2007 nhl review 070711 - hockey analyticshockeyanalytics.com/research_files/2007_nhl_review.pdf ·...

Hockey Analytics

2007 NHL Review

Copyright Alan Ryder 2007

2007 NHL Review

Copyright Alan Ryder, 2007 Hockey Analytics www.HockeyAnalytics.com

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Teams 5

Lucky and Unlucky Teams.................................................................................................. 5

Team Profiles...................................................................................................................... 6

Offense ............................................................................................................................... 8

Shots and Shot Quality ....................................................................................................... 9

Defense............................................................................................................................. 10

Goaltending....................................................................................................................... 11

The Shootout .................................................................................................................... 13

Individual Performances 14

Hart Trophy ....................................................................................................................... 14

Norris Trophy .................................................................................................................... 16

Vezina Trophy................................................................................................................... 19

Selke Trophy..................................................................................................................... 21

Lady Byng Trophy............................................................................................................. 23

Calder Trophy ................................................................................................................... 24

Shootout Awards............................................................................................................... 25

All Star Teams 26

NHL................................................................................................................................... 26

East................................................................................................................................... 28

West.................................................................................................................................. 28

Green ................................................................................................................................ 29

Grey .................................................................................................................................. 30

All Offense ........................................................................................................................ 30

All Defense........................................................................................................................ 31

Even Handed .................................................................................................................... 31

Power Play........................................................................................................................ 33

Short Handed.................................................................................................................... 34

Most Valuable Performances ............................................................................................ 35

All Cap Roster................................................................................................................... 36

2007 NHL Review


Introduction

This paper provides a commentary on the most outstanding individual performances in the NHL during the 2006-07 (“2007”) season. I will also be commenting on certain aspects of team performance since individual performances are difficult to asses without understanding the team context.

My tool for measuring individual player performance is Player Contribution1 (PC). The method is a system of credits and debits. Offensively, a player is credited for goals and assists but debited for ice time (greater ice time, especially for forwards and on the power play, means greater expectations). Defensively, players get credited for ice time but debited for goals scored while on ice. Goaltenders are measured based on their save percentage, adjusted for the quality of team defense, in excess of a threshold.

‘PCO’ is a measure of offense – it is based on goals created in excess of a threshold level of performance. ‘PCD’ and ‘PCG’ are, respectively, based on ‘goals prevented’ in excess of a threshold for defense and goaltending. PC is also determined for penalty taking. In this case, however, the benchmark is essentially the average propensity to take penalties (rather than the marginal propensity).

Threshold performance is a mathematical construct. It is determined by observing that (a) the marginal impact of more/fewer goals on wins is nearly linear over the normal performance range of teams and (b) the “slope” of that linear relationship is the average number of goals scored per game. Marginal or threshold performance is determined by extrapolating the linear relationship between goals and wins until it predicts zero wins.

Although not really true, you can think of a ‘marginal’ player as a borderline NHLer. It is difficult to be precise about where the borderline is, so the PC method draws a line in the sand somewhere near that line. Why subtract out marginal performance? Because, in theory, performance at that level is worth ‘nothing’. Marginal players sit on the end of the bench and / or spend a great deal of time in transit to / from the minors. Marginal performance is so far from average as to be zero valued.

Where we can, PC is measured separately for even handed (EH), short handed (SH), power play (PP) and shootout (SO) situations. This ensures that specialty team performance is assessed relative to marginal performance on specialty teams. In other words, a player who runs up big offensive numbers on the power play is judged against other power play performances while a penalty killing specialist has his offense judged against other penalty killers.

1 PC is described in

http://www.HockeyAnalytics.com/Research_files/Player_Contribution.pdf

2007 NHL Review


On defense, short handed situations are further subdivided into penalty killing (SHK) and penalty taking (SHO). On offense, power play situations are further subdivided into power play production (PPP) and penalty drawing (PPO, essentially a non issue due to the lack of data on drawing penalties).

Finally, since advancing in the standings is the objective, PC is denominated in points in the standings (that is goals created/prevented are translated into points in the standings). A PC “point” is scaled to be 1/10th of a standings point and the PC points allocated to a team are therefore 10 x Points. To get a lot of PC points one needs to both (a) play a lot and (b) play well. As (a) and (b) tend to be correlated, PC is also a measure of ‘talent’. However, coaches tend to over play top talent with a resulting distortion of apparent relative value.

As a rough rule of thumb it takes 100 or more PC points for a skater to be an all-star candidate (the story with goaltenders is different). At 80 points you would consider a skater to be a team star, 60 is a team leader, 40 is a solid contributor and 20 is a weak link. With a salary cap of $44 million (all figures U.S.) for the 2006-07 season, a rough guide to player value is $44,000 per annum per PC point (or $880,000 for every 20 PC points). This is based on a team spending the cap amount and targeting a 100 point season (a comfortable berth in the playoffs). A conference winner will need to get more value for players. And, of course the market value of a player may be different due to supply and demand and other factors.

To put this in perspective I have shown, to the right, cap costs, the PC scores (rounded to the nearest integer) and cap costs per PC point (I have shown negative for the

2007 Anaheim Ducks

Player Cap Cost PC Cost per PC Point

J-S Giguere 3,990,000 191 14,267

Teemu Selanne 6,000,000 109 54,862

Scott Niedermayer 6,750,000 101 64,503

Chris Pronger 6,250,000 96 52,320

Andy McDonald 3,333,333 68 48,976

Ryan Getzlaf 739,733 68 10,946

Francois Beauchemin 500,000 66 6,582

Sean O'Donnell 1,634,000 58 27,021

Chris Kunitz 1,056,250 54 19,406

Dustin Penner 478,500 46 10,345

Ilya Bryzgalov 1,181,250 43 9,056

Corey Perry 614,333 34 17,865

Samuel Pahlsson 637,500 32 19,992

Todd Marchant 2,517,500 28 60,732

Travis Moen 475,000 26 18,004

Joe DiPenta 500,000 26 17,656

Shane O'Brien 495,000 20 18,536

Ric Jackman 1,368,000 13 31,916

Kent Huskins 450,000 12 15,123

Ryan Shannon 477,500 8 37,549

Rob Niedermayer 2,000,000 6 325,885

Travis Green 708,333 2 39,867

Bjorn Melin 625,000 1 17,722

Shawn Thornton 450,000 1 221,793

Curtis Glencross 655,500 1 15,787

Aaron Rome 615,300 0 95,655

Stanislav Chistov 800,000 0 334,507

Michael Wall 470,000 0 999,999

Ian Moran 450,000 0 999,999

Tim Brent 524,100 -1 999,999

Sebastien Caron 650,000 -1 999,999

Brad May 675,000 -1 999,999

Mark Hartigan 450,000 -2 999,999

George Parros 450,000 -2 999,999

Todd Fedoruk 450,000 -5 999,999

2007 NHL Review


Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks. Note that cap costs in this table are (a) annualized (the actual “cap hit” depends on days on the roster, which is a big factor for those at the bottom of the table) and (b) not salary (cap costs are the average salary/bonus over the contract). This team ranked third in the overall NHL standings with 110 points. Note how many inexpensive performances the Ducks got. The success of this team was due to the likes of Getzlaf, Penner, Perry, Pahlsson, Kunitz and O’Donnell. And due to the inexpensive contribution of Giguere and Bryzgalov in goal.

Team Performances

Although I want to focus on individual performance it sets the stage best if I first look at some team metrics using a marginal goals analysis. Marginal goals, a building block for Player Contribution, are simply goals scored in excess of a threshold plus goals prevented in excess of a threshold.

Lucky and Unlucky Teams

Wins are about 94% predicted by goals for and against (or by marginal goals totals). When a team wins in spite of a low marginal goal performance it is either very skilled at winning close games or it is lucky. Historical analysis suggests that this is mostly luck. I would not completely rule out some intangible, but nobody has found it yet.

To the right is a table of the marginal goals scored per point during the conventional part of the game (‘skating time’) and during the shootout.

During skating time the most ‘efficient’ team in the NHL in 2007 was Boston, requiring only 2.40 marginal goals per point. Other ‘lucky’ teams (highlighted in green) were Vancouver (2.56), New Jersey (2.57), Carolina (2.60) and Atlanta (2.60). Lucky teams tend to regress the following season. But these teams may also be systemically able to win tight games. Note that Vancouver, New Jersey and Atlanta each had very good goaltending in 2007.

Marginal Goals per Point

Team In Skating Time

per Skating Point In Shootout

per Shootout Win ANA 2.76 2.90

ATL 2.60 2.14

BOS 2.40 2.68

BUF 2.87 2.29

CAR 2.60 NA

CBJ 2.77 2.55

CAL 2.90 2.19

CHI 2.77 2.08

COL 2.85 2.36

DAL 2.65 2.53

DET 2.68 2.42

EDM 2.69 2.05

FLA 2.76 2.52

LA 2.84 3.40

MIN 2.95 2.47

MON 2.67 2.04

NJD 2.57 2.42

NAS 2.84 2.26

NYI 2.87 2.75

NYR 3.04 2.63

OTT 2.97 3.61

PHI 2.76 1.17

PHO 2.66 2.38

PIT 2.77 1.90

SJ 2.81 2.20

STL 2.61 2.04

TB 2.65 2.74

TOR 2.62 2.99

VAN 2.56 2.84

WAS 2.83 0.10

AVG 2.75 2.41

2007 NHL Review


The Rangers were the unluckiest team, requiring 3.04 marginal goals for each point in the standings. Other unlucky teams (highlighted in red) were the Senators (2.97), Wild (2.95), Flames (2.90) and Sabres (2.87). Unlucky teams tend to improve the following

season.

Average marginal goals per point are determined by dividing goals scored by regulation time and overtime points and were 2.75 (down from 2006).

In the shootout the luckiest team, by far, was Washington who bunch up their 5 shootout goals scored (in 40 attempts) just well enough to eek out a shootout win (0.10 marginal shootout goals per shootout win). Other lucky teams (highlighted in green) were Philadelphia (1.17), Pittsburgh (1.90), Montreal (2.04) and St. Louis (2.04).

The unluckiest shootout teams (highlighted in red) were Ottawa (3.61, the only double-unlucky team), Los Angeles (3.40), Toronto (2.99) Anaheim (2.90) and Vancouver (2.84). Carolina achieved the unenviable distinction of failing to collect a shootout win. But this was not surprising as they scored only once in 17 attempts.

Average marginal shootout goals per shootout win (shootout goals divided by number of shootouts) were 2.43 (up from 2006).

Note that PC attempts to allocate team performance, whether lucky or skilled, to individuals. It does not set out to determine whether a performance is from luck or skill. It translates a player’s marginal goals into PC points using these marginal goal factors. The implicit assumption here is that these observed team performances are a result of skill. This means that a goal scored (or prevented) by a Bruin is worth more than a goal scored (or prevented) by a Ranger.

Team Profiles

For the most part, all goals scored or prevented are of equal value. This means that there are many ways to build a team and there is not a clearly superior formula. Below is a graph, for each team, of the relative totals of marginal goals on offense (MGO), defense (MGD) and goaltending (MGG) during skating time. For each team I have also indicated their rank in the overall standings.

