Cycle Like the Sedins

Simple stats that I don't see often: Special Teams Plus/Minus and Net Goals

Written by James O'Brien
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 23:41
When it's midnight and you need a photo of a cranky journalist ... There was a point when I was like those many curmudgeon old sports columnists who looked down on complex statistics. Thankfully, though, there have been enough great stat blogs to finally teach me my lesson: some stats just don't tell you as much as you might originally think. Still, there is a part of me that always searches for the right cross-section between simple and deep. I'd imagine that these kind of stats have been around plenty of times before, but I've never seen them expressed before in official sites' standings sections (at least on ESPN or NHL.com). So, with all the Power Rankings out there, I thought it would be fun to occasionally take a look at NHL teams through completely objective - and obnoxiously simple - statistics. Obviously, this first few weeks' worth of stats will be greatly altered by outliers but you know that already, right? (A few more notes: these stats were taken from before tonight's games and I'm dumb and don't know a better way to put up an Excel spreadsheet on blogspot, so please tolerate my sloppy use of screenshots) ANYWAY, first the NHL's leaders in Net Goals. This takes a SUPER sophisticated formula of Goals For minus Goals Against (although the spreadsheet also provides even strength goals ... which I might incorporate into something more elegant and interesting in the future). If you're a Maple Leafs fan, ~~well, at least you aren't running your car in your garage right now. Small victories.~~ feel free to avert your eyes. (Click to enlarge) So those of you who hate simple arithmetic, you're welcome. The real reason I thought to do this, though, was to take a look at special teams numbers. It's always bothered me that such an emphasis has been made on Power Play and Penalty Kill percentages but who gives a rat's ass about that? To me, PP effectiveness has always been about a) sheer quantity of goals and b) timeliness. There's no doubt in my mind that I'd take a powerplay that scored 2 out of 10 than one that scored 1 out of 4. I'm aware that is an overly-simplistic criticism, but work with me here. To take a more "big picture" look at special teams, I think it is also important to compare teams' PP and PK together. If your team can eek out a substantial amount of PP goals while keeping PK goals under control, you'll have a major advantage while attempting to make the playoffs. So, I've come up with (OK, I bet someone else has done this too since it's super-simple) "Special Teams Plus-Minus." The formula's almost as simple as "Net Goals" PP Goals Scored + SH Goals Scored - PP Goals Allowed + SH Goals Allowed* = Special Teams Plus-Minus.** * Just realized I didn't include SHG allowed but I'll do it next time. Promise! ** - However, if I've come up with something stupidly original feel free to call it a Jimbo Score. :) no comments

