It’s been a paradoxical off-season for the Thrashers. Does anybody else seem confused that Don Waddell has done exactly what he said he would? After seasons and seasons of disappointment, it’s somewhat surprising to go down the least of off-season needs and check them all off. Even the most pessimistic commentator must admit that we’ve picked up all the items on the shopping list.

A Top-6 Forward

While I disagree that we had a major hole in the top-6, conventional wisdom said the Thrashers needed to pick up a top-6 forward. I would say that Kovalchuk – White – Little and Kozlov – Peverley – Armstrong are perfectly acceptable lines, but adding talent is always beneficial (at least when you ignore financial constraints.) Waddell said he’d pick up a top-6 guy… and he did. Nik Antropov may not be ideal, but did anybody think Martin Havlat was coming here? Mike Cammalleri might have fit in, but do you want him for $6 million over 5 years? I sure don’t.

Let’s face facts: Nik Antropov is not a game-changer. He’ll score goals, he’s got a big body… but he’s no superstar…

…and that is perfect for this team. He scored 28 goals in 81 games this past season between Toronto and the Rangers. He’s picked up his scoring year-over-year since the lockout. If you ignore his play with Toronto this year – and let’s not forget how terrible they were – he’s a solid plus-player: +53 over all his NHL years, +31 from 2005 – 2008.

Does Antropov take us from the basement to Stanley Cup contention? Of course not! He’s certainly a step forward. The best way to look at this aquisition is to see which player he’s displacing from the end of last season. Take your pick: Colin Stuart or Eric Perrin.

Is Antropov a step up from Colin Stuart or Eric Perrin? Do I even need to answer that one?

A Top-4 Defenseman

Next up on the wishlist: a top-4 guy to play with Enstrom, Bogosian, and Hainsey. A lot of folks thought we’d part with a goalie to get either the top-6 forward or top-4 defenseman, but in the end, all we had to give up was Garnet Exelby and Colin Stuart.

God knows we all love Exelby… and I thought his play – minus the broken-leg days – was pretty good this year. He seemed to play pretty well with Ron Hainsey. Hainsey had the passing skills that Exelby lacked, so when paired together, Ron helped to cover up his weaknesses. In the end, though, Exelby is not nearly as mobile or pass-proficient to play in the John Anderson system.

Pavel Kubina is. While he doesn’t have the grit of Exelby, he’s got the offensive flair. Last year, Kubina had 14 goals and 26 assists for 40 points. This is an important stat: these both would have been franchise records for the Thrashers. So would his 11 goals / 40 points in 2007-2008 (in just 72 games). He scored 11 or more goals in 3 other seasons prior to that.

The knock against him is the combined -101 over 11 seasons in the NHL, but -87 of that came in his first 4 years with a very, very bad Tampa Bay team. He’s not a shutdown type, and his stats reflect that. The question is whether the offensive-capability he brings is enough to offset any weaknesses in the defensive zone. That remains to be seen.

If you’ve watched the Thrashers enough, though, you’ve probably noticed an infuriatingly common trend: after 40-45 seconds of play in their own defensive zone, the Thrashers will recover the puck only to skate to the red line, dump, and change lines. Repeat. Believe it or not, this isn’t a systems problem, it’s a talent problem. If you’ve got a guy who can’t move the puck quickly and accurately, he’ll carry and dump. (cough cough, Exelby, cough.) If you’ve got a guy who can pass the puck to a teammate – even better, a guy who can carry it into the offensive zone for a shot… think Bogosian – you can break this cycle. Establishing a forecheck can be tricky business, and the more talent you have on the blueline, the easier that’ll be.

I think the John Anderson system will focus on this: no longer will we pair an “offensive defenseman” with a “stay-at-home defenseman.” Every defenseman needs to be able to make clean first passes. Every defenseman needs to be able to carry the puck into the offensive zone. It makes sense: if you don’t have a strong backchecking team (which we don’t) you will get fewer chances to advance zones. You must make the most of each attempt.

This is a statistic that I do not have but wish I did: efficiency of zone-advance. For a player in the defensive-zone who gains possession of the puck, what percentage of the time does he cleanly 1) pass the puck to a teammate in the neutral zone or 2) skate the puck into the offensive zone? Zach Bogosian excels at this. Garnet Exelby does not.

This brings us back to Pavel Kubina: if he can be more efficient at moving the puck forward through the zones, he’ll likely be successful as a Thrasher. From what I’ve seen, he’ll be capable.