As a benchmark, note that Calgary was the most ‘average’ team in the league, deriving 43% of its success from offense, 41% from defense and 16% from goaltending and finishing 13th overall.

The relative importance of team offense (MGO) ranged from as little as 27% (New Jersey – are we surprised?) to as much as 54% of the totals (Buffalo).

Although the Sabres ranked number one in the relative importance of their offense, such an investment is not an obvious way to build a team. Detroit, for one, got to the same place with a defensive emphasis.

2007 NHL Review


The correlation of offensive emphasis and overall success is quite weak or even negative. Philadelphia and Washington were ‘offensive’ teams without success. Each of Detroit, Anaheim, San Jose, Dallas and New Jersey had 40% or less of team success from offense.

Four teams (Toronto, Tampa Bay, Columbus and Phoenix) had less than 5% of their marginal goals derived from goaltending. Note that Columbus went from highly dependent on goaltending in 2006 to ‘independent’ of goaltending in 2007. So you might have thought that when Tampa Bay picked up Marc Denis from the Blue Jackets they would have improved the relative impact of their goaltending. Alas this was not the case.

Toronto fans watched Andrew Raycroft break the team record for goaltending wins. But, notwithstanding the media hype, this was due to factors well outside of his control (the Leafs were a good offensive team with a solid defense). The Coyotes actually had a negative contribution in net (which is why their bar chart is strange). While such a below-threshold performance is mathematically possible with marginal goals, it is pretty rare and indicative of performance that clearly was disappointing in Phoenix. And, by the way, Phoenix goaltenders still got credited with 31 wins.

At the other end of the scale, Nashville, Atlanta, NY Islanders and Vancouver were heavily dependent on the guys in the crease.

Defensive dependence was the story with two teams with no goaltending, Columbus (67% of marginal goals) and Phoenix (65%), and to a lesser degree with Edmonton (54%) and Dallas (53%). Nashville (27%), Atlanta (28%) and NY Islanders (29%) were

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

BUF (1)

TOR (18)

COL (14)

PHI (30)

WSH (27)

PIT (8)

OTT (8)

TBL (16)

LAK (28)

FLA (21)

MTL (19)

CAR (20)

BOS (23)

PHX (29)

NSH (3)

CGY (13)

ATL (12)

NYI (17)

SJS (5)

ANA (3)

DET (1)

NYR (15)

STL (22)

CHI (25)

MIN (11)

CBJ (24)

VAN (8)

DAL (5)

EDM (25)

NJD (5)

MGO

MGD

MGG

2007 NHL Review


least dependent on defense. Each of these teams each had stellar goaltending and made a lesser investment in defense.

Offense

A marginal goals analysis helps us to deconstruct offenses. Below is a summary of marginal goals created (MGC) by situation – even handed (EH), power play (PPP), penalty drawing (PPO) and short handed (SH).

The NHL’s so-called more open game actually is not. Yes there is an increase in scoring. But this is almost entirely due to an increased number of power plays, especially 5 on 3 situations.

The big power play teams in 2007 were Pittsburgh (53 marginal goals), San Jose (51), Anaheim (48) and Sheldon Souray (sorry, I meant Montreal, at 45 marginal goals). Les Canadiens had the distinction of being the only NHL team with more marginal goals on the power play than while even handed.

In this new era you cannot afford to have Chicago’s power play (2 marginal goals, 6 worse than in 2006) or that of the Blues (5) or Flyers (12).

But strangely Philadelphia had one of the more potent shorthanded offenses (10 marginal goals). Other leaders were Ottawa (12), Montreal (12 - certainly not Souray) and Calgary.

MGOPPO (Marginal Goals on Offense from Power Play Opportunities)

Marginal Goals - Offense

Team MGO MGOEH MGOPPP MGOPPO MGOSH

BUF 160 127 30 1 3

OTT 148 105 31 1 12

COL 129 89 38 -2 2

PIT 129 67 53 7 9

NAS 128 95 30 1 3

SJ 118 65 51 1 2

CAL 117 75 32 0 10

TOR 116 88 30 0 -2

ANA 116 69 48 0 -1

DET 114 80 27 0 7

FLA 107 87 20 -6 0

TB 105 68 28 -2 9

CAR 103 70 26 5 7

NYI 102 78 22 -5 2

MON 101 44 45 -2 12

ATL 101 71 26 1 4

WAS 96 63 26 1 7

NYR 95 55 34 1 6

MIN 87 52 31 -2 4

LA 85 44 40 5 1

VAN 79 50 29 1 0

DAL 79 43 38 3 -2

PHI 75 53 12 -2 10

PHO 73 48 25 0 0

BOS 72 39 30 1 3

STL 70 63 5 -2 2

NJD 68 45 24 -3 -1

CBJ 58 33 24 4 1

CHI 57 48 2 -3 7

2007 NHL Review


measures a team’s relative ability to generate power play opportunities. Some teams could do that. Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Carolina each won (roughly) an extra game by their ability to draw penalties (LA and Carolina did this in 2006 as well). Florida (for the second season in a row) and the Islanders each lost an extra game by their inability to draw penalties.

Shots and Shot Quality

Marginal goals analysis is an even more helpful tool for assessing defenses. But, to get at MGD, it is necessary to separate goal prevention into defense and goaltending. To identify a team’s contribution from goaltending I compare its goals against, adjusted for shot quality, to a threshold level (based on the shots allowed).

A high save percentage against high shot totals suggests a big goaltending contribution. A low save percentage against low shot totals suggests a small goaltending contribution. And whatever is not goaltending must be attributable to defense.

If you do this math you are attributing to defense the responsibility for the number and quality of shots on goal. To the right are the shots and shot quality leader boards for the 2007 season.

Average shots per game is a familiar metric. In the table above we see Detroit, Dallas and San Jose leading the way again in 2007. Edmonton was near the top of this list in 2006 but became average this season. The most shots allowed were by Boston, Washington, Montreal, Philadelphia and NY Islanders.

Defensive Measures

Team Avg

Shots Team Shot

Quality Team Defensive

Index

DET 24.6 CAL 0.910 SJ 24.3

DAL 25.4 MIN 0.928 DET 25.0

SJ 26.2 SJ 0.928 DAL 25.2

TB 27.2 NJD 0.945 MIN 26.7

ANA 27.4 BUF 0.949 NJD 26.9

NYR 28.4 CBJ 0.956 CBJ 27.4

TOR 28.4 PHO 0.959 CAL 27.8

NJD 28.4 WAS 0.961 NYR 27.9

CAR 28.5 EDM 0.968 ANA 28.0

CBJ 28.6 NYR 0.982 CAR 28.0

MIN 28.8 CAR 0.984 TB 28.4

STL 28.9 VAN 0.988 TOR 28.7

COL 29.0 MON 0.990 EDM 28.8

VAN 29.2 DAL 0.992 PHO 28.9

FLA 29.3 BOS 1.007 VAN 28.9

CHI 29.4 OTT 1.009 BUF 29.4

EDM 29.7 TOR 1.010 FLA 29.7

LA 29.8 PIT 1.011 COL 29.9

PHO 30.1 NYI 1.012 OTT 30.5

OTT 30.2 FLA 1.014 STL 31.0

CAL 30.5 DET 1.016 CHI 31.1

PIT 30.9 PHI 1.017 PIT 31.2

BUF 31.0 NAS 1.019 LA 31.4

NAS 31.2 ANA 1.022 NAS 31.8

ATL 31.5 COL 1.031 WAS 32.1

NYI 32.6 TB 1.042 MON 32.4

PHI 32.6 LA 1.054 NYI 33.0

MON 32.7 CHI 1.059 PHI 33.1

WAS 33.3 ATL 1.070 ATL 33.7

BOS 33.5 STL 1.074 BOS 33.7

2007 NHL Review


Shot quality is based on an assessment of the characteristics of each shot allowed2. The ‘expected goals’ from this assessment, normalized for variations in shots on goal, can be compared to average. My shot quality factors are the ratio of these normalized expected goals to average (a shot quality factor of 0.950 means that shots taken are, on average, 5% less likely to result in goals).

This season I studied, for the first time, home and road shot quality factors for each team. The results were meaningful3. There is a clear recording bias in certain arenas rendering home shot quality factors meaningless. The SQ factors indicated in the table above are road factors only as the use of road factors eliminates most of this reporting bias.

The worst reporting bias is in Madison Square Garden. The data there wrongly suggests that the Rangers give up shots of high quality (danger). The use of road factors shows the Rangers to be an above average (defensive) shot quality team. The true laggards were St. Louis, Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles. The leaders in defensive shot quality were Calgary, Minnesota and San Jose.

Defense

If you multiply shots allowed and shot quality you get a “defensive index”. This is a comprehensive, simple assessment of team defense (see table above). Using this measurement the top defensive teams in the NHL in 2007 were San Jose, Detroit and Dallas and the worst defensive teams were Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia and NY Islanders.

Marginal goals provides a slightly more sophisticated look at this (the enhancement being largely a reflection of the one-ice situation) with nearly identical overall results. Below is a summary of marginal goals from defense (MGD) by situation – even handed (EH), power play (PP), penalty taking (SHO) and penalty killing (SHK).

Proving that playoff teams don’t need to play defense were Atlanta (MGD of 65), the Islanders (70) and Nashville (78). Each of these teams seemed to make the decision to rely on strong goaltending.

San Jose (MGD of 144), Detroit (143) and Dallas (137) lead the way on defense. The Sharks ranked third in both shots allowed and shot quality allowed. Although both were average in shot quality, the Red Wings lead in shots against and the Stars ranked number two.

Detroit was the most effective defensive team while even handed (MGDEH of 103) and ranked third in marginal goals from penalty killing (MGDSHK of 40).

2 My approach to Shot Quality is described in

http://www.HockeyAnalytics.com/Research_files/Shot_Quality.pdf

3 See http://www.HockeyAnalytics.com/Research_files/Product_Recall_for_Shot_Quality.pdf

2007 NHL Review


The MGDSHK leaders were Carolina and, proving that something was working in Philadelphia, the Flyers (both with 43).

Atlanta (15 MGDSHK), because they were poor penalty killers, and Tampa Bay (18), because they were very good at penalty avoidance, had the lowest MGDSHK totals.

The Sharks were, as in 2006, one of the league’s best teams at avoiding penalties. They earned 15 marginal goals staying out of the box (MGDSHO). They were (as in 2006) bested by only New Jersey (24), who annually leads the league in this measure of disciplined play, and Tampa Bay (24). Columbus (-14), Florida (-10), Chicago (-9) and Phoenix (-9) owned the NHL’s worst penalty taking records. To put all of this in perspective, recall that 2.75 goals translates to one point in the standings. That means that the Devils and Lightning were both nearly 9 points better (and Columbus about 5 points worse) in the standings than they would have been had they had average discipline

Goaltending

Isolating shots and shot quality lets one better assess goaltending. The impact of goaltending is highest when a strong goalie allows ‘few’ goals notwithstanding a high number of shots faced and / or shots of high quality.

