Jun 302011
 

Anyone who knows anything about hockey, save for Florida GM Dale Tallon it seems, immediately thought ‘bad contract’ when they heard that the Florida Panthers had signed Tomas Kopecky to a 4 year contract at $3M/year.  But how bad is that contract?  Well, lets take a look.

Goal based stats (i.e. any stats that requite goals to calculate which is pretty much everything except things like shots or corsi) are heavily influenced by random events over the short term but over the long term tell a much more accurate picture than shot or corsi based stats.  Personally I consider goal based stats over a 3 or 4 year period to be a fairly reliable indicator of a players talent level so lets see how Kopecky compares over the past 4 seasons.

There are 183 NHL forwards who have played over 3000 minutes of 5v5 ice time over the past 4 seasons and Tomas Kopecky is one of them.  Here is how Kopecky compares to his forward peers over that time.

Statistic Value Rank out of 183
Goals For/20 minutes 0.719 150
Goals Against/20 minutes 0.798 106
Goals For % 0.474 157
Opposition GF/20min 0.737 183
Opposition GA/20min 0.760 71
Opposition Goals For % 0.492 183

To summarize, his performance numbers are bad and he has arguably played against the easiest competition of any forward with 3000 minutes of ice time over the past 4 seasons.  On top of that he has never played any significant time on the penalty kill.  Last season he got increased ice time on the Blackhawks top 2 lines and on the PP which boosted his offensive numbers to a career high of 15g and 42 points (previous high was 10g, 21pts) but that is more a result of who he was playing with and not his own talent level.

Kopecky for the most part has been a third line player who got some top six minutes last season because of the post-Stanley Cup salary cap induced fire sale that left the Blackhawks short of experienced forwards. For the past 2 seasons Kopecky earned $1.2M and I don’t think he deserved a raise from that level.  To pay Kopecky $3M over 4 years is probably a $1.5-2M/yr over payment and probably 1-2 years longer than he deserved.  It might be the worst $3M/yr contract ever signed in the NHL but he may be in good company soon because I suspect Maxime Talbot will get a similar contract and his numbers are equally bad, if not worse (though Talbot has played significantly more on the PK than Kopecky).  I pray that the Leafs do not sign Talbot.

Jun 082011
 

Lance Hornby has an article this morning discussing a report from the New York Daily News that the Leafs are looking to make a trade for the rights to Brad Richards. Two problems with this:

1.  Just last week Brian Burke said “it wasn’t something we are in the process of looking at” (right at end of interview)

2.  Brad Richards agent Pat Morris over the weekend was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying Richards was not willing to waive his no trade clause and will almost certainly wait out June and become a UFA July 1st.

The second point is interesting because in the Lance Hornby article Mr. Hornby wrote:

If Dallas is trying to maximize compensation for Richards’ rights, he must first agree to waive his no-trade clause, a move that agent Pat Morris told the Daily News the Stars have not yet requested. Richards is also awaiting developments with the Stars and their ownership change.

The original New York Daily News article that Mr. Hornby referred two said Pat Morris hadn’t been asked to waive his no trade clause:

“The Stars have not asked Brad to waive his no-trade clause, and at this point in time, he has no intention of doing so,” agent Pat Morris told the Daily News Monday night when informed that a source had said a move to the Toronto Maple Leafs could be completed by the end of this week. “We’re still pointing toward July 1.”

Now it is a shame that Mr. Hornby chose to leave out the important fact that Morris indicated that Richards has no intention to waive his no trade clause at this time but the other interesting point is Morris being quoted as saying that the Stars have not asked Richards to waive his no trade clause.  This contradicts the Toronto Star article over the weekend where Pat Morris said the Stars asked Richards to waive the no trade clause and the request was denied:

“We’ve been asked by Dallas to (waive the no-trade). We’ve analyzed it and, to date, we’re not in the position to give any clearance on a trade,” said Richards’ agent Pat Morris on Saturday.

“In all likelihood, as we go through the remainder of June, we will not be doing so. It isn’t likely that Brad’s mind will change.”

So what is the real story?  Has Brad Richards been asked to waive his no trade clause and chose not to?  Who knows.

Jun 072011
 

As it stands right now the Leafs have six NHL experienced defensemen under contract and another three who are restricted free agents.  Assuming all three of the RFA’s get re-signed it leaves the Leafs with 7 defensemen, five of which will be regulars (Phaneuf, Schenn, Gunnarsson, Aulie and Komisarek) and two that are more along the lines of depth defensemen (Lebda and Lashoff).  Phaneuf and Schenn are the top two guys (though they may not end up playing together) and depending on where you see Gunnarsson and Aulie fitting into the mix the Leafs will be looking for a #3, #4 or #5 type guy.  Depending on how much they end up spending on a first line center, it is probably safe to assume they could allocate anywhere between $2-4M and there are enough UFA defensemen available that they can probably acquire what they want via free agency rather than have to resort to a trade.  Let’s take a look at some of the potential UFA defensemen the Leafs could have interest in.

