Hockey ain't Baseball, stats-lovers

Jason Gregor
January 24 2009 03:29PM

Sabremetrics and Moneyball have worked in baseball, but would the same work in hockey?

To me the sports are just too different to allow statistical data to overtake live scouting. Willis mentioned Sabremetrics as a key to the success of the Red Sox, and while I agree it had something to do with their success, I think JW missed an obvious statistical equation with Epstein and the Red Sox: money.

Look at their salaries compared to other teams. To say it was Sabremetrics that won them the World Series, without at least mentioning their gross salary advantage is a bit misleading.

Moneyball makes a much better argument because Oakland made the playoffs four out of the last nine years with a payroll that was always in the bottom ten of team salaries, and three of those years in the bottom five. They had half and sometimes 1/3 of the salary of the Yanks and Red Sox.

Billy Beane's theory worked to get them to the playoffs, but only once did they win a series. Epstein made the playoffs but the Red Sox were always in the top five in salary, so I think their success is based as much, if not more, on money as Sabermetrics. If anything, the Red Sox championships prove why baseball needs a true salary cap. Sure, the Rays -- after years of being the laughingstock of the league -- made the playoffs last year, but how long before they lose all of their young players to free agency? It's a joke when you have the Yanks at $209 million, which is $70 million more than any other team, and almost FIVE times more than the Rays $43 million. I think Moneyball and Sabermetrics was more a product of survival than anything else.

The other reason why stats work better in baseball is that every play starts the exact same way. The pitcher pitches, and the batter tries to hit it. Sure there are lefties and righties to take into the equation, but the play always starts in the exact same spot.

That is not the case in hockey, nor will it ever be. Players have to react much more quickly in many different areas of the game. That doesn't mean stats aren't valuable in hockey, and are becoming more common, but the variables in hockey differ from play-to-play and situation-to-situation much more than they do in baseball.

Baseball junkies don't pipe up and say that hitting a fastball or change up is harder, because I agree it is super tough, but that is more of a twitch muscle reaction and great hand eye coordination. The game of baseball is not as fast, thus split second decisions in hockey happen more frequently. An average hockey player has to make 500-600 decision a game, (based on 13 minutes of icetime), and most of them have to made instantly.

In baseball it's different, thus the stats can better show the attributes of a player. In hockey, for the same type of stats to work, you would have to break every play down, with every variable. Teams forecheck differently, sometimes a D-man makes a pass with no pressure, while other times he is pressured by the opposition. Are some D-men better at passing across their body, or straight up the ice?

Face-off stats for example could be more accurate if you had: taken on forehand v. backhand... and whether the opponent was on his forehand or backhand. Most guys are naturally better drawing it back on their backhand. I'm sure those stats are coming, but in a game that relies a lot on pure instincts and split second decisions, I think it's harder to find accurate statistical data that will back up whether a player is contributing to his team.

In baseball, a great defensive infielder has amazing reaction time, and the error stat backs it up. In hockey, I don’t see giveaways as an accurate enough stat, especially because guys who handle the puck more often will obviously have more giveaways. Hemsky has led the Oilers in giveaways for many years, but no one thinks he can’t handle the puck.

Also in Sabremetrics, they feel that drafting a college ball player has a much higher rate of success than drafting a high school player. We will need to see at least a 15-20 year study to see if this is indeed true. That doesn’t seem to be the case in hockey. Almost all of the top young players have come from Major Junior or the European leagues the last ten years, and beyond. Crosby, Kane, Oveckin, Phaneuf, Getzlaf, Carter, Richards, Malkin to name a few.

Currently in the top 30 scorers the only two to play college were Zack Parise, and he left after two seasons and Todd White (**Side note -- Todd White top 30 in scoring: I’d love the statistical breakdown on how that is possible. Todd freaking White! Nothing explains why he's there

But I digress. I'm never one to automatically shun something just because it is different, and I think that some statistical analysis can show sides of a hockey player we never looked at before, but at the same time I think too much of it could make the game robotic.

The best part about hockey is the raw emotion and excitement. The end-to-end rush, a tic-tac-toe goal, a bone-crushing hit, the elation of the crowd, the willingness of a player to try and block a Souray or Chara shot (I’ll take Souray in an upset in the hardest shot later today -- 105 for Souray, 104 Chara), a spirited scrap and most of all the mistakes that lead to odd-man rushes or even better goals.

The speed of the game is increasing all of the time, thus the players have to react even quicker, and that will lead to great plays, but also mistakes which the game needs.

I appreciate baseball for the nuances it has, but I also realize it is a much slower game and for me personally not nearly as exciting. Hockey is too fast to break it down in the same fashion as baseball, and that is what makes it great.

Of course hockey could use an upgrade in certain statistical areas, but to breakdown every aspect of the game would be too difficult and I can’t see how the data would be accurate. The guys making the grades are just as likely to make mistakes as the players on the ice. Like I said, I can see areas that it could help, but until they come up with stats for heart, determination, a willingness to compete and battle I just can’t see how a contact sport can rely on statistical data as much as a non-contact sport like baseball.