It’s tough to lose Colin Stuart. He’s a fantastic third line player and was very effective on the penalty kill. That said, I’m more excited about seeing guys like Kane, Klingberg, and perhaps Machacek have a shot at that spot in the next 2 or 3 years (or for Kane, perhaps sooner.) While Colin scored a few goals during the year, I think a guy with a more natural scoring touch will be even better.

Lock Down the Guys Who Need to Stay

Lehtonen? Check. Armstrong? Check. Reasoner? Check. Salmela? Check. Looks good to me.

We even got these guys for good money! Lehtonen got another deal at $3 million – very reasonable. Colby Armstrong is in that tough range between a third line guy and a second line guy and his contract of $2.4 million reflects that. Reasoner was a bargain at just over a million and Salmela is near the league minimum.

Look at this list and ask yourself… did the Thrashers get better this offseason? I think you’ll agree that they did.

Leaving:

  • Colin Stuart
  • Eric Perrin
  • Garnet Exelby

Joining:

  • Nik Antropov
  • Pavel Kubina
  • Evander Kane?
Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: ,

Folks, I’ve been getting a flood of negativity toward my position on my last post. I’d like to present some additional evidence that shows:

  1. How well Rich Peverley and Colby Armstrong mix
  2. How the Little White Russian line wasn’t really as terrific as everybody thinks

In the mean time, I figured I’d get the audio from the Thrashers Bloggers’ interview with Paul Postma. Most of the questions – heck, basically all of them – were asked by The Falconer. My only excuse is that he asked everything I was planning to ask… and then some. Here’s an mp3…

Interview with Paul Postma

Topics include his style of play, getting traded to Calgary, putting on weight, playing other sports, and his team next year (likely the Wolves.)

Paul Postma represents everything that a Thrashers defenseman should be. He’s 6′3, and while he still could stand to put on a bit of weight, he’s certainly not a “small defenseman.” He’s got a heavy shot, smooth passes, and a good stride. We picked him 205th overall (7th round) in 2007. His stats last year?

70 games played. 23 goals, 61 assists, 84 points. +67.

Yes, as a defenseman, Paul posted enough points to end up tied for 11th in the WHL. He was only 12 points beyond Thrasher prospect Evander Kane (but Kane was only +51.) He was only 4 points behind Brayden Schenn. He led WHL defensemen in scoring by 17 points. He lead his team defensemen in scoring by 23 points. His team-high +67 dwarfed the second-place +50. I could go on…

Sure, Paul was a bit older than many of those guys. The real test will be how he plays at the AHL level. If prospect camp is any indication, he should play very, very well. I think Paul has a legitimate chance to challenge for a spot on the team for 2010-2011 and I don’t say that lightly.

I also recorded audio with Zach Redmond. You can listen to it while you read some analysis over at Wazzupwitchu?

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: ,

Prospect Camp has been fabulous – and I’ll certainly have thoughts for you sometime soon – but it’s my blog, damn it, and I want to talk about Rich Peverley.

“Timmy,” you ask, “why on Earth do you want to write a blog about Peverley when you can talk about Evander Kane? You’ve had months to write a piece on Peverley, why now?”

Well, dear readers, let’s just say this has something to do with Evander Kane. Where does he fit on the Thrashers? If we’re looking at Top-6 guys, we’ve got Kovalchuk, Kozlov, White, Little, Peverley, and Antropov. It’s very unlikely that Kane would bump one of those guys to the 3rd line. Do we play Kane on the 3rd line?

Perhaps. Let’s assume, for a moment, that he also has the “Bogosian Factor” – the ability to jump right in and make a difference this year. Where does that leave us?

If we’re going to evaluate lines, I want to set them up based on one guy… Rich Peverley. There’s two reasons for this.

  1. As we saw with Nashville, put in the wrong role, Rich Peverley is useless. When we had him in a proper role – as a center on a offense-first line – he performed very well.
  2. I lack the tools to analyze data only after a certain date. Since the numbers look VERY different between the first and second half, I need some way to divide the data. If I only look at Peverley’s numbers, I can do that.

So then! Thanks to the Dobber Hockey folks, I can look at line production for Peverley in different combinations. How about a chart?