Marginal Goals - Defense

Team MGD MGDEH MGDPP MGDSHK MGDSHO

DET 143 103 2 40 -2

DAL 137 92 6 35 4

MIN 125 80 4 31 10

NJD 121 71 2 24 24

CBJ 120 92 4 38 -14

NYR 117 78 6 33 0

ANA 117 77 7 35 -2

CAL 111 83 7 25 -3

CAR 110 61 5 43 1

TB 107 63 3 18 24

PHO 107 84 1 31 -9

VAN 106 70 4 38 -6

TOR 104 82 3 25 -5

BUF 102 72 1 27 2

EDM 100 52 8 37 3

FLA 97 65 6 35 -10

COL 94 60 4 21 9

OTT 93 62 1 29 1

PIT 87 63 1 27 -4

STL 85 63 3 22 -3

CHI 84 56 6 32 -9

LA 82 58 7 20 -3

NAS 78 47 6 25 1

MON 72 43 5 28 -3

WAS 71 51 0 24 -3

NYI 70 51 3 21 -5

ATL 65 47 2 15 1

PHI 64 26 0 43 -5

BOS 58 41 -3 27 -8

2007 NHL Review


Below is a table of the marginal goals from goaltending (MGG) by team (excluding the shootout which is discussed below).

Although it is certainly possible, you won’t normally find impactful goaltending behind a great defense. It just does not get the opportunity to shine. So it is not so surprising to see the goaltending of San Jose, Detroit and Dallas some distance from the top of the list.

On top was Nashville, by some distance, followed by Vancouver, the Islanders and Atlanta. The Canucks had a rather average defense but rise to the top of the goaltending impact list through the stellar performance of Roberto Luongo. The other three teams had generally weak defense and strong goaltending.

A marginal goals analysis compares performance to a threshold. The threshold is based on my estimate of zero-value performance. You can see from the table to the right that the threshold was cleared by every team, save one. Phoenix goalies collectively did not make the grade. And the problem was not the pass mark.

There was also a serious shortage of goaltending in Carolina, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Columbus, Toronto and Tampa Bay. The Lightning seemed to understand this, splitting the duties between Marc Denis and Johan Holmqvist in search of a saviour. The Kings gave at least 20 starts to three of five different starters. But the Leafs trotted Andrew Raycroft out for 72 starts and the Hurricanes started Cam Ward 60 times. These teams denied the problem.

Let’s follow the bouncing goalie:

• Carolina, the defending Stanley Cup Champions, shipped Martin Gerber to Ottawa and went with Cam Ward (Carolina’s MGG went down 33 goals and the Hurricanes missed the playoffs).

• Gerber struggled in Ottawa but the Senators got lucky when Ray Emery rose to the occasion (Ottawa MGG -1).

• Ottawa declined to re-sign Hasek, so he re-joined Detroit (Detroit MGG -3).

• Vancouver acquired Luongo (Vancouver MGG +31) and went from playoff spectators to division winners.

• Florida received Alex Auld in exchange but relied more on re-trEd Belfour (Florida MGG -43).

Marginal Goals - Goaltending

Team MGG

NAS 88

VAN 71

NYI 69

ATL 68

MIN 65

OTT 65

NJD 60

ANA 59

MON 51

PIT 47

NYR 45

DAL 44

CAL 42

STL 41

DET 40

CHI 38

BUF 34

SJ 33

COL 32

BOS 31

EDM 29

FLA 27

WAS 27

CAR 15

LA 15

PHI 13

CBJ 10

TB 7

TOR 7

PHO -15

2007 NHL Review


• Toronto dumped Belfour in favour of Raycroft (Toronto MGG -29), and missed the playoffs … again.

• Marc Denis was shipped to the Lightning by the Blue Jackets. This failed to help Tampa Bay (MGG +1) but hurt Columbus (MGG -40).

The Shootout

My method for assessing shootout performance for goaltenders is the same as for skating time. To get marginal shootout goals saved (MGGSO) I compare save percentages to a threshold and then multiply the difference by the number of attempts faced. For skaters I use the same kind of logic to derive MGOSO4.

Note that marginal shootout goals have a different value than marginal goals in skating time. During conventional play 2.75 marginal goals earned a point in the standings. In the shootout it took 2.43 marginal goals to earn a point. So each shootout marginal goal has a bit more value. Furthermore, a limited number of players attend to the shootout. This has a material impact on the contribution of certain players.

The top shootout team in 2007 was Tampa Bay. They collected 10 wins on the basis of 29 marginal goals, 19 of which were from goaltending (only 6 goals allowed in 53 attempts). Four other teams picked up 10 shootout wins – New Jersey (24 marginal goals), Minnesota (24), Buffalo (23) and Pittsburgh (19).

Carolina had the distinction of being the first team to fail to record a shootout win in an NHL season. The Hurricanes went 0-5 scoring exactly 1 goal in 17 attempts. But the goaltending was no more helpful (allowing 8 goals in 17 attempts). Washington was arguably worse (on the basis of 0 marginal goals in 12 outings) yet somehow managed a win.

4 For a full description of my method see

http://www.HockeyAnalytics.com/Research_files/Shootout_at_the_Oval_Corral.pdf

Marginal Goals - Shootout

Team SW MGOSO MGGSO ANA 4 6 5

ATL 7 11 4

BOS 9 10 14

BUF 10 10 13

CAL 3 5 2

CAR 0 -1 0

CHI 6 10 2

COL 5 7 4

CBJ 5 7 6

DAL 9 11 12

DET 2 4 0

EDM 3 3 3

FLA 2 4 1

LA 4 12 2

MIN 10 18 6

MON 6 9 3

NAS 6 9 4

NYI 8 8 14

NYR 9 9 15

OTT 2 5 3

PHI 1 -2 3

PHO 5 4 8

PIT 10 10 9

SJ 2 5 -1

STL 6 9 3

TB 10 9 19

TOR 4 8 4

VAN 5 10 4

WAS 1 -1 1

2007 NHL Review


Individual Performances

Hart Trophy

I have stated before that this trophy ought to go to a goaltender almost every year. I won’t say any more except that the PC points speak for themselves.

This year’s winner of the Hart Trophy was phenom Sidney Crosby. I love to watch King Crosby play. He had an awesome year. I think he is headed for a stunning career. But he was not my MVP.

My most valuable skater was Vincent Lecavalier of the Tampa Bay Lightning. His PC score (135) says that he was worth 13.5 of Tampa’s 93 points. His PCO score of 115, based on 52 goals and 108 scoring points, was tops in the league. While even handed he had a PCOEH score of 66 (again tops in the league). He scored 5 short handed goals and assisted on 4 others for a PCOSH score of 15. He contributed 29 points on the power play (PCOPPP) and 5 points in the shootout. Given that the best defense is frequently great offense, Lacavalier was lax defensively. His PCDEH score was quite low, matching his jersey (4). On the penalty kill his defense amounted to 6 PCDSHK points. His largest defensive contribution came through penalty avoidance (PCDSHO of 10).

To the right are the top six PC performances by skaters. You can see that they were quite tightly bunched. A case could be made for any of them to be MVP and certainly Crosby was not a bad choice.

Why is it that we have trophies for the top defender and top goaltender but no such trophy for the top forward? The answer is that forwards get disproportionate consideration for the Hart Trophy. This was a year where that treatment was deserved.

To see how Lecavalier nosed out the pack (and Crosby in particular) as my top forward, I have shown the details of the PC calculation for the top 30 forwards (see below).

Hart Trophy Most Valuable Player (Skater)

Player Team PC

Vincent Lecavalier TB 135

Martin St. Louis TB 132

Marian Hossa ATL 132

Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130

Pavel Datsyuk DET 124

Sidney Crosby PIT 123

2007 NHL Review


2007 Player Contribution – Forwards (items may not total due to rounding)

2006-07 PCO PCD

Player Team POS PC EH PPP PPO SH SO PCO EH PP SHK SHO PCD

Vincent Lecavalier TB C 135 66 29 -1 15 5 115 4 0 6 10 20

Martin St. Louis TB RW 132 50 21 -1 16 9 97 7 0 9 19 36

Marian Hossa ATL RW 132 51 37 0 7 17 111 7 1 5 8 20

Pavel Datsyuk DET C 124 48 15 0 4 15 83 16 0 12 14 41

Sidney Crosby PIT C 123 53 43 2 0 15 112 10 0 1 0 11

Jarome Iginla CAL RW 113 54 24 0 1 11 90 8 0 5 9 22

Teemu Selanne ANA RW 109 43 48 0 0 8 99 11 1 1 -2 11

Dany Heatley OTT RW 106 55 28 0 7 1 92 10 0 4 0 13

Thomas Vanek BUF LW 100 59 20 0 0 2 81 13 0 2 4 19

Joe Thornton SJ C 99 40 36 0 -1 -1 75 14 0 3 7 24

Alexander Ovechkin WAS LW 99 56 28 0 0 3 87 2 -1 1 10 12

Daniel Sedin VAN LW 96 45 33 0 0 1 79 12 0 0 5 17

Olli Jokinen FLA C 96 62 17 -2 1 1 79 10 1 6 0 17

Joe Sakic COL C 95 42 32 -1 -1 12 85 7 0 -1 4 10

Daniel Briere BUF C 92 56 17 0 0 18 90 7 0 0 -6 2

Simon Gagne PHI LW 92 42 13 -1 5 1 61 9 -1 8 15 31

Zach Parise NJD LW 89 35 18 -1 0 21 73 7 0 2 7 16

Paul Kariya NAS LW 88 40 9 -1 0 27 75 4 0 3 6 13

Henrik Zetterberg DET LW 87 41 19 0 3 2 65 12 0 6 4 22

Kristian Huselius CAL LW 86 30 26 0 6 1 64 13 0 1 8 22

Brad Richards TB C 84 14 20 -1 1 12 46 12 0 2 24 38

Rod Brind'Amour CAR C 81 28 17 0 4 3 52 12 1 9 6 28

Patrick Marleau SJ C 80 30 30 0 0 -1 59 11 1 1 9 21

Brian Rolston MIN RW 80 18 21 0 1 13 53 11 1 10 4 27

Patrice Bergeron BOS C 80 13 34 0 -1 17 64 2 0 3 11 16

Alexander Frolov LA LW 79 34 16 1 3 8 62 7 0 1 9 17

Mats Sundin TOR C 79 37 19 0 1 15 72 9 0 1 -2 7

Jason Pominville BUF RW 79 51 4 0 4 -1 58 6 0 8 7 21

Daniel Alfredsson OTT RW 78 45 9 0 4 -1 57 10 0 6 5 20

Milan Hejduk COL RW 77 41 19 -1 1 4 64 6 0 4 2 13

Only two players, Crosby and Marian Hossa, were close to Lecavalier offensively. Crosby (36 goals, 120 points) was a much more potent force on the power play (where he picked up 48 assists), amassing the second highest PCOPPP (43) score among forwards (Teemu Selanne developed 48 points on 25 goals and 23 assists). Hossa was also better than Lecavalier on the power play. Crosby and Hossa also outperformed in the shootout.

But Lecavalier was the league leader in even handed offense and second only to

teammate Martin St. Louis in short handed offense, well ahead of the competition.