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#1 Hockey Gods
January 24 2009, 03:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

All this stats talk is making my brain hurt. Lets talk about Sourays hotness, or Nilsson's smirk.

Avatar
#2 Jonathan Willis
January 24 2009, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

That's an excellent article, Jason. In all sincerity, a very good job, with a lot of good points, including the Red Sox caveat.

I do have three points, if you don't mind, and I'm not trying to be smarmy or argumentative:

1. On Todd White: White's been on the ice for 10 goals with Kovalchuk in 163 minutes of EV ice-time, and only 22 goals for in 455 minutes apart. So Kovalchuk's a big help. When he isn't playing with Kovalchuk at evens, it looks like he's playing butter-soft minutes (ranked 9th among forwards by Behind the Net, with Kovalchuk ranked 2nd); so while Kovalchuk's line takes the heavies, he can score some points. Finally, fully half of his points come from playing on Atlanta's first-unit PP; while they don't have a great powerplay overall, the first unit, with Kovalchuk on it, is dynamite. So when you factor in that he kills with Kovalchuk in limited ice-time at evens, and with a lot of time on the powerplay, and then that he's playing butter-soft minutes when he isn't with Kovalchuk, his offensive output makes some sense.

2. You always need to know the character of players, and a number cannot and will not tell you that. Avery, as I've mentioned previously, is an excellent player - strictly by the numbers. Still, his effect on a team's cohesion, and the kind of antics he engages in are huge. Human emotion really can't be assigned a number, and there's always going to be a need to know how willing a player is to go into the dirty areas and so on.

3. I agree that baseball's a game much better suited to statistical analysis than hockey. But what about weather patterns? There are more variables, the situation is far less regulated, and on top of that the data is not only much more difficult to gather but fluctuates with greater frequency. Surely hockey, a five players aside sport played with strict rules, in an enclosed environment, and with the capability of complete observation lends itself to such analysis in a better way? Or, if you don't like the weather analogy, what about economics, or market research, or virtually any other scientific field? Observation's more difficult, and there are generally more variables, and yet mathematical analysis is the best way to make predictions. Why wouldn't that apply to hockey as well?

Avatar
#3 Helicopter Guy
January 24 2009, 04:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Awesome article and response by Willis. Very well thought out and thought provoking. All I'm clear about now is that statistical analysis of the game must incorporate many weighted variables in order for the result to be contextually relevant. It seems to me that the human side of hockey doesn't plug into the spreadsheet so good and often represents a significant part of the game.

Long story short - This has just reminded me part of why I love the sport so much. A multi-faceted game that gets deeper as you experience more of it. Oh yeah - also reminds me how much watching golf and baseball bore me.

Avatar
#4 MattN
January 24 2009, 04:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

The problem at this point is that hockey stats are still in their infancy. Stat geeks still don't have an agreed upon way to measure the game, much less using those measurements to make meaningful observations. Gabriel Dejardin is the leader in this area almost by default. His website has given us the numbers that JW, Lowetide and others use in their posts.

I think that their will be more movement towards this area as time goes on. As more and more young people who are comfortable with statistical models move into the business of running hockey teams, it will become as important as the older "saw him good" way of looking at players.

BTW Jason,

Any talk of contact sports not being able to use advanced statistical data is blown out of the water by doing a quick google search on "football advanced stats".

Avatar
#5 Dropping Deuces
January 24 2009, 05:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I have crunched the numbers for the Oil and I have the statistical probabilty of the Oilers making the playofss:

Souray+Hemsky-MacT=5th seed

Avatar
#6 Jason Gregor
January 24 2009, 05:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

MattN wrote:

Any talk of contact sports not being able to use advanced statistical data is blown out of the water by doing a quick google search on “football advanced stats”.

Difference again in football is that each play starts essentially the same way...That is what makes hockey unique, and I suspect a reason why there are more statistical analysis for football and baseball compared to hockey to date.

Avatar
#7 Cam
January 24 2009, 06:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I really think it takes a combination of stats and observations to really get a good idea of what is happening. One without the other leads to mistakes. I hope that the Oilers have people on staff picking apart sats before these big trades are made. I alos hope they don't move to a system where intangibles like Moreau's heart aren't considered when making a decision.

Avatar
#8 Chris
January 24 2009, 06:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Great debate. I think it is easy to put too much stock in a theory or conclusion derrived from statistical analysis. Not because a correct breakdown of good data leads to false conclusions; but because false conclusions are derrived from poor data. When the entire NHL and hockey community at large embrace advanced statistical analysis I beleive the numbers, or data inputs, will improve. I rarely agree with the hit count, shot clock, or TOI totals if I pay specific attention... poor data= poor conclusions. More importantly, a statistician often subconciously uses numbers that tend to support a preconcieved notion. I was involved in a school project where three groups of people unknown to each other, from different demographics were given the same question and access to the same data pool. Is anyone surprised that all three groups of people arrived at completely different conclusions? Willis when you run numbers to support a theory like Hemskey is a superior hockey player to LeCavlier... Are you running a pure study or subconciously supporting a preconcieved notion? Instead of saying LeCavlier is overrated, try saying, "These numbers that I pulled from various websites suggest, LeCavlier might not be as defensively responsible as Hemskey. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the game tape." The numbers should not be the conclusion but the impetuous to take another look. That's it.