Special Teams Plus Minus, Net Goals in 2008-09

Written by James O'Brien
Thursday, 15 October 2009 21:19
Photoshop by MacYapper (?) Yesterday I posted some simple yet interesting stats for the early part of this season. It's uncertain if I'll be able to make that a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly special but I'll be tracking these things all season long. But just to make sure I'm not crazy, I thought it would be smart to study the stats from last year to see how indicative they are of team success. It also is an interesting way to look at which teams were really deficient (or really strong) in special teams yet still managed to make (or miss) the playoffs. First, here's the Standings for 2008-09 without sorting for the stats that tickle my fancy: Now that you have a frame of reference, here's that list sorted by the simplest stat that we'll be tracking this season: Net Goals. There aren't a ton of surprises there. That being said, it's really interesting that the league's best team in Net Goals (Boston) scored 78 more goals than they allowed while the league's worst team in Net Goals (Islanders) allowed 78 more goals than they scored. Funny how things work out sometimes. It's also interesting that only two playoff teams allowed more goals than they scored: Columbus (-4) and the Rangers (-8). This also shows that the Blue Jackets must have been one hell of an even strength team. Perhaps the most intriguing set of stats comes in the form of the Special Teams plus-minus. The number that sticks out the most to me here is the Columbus Blue Jackets being -29 special teams goals. 78 Special Teams Goals Allowed isn't astronomically bad ... what makes the Blue Jackets totals so bad is their anemic power play. Any CBJ pundits who are still sore that the BJ's lack a great PP point player could point to this stat and say, "How do you expect this team to make the playoffs (again) with numbers like that?" Looking at special teams play, it must be especially heartbreaking for Minnesota Wild fans that their team narrowly missed the playoffs last season. They were second in Special Teams +/- with a +33 (12 more than the tied for 3rd place Bruins and Red Wings). It also makes me think that maybe injuries and Sean Avery weren't the top reasons why the Dallas Stars missed the playoffs last season. Just for your fun and to strengthen a point I made yesterday, here's some extended special teams stats: This leads to a bit of discussion on a point I (sloppily) made yesterday: quantity of PP goals (and PP goals allowed) means a lot more to me than percentages, even though it's not a huge difference and it's easier for networks to use a %-based graphic. There are, however, a few examples that illustrate my point. The Buffalo Sabres managed to be in the top 5 in PPG scored despite having a PP that scored about 2% less than the other top powerplays. Over 82 games, a couple percentage points can make a big difference (kind of like how a 2% save percentage difference can make a pretty huge difference in how a goalie will be perceived). Anaheim and Boston scored at 2.5% higher rate but the Sabres drew at least 40 more power plays (or about one more every other game) and therefore were able to generate more PPGs. (OK, it was only one more PPG ... but still.) Conversely, the New Jersey Devils scored at at least a 2% higher rate on the PP than other bottom PPG scoring teams but they were only able to go on the PP 307 times (compared to Buffalo's 358) and therefore scored 17 less last season. Does it make an enormous difference? Absolutely not. But even if it's only a slightly more accurate way of tracking the good PPs, that's good enough for me. no comments

In Case you love percentages: factoring in shorthanded goals to PP and PK%

Written by James O'Brien
Friday, 16 October 2009 11:37
One more stats nerd post and I'll be this guy's wingman. Note: like the last post, these are stats from the 2008-09 season although going forward I'll be using 2009-10 stats ... Unless I come up with one more stat that I publicly deem dopey while ultimately find semi-clever, this should be the last stat introducing post for the foreseeable future. The last flaw with simply listing PK and PP% is that shorthanded goals aren't factored in (or not seamlessly) to the equation. Even if SHG are rare, they can be gigantic for momentum. See: Jordan Staal in Game 6 of the SCF. More than that, though, I think it's a subtle reflection of good coaching and/or heady players. For instance: the Philadelphia Flyers are known for having a scary-aggressive PK with Mike Richards but they're also amazingly efficient on their own PP. Unless I read incorrectly, they only allowed 1 SHG last season! So I decided to see how much SHG negatively affect a PP and positively affect a PK. (The stat is the same as PP% except it's PPG scored - SHG allowed divided by PP opportunities.) Let's take a look at True Powerplay Percentage (or should it be called "Net" PP% ... or the PP Efficiency Rating? I dunno, True PP% sounds pretty cool doesn't it?) Click to enlarge TRUE PP% What I like about these stats is that they create a more pronounced "upper class" or elite group of PP units. The Red Wings' absurd PP is reflected better here: they are heads and shoulders above the rest of the league (as they should be). It also reflects just how bad the Blue Jackets' PP was; 12% is pretty bad as it is but the team let up a lot of SHG too. When you think about it, when the CBJ went on the PP something good would happen only nine percent of the time. (LOL) I still think sheer quantity (ultimately PPG - SHG allowed) is the best way to judge a team's PP unit but this is pretty interesting, too. True Penalty Kill %/PK Efficiency Rating/PK Success Level is the same as PK% except it's PPG allowed - SHG scored divided by Times Shorthanded. Click to enlarge True PK% The order of best PK teams doesn't change a ton here, but it again distinguishes the GREAT PK units. The Wild's special teams, again, were just amazing last year. At some point I might try to come up with a "magic number" for special teams percentages combined. Is a great overall special teams a combined 110% or ... what? Jeez, I'm a dork. What do you think, though? Is this interesting or as fun as eating a lifetime supply of microwave re-heated pizza crusts? no comments

The Boston Bruins in "How to Go From Cap Catastrophe to Potential Dynasty in Two Easy Trades"