2007 NHL Review


Defensively Hossa matched Lecavalier’s 20 PC points with a rather similar profile. Crosby’s defense was the best of the three even handed but did not do much penalty killing (19 minutes versus 125 for Lecavalier and 174 for Hossa). The reason Crosby trailed Lecavalier and Hossa was penalty taking. There he was league average while Hossa and Lecavalier picked up 8 and 10 PC points respectively.

St. Louis trailed these three on offense (88 PC points from 43 goals and 59 assists and another 9 PC points from the shootout). But he made up ground defensively, especially from penalty avoidance.

The really interesting name near the top of the leaderboard was Pavel Datsyuk. His 41 PCD points were tops among forwards (more on that below). This, and his not-to-shabby 83 PCO points, put him right up there with Crosby. And most people would not have noticed that kind of impact.

The shootout really shuffled the order of this list. Mats Sundin, Patrice Bergeron, Brian Rolston, Brad Richards, Paul Kariya and Zach Parise all showed up on the top 30 list because of their shootout performance. Most people have no way of combining the two parts of the game. Now you do.

Norris Trophy

Having won 5 of the last 6 Norris Trophies, Nicklas Lidstrom has now emerged as one of the greatest defensemen of all time. Since I started doing Player Contribution I had him ranked as the league’s MVP and Norris Trophy winner in 2003 and fifth amongst defenders in2004. In 2006 I had him ranked second but only because of Sergei Zubov’s unusual shootout contribution. And, in 2007, I have him as the Norris guy again.

To the right I show the top six PC performances by defensemen. Least you think that Kaberle and Boyle are flukes, five of these names are repeats from last season’s top six with Niedermayer re-entering the leaderboard after an off season in 2006. Kaberle’s PC scores (since 2002-03 when I started developing them) were 92, 73, 107 and now 110. Boyle’s have been 98, 72, 101 and 94.

The table below shows the PC breakdown for the top 20 defensemen. This says that Lidstrom was clearly the number one blueliner in the NHL.

Norris Trophy Top Defenseman

Player Team PC

Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130

Sergei Zubov DAL 113

Tomas Kaberle TOR 110

Scott Niedermayer ANA 101

Chris Pronger ANA 96

Dan Boyle TB 94

2007 NHL Review


2007 Player Contribution – Defensemen (items may not total due to rounding)

2006-07 PCO PCD


Nicklas Lidstrom DET D 130 16 24 0 2 0 42 50 5 21 12 88

Sergei Zubov DAL D 113 5 28 1 -1 13 46 35 7 9 17 67

Tomas Kaberle TOR D 110 26 14 0 0 2 42 31 4 11 22 68

Scott Niedermayer ANA D 101 27 23 0 -1 0 49 29 7 14 2 52

Chris Pronger ANA D 96 16 24 0 -1 0 39 35 9 12 1 58

Dan Boyle TB D 94 20 26 -1 2 -1 46 31 5 4 7 47

Philippe Boucher DAL D 93 16 29 1 1 0 46 28 7 16 -5 46

Brian Rafalski NJD D 92 14 18 -1 2 0 33 39 1 6 14 59

Lubomir Visnovsky LA D 92 23 21 1 0 2 46 21 6 5 13 45

Sami Salo VAN D 90 20 14 0 0 0 35 31 3 13 8 56

Ryan Whitney PIT D 86 18 22 2 0 0 41 28 2 9 6 44

Sheldon Souray MON D 84 9 46 -1 4 4 62 11 5 11 -5 22

Scott Hannan SJ D 82 9 0 0 2 0 11 37 3 16 14 71

Jay Bouwmeester FLA D 81 26 3 -2 -1 -1 25 25 8 19 4 56

Brian Campbell BUF D 81 29 -1 0 0 0 29 30 0 10 12 52

Kimmo Timonen NAS D 80 20 19 -1 0 0 39 13 8 14 5 41

Mathieu Schneider DET D 80 18 18 0 2 0 38 32 4 9 -3 41

Bryan McCabe TOR D 79 16 23 0 -1 0 39 41 2 5 -8 40

Sergei Gonchar PIT D 78 6 30 2 4 -1 40 23 1 12 3 38

Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ D 77 1 6 0 0 0 7 30 5 16 18 69

Offensively his 42 PCO points were bested clearly by only one player, Sheldon Souray (62!). Several others were a tad ahead – Niedermeyer (49), Zubov (46), Boyle (46), Boucher (46) and Visnovsky (46). And Zubov ranked ahead only because of his unusual (for a defender) shootout contribution (13).

Defensively nobody was close (PCD of 88). His 50 PCDEH points were tops in the league. On the penalty kill his PCDSHK score was third highest. And he did this without taking penalties (PCDSHO of 12).

Player Contribution can be reduced to ‘performance’ times ‘ice time’. Lidstrom certain had the ice time – 2199 minutes on ice, fourth among defensemen behind Zdeno Chara (2237), Dan Boyle (2218) and Bryan McCabe (2200).

Runner up was Zubov with 67 PCD points (ranking him 6th in the NHL) and 46 PCO points. Kaberle had a very similar defensive profile and he would have been runner up for the Norris Trophy had it not been for the shootout.

2007 NHL Review


Defensemen usually play defense. But, from time to time, you find defensemen who are more valuable on offense. Which brings us to Sheldon Souray. Since I have been determining Player Contribution, only one player has looked like Souray’s 2007 Performance:

Sheldon Souray – the new Dick Tarnstrom?

PCO PCD

Player Team Year PC EH PPP PPO SH SO PCO EH PP SHK SHO PCD

Sheldon Souray MON 2007 84 9 46 -1 4 4 62 11 5 11 -5 22

Dick Tarnstrom PIT 2004 79 11 43 1 -1 NA 54 12 -3 2 14 25

These two guys look pretty similar except for penalty killing (PCDSHK, where Souray demonstrated some skill but where Tarnstrom got little opportunity) and penalty taking (PCDSHO, where Tarnstrom showed much more discipline than Souray). Souray’s performance landed him a five year, $27 million contract with an Edmonton team that was desperate to spend on free agents. Tarnstrom, who split last season between the Penguins and Oilers, will get $2 million this season. And these two exceptional players will be vying for the same role with Edmonton. Souray’s new contract is right priced for an all-star defenseman and is a contract the Oilers will regret.

How bad is Souray’s defense? His 22 PCD points ranked in 139th amongst defensemen (and behind 42 forwards) in the NHL. There are 180 regular jobs for blueliners and this ranking makes him a third-pairing (defensive) player.

The list of top defensemen is usually highly influenced by offensive play. The NHL needs a defenseman’s version of the Selke Trophy.

Who were the best defensive defensemen in the NHL? Below I present a list of the top defensive defensemen (based on performance in 2007). It is an interesting list with some big names and some no-names. Four Ducks made the top 20 (with Niedermayer being the final player to make the cut). No-name defenders included Michalek (who benefited from my assessment of goaltending in Phoenix), the Blue Jackets’ Hainsey and Eriksson and rookie Vlasic (SJ). Paul Martin’s run to the top of the defensive depth chart in New Jersey has been well documented by Player Contribution over time. And there is the old guy, Chris Chelios, continuing his journey to the Hall of Fame.

As I consider penalty avoidance to be an element of defense, it is not surprising that each of these players was above average in taking penalties (with Kaberle leading the way).

Given the way PCD is determined we are unable to separate the work of a defensive pair. If two defenders play together at all times they will have the same PCD score (save for penalty taking). If they play together a great deal, they will have similar scores. It is always possible that one player carried the other but it is probable that a material difference in performance would result in less playing time for the inferior player.

2007 NHL Review


2007 Player Contribution Defense – Defensemen (items may not total due to rounding)

2006-07 PCD

Player Team POS EH PP SHK SHO PCD

Nicklas Lidstrom DET D 50 5 21 12 88

Scott Hannan SJ D 37 3 16 14 71

Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ D 30 5 16 18 69

Paul Martin NJD D 34 4 12 19 69

Tomas Kaberle TOR D 31 4 11 22 68

Sergei Zubov DAL D 35 7 9 17 67

Zbynek Michalek PHO D 33 5 7 21 66

Brian Rafalski NJD D 39 1 6 14 59

Michal Rozsival NYR D 35 5 13 5 58

Chris Pronger ANA D 35 9 12 1 58

Chris Chelios DET D 31 -1 22 5 57

Jay Bouwmeester FLA D 25 8 19 4 56

Sami Salo VAN D 31 3 13 8 56

Ron Hainsey CBJ D 30 5 9 9 54

Francois Beauchemin ANA D 31 2 13 7 54

Anders Eriksson CBJ D 37 3 8 6 53

Trevor Daley DAL D 32 2 15 5 53

Sean O'Donnell ANA D 30 0 20 2 53

Brian Campbell BUF D 30 0 10 12 52

Scott Niedermayer ANA D 29 7 14 2 52

Vezina Trophy

The Vezina goes to the goalkeeper adjudged to be “the best at this position as voted by the general managers of all NHL clubs”. I always struggle with this definition. If a goalie has great stats and plays 70 games, should he lose this award to another with better numbers but in only 45 games? I don’t think so. So I tend to stick with PC (an impact measure).

Martin Brodeur collected his third Vezina Trophy in four years. Roberto Luongo, Miikka Kiprusoff and Henrik Lundqvist joined him as finalists.

Although Brodeur had his finest season

ever, PC says that this trophy belonged to Roberto Luongo. The Vancouver goalie was cleanly ahead after skating time (263 to 238). Brodeur closed the overall gap to 9 PC points by out-pointing Luongo (34 to

Vezina Trophy Top Goaltender

Player Team PC

Roberto Luongo VAN 278

Martin Brodeur NJD 269

Kari Lehtonen ATL 257

Rick DiPietro NYI 240

Henrik Lundqvist NYR 218

Chris Mason NAS 199

2007 NHL Review


16) in the shootout. But it should be noted that his out-performance in the shootout was due to opportunity (60 shots faced versus 31) rather than performance (.667 save percentage vs .677).

Brodeur played in more games (78 versus 76) and played more minutes (4697 versus 4490). So he would have seemed to have more opportunity to excel. But the New Jersey defense was better at shot prevention. Brodeur faced only 13 more shots (2182 vs 2169), the best conventional measure of a goaltender’s workload.

The New Jersey netminder posted a better save percentage (.922 vs 921), so how did Luongo rank ahead. The answer is in shot quality. I calculated5 a .944 shot quality factor for Brodeur (shots 5.6% less likely to enter the net than average), which gives a shot quality neutral save percentage of .917, and a .986 SQ factor for Luongo (SQNSV% of .920). With the workload of these goalies, a 3 point difference in (shot quality neutral) save percentage amounted to 25 PC points (or about 2.5 points in the standings).

Another way see the shot quality story is that, although Luongo had a lower overall save percentage, he actually had the higher save percentage while even handed, while short handed and while on the power play. His overall save percentage was lower only because of more short handed time (which is a factor used in determining shot quality).

Again the shootout affected the rankings. Both Lundqvist (55 PC points from the shootout) and DiPietro (42) collected a significant percentage of their PC totals from the shootout. Kiprusoff had no business being on the list of finalists. I had him ranked 14th among goalies and a big part of this was a terrible performance in the shootout (2 PC points).