Avatar
#9 Dennis
January 24 2009, 06:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

If you truly don't want to believe, then you'll convince yourself that there's no need to.

Enough of what Desjardins generates passes enough sniff tests as to warrant serious consideration.

I think Beane's point about college players was here was a way of figuring out the best way to utilize a pick. College guys are more mature and get to the bigs needing less seasoning time so it makes more sense to draft guys who are closer.

Avatar
#10 David S
January 24 2009, 06:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Helicopter Guy wrote:

...statistical analysis of the game must incorporate many weighted variables in order for the result to be contextually relevant.

Excellent. The word of the day my friends is contextual. Many of the "weighted variables" in hockey are qualitative in nature due to the speed of the game and resultant non-linear decision-making process (as Jason outlined above). To my mind, that is the sort of data only achievable by a combination of personal experience at the pro level and ongoing, first-hand interaction with the players. Without which, the analysis is based heavily on interpretation of quantitative data with little valid inferential capability.

I've often seen this in marketing. Stats will give you the basic knowledge. They are in fact a starting point. But without the contextual experience to interpret that knowledge, you have just enough information to be dangerous. Yet you'd be surprised how often people hang onto those stats like they came from the lord himself, despite the fact that they have no real understanding of what the numbers they see in front of them actually mean.

I don't have a problem with hockey fans having fun with stats, but it crosses the line when those fans make assumptions about the data in such a way as to make it sound like they actually know what's going on with the players or the team. Truth is, they don't. So in fact, more often than not their analysis is flawed at best and just plain wrong at worst.

*Strangely enough, a guy like Gregor who has the access advantages and a good understanding of the pro game would be able to do a proper statistical analysis if he were so inclined.

At the end of the day, the stats-based arguments are fun for me to read. But it gets tiring when those arguments are taken as serous stuff and not to be trifled with. Heck, how many times have I seen interweb arguments where the conversation comes to the point of an online bar room brawl because others don't take their work as "serious stuff". It's really quite laughable without knowing the things teams tend to keep secret as long as possible like Horcoff has a nagging back injury or Gagner has a suspect ankle injury.

Avatar
#11 RobinB
January 24 2009, 06:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I know this is a mathematics website, but how about young Andrew Cogliano winning the fastest skater at the all-star game?

Avatar
#12 RBK
January 24 2009, 07:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RobinB wrote:

I know this is a mathematics website, but how about young Andrew Cogliano winning the fastest skater at the all-star game?

He did? I didn't realize that young star players got to compete in the skills competition.

Math site LOL

Avatar
#13 David S
January 24 2009, 07:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin - Yeah Ok. Bah-hahaha!

Chara - Ridiculous move! That would have brought the house down.

Avatar
#14 Dropping Deuces
January 24 2009, 08:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

didn't most of the oilers go under 14 in their skills competition?

Avatar
#15 RobinB
January 24 2009, 08:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Dropping Deuces: Hometown timing . . .

Avatar
#16 Ender
January 24 2009, 08:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Chris wrote:

Willis when you run numbers to support a theory like Hemskey is a superior hockey player to LeCavlier… Are you running a pure study or subconciously supporting a preconcieved notion? Instead of saying LeCavlier is overrated, try saying, “These numbers that I pulled from various websites suggest, LeCavlier might not be as defensively responsible as Hemskey. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the game tape.” The numbers should not be the conclusion but the impetuous to take another look. That’s it.

David S wrote: At the end of the day, the stats-based arguments are fun for me to read. But it gets tiring when those arguments are taken as serous stuff and not to be trifled with. Heck, how many times have I seen interweb arguments where the conversation comes to the point of an online bar room brawl because others don’t take their work as “serious stuff”.

Well said, both of you. Now, to put that in context, I'm not saying this about Jonathan, since he is pretty good about that. That said, a lot of the interweb arguments Staples is talking about likely involve me not taking the stats as "serious stuff." Like I said, in the other thread, I'm fine with the pursuit, and I've offered to host a wiki to that end (so that people could work together and actually progress these data sets into something that might be useful - if not for fans, then for the coaches/GMs) but outside of Jonathan who gave a nervous yes, the idea was ignored.

It's become less a matter of "why don't people care about stats" or "why are idiots the ones who ignore stats the most" but much more a matter of "why do people feel the need to have so much control over the truth value of contextless data?"

Avatar
#17 namflashback
January 24 2009, 10:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Umm, why does this conversation always turn into ONE OF observation vs statistics? The answer is BOTH.

No statistic tells the entire story of the ebb and flow of a game or a series of games nor does it take into account the shoddy game of a player with the flu (Souray vs San Jose, yet they won the game).