Definitely Too Expensive

Christian Ehrhoff – Ehrhoff is definitely the top potential UFA defenseman.  The Canucks will definitely want to bring him back and if he ever made it to UFA status I am certain the Red Wings will throw some or all of just-retired Rafalski’s money at him.  Ehrhoff is in line for a $6M paycheck and as much as I would like to see him in a Leaf uniform, he is probably out of the Leafs budget so lets take a look at some of the other free agent defensemen.

Probably too Expensive

Kevin Bieksa – Bieksa really had a breakthrough season this year, particularly in his own zone and he ended the season at +32, tops on the Canucks, and is a +9 in the playoffs, again tops on the Canucks.  His +32 in the regular season trailed only Chara’s +33 among defensemen but Bieksa was +32 in just 66 games.  Bieksa is probably a good 2-way second pairing defenseman but his excellent season might push his salary demands beyond what he deserves (unless this past season is the new norm for him which is unlikely) and out of the Leafs budget.

James Wisniewski – Wisniewski started his career with the Chicago Blackhawks and he just seemed like he was that typical #5/6 guy.  He was a decent enough player who did a number of things well but not necessarily a core guy, but when he was given an opportunity to play a more prominent role with the Ducks, and then with Islanders and Montreal his offensive numbers really jumped and he was a strong PP performer.  He’d probably really help the Leafs PP but there will be enough demand for his services that he’ll probably cost more than the Leafs can afford.

Joni Pitkanen – Pitkanen is one of those guys who had #1 potential but never really took the next step and instead has had a career that some might consider a disappointment because he never really reached his full potential.  Pitkanen is a better offensive guy than a defensive guy and would be a nice fit on the Leafs PP unit.  He earned $4M last season and is probably in line to earn about the same on his next contract which makes him probably out of the Leafs budget and I think he’ll be happier staying in a non-hockey market like Carolina.

Continue reading »

Jun 012011
 

There seems to be some confusion, or lack of clarity, about my post on corsi vs shooting percentage vs shooting rate the other day so let me clear it up in as straight forward a way as I can.

“Hawerchuk” over at BehindTheNetHockey.com writes the following:

“I’m not totally sure what he’s getting at. People use Fenwick because it’s persistent, and PDO because it’s not. Over the course of a single season, observed shooting and save percentage drive results, but they are not persistent.”

Dirk Hoag over at OnTheForecheck.com writes:

“Here’s an example of when NOT to use correlation as a tool in statistical analysis (when the variables in question are linked by definition). David makes a bad blunder here, by looking at scoring leaders, seeing a bunch of high shooting percentages, and concluding that shooting percentage is the true “talent”. The problem is that shooting percentage swings wildly from season to season, whereas shooting rates are much more consistent.”

The great advantage of corsi/fenwick has over goals as an evaluator of talent is the greater sample size associated with it.  The greater the sample size the more confidence we can have in any results we conclude from it and the less chance that ‘luck’ messes things up.  Year over year shooting percentage fluctuates a lot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t a talent or doesn’t have persistence, it could mean that the sample size of one year is too small.  The four year shooting percentage leader board seems to identify all the top offensive players so it can’t be completely random.  So what happens if we increase the sample size?  Here are correlations of fenwick shooting percentages while on ice in 5v5 even strength situations for forwards:

Year(s) vs Year(s) Corrolation
200708 vs 200809 0.249
200809 vs 200910 0.268
200910 vs 201011 0.281
200709 vs 200911 (2yr) 0.497

As you can see, there isn’t a lot of persistence year over year but for 2 years over 2 years we are starting to see some persistence.  Still not to the level of corsi/fenwick, but certainly not non-existant either, and the greater correlation with scoring goals makes fenwick shooting percentage on par with fenwick as a predictor of future goal scoring performance when we have 2 seasons of data as I pointed out in my last post.

For the record, year over year correlation for fenwick for rate is approximately 0.60 depending on years used  and 2 year vs 2 year correlation is 0.66.

But as I pointed out in my previous post, you would probably never use shooting percentage as a predictor because you may as well use goal rate instead which has the same sample size limitations as shooting percentage but also factors in fenwick rate.  Year over year correlation of GF20 (goals for per 20 minutes) is approximately 0.45 depending on years used and the 2 year vs 2 year correlation is 0.619 so GF20 has persistence and has a 100% correlation with itself making it as reliable (or more) a predictor of future goal scoring rates as fenwick rate with just one year of data and a better predictor when using 2 years of data.  Let me repost the pertinent table of correlations:

Year(s) vs Year(s) FenF20 to GF20 GF20 to GF20
200708 vs 200809 0.396 0.386
200809 vs 200910 0.434 0.468
200910 vs 201011 0.516 0.491
Average 0.449 0.448
200709 vs 200911 (2yr) 0.498 0.619
200709 vs 200910 (2yr vs 1yr) 0.479 0.527

The conclusion is, when dealing with less than a years worth of data, fenwick/corsi is probably the better metric to identify talent and predict future performance, but anything greater than a year goals for rate is the better metric and for one years worth of data they are about on par with each other.

Note:  This is only true for forwards.  The same observations are not true about defensemen where we see very little persistence or predictability in any of these metricts, I presume because the majority of them don’t drive offense to any significant degree.