Rich Peverley's production on various line combinations

Rich Peverley's production on various line combinations

So what can we see here? Well, first off, you have to ignore some of this data. I’d say anything less than 100 shifts is probably too small of a data set to use. Based on that data, it looks like Peverley performed best with Armstrong and one of Kovalchuk or Kozlov. That’s in line with observations I made last year and makes a bit of sense: Peverley and Army are roommates on the road.

Now, just because Peverley plays well with Armstrong and a Russian left-wing doesn’t necessarily mean you want to play one of those combos. Let’s take a look at some of the most popular Top-6 line combos from last year and see how they produce together.

Point production by different Top-6 Line Combinations

Point production by different Top-6 Line Combinations

Remember my point at the beginning of this post: since I can’t trim my data for post-Peverley Thrashers only, lines which played together frequently at the beginning of the season (such as Kozlov – White – Little) will naturally look a little worse in this table. That said… Kozlov and Kovalchuk are both more productive when playing with Peverley and Armstrong than with White and Little. This is, to me, shocking.

Let’s get back to our initial assumption: Evander Kane is ready to be a Thrasher. If you decide to keep Peverley and Armstrong on the same line, as I strongly believe is a good idea, a very clear set of lines starts to appear.

Kovalchuk – Little – Antropov

Kozlov – Peverley – Armstrong

Kane – Reasoner – White

Little and Antropov could easily switch places based on production and comfort, as could White and Reasoner. Kane gets to play with two guys who are very solid defensively, freeing him up to do what he ought to for our team: score goals. I wouldn’t necessarily say you give these three lines equal time at even strength, but you’d certainly play the Kane line a fair bit.

While chemistry is always a difficult thing to predict, the lines above give Evander Kane NHL ice time without throwing off the chemistry and production of your Top-6. The biggest question mark would be whether Little *or* Antropov are capable of playing Center on the line with Kovalchuk.

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: , ,

Hey everybody! The Thrashers organization oh-so-kindly invited several bloggers into the locker room at prospect camp today… including yours-truly! While I left the interviewing to others, prefering to quietly observe. I’ve got some recordings with first-round pick Evander Kane, surprise defensive-talent Paul Postma, and Zach Redmond (who impressed today at camp.)

I’ll post other clips over the next couple days along with some analysis, but I figured I’d pass along the uncut conversation with Kane as soon as possible.

Topics include: hockey in the South, being a role model, boxing and the “Evander” name, Kane’s style of play, where he sees himself going, and “favorite adult beverage…”

Evander Kane at Thrashers Prospect Camp

Like I said… more soon, including my thoughts on Kubina and Antropov. Also, a quick shout-out to all the folks that I met today. Hello, fellow bloggers!

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: , ,

I made an interesting chart that I’d simply love to talk about. I keep hearing this assertion that Don Waddell hasn’t followed through on his plan to build a winning franchise here in Atlanta. I hear complaints about the “5-year, wait, 10-year plan.” The defense of Waddell usually goes like this: “Well, he’s had to deal with a lot of crap.” I tend to agree with that assessment, but I usually point to two specific events: the Heatley Incident and the Playoff Push. Can I prove my point with a chart? Here goes…

Thashers Winning Percentage

So let’s talk about this chart. This is the Thrashers winning percentage over their entire history. You can see markers for each season at the bottom. The X-axis is set at 0.56% or 92 points – this is the approximate winning percentage you’d need to make the playoffs. The chart shows both a 25- and 42-game moving average. These are long periods of time, so keep in mind that they are slightly lagging indicators.

Don Waddell came out with a 5-year plan. Was he on track to make the playoffs in 5 seasons? Basically, yes. If you look at the history up through the end of season 4, the team basically got better and better. (Keep in mind, the chart is a slightly lagging indicator. What you see as playoff-level performance at the beginning of season 5 is actually playoff-level performance at the end of season 4.) Again: by the 5th season, they were sitting at playoff-level performance. But then a precipitous fall…

So what happened in season 5? We see the team performed terribly through the beginning of the season, only to pick it up toward the ending. What happened that year?

Oh yeah, Dany Heatley missed the first 51 games of the season.

You can see an uptick later in the year when he returned.

Don’t blame Don Waddell for the failure of his 5-year plan: if not for Heatley, the 5 year plan would have worked. Hell, as you can see by the chart, they got there. They weren’t a Cup contender by any means, but after 4 seasons, the Thrashers were poised to make the playoffs.

After the 5th season came the lockout. The Thrashers had a strong season, building toward playoff-level performance by the end of season 6 and missing the playoffs by points… even with the Great Goalie-go-Round.