However, as a mechanism to make sure that there is substance to what we see on the ice, it can and should be damn useful. Why would we, or certainly why would the management of the team, ignore a useful tool that can help "smooth out" the subjective opinions of those who watch. It rarely works on a micro level of observation (a play or single game), but is really descriptive on the longer term (10 games in a stretch)

For example, although Sam Gagner struggled during his first 25-30 games on the scoresheet, when I watched many of those games, I thought to myself that he was still getting and creating a significant number of scoring chances. Some of the statistical analysis I read backed that up. It helped affirm something I watched.

Why choose one or the other, both make for a rich and interesting perspective on the sport.

Avatar
#18 Jonathan Willis
January 24 2009, 10:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ Chris:

I'll tell you this - you've got a great point, and the simple fact of the matter is that I think we're all learning on this stuff (especially me).

Take the Lecavalier instance below. I went in thinking that Lecavalier's always been a bit overrated (strangely enough, that wasn't based on the numbers so much as on what I've seen of his play - hence my anger at the "watch the game" comments). In any case, when the numbers looked really bad, I should have realized that something's not right - I mean, I still think there's a drop-off between the Thorntons and the Lecavaliers of the world, but it shouldn't have been so pronounced. That should have made me go back and account for the Lightning's weakness in the shot-clock department anyways, and adjust the numbers accordingly, but I didn't clue in because I had my point that I felt was validated.

I do strongly feel that the stats have good value, so I don't want to drive folks away from thinking about the game differently because I messed one particular area up, which is unfortunately going to happen from time to time because I'm a long ways from perfect and I'm still finding my sea legs in this particular field.

Oh, and about real-time stats: the hit counts are bizarrely off and biased from arena to arena, but the shots are generally pretty close and the time on ice is probably the most accurate, at least from what I've seen. Since you've mentioned it, I'm going to try and keep on eye on those latter two, which I've always thought were reliable.

Avatar
#19 Jonathan Willis
January 24 2009, 10:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

namflashback wrote:

Umm, why does this conversation always turn into ONE OF observation vs statistics? The answer is BOTH.

That's a remarkably sane and well-grounded viewpoint for an internet forum.

Although I've got to say, I've been very impressed with the discourse in the last two threads; especially since I don't think anyone's called me an idiot yet ;)

Avatar
#20 Travis Dakin
January 24 2009, 10:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Sweet let me be the first! You're an idiot! Yes! haha I love you Willis. You are the man.

Avatar
#21 Travis Dakin
January 24 2009, 10:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Much love to my Nation brothers.

Avatar
#22 Matt N
January 24 2009, 10:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jonathan Willis wrote:

namflashback wrote: That’s a remarkably sane and well-grounded viewpoint for an internet forum. Although I’ve got to say, I’ve been very impressed with the discourse in the last two threads;

If you are looking for a little crazy, I dare you to do some kind of statistical analysis of The Hockey Jesus or Mac-T's coaching.

Avatar
#23 Matt N
January 24 2009, 10:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jason Gregor wrote:

MattN wrote: Any talk of contact sports not being able to use advanced statistical data is blown out of the water by doing a quick google search on “football advanced stats”. Difference again in football is that each play starts essentially the same way…That is what makes hockey unique, and I suspect a reason why there are more statistical analysis for football and baseball compared to hockey to date.

Um, no. The reason that football, baseball or basketball have a wider and deeper set of data and analysis is because they have more smart people doing it and they have been doing it longer. Hockey hasn't found it's Bill James yet.

Avatar
#24 B.C.B.
January 24 2009, 10:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jason Gregor wrote:

Difference again in football is that each play starts essentially the same way…That is what makes hockey unique, and I suspect a reason why there are more statistical analysis for football and baseball compared to hockey to date.

I suspect there is more stats done in football and baseball because of the betting that goes on. If hockey had the same amount of cash flowing through Vegas and Italian delis I am sure there would be better advanced stats on hockey. Why do the NFL and MLB have far more open injury policies? Same reason. I am sure if there were billions to lose each week, there would be more reliable stats for hockey too, because some would have a vested interest in producing them.

PS: the Deli comment comes from my new obsession with the Sopranos, sorry if offended anyone

Avatar
#25 David S
January 24 2009, 11:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Although I’ve got to say, I’ve been very impressed with the discourse in the last two threads; especially since I don’t think anyone’s called me an idiot yet

Considering how a discussion like this over at LT's pretty much got to the point of guys settling things behind the bike racks after class, the civility here borders on amazing.

Avatar
#26 Celebral
January 25 2009, 12:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Nah, Dellow deserves a sound beating.

Avatar
#27 Tyguy
January 25 2009, 02:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RobinB wrote:

I know this is a mathematics website, but how about young Andrew Cogliano winning the fastest skater at the all-star game?

He would win 9 times out of 10, 99 times out of 100.

Avatar
#28 David S
January 25 2009, 03:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RobinB wrote:

I know this is a mathematics website, but how about young Andrew Cogliano winning the fastest skater at the all-star game?