Written by James O'Brien
Sunday, 18 October 2009 21:50
Brian Burke: architect of the cap-friendliest *contending* teams in the NHL (Anaheim and ... uh, Boston, indirectly) At first, it seemed like the Bruins were as hapless as a 13-year old trying to unhook a bra in the dark. In my preview, I criticized the Bruins for basically giving up on Phil Kessel ... for Derek Morris. Even if that was a case of obvious oversimplification, my question was: what were the Boston Bruins doing? Perhaps it came down to a simple decision of Marc Savard over Phil Kessel. Either way, the Bruins have parlayed Kessel and now Chuck Kobasew into an intriguing bounty of draft picks and cap relief. Boston Gives Up Kessel (to Toronto) Kobasew (to Minnesota) Boston Gains 2 First Round Picks (Toronto in '10 and '11) 2 Second Round Picks (Toronto in '10 and Minnesota in '11) Craig Weller Alex Fallstrom $2.3 million in cap space As others pointed out, the Bruins probably moved Kobasew to make room for Savard, Blake Wheeler and other valuable free agents (restricted and otherwise). What this really does is give the Bruins the opportunity to "re-load" with quality depth while most other playoff-caliber teams will begin to hemorrhage supporting cast members. Especially if the cap ceiling plummets for the 2010-11 season. With Kobasew gone and deals like Morris' set to expire, the prospects of the Bruins re-signing Savard (above) and Wheeler are looking much brighter. Some have said that the Maple Leafs' staggering ineptitude may not continue, but realistically what is the ceiling for Toronto this year (or even next)? The fact of the matter is that these aren't just draft picks, they might be top-10 or even top 5 draft picks. It's not every day that the top seed in the Eastern Conference could end up with two potential lottery picks that didn't result from a regular season free fall. Just look at the situations of similarly talented - and cap challenged - teams going into next summer. A major problem with the Blackhawks salary structure is that there's a glaring lack of cheap talent. While the Penguins have some extremely expensive stars, they also have cheap role players like Max Talbot and Tyler Kennedy. Now obviously high draft picks take some time to translate to useful NHLers and some never pan out at all. But by adding a handful of top quality picks in years when the Bruins would normally be drafting in the bottom 10, Boston is sitting fairly pretty in a cap world full of uncertainty. They can stick with those draft picks and try to find roster talent for the future or trade picks for other quality parts. The point is, they have options. That's something that Chicago, San Jose and many other cap conflicted teams will envy next summer. no comments

There are just some things you need to accept about the salary cap

Written by James O'Brien
Monday, 19 October 2009 08:49
I've been a little bit obsessive about the salary cap the last year or so and it means that certain flippant statements will bug me at times. One thing that kind of irks me is the way people look at the offensive depth of last year's Boston Bruins and Detroit Red Wings compared to the current models. People linger on the fact that the Red Wings were unable to retain the services of Hossa, Hudler and Co. while the Bruins won't be able to throw as many waves of offensive talent at their opponents as last season. There's a reason for that: those teams were a mirage; the Red Wings in particular were an unsustainable collection of top-end talent. When commentators made jokes about them having four lines of talent, they weren't far off-base. The Hudlers of the world are going to get paid and it's Ken Holland's job to be smart enough to let him go. Going forward, any team that has an embarrassment of riches is going to get to that level by a perfect storm of entry draft steals/high pick home runs, well-timed contract extensions and short-term veteran pickups. (Also, cheap goaltending is probably wise unless you *really* love your goalie) Teams like Vancouver worry me because there aren't many major players gunning for contracts in the near future ... the Sedins, Luongo and even role players like Alex Burrows don't have a big green carrot dangling in front of them. Thing I learned today: the Internet provides many great results for "dangling carrot" The crazy decade-plus contract trend is understandable for reasons of artificially diluting annual cap hits but I prefer the direction the Penguins (conscious or not) went with giving their young guns more reasonable (read: shorter) contracts. If Alex Ovechkin ruins his knees, the Caps aren't just fucked this year but for the next 10. If something happens to Evgeni Malkin, it would still be a catastrophe but not of the same degree. This rant is going in a few directions, but if I were a GM, these would be some of my principles: No one over the age of 30 gets more than 4 years Really, on some crazy level I wouldn't want to give anyone more than 3 years Extend players before you expect them to breakout, if at all possible Fear the contract year anomaly Sometimes, you have to let people go even if it hurts Yeah, those are pretty simple rules but I think more GMs could use balls of steel and hearts of coal. no comments

Like an internship, without the prestige but with gingers!