Season 7 was a slide. Getting swept in the playoffs was just a symptom of a larger problem: this team was falling apart. The loss of Marc Savard was instrumental. Scott Mellanby, with 36 points and 40 years of age, was our 4th-leading scorer. Only 3 Thrashers had 20 goals. The firesale of prospects and picks for a playoff push severely depleted the stores of a team that was already heading south.

Bob Hartley was the victim, but my theory is that the loss of Marc Savard was really the final nail in the coffin for this team.

After D0n Waddell stepped in for Hartley, things looked good for awhile, but it was only temporary. The Hossa situation was an additional complication, but it certainly wasn’t solely responsible for the decline. Bad times continued until very late this year: the 25-game moving average finally made it back to playoff territory.

The question of the year – and the metric by which Waddell will either keep or lose his job – is whether the 5-year Plan Part Two can keep the team above the axis. The team is clearly moving in the right direction. The post-trade deadline Thrashers were a playoff-calibre team.

Of course, if Don Waddell can’t re-sign Ilya Kovalchuk, the loss of Marc Savard will seem moderate in comparison.

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

The best time to resign your pending Unrestricted Free Agents is before they become Unrestricted Free Agents. Sure, it may not cause any harm to let them test the waters and see what kind of money they could receive. Some guys have pie-in-the-sky numbers that can quickly be brought back to earth.

But hey, if you can get ink on paper before July 1st, it’s that much better.

Center Marty Reasoner has re-signed with the Atlanta Thrashers for two more years. (Source: http://thrashers.nhl.com/team/app?articleid=425054&page=NewsPage&service=page )

I shouldn’t have to tell you what Marty has meant to the Thrashers. He was – by far – our best penalty-killing forward. He won faceoffs, scored a fair number of goals (14 while playing most of the year on the third line), and brought heart and a veteran presence to a team which lacked both at times.

Marty probably won’t ever hit 20 goals in a season, but you can count on every goal he does score to be the result of his hard work and dedication to his teammates.

Marty, it’s an honor to have you back.

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: , ,

Oh, those Swedish twins.

Henrik and Daniel Sedin, currently of the Vancouver Canucks, will be free agents this summer. They currently bring home $3.575 MM / year (each) and they want to stick together. The odds are that you already know all about the Sedins, so I won’t bore you with the details. What I’m interested in looking at is:

  1. Could we afford them?
  2. Do we want them?
  3. What would a Thrashers + Sedins team look like, anyway?

The Thrashers currently have 11 players signed next year with a $29MM cap hit. These include most of our crucial players – Kovalchuk, Little, White, Kozlov, Peverley, Bogosian, Enstrom, and Hainsey. Assuming that we look to resign Armstrong (at $2MM) Reasoner (at $1-$1.5MM) and Lehtonen (at $4-5MM), we’ll still have significant cap space to fill out our team. By my estimates, we’d be at $37MM with those players. Another 4 or 5 guys will sign near the league minimum, so let’s assume our pre-Sedin cap hit is $40MM. Even if the cap falls, we’d have at least $10-$12 million to work with. Because of the faltering economy, most general managers will not be willing to give large long-term contracts during this off-season as easily as in the past, so there’s a possibility you could sign the Sedins in that range ($5-6MM each).

Are we willing to spend it? Comments from ownership lean toward “we’re willing to spend to put together a winning team,” but who knows what that means? I would think signing the Sedins would go a long way toward convincing Kovalchuk to stay, but it’s certainly no guarantee. And what of our defense? Scoring was never a problem for our team, it was always the Goals Against column that killed us.

The Sedins come with a bonus: they score at a point per game rate (both had 82 points this season) and can play defensively as well. Daniel led Canuck left wings with a +24 and Henrik led centers with a +22. (The runner up at center? Kessler at +8…)

So let’s assume that the defensive play of the Sedins (or perhaps the strong forecheck) could provide the extra “defense” we need, allowing us to stick with our end-of-season defensive lineup. How would our team look with the Sedins?

Kovalchuk – White – Little

Sedin – Sedin – Armstrong

Kozlov – Reasoner – Peverley

Boulton – Slater – Crabb

 

Enstrom – Bogosian

Hainsey – Salmela

Valabik – Exelby

I placed Colby Armstrong with the Sedins because of his blazing speed. (ha ha!) Colby’s a good fit with the Sedins because of his strength in tight situations in the corners and along the boards. He’s got the size to go to the net and has a reasonable ability to score.