I'm still plenty impressed that Cole dropped him like a bad habit here in Edmonton.

Avatar
#29 Smokin' Ray
January 25 2009, 09:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

David S wrote:

Jonathan Willis wrote: Although I’ve got to say, I’ve been very impressed with the discourse in the last two threads; especially since I don’t think anyone’s called me an idiot yet Considering how a discussion like this over at LT’s pretty much got to the point of guys settling things behind the bike racks after class, the civility here borders on amazing.

That's what makes this a premier site. I hope that kind of stuff doesn't come around here. I have noticed a change in the past month. New posters are around. And that's a good thing. The Nation is growing. Let's just hope they can continue on in an appropriate manner like BaggedMilk and JeanShorts do. No wait. Bad example. Ummmmm.?.?.

Avatar
#30 dr_oil
January 25 2009, 10:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Sports/Matheson+Hockey+World/1215998/story.html

Gregor, Robin, either of you have anything to say about the Vinny rumour? I enjoy coming here to hear what you guys have to say so anything you can add would be nice to hear / read.

Avatar
#31 Ender
January 25 2009, 10:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

David S wrote:

Jonathan Willis wrote: Although I’ve got to say, I’ve been very impressed with the discourse in the last two threads; especially since I don’t think anyone’s called me an idiot yet Considering how a discussion like this over at LT’s pretty much got to the point of guys settling things behind the bike racks after class, the civility here borders on amazing.

Refreshing, isn't it?

Avatar
#32 RobinB
January 25 2009, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ dr_oil: I spoke to Matty this morning when I read the item you posted the link to. While Jim hasn't been told by anybody with the Oilers they've inquired about Lecavalier, it's a sensible assumption -- thus he worded it carefully -- on his part.

The Oilers have been much more aggressive under the new CBA in getting themselves in the running for players -- the offer sheets to Vanek and Penner, the pursuit of Hossa etc., so it's no stretch to believe they will or already have let Brian Lawton know they're interested in getting in on the bidding for Lecavalier if the Lightning decides to move him.

Avatar
#33 Rick
January 25 2009, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RobinB wrote:

@ dr_oil: I spoke to Matty this morning when I read the item you posted the link to. While Jim hasn’t been told by anybody with the Oilers they’ve inquired about Lecavalier, it’s a sensible assumption — thus he worded it carefully — on his part.

So is it safe to chalk up the timing of Matty's blurb and Garrioch's peice as coincidental timing or is there a little more out there that Matty simply wasn't able to confirm?

Garrioch usually warrants an outright dismissal in terms of accuracy but both segments at the same time does make it a little more interesting.

Avatar
#34 RobinB
January 25 2009, 10:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ dr_oil: One other thing: don't be fooled by Lawton's denials about contemplating moving Lecavalier.

While it might be true the Lightning and Oilers have not talked about the specific package of players Lawton is poo-pooing in the papers today, that doesn't lessen the likelihood Tampa is at least listening to various offers.

I'm told Lawton has talked to Glen Sather in New York at least once. Lawton will deny that, of course, but I believe the source to be solid.

GMs like to throw people off by issuing denials about reports, but those denials are often made if any SINGLE aspect of the report is wrong. If, for instance, team X is offering two players, a first-round pick and a prospect for Player A, but the real offer is two players, a first-round pick and a second-rounder (not a prospect), the GM will flatly deny the report even if the teams are talking. That way he can say, "Well, I denied it because that wasn't what was on the table . . ."

Avatar
#35 Dropping Deuces
January 25 2009, 11:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RobinB wrote:

@ dr_oil: One other thing: don’t be fooled by Lawton’s denials about contemplating moving Lecavalier. While it might be true the Lightning and Oilers have not talked about the specific package of players Lawton is poo-pooing in the papers today, that doesn’t lessen the likelihood Tampa is at least listening to various offers. I’m told Lawton has talked to Glen Sather in New York at least once. Lawton will deny that, of course, but I believe the source to be solid. GMs like to throw people off by issuing denials about reports, but those denials are often made if any SINGLE aspect of the report is wrong. If, for instance, team X is offering two players, a first-round pick and a prospect for Player A, but the real offer is two players, a first-round pick and a second-rounder (not a prospect), the GM will flatly deny the report even if the teams are talking. That way he can say, “Well, I denied it because that wasn’t what was on the table . . .”

Lecavallier to the Oilers (e3)

- Dropping Deuces

Avatar
#36 dr_oil
January 25 2009, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Thanks Robin, certainly no surprise by the denial from Lawton, pretty much skimmed that part of the article as it's no surprise, but like Rick says, the timing of both articles was curious.

I also had a thought about Tampa actually liking the offer from the Oilers but maybe Viny himself wasn't excited about coming here. He seemed to go out of his way this weekend saying how much he loves Montreal. Was that his way of letting his GM, the Oilers and maybe everyone else know where he wants to go, if he goes?