Written by James O'Brien
Monday, 19 October 2009 21:28
OK, there might not be gingers but the blog is named after a pair of twin-gers. That must count for something ... ANYWAY, that was a horrific start to the post. Let's re-group. There may be some bloggers/bloggers-in-waiting/hockey fans out there who are looking for a venue to promote their blogs. Maybe you are passionate about the blogosphere but honestly don't think you can generate enough content to run a blog by yourself. Perhaps you've never tried it before but want to see what it's like - while getting (marginally) more eyeballs than you normally would if you simply started your own without much fanfare. Then again, you might be running a mid-level blog of great promise but little results; after all, the hockey blogosphere is a colorful jungle of exotic animals and talented writers. Sometimes it's difficult to stand out. Better yet, you might just want to become a contributor to CLS. Whatever your motivation might be, CLS is looking for people to contribute to an upcoming daily feature we're planning to begin next week. Our goal is to find two "editors" per division to provide a once-per-week "Around the [blank] Division" links collection. Unlike great blogs such as Puck Daddy and Kuklas Korner, we're not hoping to cover all of the major news events of the week but instead the kind of posts that make you laugh or slip through the cracks. Currently, we're looking for: 2 contributors for the Atlantic division a contributor for the Southeast division a contributor for the Central division a contributor for the Northwest division a contributor for the Northeast division Again, the emphasis will be to find feature-heavy/not quite so time sensitive/funny/number crunching posts that go beyond simple news headlines. It's also a great opportunity to talk about what's going on in your blog, if you have one. The point of having two contributors will be to rotate (or split) the duty so it would only be a twice-per-month proposition. For more information and/or to "apply" for a position, send me an e-mail at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Don't be shy, but do tell me if you have writing/blogging/modeling experience. Note: feel free to send "tips"/to beg for links in this feature too. If your stuff blows, you're still out of luck but it never hurts to try, right? no comments

State your case: An Oilers Refinery's Edmonton Oilers

Written by James O'Brien
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 22:55
In fake alternate universe hockey, you don't have to deal with messy divorces. As they trickle in, we'll post "state your case" arguments for the fake GMs in the League Re-Draft. I'll also occasionally make awful pun names for the fake teams. You're welcome. Previous "State Your Case" Posts Joe (Sacrifice the Body)'s Detroit Red Wings The CLS/Sports and the City Toronto Maple Leafs (Make sure to check out An Oilers Refinery, which along with having great Oilers analysis, also has one of the coolest banners of any hockey blog. Ever.) An Oilers Refinery's Edmonton Phoilers Parise-Zajac-Ruutu Bertuzzi-Horcoff-Kotalik Moreau-Brind'amour-Chipchura Reddox-Nichol-Lisin Gillies Rivet-Souray Gilbert-Witt Eminger-McKee Delmore Peckham DiPietro-Emery It's pretty hard if you're trying to reinvent the wheel and perfecting something that's already an art was quite a task. Trying to build a better NHL team than NHL GMs can is a lot easier in a video game that it is when you're up against other inquiring minds and pseudo-GMs in my follow CLS quasi-bloggers. But, nonetheless, one cannot go into a draft without a strategy of their own. In my draft strategy, it was simple: I would take the best player available with the first pick. After that, I picked according to ranking of importance. I tried to take centers who could win faceoffs and defenseman that had great dollar worth, foot speed, and either great passing or great hitting ability. By loading up on these commodities, it was easy to trade from a position of strength to acquire the other things I needed, such as goaltending and wingers. Also, it was important (in my opinion) to push hard for the players I thought would define the kind of hockey I wanted to see played. This would ensure that a certain leadership core was represented on this team and that a certain team culture could emanate from the players on the team. Exciting but responsible hockey. For me, it was important to build a team that was not just about scoring goals, or being tough. I needed a team that was a hybrid, something that could roll four lines and hound the other team. Faceoffs, hitting and speed are key to this strategy. I may not score a lot of goals with a team like the one I built, but I will be annoying to play against. And that, in itself, is a joy of its own. no comments

Addicted to Vampires? Take a look at Nashville pro sports ...