But what’s this about Kozlov on the 3rd line? And Peverley too? Am I crazy?

Let’s face it, folks: Kozlov is getting older. By playing him less minutes, he can play more quality minutes. And he’ll certainly play on the Power Play as well. 12-14 minutes might be the sweet spot where Kozlov can still be effective without exhausting himself.

Rich Peverley would simply be the victim of having too many centers. He’d get extra ice time by playing on the PK and occasionally on the Power Play. If Todd White’s very strong 2008-2009 season doesn’t continue in 2009-2010, we’ll have a clear contender to fill the spot. Of course, that might require a different structure across all three lines…

Kovalchuk – Peverley – Armstrong

Sedin – Sedin – Little

Kozlov – White – Reasoner

Rich and Colby showed some chemistry late in the year (they are also roommates on the road) and Army’s looked good with Kovy at times as well. Bryan Little also plays a game amenable to the Sedins as well. Whitey and Marty would be Penalty Kill staples for us in this configuration (and thanks to the reduced even-strength ice-time, they’d be fresher.)

I’m not sold on the Sedins as a move by itself – I think we’d want to move at least one center to make room for them. There’s been talk of moving a goalie this off-season to pick up a good player. I think if we were to package White, a goalie, and perhaps another player and get a top-6 center back, we might be able to cobble together a pretty good team.  The big question is… are we willing to spend the money?

We’ll find out in July!

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: , ,

When I first created this blog and sent the URL out on Twitter, I didn’t intend for many folks to see it. In fact, I didn’t anticipate more than a couple views on any given blog entry. The idea was to “soft launch” the blog; I would start creating some content so that when I launched the site “for real,” it would have more than one or two posts.

Well, the internet works in mysterious ways.

I’ve been getting more traffic than I anticipated, and it’s forcing me to move my schedule up. You’ll notice a new layout and header image. I think this one will stick around for a little bit.

Also, I’m looking for some help. The sad fact is, I can’t blog nearly enough to make this a useful internet destination. What I *can* do is provide the site, bandwith, and editing capabilities. I’m looking for a few folks who have the time to do the write-ups for a solid Thrashers blog and don’t mind having a filter (read: editor) on what they say. I’m not so concerned with what is said as much as how it is said. I notice that far too many blogs forget the basic rules of grammar, spelling, and civil discourse.

If you have any interest in blogging for me, you can reach me at tim@timmyf.com. If you have a sample of your writing, please send it to me. Let me know what sort of topics you’d be interested in writing about: game-day write-ups (previews or summaries), articles, data-driven posts (such as I’ve been writing so far), et cetera.

I’m interested both in folks who have not yet blogged about the Thrashers and current bloggers who may be interested in moving off of their current platform. The end-goal is for this blog to aggregate a variety of different content, hopefully condensing the rather disperse set of Thrashers blogs.

In the next few weeks, I hope to have some content on the draft.

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

There’s a pretty big talking point that’s been going on in the Thrashers blogosphere for the past couple years and I feel it’s time for me to address it. I recognize that my blog is young and has few posts… in fact, I haven’t even properly launched it yet. (Look for a redesign with a reasonable logo sometime this summer…) Still, it seems that so many of our blogs attack Don Waddell (professionally, not personally) and so few argue the other side.

In fact, pro-Waddell sentiment seems to be largely based on the “he can help us re-sign Kovalchuk” case. If you are unfamiliar, it works like this: Kovy respects Waddell.

Yeah, that’s basically it.

My argument for keeping Waddell is perhaps more simplistic, but that doesn’t make it any less true. I believe that Don Waddell is the best man for the job. While he has done some things in the past that can – and perhaps should – be held against him, what’s the use of firing him if you aren’t going to replace him with someone who is better?

Let’s turn the clock back to our 0-6 start to the 2007-2008 season. We were swept out of the playoffs in the spring and started very, very poorly. The decision was made to send Bob Hartley packing… but we didn’t have anybody in mind for coach. Waddell took over and gave a mixed performance: a good start was crushed with a late season collapse (mostly due to the Hossa situation). We didn’t hire a new coach for several reasons: Waddell wanted to give Anderson a shot, but John wanted to finish up the season with the Wolves, and we were also still paying Hartley’s salary. The Thrashers are on a budget, and paying two coaches is an expensive proposition.