Lawton could be in full denial based on the fact the trade won't happen because of Vinny himself.

Avatar
#37 RobinB
January 25 2009, 11:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ dr_oil: That's right. It's no secret Montreal has been linked most often with Lecavalier, for all the obvious reasons.

Like you said, Lawton is safe issuing a denial about Edmonton if Lecavalier has whispered in his ear: "Don't even think about trading me there."

Avatar
#38 Dropping Deuces
January 25 2009, 11:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

RobinB wrote:

@ dr_oil: That’s right. It’s no secret Montreal has been linked most often with Lecavalier, for all the obvious reasons. Like you said, Lawton is safe issuing a denial about Edmonton if Lecavalier has whispered in his ear: “Don’t even think about trading me there.”

Why doesn't someone tell Vinny he would be on a line with Penner. That might change his mind.

Seriously though, we would have to unload Horcoffs contract in this deal or find someone else who will trade for it. Obviously Cogs or Gagne would be in the package along with Gilbert/Grebs, picks, what else?

Avatar
#39 Chris
January 25 2009, 01:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

There are actually 6 former NCAA players in the top 30 in NHL scoring: Zach Parise, Martin St. Louis, Mike Cammalleri, Todd White, Thomas Vanek, and Dany Heatley.

When you consider that there are really only 20-30 NCAA programs producing NHL players, those numbers are comparable to any one Canadian junior league or European country.

Furthermore, in baseball, if you looked at just the top 5-10 players, it's mostly foreign players from Latin America, or wunderkinds that are able to play in the pros as an 18 or 19 year old. The idea of drafting college players applies more to the middle-of-the-pack guys, and to some extent, that trend has happened in the NHL as well, where it is becoming more and more common for teams to try and sign older, undrafted free agents from the NCAA to fill out their roster, because there is a higher rate of success and more immediate return on an older player.

Avatar
#40 Tyler
January 25 2009, 01:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Nah, Dellow deserves a sound beating.

?

Moneyball makes a much better argument because Oakland made the playoffs four out of the last nine years with a payroll that was always in the bottom ten of team salaries, and three of those years in the bottom five. They had half and sometimes 1/3 of the salary of the Yanks and Red Sox.

Oakland made the playoffs five out of the past five years, but that's not a big complaint.

Billy Beane’s theory worked to get them to the playoffs, but only once did they win a series.

Either you believe in luck in a small sample playoff series or you don't but the A's lost four first round series 3-2. All of the research in baseball indicates that luck (or bounces or whatever) is huge in a single game. The A's seemed to have an awful lot of bizarre losses along the way, the Jeter play and Tejada getting called out against Boston amongst them.

Personally, I have an awful hard time chalking a five game playoff loss against a team when a series can turn on someone making a play like Jeter did against them. There's just a ton of luck and timing in these things. The Oilers were six minutes away from going down 3-0 against the Sharks (hockey's version of the A's these days) in 2005-06. Raffi scores and all is right with the world. It's sports. Things happening in small samples is not unexpected.

Epstein made the playoffs but the Red Sox were always in the top five in salary, so I think their success is based as much, if not more, on money as Sabermetrics.

Lots of teams have spent piles of money over the course of baseball history without making the playoffs. The Red Sox have spent tons of money, sure, but they've also made the playoffs virtually every season. Epstein also basically turned the team over from 2004 to 2007 and won again. While they obviously spend a ton of money, they seem to spend it pretty well. They're undoubtedly one of the best big salary teams in baseball history.

Sure, the Rays — after years of being the laughingstock of the league — made the playoffs last year, but how long before they lose all of their young players to free agency? It’s a joke when you have the Yanks at $209 million, which is $70 million more than any other team, and almost FIVE times more than the Rays $43 million.

Since you're a playoff success guy, I'm sure that you're aware that, of the last eight World Series, only the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals have played in more than one, and they've all played in two. The point I'm driving at is that, even with the payroll issues, the playoffs in baseball have a large crapshoot aspect to them and, while money spent wisely can buy you better odds, it's probably not a huge difference.

IIRC, TB has most most of their key guys locked up for five+ years, whether becasue of contracts or their arb status.

I think Moneyball and Sabermetrics was more a product of survival than anything else.

Bill James first started doing the writing that's provided the underpinning for a lot of the sabr stuff in the mid-1970's. The Yankees of the late 90's were sabr clubs, in that they were high OBP teams. I'm pretty sure that that's referenced in Moneyball. Your statement is just wrong.

An average hockey player has to make 500-600 decision a game, (based on 13 minutes of icetime), and most of them have to made instantly.

While I'm not sure how you've calculated this, the question is how many of those decisions matter, in the sense of having an immediate impact on the scoresheet. I place that number a lot lower. Take Hemsky with the puck crossing centre ice - he can pass it off, dump it in, try to skate it in...sure, there's a decision to be made but no matter what he does, it's unlikely to result in a goal either way. What's of value is the sum of his decisions over time and that's going to be reflected in the SF/SA numbers, the GF/GA numbers and more esoteric numbers like where the faceoffs at the end of his shifts happen. While I recognize that there's a valid point to be made that there's a lot more stuff happening in a hockey game, I don't know that I quite agree that there's a lot more stuff happening that ultimately has a significant impact on anything.