Written by James O'Brien
Saturday, 24 October 2009 16:18
We live in a sports culture of "what have you done for me lately?" Although the trend hasn't been consistent in the NHL lately, it's not uncommon for a coach to win an annual award one year and find themselves in the unemployment line merely two years later. In a salary cap age, it's more understandable for owners to expect coaches to catch lightning in a bottle. That's what makes Nashville's NHL and NFL teams unique; both of their coaches have basically lead their teams since they came to Tennessee.* Forgive my horrific pun, but I feel the urge to re-define the region as Tennessee-vania. * Apparently Barry Trotz was a scout for the Predators' first season, though. Now, obviously if the Titans' current meltdown continues, Fisher might find a pink slip attached to a stake in his heart, but it really is stunning that the two made it this far in the same city. After all, Fisher is the longest tenured NFL coach and Trotz is the second longest tenured coach in the NHL. First, here's Trotz' career stats via his Wiki page: And now, Jeff Fisher's from his Wiki page: Of the two coaches, Fisher's bulletproof tenure makes the most sense (instantly at least). He lead the Titans to a notably competitive Super Bowl match up against the St. Louis Rams, managed an unexpected 13-3 record last season and has only four seasons with a losing record in his 15 year reign. Only Andy Reid (who started in 1999) can reasonably compete with Fisher in two treasured categories: longevity and mustache dominance. Trotz's run seems the most vampiric (and in general, the guy conjures up images of various D & D inspired creatures). On one hand, Trotz managed to squeeze points out of teams that were among the league's worst in star (and fire)power. You cannot fault him for failing to transform Nashville into a juggernaut. Which form of the undead is more exhausted: vampires or zombies? That being said, many franchises would get antsy with his results. While he managed to break them into the playoffs for four seasons, the team was knocked out in the first round each time and never even made it to a Game 7. They've never won their division and some might say the main reason they were No. 2 in the Central for those years was because their other division mates rarely managed to muster even the slightest competition. Over the years, the Predators ceiling has been "frisky." Such middling results kept the Predators from getting many premium draft choices and you wonder how many elite players are on that roster ... who beyond Shea Weber will truly threaten greatness? Oddly enough, Trotz shares a lot in common with Lindy Ruff, the only guy who has been sitting behind a bench for a longer period of time. Buffalo is off to a great start - and like Nashville - has a nice array of competent players. However, you wonder if the team could benefit from tanking for a season or shaking things up. My question is: is the city of Nashville that loyal? Is everyone just so preoccupied with fixing the Vols that they don't even care what happens with their pro coaches? Or could it be that Fisher and Trotz feast on human blood and sleep upside down every night? I must know. no comments

