	1.283
Weber Off	-84	1,513.6	-3.330	0.429

Again, we see the same pattern with Nashville having much more success with Weber on the ice in all three zones. Somewhat surprisingly, the biggest difference is in the defensive zone.

Now let's look at special teams. Here are the PP numbers, first Corsi then goals, with shorthanded goals conceded subtracted:

Power Play	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60
Weber On	+823	567.1	87.082
Weber Off	+439	341.8	77.074

Power Play	Goals	Minutes	Goals/60
Weber On	63	567.1	6.666
Weber Off	19	341.8	3.336

Here are the penalty-kill numbers:

Penalty Kill	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60
Weber On	-333	267.2	-74.785
Weber Off	-794	581.3	-81.957

Penalty Kill	Goals	Minutes	Goals/60
Weber On	-28	267.2	-6.288
Weber Off	-64	581.3	-6.606

There are a couple things worth noting here. A guy has to rest sometime, but these numbers indicate that Weber is an above-average penalty killer for the Preds and should probably get more time. The previous set of charts indicating that he was good in the defensive end is further evidence. On that note, it's interesting that there was a larger difference in his defensive-zone WOWY than for the offensive zone, but that was flipped for special teams. This is pretty likely just due to random variance. You shouldn't put too much stock into the exact numbers, but note the very strong pattern that has emerged. In every situation, Nashville was better with Weber on the ice than off it, in most cases substantially. This despite him facing tougher competition than the average Predator in all 5-on-5 scenarios and most likely on the power play.

Potential "Bad" News: Is Suter Actually Driving Play?
I put bad in quotation marks because it's not really bad news for Nashville, except that it would indicate seriously overpaying for Weber no matter how you look at it. I say potential because evidence is scarce. The reason for this is that Shea Weber and Ryan Suter have spent almost all of their ice time together over the last three years. That makes it very difficult to separate. Going back four seasons, Suter had better numbers but he also had a much better partner. Weber spent most of his time alongside Greg Zanon while Suter was paired with Marek Zidlicky.

While the sample sizes reduce this from a blow-your-mind revelation to an anecdote worth considering, you may be surprised to learn that when they've been apart Suter has had more success, or perhaps less failure would be a better way to put it. He's also faced tougher competition. Here's a chart going over their time together and apart in the last two years.

Even Strength	Corsi	Minutes	Corsi/60	Corsi QoC
Both On	+228	2,487.7	5.499	1.068
Weber Only	-24	477.7	-3.015	1.605
Suter Only	-1	368.5	-0.163	2.110
Neither	-152	4,744.2	-1.922	0.295

Overall it is certain that at the very least the Weber-Suter pairing is very important to the Predators' success. In every situation, Weber's presence on the ice improved his team's numbers. This is muddied by Suter's stats looking very similar, for obvious reasons, and actually being better against tougher competition in the rare cases when they were apart. Given that they are both free agents next summer, it's going to be very important to figure out if they are both carrying the water or if only one is.

We'd love to hear from Nashville fans. Which of the two do you think is Driving Play? What do you think Weber should get if he re-signs long term?

On Anton Stralman And Save Percentage

In the aftermath of New Jersey's perplexing Colin White buyout, I decided to browse around for possible free agent 'replacements'. Usually if I want to find out about a player, I'll use this helpful Behind The Net link: Anton Stralman . It gives the basic rundown of a player at even strength - Corsi QoC, Corsi QoT, Corsi Rel, Zone Start, all of that fun stuff. It's not the full picture by any stretch, but it's at least an outline. Stralman is one of the few legitimate NHL defenders left on the free agent market. However, something about his numbers caught my eye - here's his team's save percentage while he was on the ice at even strength over the last 4 years, according to Behind The Net:

2007-08: .900

2008-09: .892

2009-10: .903

2010-11: .907

That's four years in the NHL, and he has not even come remotely close to having a league-average save percentage on (League average is about .920). He's played 212 games over that time. Could Anton Stralman be negatively affecting his team's save percentage? I hesitate to make this claim, but still - four years and no seasons are close to average.

Stralman has played for the Leafs and Blue Jackets, two teams who have not exactly gotten stellar goaltending over his time there. So I thought - perhaps Stralman himself is partly responsible for this 'poor goaltending'. If Stralman suppresses his own goalie's save percentage, maybe he's bringing it down from league average or so to, well, worse than that. It's an accepted maxim in the hockey numbers community that save percentage is largely independent of team play, but perhaps that's not so. Using a sample size of one won't make this argument ironclad, but it might introduce some skepticism towards a long-held belief.

To study whether or not Anton Stralman could be negatively affecting his team's save percentage, I fired up some trusty Time on Ice scripts (courtesy of Vic Ferrari). The first thing I found is that, as usual, Time On Ice and Behind The Net do not exactly agree - here's Stralman's on-ice save percentage according to TOI:

2007-08: .900

2008-09: .893

2009-10: .908

2010-11: .915

These are not insignificant differences, and can likely be chalked up to the fact that A: TOI counts 4 on 4 situations whereas BTN does not, and B: TOI doesn't count empty net situations whereas I *think* BTN does. Already our thesis is looking shaky, with that .915 save percentage there. Here's a look at save percentage when Stralman is on the ice, versus when he's off the ice:

So, there you have it. His first two seasons, he's negative, and in his second two seasons, save percentage is higher when he's on the ice. Thus it's difficult to conclude that Stralman is suppressing save percentage. Why he hasn't yet found an NHL home, I'm not sure, but it appears that he could be a reasonable third-pairing option who can play on the power play.