Face-off stats for example could be more accurate if you had: taken on forehand v. backhand… and whether the opponent was on his forehand or backhand. Most guys are naturally better drawing it back on their backhand. I'm not sure that backhand v. forehand is the interesting thing...I'd like to see it recorded where in the zone a faceoff was taken. From that and knowing hte players involved, you can start to get a sense if certain players have "hot spots" or "cold spots", in terms of the location of the faceoff and handedness of the other player, which will dictate what the player is trying to do. I'd bet that teams track it. In baseball, a great defensive infielder has amazing reaction time, and the error stat backs it up. I'm almost certain that this isn't true. A great defensive player might have amazing reaction time or, and I'm thinking of someone like Cal Ripken here, he might have other attributes like an arm or smart positioning that cover his lack of reaction time. The error stat is pretty much considered to be nothing more than a curiosity by the sabrists. Also in Sabremetrics, they feel that drafting a college ball player has a much higher rate of success than drafting a high school player. We will need to see at least a 15-20 year study to see if this is indeed true. This is no longer the current thinking amongst baseball sabr types. The draft is basically a series of bets. If teams, as a whole, aren't valuing the various possibilities correctly, you'll get inefficiencies. Rany Jazayerli made a pretty compelling case that there was an inefficiency to be taken advantage of in the past, but, since the release of Moneyball, that teams may well be overrating college hitters relative to high schoolers. That doesn’t seem to be the case in hockey. Almost all of the top young players have come from Major Junior or the European leagues the last ten years, and beyond. Crosby, Kane, Oveckin, Phaneuf, Getzlaf, Carter, Richards, Malkin to name a few. With respect, you're probably looking at the wrong group when comparing to college players. The most obvious area is foreign born players versus North American players. I don't know whether it's as true today, but I'm almost certain that, in the past, foreign born players were likely underrated at the draft table compared to North American players. In any event, the proper question to ask is whether college players drafted in a certain position - say between 10 and 15 or whatever - do better than major junior players drafted in a certain position. The vast majority of stars may well come out of Major Junior or the European league but what really want to know is whether or not one of leagues tends to have its draft picks do better when drafted in a certain area than others.

Avatar
#41 Jack "slacking off at work" Bauer
January 25 2009, 02:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I wont believe for a second that Vinny would want to come here. Why would he?

Avatar
#42 Smokin' Ray
January 25 2009, 03:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

He's (Vinnie) not. Doug Weight will be back I suspect.

Avatar
#43 Dropping Deuces
January 25 2009, 03:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I can't wait for the allstar break to be over. Bored so bored.

Avatar
#44 Jason Gregor
January 25 2009, 07:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Tyler wrote:

I’m not sure that backhand v. forehand is the interesting thing…I’d like to see it recorded where in the zone a faceoff was taken. From that and knowing hte players involved, you can start to get a sense if certain players have “hot spots” or “cold spots”, in terms of the location of the faceoff and handedness of the other player, which will dictate what the player is trying to do. I’d bet that teams track it.

They already track, offensive, defensive and neutral zone faceoffs...you can see it yourself at www.nhl.com

college.Tyler wrote:

With respect, you’re probably looking at the wrong group when comparing to college players. The most obvious area is foreign born players versus North American players. I don’t know whether it’s as true today, but I’m almost certain that, in the past, foreign born players were likely underrated at the draft table compared to North American players.

Bang on regarding the four guys I missed being from College. European players are no longer underrated at all, the difference now is that more players want to come and play in the NHL, and that NHL teams employ scouts who solely scout the European leagues. Tyler wrote:

Bill James first started doing the writing that’s provided the underpinning for a lot of the sabr stuff in the mid-1970’s. The Yankees of the late 90’s were sabr clubs, in that they were high OBP teams. I’m pretty sure that that’s referenced in Moneyball. Your statement is just wrong.

Survival for Oakland specifically is what I meant, because they couldn't compete financially with the big boys. Yes, Epstein might have used Sabrs, but their ability to go out and sign the big free agents had a huge role, and I'd argue a more vital role, because of the quality of players they brought in. My point was that in the NHL teams can't do what the Sox and Yankees do due to the cap and that makes it a more level field.

Avatar
#45 Jason Gregor
January 25 2009, 07:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Tyler wrote:

Oakland made the playoffs five out of the past five years, but that’s not a big complaint.