As the Vezina goes to the “best” goalie we should have a look at two other candidates before moving on. Both of these players had limited work this season but posted good numbers.

Over the course of the season Niklas Backstrom emerged as the number one goaltender of the Minnesota Wild (causing Manny Fernandez to tend goal for the Bruins next season). In 41 games he played 2227 minutes, faced 1028 shots and posted a stellar 1.97 goals against average. His .929 (raw) save percentage needs to be deflated because of Minnesota’s defense. But his shot quality neutral save percentage of .922 is still very respectable.

Chris Mason started and finished the season as the back up to Tomas Vokoun in Nashville (but his performance helped run Vokoun out of town). However, in 40 games he played 2342 minutes and faced 1244 shots. He did this rather well posting a raw save

5 For 2007 I determined a shot quality factor for individual goaltenders rather than applying team shot quality

factors.

2007 NHL Review


percentage of .925 (behind sub-standard defense, a shot quality neutral save percentage of .928).

Mason’s .928 SQNSV% is some distance ahead of that of Luongo (.920). So I think one could make the case that Mason was actually the best goaltender in the NHL. But his playing time and story don’t win Vezinas. So I will stick with Luongo as my most valuable goaltender. But keep an eye on Chris Mason. In 2008 he could be great, or he could be another Cam Ward.

Selke Trophy

The Selke trophy goes to the best defensive forward in the NHL. Having no metric

for defense on which to rely, the voters

rarely get this right. Reputations rule. And Carolina’s Rod Brind’Amour won his second Selke Trophy in a row.

The NHL’s three finalists were Brind’Amour, Samuel Pahlsson (ANA) and Jay Pandolfo (NJD). The best of these was clearly Pandolfo, but I had four players ranked ahead of him including three time winner Jere Lehtinen. My winner was Pavel Datsyuk who put up very impressive PC numbers.

Below are the details for the PCD calculation for the top 20 defensive forwards in 2007. Let’s compare the performance of Brind’Amour to his peers (including Datsyuk).

PC had his even handed defense matched to that of Brad Richards (12 PCDEH points), ahead of Pahlsson (10) but behind Pandolfo (14) and Datsyuk (16). Brind’Amour averaged 2.72 goals against while even handed. This is similar to Richards (2.63). Both skated in front of weak goaltending (although Carolina’s was the better of the two).

The even handed goals against averages of Pahlsson, Pandolfo and Datsyuk were 2.24, 1.81 and 1.73 respectively. But each of these guys had better goaltending support than did Brind’Amour or Richards.

From the leaderboard the GAAEH leaders were Nikita Alexeev (1.57), Brian Rolston (1.60) and Lehtinen (1.66). Rolston (MIN) and Lehtinen (DAL) played 1047 and 938 even handed minutes, respectively, in front of strong goaltending. But the sleeper was Alexeev who collected his 13 PC points in only 762 even handed minutes in front of poor goaltending.

Datsyuk lead in even handed defense. Brind’Amour’s even handed defense was solid but he was not among the leaders.

Selke Trophy Top Defensive Forward

Player Team PCD


Brad Richards TB 38

Jere Lehtinen DAL 36


Jay Pandolfo NJD 36

Alexander Steen TOR 32

2007 NHL Review


The top penalty killing performance by a forward in 2007 was by the Coyotes’ Mike Zigomanis. He was on the ice for 26 goals against in 231 minutes of penalty killing. This translates to a short handed PGAA of 6.74. Others had better nominal results, but also played in front of real goaltending. His PCDSHK score of 16 reflected my assessment of ‘negative goaltending’.

From the leaderboard, other top short handed defensive performances (each for 14 PCDSHK points) were from Pahlsson (38 goals against, 367 minutes, GAASH 6.21), Matt Stajan (10, 153, 3.92) and Sami Kapanen (23, 255, 5.41). Of these players, only Pahlsson played in front of strong goaltending. His GAASH was therefore unimpressive, but 367 minutes is a great deal of penalty killing. Stajan’s record was awfully good, but he only got 153 minutes of penalty killing time.

The lowest GAASH posted by a player on the leaderboard came from Datsyuk (3.58 from 9 goals against in 151 minutes). The only other player on the leaderboard under Stajan’s record was Todd White (3.61, 12, 199). Both of these players had much better goaltending support than Stajan received in Toronto.

Brind’Amour’s penalty killing performance was solid but he was not among the leaders. Datsyuk had a better penalty killing record.

Let’s talk about Brad Richards. I have him as the number two defensive forward in the NHL in spite of a GAAEH of 2.63 and a ghastly GAASH of 9.29. In his defense, these numbers reflect poor goaltending. But Richards is ranked number two because, whatever he does on defense, he does it without taking penalties. In 1977 minutes of playing time this season he took exactly 9 minor penalties. This kind of discipline in front of poor goaltending was worth 24 PCDSHO points.

I consider that penalty avoidance is a big part of defense and PC measures it. To study this point consider Dallas teammates Jere Lehtinen and Niklas Hagman. Lehtinen

2007 Player Contribution PCD for Forwards

2006-07 Defense (PCD)

Player Team POS EH PP SHK SHO PCD

Pavel Datsyuk DET C 16 0 12 14 41

Brad Richards TB C 12 0 2 24 38

Jere Lehtinen DAL RW 13 0 11 13 36

Martin St. Louis TB RW 7 0 9 19 36

Jay Pandolfo NJD LW 14 0 6 15 36

Alexander Steen TOR C 14 -1 9 10 32

Simon Gagne PHI LW 9 -1 8 15 31

Jozef Stumpel FLA C 7 0 13 10 31

Samuel Pahlsson ANA C 10 0 14 6 30

John Madden NJD C 10 0 7 12 29

Mike Grier SJ RW 9 0 12 8 29

Rod Brind'Amour CAR C 12 1 9 6 28

Nikita Alexeev TB RW 13 0 6 9 28

Matthew Stajan TOR C 11 0 14 2 28

Todd White MIN C 9 0 11 7 27

Niklas Hagman DAL LW 10 0 13 3 27

Sergei Brylin NJD C 11 1 8 8 27

Sami Kapanen PHI RW 3 0 14 10 27

Brian Rolston MIN RW 11 1 10 4 27

Mike Zigomanis PHO C 13 -1 16 -2 26

2007 NHL Review


chalked up 24 PCD points while even and short handed (in 1161 minutes of playing time). In front of the same goaltending and with the same teammates Hagman collected 23 PCD points (in 1134 even and short handed minutes).

Ignoring the power play (where Lehtinen played and Hagman did not), these two guys are about the same until you consider penalties. Hagman took 17 took minor penalties while Lehtinen took only 8 (playing 235 more minutes, including power play time). This means that Hagman (probably, we don’t know for sure) created 9 additional short handed situations and PC gives Lehtinen 10 more PCDSHO points than Hagman (1 point to Dallas in the standings) for this. Penalty taking matters. It would be unfair to not give credit to Lehtinen.

Brind’Amour’s penalty avoidance was above average but he was not among the leaders. Datsyuk had a better record of penalty avoidance.

PC tries to sort out the impact of goaltending on defense, but these stats still include the “noise” of the performance of teammates. So we see some pairings from certain teams. And sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Spending a great deal of time on the attack is a great way to prevent goals (note some famous offensive players on the leaderboard).

Another caveat is that not all forwards receive uniformly difficult defensive assignments. Top offensive forwards frequently skate against checkers and vice versa. This tendency may cause the defense of top offensive forwards to be over rated (and the defense of checkers to be underrated).

The table to the right shows the four year PCD performance of selected forwards. Three of these players have won Selke Trophies, Lehtinen (3), Brind’Amour (2) and Madden (1). This table says that Jay Pandolfo is long overdue. If the voters should consider penalty avoidance as a piece of defense (as I feel), then Richards and St. Louis have also been shut out unfairly. Finally this chronicles the development of Datsyuk as a defensive force.

Lady Byng Trophy

The Lady Byng Memorial Trophy goes to the player “adjudged to have exhibited the best type of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct combined with a high standard of playing ability”. The word “combined” is an “AND” condition. With “AND” conditions

Player Contribution Historical PCD for Forwards

Player Team POS 2003 2004 2006 2007 Total

Jere Lehtinen DAL RW 38 25 43 36 142

Jay Pandolfo NJD LW 26 32 45 36 139

Brad Richards TB C 28 28 45 38 139

Martin St. Louis TB RW 24 27 38 36 125

John Madden NJD C 34 30 30 29 123

Rod Brind’Amour CAR C 19 25 32 28 104

Pavel Datsyuk DET C 15 12 24 41 92

2007 NHL Review


you multiply. You need both factors to be strong to get a good “AND” rating. My Byng points are therefore Player Contribution (the measure of skill) x (50 – PIM) (my measure of sportsmanship and gentlemanly play).

Fifty minutes is a pretty arbitrary part of this formula. In fact the formula is pretty arbitrary. But, historically, this is the way the voters have looked at this – amongst those with low penalty totals, who has the highest output. This formula keeps predicting the winner. That might make it right. Or not.

For the second year in a row the voters chose Pavel Datsyuk as the Selke man (124 PC points and 20 penalty minutes) and my approach concurred. The voters had Martin St. Louis (132, 28) as a well deserved finalist. Joe Sakic was also in the finals. His numbers (95, 46) certainly failed to impress my formula. And 46 penalty minutes is a very high number to lay claim to the Lady Byng trophy, representing a great deal of cheating.

As usual the voters completely missed defensmen in this vote. How could you ignore Kaberle (110, 20) or Zubov (113, 26), two all-star defenders with squeaky clean play? Vlasic (77, 18) as a rookie and a defender was easier to miss but still put up solid numbers.

And then there was Kyle Wellwood. His 49 PC points were not all that impressive (except that he played only 48 games due to injuries). But he was never in the penalty box all year, for any reason, NEVER! The guy doesn’t cheat. Very unusual …

Calder Trophy

If you ever wondered why the San Jose Sharks are such a strong team, the answer is reflected in the table to the right. No team in hockey applies analysis better to player selection. The Sharks have been bold in their commitment to young players, avoiding the plump contracts that arise when teams get long in the tooth.

This season they introduced two young defensemen to us – Marc-Edouard Vlasic and Matt Carle. And, based on my analysis, these were the top two rookies in the NHL.

Calder Trophy Top Rookie

Player Team PC

Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ 77

Matt Carle SJ 75

Paul Stastny COL 72

Evgeni Malkin PIT 72

Jordan Staal PIT 68

Anze Kopitar LA 66

Lady Byng Trophy Gentlemanly Play and Ability

Player Team Byngs


Tomas Kaberle TOR 3294


Sergei Zubov DAL 2721

Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ 2459

Kyle Wellwood TOR 2439

2007 NHL Review


To be fair to the voters, these guys were the best by the smallest of margins. The race was very close. The three finalists, Jordan Staal, Paul Stastny and Calder Trophy winner Evgeni Malkin were just four PC points apart and not far back of Vlasic. To be fair to defensemen, they don’t get their fair share of this trophy.