Let’s talk budget for a minute as well… you realize that a hockey club costs more to run than player salaries, right? The GM, scouts, coaches, trainers: these folks all get paid. When you have an organization that is budget-minded, these folks take pay cuts as well. (Remember, we *have* to spend to the cap floor for player salaries.) If you need to cut money from payroll, guess where the cuts are made? Scouts, coaches, trainers… Want to know why our drafting hasn’t been as good as clubs like Detroit and New Jersey? I bet we don’t spend as much money on scouting as they do. (If you have actual figures, I’d love to see them.)

Okay, so if we’re going to fire Waddell, we need to make sure we can get a GM who will perform better. The problem is that we aren’t going to spend the money necessary! I can imagine somebody from the Spirit making calls. “Yes, hi, we’d like to talk to you about becoming the General Manager for the Thrashers. I know Atlanta is not a hockey city and you’ll be forced to keep salary near the floor every year, but it’s an exciting opportunity. Sure, it’ll be a huge pay-cut from other cities you could work in, but at least you’ll get little to no recognition in the media!”

I’m sure guys are chomping at the bit to come to Atlanta.

The thing that makes the “Fire Waddell” case even weaker is that he’s started to perform much better as GM in recent years. Let’s look at draft picks who will turn into NHLers (with 50% probability or greater) since the lockout:

  • 2008: Bogosian (1st)
  • 2007: Machacek (3rd) and Postma (7th)
  • 2006: Little (1st) Holzapfel (2nd) Kulda (7th)
  • 2005: Pavalec (2nd) LaVallee (4th)

There are several other players who have a good shot, but it’s too early to tell: Leveille, Paquette, Saponari, Lucenius, Albert, Kangas, Enlund

So our drafting has looked up, how about our waiver-wire fishing? Waddell actually tried to trade for Rich Peverley earlier in the season before he was available on waivers. An obvious pickup? Nashville didn’t think so, they wanted to keep him. If it was such an obvious move, why was the blogosphere not going nuts when Rich was placed on waivers?

And that brings us to trades. We’ve brought in and moved out some players, so it helps to see the full context here:

Marian Hossa and Pascal Dupuis for Colby Armstrong, Eric O’Dell, Daultan Leveille, and Angelo Esposito

This trade also includes the Christensen/O’Dell trade and the drafting of Daultan Leveille. Look at the above line and tell me we didn’t win this one. Hossa was going to walk after the season anyway. We picked up a 20-goal scoring character guy and three prospects. Of those three prospects, two were drafted in the 1st round and the other in the 2nd. We made out like gangbusters on this one.

Ken Klee, Brad Larsen, Chad Painchaud, and a conditional pick (3rd, 4th, or 5th round) for a 2nd round pick in 2009 and a 3rd round pick in 2010

We’ve zeroed out Schneider in this deal. It looks like our conditional pick will be a 3rd rounder (as Montreal will likely be ousted by Boston in the quarterfinals) so you can think of this as Klee, Larsen, and Painchaud for a 2nd round pick. Is anybody really unhappy with that? Oh, and it got us above the cap floor as well.

Those are two examples. You can see my analysis of Havelid for Salmela in a previous post. But here’s the one everybody loves to talk about…

Braydon Coburn for Alexei Zhitnik

Am I the only one who remembers how bad Coburn looked when he played here? He looked absolutely lost on the ice, it was terrible. He was worse for us than Valabik has been this year (and I’ve suggested we hang on to Boris a bit longer so we don’t potentially make the same mistake as with Braydon). Zhitnik came in and performed hugely for us. In 18 games to end the season, Alexei had 2 goals and 12 assists. That’s 0.78 points/game as a defenseman! Even Ron Hainsey’s record-setting year (points in a season) for our franchise was only at a pace of 0.48 points/game. While Hainsey was a -16 for us this year, Zhitnik’s 18 game run came with a +4. 

So what happened the next year? Who knows. Maybe it was conditioning, maybe it was differences in style of play. The guy fell apart… is that Don’s fault? Sure, a bit. But forgetting how well the trade looked during those 18 games leads most folks to a very different conclusion.

How about free agent signings? Hainsey’s been good, but Marty Reasoner is the real standout to me. There’s a guy who works hard every game and can put the puck in the net on occasion as well.