Jersey purchasing advice from someone who never buys jerseys

Written by James O'Brien
Monday, 26 October 2009 07:13
I saw some photo of a Packers fan wearing a Aaron Rodgers jersey and it made me think about how nice (but risky) of a gesture that is. That made me think further: what jersey(s) should fans of each NHL team consider? Here is my criteria: 1. A solid crossroads of obscurity and talent It's not very exciting to wear a Crosby jersey if you're a Penguins fan or an Ovechkin jersey if you're a Caps fan ... so you want to get a sweater that's a little more unique. That being said, you don't want to wear the number of a guy who can barely play 10 minutes a night. Finding a good compromise between the two is ideal. 2. Longevity This is a big one in a sports atmosphere where players change colors so often. Trying to find a guy who either has a longterm deal or is unlikely to leave is a key component to finding the right jersey. 3. General Goodwill More in line with your fellow fans, general goodwill is measured by how your peers would react to that jersey. Optional Categories: 4. Sentimentality To contrast #2, some players build up enough goodwill that you can permit people to wear a rosterly outdated jersey. This does not apply to guys who leave on bad terms (so just go ahead and burn that Heatley Senators jersey or that Pronger Oilers jersey). 5. Hilarity Special bonus points go for players who were horrible. You get instant respect from me if you rock a Tommy Salo Team Sweden jersey, a Roman Cechmanek LA Kings jersey or something of that ilk. * Anaheim Active Teemu Selanne Jonas Hiller Departed Guy Hebert Steve Rucchin Atlanta Active Bryan Little Colby Armstrong Boston Active Milan Lucic (even though it's pretty obvious) Zdeno Chara (breaks the rules because he's super tall) Departed Bobby Orr (obvious ... but it's Bobby effin Orr) P. J. Axelsson (judging from Cornelius's man crush) Buffalo Active Thomas Vanek Derek Roy Departed Chris Drury Daniel Briere Calgary Active Jarmoe (he's just too bad ass) Robyn Regehr Departed Theo Fleury Al MacInnis Carolina Active Chad LaRose Rod Brind'amour Departed Ron Francis - Hartford Whalers edition Chicago Active Brent Seabrook Kris Versteeg Departed Jeremy Roenick Stan Mikita Colorado Active Craig Anderson Kyle Quincey Departed Pretty obvious, right? Columbus Active Antoine Vermetteg Jan Hejda Dallas Active James Neal Brenden Morrow (he's just too bad ass) Departed Neal Broten - North Stars Mike Modano - in his prime (just kidding) Sergei Zubov Detroit Active Darren Helm Johan Franzen Departed There's about a million Edmonton Active Sam Gagner Ales Hemsky Departed Again, lots. See: the 1980's Florida Active David Booth Tomas Vokoun Departed Bieser Los Angeles Active Dustin Brown Drew Doughty Departed Kelly Hrudey Luc Robitaille Minnesota Active Miikko Koivu Brent Burns Montreal Active Andrei Markov Michael Cammalleri Departed C'mon New Jersey Active Zach Parise Departed Scott Stevens Scott Niedermayer New York Islanders Active John Tavares (before fans come back out of the woodwork?) Kyle Okposo Departed See: Edmonton New York Rangers Active Ryan Callahan Michael Del Zotto Ottawa Active Anton Volchenkov Mike Fisher Departed Alexandre Daigle :) Philadelphia Active Mike Richards (because he's so bad ass) Braydon Coburn Departed Someone who hurt a lot of people Pittsburgh Active Max Talbot Tyler Kennedy Departed Beyond the obvious ... (to me anyway) Straka, Kovalev, Wregget, Kasparitis, etc. San Jose Active M.E. Vlasic Joe Pavelski IF he re-signs St. Louis Active T.J. Oshie Erik Johnson Departed Adam Oates Brett Hull Al MacInnis Tampa Bay Active Steve Stamkos Victor Hedman Toronto Active Luke Schenn Phil Kessel Departed Mats Sundin Wendel Clark Vancouver Active Ryan Kesler Alex Burrows Departed Trevor Linden Pavel Bure Washington** Active Nicklas Backstrom Howeverhespellshisfirstnamenow Varlamov Departed Olaf Kolzig Petr Bondra no comments

Return to Stat Nerdia: An Update on True PP, True PK, Net Goals and Special Teams Plus/Minus

Written by James O'Brien

Wednesday, 04 November 2009 08:51

The sample size is still pretty small, but I thought it would be a good time to take another look at two of the stats I made up (True PP and True PK) as well as where each team ranks in Net Goals and Special Teams Plus/Minus. The original posts can be found here and here. Each screen capture will have an explanation of the stats that are included. Click on them to get a better look.

Net Goals (all stats taken before Tuesday's games)

Net Goals refers to a simple formula: a team's total goals for minus a team's total goals against.

Special Teams Plus/Minus (all stats taken before Tuesday's games)

(Powerplay Goals For subtracted by Shorthanded Goals Allowed) minus (Penalty Kill Goals Allowed subtracted by Shorthanded Goals For) is the formula for Special Teams Plus/Minus.