Not sure where you looked, but the A's have only made the playoffs once in the past five year, 2006, and that is the only year they won a playoff series.Tyler wrote:

Either you believe in luck in a small sample playoff series or you don’t but the A’s lost four first round series 3-2. All of the research in baseball indicates that luck (or bounces or whatever) is huge in a single game. The A’s seemed to have an awful lot of bizarre losses along the way, the Jeter play and Tejada getting called out against Boston amongst them. Personally, I have an awful hard time chalking a five game playoff loss against a team when a series can turn on someone making a play like Jeter did against them. There’s just a ton of luck and timing in these things. The Oilers were six minutes away from going down 3-0 against the Sharks (hockey’s version of the A’s these days) in 2005-06. Raffi scores and all is right with the world. It’s sports. Things happening in small samples is not unexpected. Epstein made the playoffs but the Red Sox were always

You can say luck played a part, or that the Yankees and Red Sox had better teams because they spent double and sometimes triple the money. Or Oakland is the unluckiest team since the Buffalo Bills, who lost four Superbowls in a row. My point was that the big boys still had an advantage in the playoffs, due to money. And while Beane's believe in Sabrs and moneyball worked in the regular season, it wasn't enough to overcome the big spenders in the playoffs. That's a fact, regardless how much I believe in luck.

Avatar
#46 Pit Nicker
January 25 2009, 08:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

"Hockey ain’t Baseball, stats-lovers"

That second "word" isn't one, "sports writer."

Avatar
#47 RobinB
January 25 2009, 09:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Pit Nicker wrote:

“Hockey ain’t Baseball, stats-lovers” That second “word” isn’t one, “sports writer.”

Pit Licker: Gregor's a radio guy.

Avatar
#48 Tyler
January 25 2009, 09:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Re: faceoffs - I'd like to know which circles the faceoffs are in too, ie. to the right or left of the goalie.

Bang on regarding the four guys I missed being from College. European players are no longer underrated at all, the difference now is that more players want to come and play in the NHL, and that NHL teams employ scouts who solely scout the European leagues.

The issue with Euros and college players is, as I said, whether they tend to get drafted too low. This isn't something that you can disprove by saying that there are lots of Euros or college guys in the NHL or that the best players tend to be junior grads; that's not the issue. I suspect that the problem isn't as bad as it once was - the 1979 draft is a beauty, with a disproportionate number of the guys who panned out late being college guys or Euros - but Russian drafting has completely gone in the toilet. I can't believe that Russia is that bad, or that the KHL business is going to go on forever; teams are probably missing out with Russian players at the moment.

Survival for Oakland specifically is what I meant, because they couldn’t compete financially with the big boys. Yes, Epstein might have used Sabrs, but their ability to go out and sign the big free agents had a huge role, and I’d argue a more vital role, because of the quality of players they brought in. I'm just not buying that. Look at the Sox roster - the only big money FA on that team was Manny and, arguably, Damon. They had the money to bring in the talented guys but they had a ton of other guys bringing lots of OBP and SLG to the table cheap in the form of Bellhorn, Youkilis, Ortiz, Millar and Mueller. Their entire infield, outside of SS, was basically guys they picked off the scrapheap for nothing, as was their DH. It's important to realize that you're kind of mixing two concepts here too: first, the idea of using statistics to identify who doesn't suck, which many teams have done, big and small budget and second, the importance of using statistics to identify players whom the market isn't properly compensating. The A's basically had to specialize in this, because they couldn't afford the guys who the market did pay properly. The Sox could afford some of those guys who were properly paid, but not as many as the Yankees. Their ability to identify the Bellhorns, Millars, Ortiz' and Muellers set them apart from the Yanks, IMO. My point was that in the NHL teams can’t do what the Sox and Yankees do due to the cap and that makes it a more level field. Well fair enough. Of course, that makes finding some other edge even more vital for big money teams like Edmonton. Not sure where you looked, but the A’s have only made the playoffs once in the past five year, 2006, and that is the only year they won a playoff series. That's what I get for nit-picking. I meant that it was five out of nine, not four out of nine like you said. You can say luck played a part, or that the Yankees and Red Sox had better teams because they spent double and sometimes triple the money. Or Oakland is the unluckiest team since the Buffalo Bills, who lost four Superbowls in a row. My point was that the big boys still had an advantage in the playoffs, due to money. Well no, it doesn't necessarily follow that they had an advantage in the playoffs because of money. Maybe it's because Boston and New York are located on the East Coast. Maybe it's because of a lot of things. You're committing a classical logical error here - you're assuming that because because b followed a, b was caused by a. That's just not necessarily true. Besides, the Yankees haven't won a playoff series in four years despite being played three and having been the highest paid team in that team. I don't think that the money is determinative myself. At most, it might help us identify who has a better team but, given that Oakland was benefitting from a ton of players whose value wasn't recognized and guys who were still in the cheap years of their contracts, I'm not convinced that the money difference means that muhc.

Avatar
#49 Jason Gregor
January 25 2009, 11:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Pit Nicker wrote:

“Hockey ain’t Baseball, stats-lovers” That second “word” isn’t one, “sports writer.”

I didn't write the headline...Wake up.

Brownlee you should know that.

Avatar
#50 Ender the Dragon
January 26 2009, 09:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jason Gregor wrote:

Brownlee you should know that.

Brownlee does know that. He just enjoys getting you you to make that face. :)

Comments are closed for this article.