While I recognize that Don has been General Manager for a long time, it’s also important to note that we got better every year until we sent away our young talent to make the playoffs. It seems like we’ve learned our lesson: we’re building the way a team is supposed to build, through the draft. We’ve got a good group of coaches in place to work with our young guys (including former Sabres-organization whiz Randy Cunneyworth) and the team is starting to believe in itself. The 17-10-1 finish should be enough indication that this team is heading in the right direction.

I’m not the type to say “don’t change horses mid-stream,” it is often necessary. We’ve got a good thing building up in Atlanta, though. Now is not the time to rock the boat. Waddell has one last chance: he needs to get Kovalchuk re-signed. If he fails to do that, I’ll be in the angry mob with the rest of you, calling for his head.

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: ,

Conventional Wisdom suggests that games are won and lost by special teams: if you can kill penalties and score on the power play, you will be a successful team in the NHL.

And sure, that’s easy to accept, but is it causality (special teams play leads to wins) or just correlation (good teams play good special teams)?

While I am no statistician – and believe you me, I am both mindful and thankful for that every minute of my life – I think I’ve devised a simple little experiment which will allow us to test this Conventional Wisdom. Here’s how it works:

Create three lists: the first list will rank the teams by 5-on-5 goals for / goals against. I’ll call this our “Even Strength” ratio. Yes, we’re leaving out 4-on-4 (and 3-on-3) situations, but those are special situations that will be difficult to factor into our list. It’s simpler (and I believe better) to just ignore them. The second list will rank teams by their “Special Teams Rating” – Power Play Percentage plus Penalty Kill Percentage. The rule-of-thumb is that teams over 100 are playoff teams and teams under 100 are not. The third list will have the teams ranked by current number of points.

The test here will be to see if one of our first two lists matches the third list better than the other. To test this, I’ll determine the difference in ranks between the 1-and-3 and 2-and-3 and find the standard deviation of those number sets.

Are you still with me? Great. Here’s our results:

Standard Deviation between Points per Game and 5-on-5 Goals For / Goals Against: 4.93

Standard Deviation between Points per Game and Special Teams Rating: 8.54

For the record, I hadn’t calculated the numbers before writing this post. But I think this shows that the “Special Teams Rating” that many talk about – looking at penalty kill and power play – mean less to a team than we may like to think. Sure, the Thrashers have a dreadful penalty kill and it hurts them greatly, but the Thrashers are also something of a reverse case. They are 6 places from their 5v5 spot (ranked 26th in record, 24th in Special Teams Rating, but 20th in 5v5 play).

What immediately becomes visible, however, are cases for the following teams:

  • Columbus: Ranked 14th, but 5th while 5-on-5 and 26th in Special Teams. Columbus shows us that a team which has terrible special teams – mostly due to a woeful power play – can make up for it in 5-on-5. Another example of that is…
  • New Jersey: Ranked 4th, the Devils have a Special Teams Rank of 16 – which suggests they’d finish at the bottom of the playoff contenders. Their strong play while 5-on-5 (ranked 2nd) has elevated them to a Cup contender.
  • Minnesota: Despite having the 2nd-best Special Teams Rating (with the help of an astounding 87.4% penalty kill), the Wild are mired in 21st thanks to their 24th-ranked 5-on-5 play.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Take the following teams as an example:

  • New York Rangers: A 24th-ranked 5-on-5 ratio doesn’t hold the Rangers back from being ranked 13th overall. The Rangers have an 11th-ranked Special Teams Ratio. Is that the key to their success? If so, you would expect the Rangers to have more opportunities on the Power Play, but they come in at 15th in Power Play Opportunities and 18th in Shorthanded Situations. In this case, the Rangers are simply an outlier.
  • Philadelphia: The Flyers follow the same outlier case as the Rangers, but find themselves shorthanded the 2nd most number of times in the NHL. Their 82.9% Penalty Kill would be expected to sway their overall position more. (The Flyers are ranked 7th, but are only 14th in 5-on-5. They have the 4th-best STR.)

The conclusion, therefore, can be stated very simply: In general, most teams will trend toward winning or losing more closely with their full-strength performance, not special teams performance. There are cases where having strong special teams can offset poor performance at even-strength – or vice-versa – but these cases are found primarily in teams that take (or draw) and exceptional number of penalties.

For Thrashers fans, if you think I’m kidding, I simply suggest you look at these two numbers. These are the penalty kill percentages for two teams:

Thrashers: 75.2%

Red Wings: 77.6%

Share this post via...
  • Twitter
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us

Tags: , ,

« Older entries