A look at the PC breakdown for the rookie leaders (see below) shows that there are many ways to contribute to the success of a team.

2006-07 PCO PCD


Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ D 77 1 6 0 0 0 7 30 5 16 18 69

Matt Carle SJ D 75 10 19 0 0 0 29 27 7 4 8 46

Paul Stastny COL C 72 35 23 -1 -2 -2 55 6 0 8 4 17

Evgeni Malkin PIT LW 72 36 27 1 0 7 71 6 0 2 -7 0

Jordan Staal PIT C 68 24 4 1 19 0 48 9 0 6 6 21

Anze Kopitar LA C 66 14 14 1 2 11 42 5 1 6 11 23

The impressive offensive force was certainly Malkin, out pointing Paul Stastny across the PCO part of the board. But he played little defense and was a penalty liability. Stastny caught up to Malkin with a respectable defensive showing. Jordan Staal was better defensively and a short handed scoring machine (19 PCDSH). Kopitar was the most dangerous of these rookies in the shootout and played better defense than the other forwards.

Vlasic produced an all-star defensive performance. His 69 PCD points trailed only Lidstrom and teammate Scott Hannan. Matt Carle had a different profile (a fair bit of offense) to virtually match Vlasic’s contribution overall.

Shootout Awards

There were 164 points contested in the shootout in 2007. The rather limited number of contestants meant that certain players earned a very significant percentage of their PC points in the fifth period.

The second annual Wyatt Earp Award, as the top shootout gunslinger, goes this season to Pittsburgh forward Erik Christensen. Erik who? What about Crosby? or Malkin?

Christensen took 14 trips from centre ice and netted 8 shootout goals to tie for the league lead. His 32 PCOSO points represented over half of his total (63 PC points). The other player to reach 8 goals was Mikko Koivu, this season’s Finnish Flash. But he needed 15 trips to the net to do so (and Minnesota was less efficient than Pittsburgh at translating goals to wins).

The others on the lead board were closer to being household names. Kariya went 7 for 11 to be the only player to repeat on my leaderboard, Weight weighed in at 6 for 11, Gionta went 7 for 13 and Parise potted 7 goals on 14 attempts.

2007 NHL Review


The worst shootout performances by a forward came either from Toronto’s Alexei Ponikarovsky (0 for 7) or Anaheim’s Andy MacDonald (1 for 10). Take your pick.

For goaltenders in the shootout I present the Cork Award for the best stopper. As with all of PC, this can be thought of as “performance” x “workload” and each of the leaders had a high exposure to the shootout. Lundquist edged Miller by decimal places to win the Cork Award. In the Rangers’ net Lundqvist turned back 41 of 50 attempts while Miller stopped 37 of 46. His save percentage of .804 trailed that of Lundqvist (.820), but Buffalo was a bit more efficient at turning shootout performance into points and the two goaltenders scored about the same on the PC scale. Holmqvist had the best save percentage (.879) amongst those with a material workload (4 goals against in 33 attempts).

All Stars

NHL

NHL First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PC Name Team PC

LW Thomas Vanek BUF 100 Alexander Ovechkin WAS 99

C Vincent Lecavalier TB 135 Pavel Datsyuk DET 124

RW Martin St. Louis TB 132 Marian Hossa ATL 132

D Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130 Tomas Kaberle TOR 110

D Sergei Zubov DAL 113 Scott Neidermeyer ANA 101

G Roberto Luongo VAN 278 Martin Brodeur NJD 269

As usual the voters liked the brand names, missing certain performances.

The voters picked the same goaltenders, but flipped the order. Brodeur had his best season ever but repeat after me … “Luongo is the best goaltender in hockey and has been for some time” …

My defensive all stars were virtually the same as those I picked last season, with Scott Neidermeyer replacing now-teammate Chris Pronger on the second team. The voters had Neidermeyer on the first team with Lidstrom. Yes, Zubov slips behind the Anaheim

Shootout Awards

Wyatt Earp Award Top Shooter

Player Team PC

Erik Christensen PIT 32

Paul Kariya NAS 27

Mikko Koivu MIN 24

Doug Weight STL 22

Brian Gionta NJD 21

Zach Parise NJD 21

Cork Award Top Stopper

Player Team PC

Henrik Lundqvist NYR 55

Ryan Miller BUF 55

Tim Thomas BOS 51

Marc-Andre Fleury PIT 49

Rick DiPietro NYI 42

Johan Holmqvist TB 42

Marty Turco DAL 42

2007 NHL Review


defender if you ignore his shootout performance. But the last time I checked the game had a shootout. Kaberle seems to get missed because his play is so smooth and not that physical. But results are what counts …

It is a miscarriage of justice that Zubov and Kaberle did not even get voted to the second team. Instead Chris Pronger and Dan Boyle got the nod. I had these two ranked 5th and 6th. It was nice to see Boyle finally get some recognition, but his only edge over Kaberle was power play offense and his only edge over Zubov was even handed offense. Pronger was missed last season when he had stunning numbers, so maybe his is a catch up vote.

At least Zdeno Chara was not a voter selection this season. Geez.

Among the forwards the only player to repeat on my all-star team was Alexander Ovechkin. He was nosed out by Thomas Vanek for the first team left wing position. Ovechkin had slightly better offensive output (92 points versus 84) but Vanek was the more proficient of the two while even handed and had much less ice time. He posted 100 PC points in 1,376 minutes versus the 1,754 minutes that Ovechkin required to get to 99 points. The voters had these two reversed.

At centre PC selected Vincent Lecavalier to the first team. The second team selection of Pavel Datsyuk over Sidney Crosby was by only 1 PC point. The voters, of course, put Crosby on the first team and Lecavalier on the second team. As was discussed above, Crosby, in only his second season, has developed a pretty large brand. On the other hand, Datsyuk excelled in subtle ways.

The voters picked Dany Heatley and Martin St. Louis as the first and second team right wingers. They must have gone straight to the scoring points to make that choice (Heatley out-pointed St. Louis 105 to 102). I had St, Louis on the first team, Marian Hossa on the second team (only decimal places behind) and Heatley ranked 5th among right wingers.

Since Heatley and Hossa were swapped for each other two years ago, it begs a detailed comparison. Here are the top five right winger performances in the NHL from 2007:

2006-07 PCO PCD


Martin St. Louis TB RW 132 50 21 -1 16 9 97 7 0 9 19 36

Marian Hossa ATL RW 132 51 37 0 7 17 111 7 1 5 8 20

Jarome Iginla CAL RW 113 54 24 0 1 11 90 8 0 5 9 22

Teemu Selanne ANA RW 109 43 48 0 0 8 99 11 1 1 -2 11

Dany Heatley OTT RW 106 55 28 0 7 1 92 10 0 4 0 13

The number one offensive threat on the board was Hossa, not Heatley. He conceded 4 PC points to Heatley while even handed but overtook him with his power play prowess. Looking at the raw numbers Heatley posted 50 goals and 55 assists (Hossa went 43/57). Hossa got a bit more ice time (1,778 minutes versus 1,725), so it would seem, on the surface, that he should rank behind Heatley. But Hossa spent a lot more time killing penalties (174 minutes versus 62). PC assessed all of this and had Hossa ahead by a few

2007 NHL Review


points until the shootout. There Hossa (5 goals in 10 tries) left Heatley (1 for 4) in his dust. Voters are not giving the shootout any weight in their voting.

Offensively Heatley out-performed St. Louis even handed and on the power play. But St. Louis is the king of short handed offense, and closed the gap considerably with 5 goals and 6 assists while killing penalties. Then, like Hossa, he chipped in more in the shootout (4 goals in 10 tries).

So both Hossa and St. Louis are ahead on the scoreboard before we consider defense. These three players have pretty similar overall defensive scores until you consider penalty taking. Here Heatley conceded more PC points to seal the deal. It was actually no contest. Not even close.

East

East First Team Second Team



C Vincent Lecavalier TB 135 Sidney Crosby PIT 123

RW Martin St. Louis TB 132 Marian Hossa ATL 132

D Tomas Kaberle TOR 110 Brian Rafalski NJD 92

D Dan Boyle TB 94 Ryan Whitney PIT 86

G Martin Brodeur NJD 269 Kari Lehtonen ATL 257

As was the case last season, the East dominated the NHL all star team on offense and the west on defense.

The only new face on offense is Crosby, who was nosed out by Datsyuk for the second NHL all-star team. Honourable mention goes to Dany Heatley (106), Olli Jokinen (96), Daniel Briere (92) and Simon Gagne (92), each of whom cleared the 90 point milestone.

Three of the four defenders are repeats from last year – Kaberle, Boyle and Rafalski. Pittsburgh’s Ryan Whitney had a strong season to join the second team.

Lehtonen made the second team in goal ahead of DiPietro (240 PC points) and Henrik Lundqvist (218).

West

West First Team Second Team


LW Daniel Sedin VAN 96 Paul Kariya NAS 88

C Pavel Datsyuk DET 124 Joe Thornton SJ 99

RW Jerome Iginla CAL 113 Teemu Selanne ANA 109

D Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130 Scott Neidermeyer ANA 101

D Sergei Zubov DAL 113 Chris Pronger ANA 96

G Roberto Luongo VAN 278 Chris Mason NAS 199

2007 NHL Review


Although the East was stronger up front, four of the six western all-star forwards are repeats from last season. Thornton and Datsyuk switched spots. Selanne switched teams but remained the second team right winger. And Kariya stayed put.

The new faces are Daniel Sedin, who finally had the break through season people have been awaiting, and Jerome Iginla, who returned to form. Sedin displaced Henrik Zetterberg (who was only a point behind Kariya). Iginla displaced Jonathon Cheechoo, who resumed mere mortality (75 PC points).

On defense the new face is somebody named Pronger.

It may surprise you that Chris Mason was the second team goalie in the west. His per-game stats were better than any goaltender in the NHL. He only played half a season.

Honourable mention goes to Joe Sakic (95), Philippe Boucher (93), Lubomir Visnovsky (92) and Sami Salo (90), each of whom cleared the 90 point milestone.

Green (24 and under)

Green First Team Second Team



C Sidney Crosby PIT 123 Patrice Bergeron BOS 80

RW Jason Pominville BUF 79 Lee Stempniak STL 67

D Ryan Whitney PIT 86 Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ 77

D Jay Bouwmeester FLA 81 Matt Carle SJ 75

G Kari Lehtonen ATL 257 Henrik Lundqvist NYR 218

Here again we find Crosby (age 19), Vanek (22) and Ovechkin (21). Forwards tend to peak around the age of 23 and these guys ought to dominate this list over the next couple of years. Pominville is 24 and graduates from the class this season. Bergeron (21) has a good chance to repeat but he will need to fend off Spezza who was missing from the list because of injuries. More on Stempniak (23) below.

None of the rookie forwards made this team. But look for Evgeni Malkin (20), Jordan Staal (18), Paul Stastny (21) and Anze Kopitar (19) next year. Prominent names missing: Ilya Kovalchuk (23), Marion Gaborik (24), Rick Nash (22), Ales Hemsky (23) and Eric Staal (22). Each of these players earned north of $4,000,000 in 2007.

Honourable mention goes to Zach Parise (age 22, 89 PC points).

Defenders take longer to hone their craft. So, with the exception of Whitney (23), this is a list of new names. Bouwmeester (23) has had the future star label for some time. And I have already discussed rookie sensations Vlasic (19) and Carle (22). Dion Phaneuf (21) went missing this year.

Goalies can also take longer. But Both Lehtonen (23) and Lundqvist (24, repeating from last year) are at the peak of their game already.

2007 NHL Review


Note that, for both of the Green and Grey teams, I used the player’s age as of December 31, 2006.

Grey (34 and over)

The Grey team (age 34 and over) is presented below. Each of Brodeur (34), Lidstrom (36), Zubov (36) and Selanne (36) were fully fledged all-stars. Brodeur is a team “rookie”. Each of the others repeated from last year.

Grey First Team Second Team


LW Slava Kozlov ATL 76 Ray Whitney CAR 71

C Joe Sakic COL 93 Rod Brind’Amour CAR 81

RW Teemu Selanne ANA 109 Daniel Alfredsson OTT 78

D Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130 Matthieu Schneider DET 80

D Sergei Zubov DAL 113 Sean O’Donnell ANA 58

G Martin Brodeur NJD 269 Dwayne Roloson EDM 145

Kozlov, Whitney and Alfredsson were all 34 years old and, like Brodeur, team rookies. Other repeaters were Schneider (37) and Brind’Amour (36). Schneider and Roloson (37) were the oldest players to make the team. Roloson fended off challenges from Hasek (41) and Kolzig (36) to make the grade.

Proving, again, that defensemen often mature like a fine wine left to age, three of the four defenders are repeats. Which brings me to newcomer Sean O’Donnell (35). He had the lowest grade to make the team (58 PC points). But that is less interesting than his competition. He fended off, by only a few decimal places, Chris Chelios (44) for that final position. Remarkable, ageless, future hall-of-famer, organizer of player unions Chris Chelios.

All Offense

Offense First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PCO* Name Team PCO*

LW Alexander Ovechkin WAS 83 Thomas Vanek BUF 79

C Vincent Lecavalier TB 110 Sidney Crosby PIT 97

RW Marian Hossa ATL 95 Dany Heatley OTT 91

D Sheldon Souray MON 58 Dan Boyle TB 47

D Scott Neidermeyer ANA 49 Philippe Boucher DAL 46

* PCO excluding shootouts.

We have seen most of these names already. Sheldon Souray is a new face. He collected 26 goals and 38 assists, about 75% of which (19/29) came during 394 minutes of power play time. Every season the NHL seems to have a different point threat on the power play. Boyle had a huge power play presence (10 goals and 27 assists in 527 minutes), Neidermeyer did not let the extra man go to waste (9/25 in 461 minutes) and Boucher did

2007 NHL Review


just fine (12/19) in the least (311) amount of power play time among the top 10 offensive defensemen.

Ovechkin was the only player to repeat from last season’s team. Contrast this situation to the leading defensive contributions (see below).

Honourable mention certainly has to go to Teemu Selanne, who’s 91 PCO points (excluding the shootout) was decimal places behind Heatley’s score. Martin St. Louis (87) and Jerome Iginla (79) also deserve honourable mention among forwards. Among defenders note that LA’s Lubomir Visnovsky finished up with 45 PCO points (ex shootout).

All Defense

Defense First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PCD Name Team PCD

LW Jay Pandolfo NJD 36 Simon Gagne PHI 31

C Pavel Datsyuk DET 41 Brad Richards TB 38

RW Jere Lehtinen DAL 36 Martin St. Louis TB 36

D Nicklas Lidstrom DET 88 Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ 77

D Scott Hannan SJ 71 Paul Martin NJD 69

Usually the defenders on this list are two way players. This year, however, stay-at-home types got to shine. Hannan collected only 11 PCO points on 4 goals and 20 assists, Vlasic collected 7 (and only 1 point even-handed) and Martin collected just 3 PCO points (he was -3 on the power play). Honourable mention goes to Tomas Kaberle (68 PCD), Sergei Zubov (67) and Zbynek Michalek (66), another stay-at-home type.

The only player on both the all-offense and all-defense teams was Lidstrom. He was also the only defender to repeat from last season.

But the forwards are a complete repeat save for Datsyuk, who bumped Richards who bumped Joe Thornton. This says that defensive excellence, at least among forwards, may a more bankable commodity.

Among forwards a real honourable mention goes to Alexander Steen of Toronto. If the Leafs had not listed him as a centre (I stick with this information because it is “official”), he would have been the second team left winger (the position he has played for two seasons) with 32 PCD points.

Even Handed

The NHL’s so-called more open game really is not. The reality is that there is more scoring because there is less even handed time. But about two-thirds of the game is played even handed. And you don’t need a degree in math to figure out that this still matters more than power play time.

2007 NHL Review


Even Handed First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PCEH Name Team PCEH


C Vincent Lecavalier TB 80 Pavel Datsyuk DET 78

RW Martin. St. Louis TB 76 Jarome Iginla CAL 71

D Tomas Kaberle TOR 79 Brian Campbell BUF 71

D Nicklas Lidstrom DET 78 Brian Rafalski NJD 65

PCEH = PCOEH + PCDEH + PCOPPO + PCDSHO

This season I changed my definition of PCEH to include ALL of penalty drawing (PCOPPO, essentially a non-issued due to lack of data) and penalty taking (PCDSHO, a major variable). I made this change because excluding penalties, as I have done in the past, fails to properly consider their significant impact. Note that this is a simplification as penalties are drawn/taken when not even-handed. But the NHL does not give us the data to split it out. So this is the best I can do for now.

The result of this change is that this all-star team more closely resembles the overall team. The new faces are on right wing, where Iginla displaced Hossa, and on defense (Campbell and Rafalski displacing Zubov and Neidermeyer).

For forwards the dominating factor is clearly offense. The PCOEH leader (66 points) was Lecavalier (31 goals, 32 assists, 1340 minutes). He added an unimpressive 4 PCDEH points and then 10 PCDSHO points to secure the highest PCEH score. Olli Jokinen would have made this team based on his offense (he was second in the NHL with 62 PCOEH points based on 29 goals, 33 assists in 1249 minutes), but his penalty taking was only league average.

Among defensemen, Lidstrom had a stunning 50 PCDEH points to lead the NHL. He played 1383 minutes and posted a goals against average of 1.65 (goals per 60 minutes of even handed play). Among defenders with a material workload this GAAEH was bested by only Sami Salo (1.47) and Chris Pronger (1.61). But both of these players enjoyed better goaltending support and logged fewer minutes. Lidstrom added 16 PCOEH points and then 21 PCDSHO points (rounding means that it does not quite add up) to make the team.

But Kaberle lead defensemen on this team. He did it with (a) outstanding offense (his 26 PCOEH points ranked third amongst defensemen), (b) leading penalty avoidance (his 22 PCOSHO points ranked second in the NHL) and (c) solid defense (31 PCDEH points).

Brian Campbell looked a lot like a less disciplined Kaberle (he lead the NHL in even handed offense by a defenseman – 29 PCOEH points) to secure a spot on the team. Brian Rafalski got here largely with even-handed defense (his 39 PCDEH points ranked third in the NHL).

To my surprise Bryan McCabe tried to make this team with his defense. His 41 PCDEH points ranked second in the NHL. His GAAEH of 2.39 was not very impressive, but he toiled in front of very weak goaltending and PC sorts that out for you. To see this

2007 NHL Review


compare him to Brian Campbell. These two had very similar even handed ice time (1405 minutes for MacCabe versus 1389 for Campbell). Campbell’s GAAEH was nearly the same (2.38). But McCabe had Raycroft behind him while Campbell had Ryan Miller. So PC gave McCabe more credit (41 points versus 30 for Campbell).

But here is why I changed PCEH to include penalty taking … this analysis is quite generous to McCabe on one important front. McCabe is a very undisciplined player, taking more than his fair share of penalties. McCabe had -8 PCDSHO points for his excessive penalty taking (frequent defensive partner Kaberle had +22 PCDSHO points) and most of this would be attributable to even handed play.

Power Play

Power Play First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PCPP Name Team PCPP

LW Daniel Sedin VAN 33 Alexander Semin WAS 29

C Sidney Crosby PIT 42 Joe Thornton SJ 37

RW Teemu Selanne ANA 49 Marian Hossa ATL 38

D Sheldon Souray MON 51 Sergei Zubov DAL 34

D Philippe Boucher DAL 36 Chris Pronger EDM 33

PCPP = PCOPPP + PCDPP

Remember that Player Contribution reduces to “performance” x “ice time”. Here is where playing time really matters. This is not a list of the “best” power play performers, it is a list of the biggest contributions on the power play.

For the second season in a row the power play MVP was a defender. In 394 minutes of ice time Sheldon Souray collected 19 goals and 29 assists for a PCOPPP score of 46. Teemu Selanne had better offense (25 goals, 23 assists, 381 minutes, 48 PCOPPP), but defenders have another role (yes there is some defense to be played on the power play) and Souray collected 5 PC points on defense to secure the crown.

Crosby was the only other player to surpass 40 PCOPPP points (reaching 43, and yes there was a small subtraction for sub-marginal power play defense).

Dan Boyle had a run at the second team (527 minutes) but his 31 PCOPPP points came up short of Pronger (33 PCOPPP points in 383 minutes), who was the only player to repeat from last season. Only Ilya Kovalchuk (542 minutes) and Sergei Gonchar (603) had more power play time than Boyle.

2007 NHL Review


Short Handed

Short Handed First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PCSH Name Team PCSH

F Martin. St. Louis TB 26 Vincent Lecavalier TB 21

F Jordan Staal PIT 25 Kris Draper DET 21

D Derian Hatcher PHI 24 Chris Chelios DET 22

D Nicklas Lidstrom DET 23 Sean O’Donnell ANA 20

PCSH = PCOSH + PCDSHK

For forwards it is common to get to the head of this class with offense. If you ignore the offense and just look at penalty killing you get the following results.

Penalty Killing First Team Second Team

Position Name Team PCDSHK Name Team PCDSHK

F Mike Zigomanis PHO 16 Fernando Pisani EDM 14

F Alex Burrows VAN 15 Kirk Maltby DET 14

D Derian Hatcher PHI 25 Nicklas Lidstrom DET 21

D Chris Chelios DET 22 Mattias Ohlund VAN 20

The lists largely overlap for defensemen. Hatcher shone in the dim light of Philadelphia. His shorted handed goals against average was 6.12 in a stunning 461 minutes. Chelios had a slightly better GAASH of 5.58 but played fewer minutes (344). Lidstrom trailed teammate Chelios on the second list (GAASH of 6.12 in 363 minutes) but chipped in some offense to rank ahead on the first list.

Ohlund’s GAASH of 3.12 (in 269 minutes) was very impressive. But he played in front of Luongo and you have to adjust for that. O’Donnell also had a notable GAASH (4.16) to also reach 20 PCDSHK points.

The most remarkable penalty killing might have come from Ed Jovanovski in Phoenix. In front of NO goaltending he posted a GAASH of 3.86. Based on only 124 minutes of penalty killing, PC awarded him 18 points for that work.

You can see that all of the forwards made the first leaderboard based on offense. St. Louis had 5 goals and 6 assists, Staal posted 7 goals and 2 assists, Lecavalier had 5 goals, 4 assists and Draper netted 5 short handed goals.

When you look at the penalty killing of forwards you might not be impressed by Mike Zigomanis. He had a GAASH of 6.74 in 124 minutes. But he logged a great deal (231 minutes) of ice time in front of no goaltending. On the surface the penalty killing of Alex Burrows looked much more impactful (GAASH of 3.60 in 267 minutes). But, again, we have to adjust for goaltending and PC placed Burrows behind Zigomanis. Fernando Pisani had nearly the same GAASH (3.63) as Burrows in front of average goaltending. So he would have ranked if he had not played less (199 minutes).

2007 NHL Review


Pissani and Maltby had a lot of company at 14 PCDSHK points – each of Matt Stajan (TOR), Sami Kapinen (PHI), Rob Neidermeyer (ANA) and Samuel Pahlsson (ANA) were within decimal places of the all-star penalty killing team. Stajan had the lowest ice time (153 minutes) of any of the leaders (and was therefore possibly the NHL’s most proficient penalty killer) whereas Neidermeyer got there by brute force (306 minutes).

Most Valuable Performances

In a sense value is a relative thing. When two players produce the same outputs, a team would prefer the player with the smaller paycheck. And, in today’s salary cap era, certain contracts are seen as liabilities because no plausible performance can justify the cost.

In this spirit I present the All-Value teams for 2007:

All Value First Team Second Team

Position Name Team $ PC Cost Name Team

$ PC Cost

LW Slava Kozlov ATL 6,869 Zach Parise NJD 7,928

C Erik Christensen PIT 7,699 Michael Cammalleri LA 7,744

RW Lee Stempniak STL 7,681 Milan Michalek SJ 9,733

D Francois Beauchemin ANA 7,601 Ian White TOR 8,860

D Kevin Bieksa VAN 7,670 Shae Weber NAS 9,080

G Ray Emery OTT 5,354 Chris Mason NAS 6,292

PC Cost is the Cap Cost per PC point. I used the annual cap cost (in US dollars) per annum, rather than the per diem approach used in the NHL’s CBA, to screen out players with limited playing time but high per game PC scores.

Obviously a lower PC Cost is better and the table above shows the value leaders. To put these costs into perspective, a salary cap of $44 million (for the 2006-07 season) suggests that an average player on a playoff bound team should cost at most $44,000 per annum per PC point6.

Emery was the value leader, costing $925,000 (per annum) and producing 173 PC points (in 58 games). Mason produced more (199 PC points) in fewer (40) games but cost more ($1,250,000).

Among skaters the value leader was Atlanta’s Slava Kozlov (76 PC points in 81 games at a cost of $525,000). Shootout sensation Erik Christensen played 61 games, produced 63 PC points and cost only $488,000. The most expensive performance from the leaderboard was that of Michalek (65 PC points in 78 games at a cost of $628,267). The weakest performance was from Ian White (51 PC points in 76 games at a cost of

6 A team with playoff aspirations needs to target a 100 point season. This translates into 1000 PC points

and gives you my $44,000 average cost per PC point. A Stanley Cup team is likely to be better than this and needs to have a lower average cost per PC point.

2007 NHL Review


$453,000). For skaters 50 - 80 PC points is a very solid contribution. When players do that for a “minimum wage” … that is a valuable performance.

All Cap Roster

If all NHL players had been free agents at the beginning of the 2007 season and could have been signed for their then current cap cost, who would you want on your team? To finish I want to present my All Cap roster. This is a list of 23 players you might want to have on your team if you were prepared to max out your cap costs while attempting to max out performance.

All Cap Roster

2007

Position Name Team CapCost MOI PC AMOI Est PC

LW1 Thomas Vanek BUF 942,400 1376 100 1,600 116

C1 Pavel Datsyuk DET 3,900,000 1577 124 1,600 126

RW1 Martin St. Louis TB 5,250,000 1981 132 1,600 107

LW2 Alexander Ovechkin WAS 3,834,200 1754 99 1,300 73

C2 Sidney Crosby PIT 3,700,000 1640 124 1,300 98

RW2 Dany Heatley OTT 4,500,000 1725 106 1,300 80

LW3 Zach Parise NJD 703,000 1438 89 1,000 62

C3 Jozef Stumpel FLA 1,625,000 1396 75 1,000 54

RW3 Jason Pominville BUF 1,033,333 1428 79 1,000 55

LW4 Slava Kozlov ATL 525,000 1660 76 600 28

C4 Erik Christensen PIT 488,000 709 63 600 54

RW4 Lee Stempniak STL 517,500 1207 67 600 34

F5 Michael Cammalleri LA 575,000 1462 74 450 23

F5 Milan Michalek SJ 628,267 1307 65 450 22

F TOTAL 28,221,700 20,657 1,272 14,400 930

D1 Sergei Zubov DAL 4,000,000 2024 130 1,900 122

D1 Tomas Kaberle TOR 4,250,000 1915 113 1,900 113

D2 Sami Salo VAN 1,500,000 1437 90 1,600 100

D2 Matt Carle SJ 1,367,400 1397 86 1,600 98

D3 Francois Beauchemin ANA 500,000 1809 66 1,300 47

D3 Kevin Bieksa VAN 525,000 1966 68 1,300 45

D4 Ian White TOR 453,000 1408 51 400 15

D TOTAL 12,595,400 11,955 605 10,000 540

G1 Chris Mason NAS 1,250,000 2,342 199 3,659 311

G2 Ray Emery OTT 925,000 3,351 172 1,341 69

G TOTAL 2,175,000 371 5,000 380

TEAM TOTAL 42,992,100 32,613 2,248 29,400 1,850

2007 NHL Review


This was a pretty subjective exercise. I am sure there is a mathematical solution to this optimization problem. But I know that any solution would involve a lot of variables and constraints and would tax my computer (never mind my programming skills).

So I did this by eye. This is my All Cap Roster. If you can find a more optimal one, share it with me:

The rules I used to put this together and evaluate the output are:

• Cap Cost < $44,000,000

• 14 forwards, 7 defensemen, 2 goaltenders.

• Players play in position and are seeded by position into a depth chart.

• Players are attributed ice time (“AMOI”) based on their position in the depth chart:

o The prima goalie gets 60 games. The second fiddle gets 22 games.

o First line forwards are assumed to play 1,600 minutes, second line 1,300 minutes, third line 1,000 minutes and fourth line 600 minutes.

o The first pair of defenders is assumed to play 1,900 minutes, second pair 1,600 minutes and third pair 1,300 minutes.

o The two press box forwards are each assumed to play 450 minutes and the press box defenseman is assumed to play 400 minutes during the injuries, slumps and trips to the coach’s doghouse of main roster players.

• Estimated PC (“Est PC”) is determined as actual PC times AMOI / MOI (actual minutes on ice).

Goal: Chris Mason is my starting goalie. He did an awful lot in just 40 games. His per game stats were better than any goaltender with any amount of work. His PC score grosses up to 311 for his increased workload. And he works for $1,250,000. Ray Emery would be expected to chip in another 69 PC points in 22 starts. These two were easy and obvious choices given their high level of performance and low costs.

Defense: I tried to construct the defense as two elite level players, three from the bargain basement and two moderately priced players playing at high levels.

Among the elite of NHL defenders, two players stand out as “right priced”, Zubov and Kaberle. Zubov pays the bonus of being a dangerous shootout weapon.

Two mid priced defenders that seem to deserve more ice time are Salo and Carle. In fact, grossing up their minutes to 1900 might improve this team’s overall projected PC score.

2007 NHL Review


Beauchemin and Bieksa were two emergent performers for their teams in 2007 that played dirt cheap. Ian White was my choice for the press box role.

All of these players kill penalties with some proficiency save for Matt Carle. And all of them can handle power play duty.

Forwards: I used a similar approach to construct the forward lines, starting at the ends and working towards the middle.

My top line is Vanek, Datsyuk and St. Louis. Although he is not the top performer on a very talented team, Martin St. Louis turned out to be my most expensive player. It turns out that there are not too many right priced right wingers out there. St. Louis does a lot for his $5,250,000 price tag, but it is still a high price. Datsyuk was better priced at $3,900,000 and projects out at the team’s most valuable skater. And Vanek was (not any more!) a steal at a $942,400 cap cost.

Datsyuk and St, Louis would be an outstanding penalty killing pair.

Line number two, Ovechkin, Crosby and Heatley, is actually more expensive than the top line. Note that Ovechkin’s PC score of 99 required a lot more minutes to generate than Vanek’s score of 100. That’s why I have him on the second line. Crosby and Datsyuk are nearly interchangeable. Heatley is another expensive right winger but it is reasonably priced for what he does.

The third line reflects the need for cost efficiency. Zach Parise is projected to contribute 62 PC points for only $703,000. On the other wing Buffalo’s Pominville continues the right wing trend of being somewhat more expensive but $1,033,333 is pretty cheap for 55 PC points. In the middle is Stumpel, the most expensive of the three at $1,625,000 but still nice-priced.

Stumpel and Pominville would be the team’s top penalty killers.

The bargain bid produced the fourth line. Christensen could have been third line material but I left him here. He would be another special shootout weapon. Flanking him would be Kozlov and Stempniak. Both of these players (especially Kozlov) got a lot of ice time in 2007 and their PC scores need to dialed down to reflect fourth line stature. Kozlov was not that productive per minute of ice time. But he is cheap.

For the press box corps I selected Cammalleri and Michalek.

All of these forwards can score. Nearly all could play the power play. Some of them may have to learn to play some defense for this team.

Overall: This team actually comes in over $1,000,000 under budget. GMs take note – there is only one contract over $5,000,000. Except for goaltenders, there is nearly no level of performance that could justify a contract north of this level.

2007 NHL Review


This is an offensive team (about 50% of PC comes from forwards). I did not set out to make it so. In fact I expected to build a defensive team because I had a thesis that defense is cheaper than offense. The problem turned out to be that there are fewer high performance, low price defensemen than I thought whereas there always seems to be more than a few Kozlovs, scoring like crazy for minimum wage. My new thesis is that there are cheap defenders who don’t get enough ice time … Stay tuned.

These players combined for 2248 PC points. But the playing time of most of these players needs to be scaled back and this team projects out to 1850 PC points (or 185 points in the standings). That would not happen for four reasons:

• There are only 164 points (1640 PC points) up for grabs!!!!

• All of these players want to play on the power play and can’t. A lot of their ice time was on the power play so we ought to let some air out of the PC totals (I could have addressed this but was too lazy).

• Chemistry certainly matters and it is not at all clear that this team has the essential elements to gel.

• Although winning is a linear (additive) function of individual performance over the normal range of team play, this team ain’t normal. A really good team, such as this, faces an increased headwind in its winning percentage. But this team could be a 140 point team … and a Stanley Cup shoo-in.

2007 nhl review 070711 - hockey analyticshockeyanalytics.com/research_files/2007_nhl_review.pdf ·...

Documents