NHLE

Lowetide
July 16 2010 06:59AM

I promise not to bore you with too much math here at ON. However, based on my early experience it looks as though math is regarded as a guide along with observation at Oilers Nation, so there's an opportunity to discuss some very useful tools that some very smart people have created or derived over the last few years.

Gabriel Desjardins is a brilliant writer and problem solver. His blog is here and his stats mountain is here. Gabriel (among others) gives bloggers and math fans a chance to explore the NHL universe: lines, zone starts, shots for and against, even-strength scoring per 60 minutes, shooting percentage, he has all kinds of reasonable measurements that tell us more than the boxcars. I encourage you to read Gabriel's stuff, he is a generous fellow with his time (if I had to pay a dollar for every visit he'd own my house). Beyond that, I won't mention him here a lot, save for giving Gabriel credit for the things he created or derived. It is only fair.

Desjardins supplies us with a rational NHL "production equivalency" for lower leagues. He projects those leagues into the NHL, and explains it here. It is an exceptional tool, and has been tracking very well since we started using it for Oiler picks and prospects.

By way of example, here are two season's worth of quality picks (2007 and 2008) and their NHLE. It is followed in brackets by their actual NHL numbers the following season:

    • Patrick Kane, OHL: 26-36-62 (ACTUAL: 82gp, 21-51-72)
    • Sam Gagner, OHL: 16-39-55 (ACTUAL: 79gp, 13-36-49)
    • David Perron, QMJHL: 13-14-27 (ACTUAL: 62gp, 13-14-27)
    • Steve Stamkos, OHL: 23-19-42 (ACTUAL: 23-23-46)
    • Drew Doughty, OHL: 6-23-29 (ACTUAL: 6-21-27)
    • Luke Schenn, WHL: 3-9-12 (ACTUAL: 2-10-12)
    • Mikael Boedker, OHL: 12-17-29 (ACTUAL: 11-17-28)
    • Josh Bailey, OHL: 11-24-35 (ACTUAL: 7-18-25)

Those are really good projections. Gabriel has arrived at a solid number in terms of letting air out of the tires, and so we can look to the future with some confidence. I'm using his CHL, AHL, SEL and other equivalencies below, if you'd like to read more I would refer you to both blog and stats mountain.

BUBBLING UNDER: NHLE'S for Oilers top level F prospects (per 82 GP)

  1. R Jordan Eberle 22-24-46
  2. L Taylor Hall 17-29-46
  3. L Magnus Pääjärvi 16-22-38
  4. L Linus Omark 20-15-35
  5. C Chris Vande Velde 13-21-34
  6. L Philippe Cornet 10-17-27
  7. L Teemu Hartikainen 12-14-26
  8. R Toni Rajala 11-15-26
  9. C Robby Dee 13-12-25
  10. C Ryan Martindale 8-16-24
  11. C Milan Kytnar 8-14-22
  12. C Anton Lander 9-12-21
  13. L Liam Reddox 9-9-18
  14. C Tyler Pitlick 9-8-17
  15. L Curtis Hamilton 7-8-15
  16. R Colin McDonald 6-5-11
  17. C Ryan O'Marra 6-3-9
  18. L Drew Czerwonka 2-4-6
  19. R Cameron Abney 2-3-5
  20. L Matt Glasser 2-3-5
  21. L Matt Marquardt 1-4-5

This is an outstanding list, the Oilers best prospect list for forwards in a long, long time. Three top drawer offensive talents, followed by a long-in-the-tooth prospect (Omark) who can score and then an exceptional college face-off man with enough offensive skill to do well when he turns pro. Cornet and Rajala are in the "tweener" zone, as is Hartikainen but he brings enough things to his game that you can see him winning a job in a 2-way role (outside the top 6F). Martindale is also interesting, and the best defensive forward on the list (Lander) does pretty well by this metric. There are no less than 6 quality prospects on this list (Top 5 and Lander) and we haven't even looked at Pitlick (whose numbers suffered due to lack of playing time in the NCAA).

BUBBLING UNDER: NHLE'S for Oilers top level D prospects (per 82gp)

  1. Jeff Petry 4-22-26
  2. Taylor Chorney 5-10-15
  3. Jeremie Blain 1-13-14
  4. Brandon Davidson 0-14-14
  5. Kyle Bigos 4-6-10
  6. Alex Plante 2-5-7
  7. Theo Peckham 0-6-6
  8. Johan Motin 1-3-4
  9. Troy Hesketh 1-3-4

Martin Marincin's number isn't here, he played in Slovakia U-20 this past season and there aren't a lot of comparable defensemen who jumped to the NHL the following season. We'll get a read on him (WHL) this season. Petry is the best offensive option, and considering his wide range of skills should be a player we see in the NHL sometime this season. My preference would be for Petry to play an entire AHL season (the lesson of Chorney) before making the grade, but if the Oilers encounter injury he should be in the mix for callup. Plante, Peckham and Motin are stay-at-home types as is reflected here.

Desjardins NHLE's are at the very least a marvelous toy. I believe they are more than that: a strong prediction about a player's offensive ability at the NHL level, and as such this is an extremely valuable measurement.

One final item. Gabriel's number tells us we have something special in Taylor Hall. Desjardins: Based on the performance of thousands of drafted players, we can predict how many points a player will score in the NHL when he’s 21-years-old. If he’s 17, four years later, we expect him to score at 72% of his junior rate. But if he’s 20, on average, he’ll retain just 26% of his scoring. 

There is some number massaging required to account for age, but this would make (with help from spOILer, comment #87 in this comments section) Taylor Hall's 21-year old NHLE 82gp, 32-52-84. We don't know Hall's TOI number (that had a major impact on Rob Schremp's 19-year old OHL season), but it is clear that the kid is an exceptional offensive talent. Gabriel Desjardins NHLE's are a strong predictor of the future, and for Oilers fans it is an extremely exciting time.

C2a6955161684b5e3189319acfa5ebe4
Lowetide has been one of the Oilogosphere's shining lights for over a century. You can check him out here at OilersNation and at lowetide.ca. He is also the host of Lowdown with Lowetide weekday mornings 10-noon on Team 1260.
Avatar
#101 rickithebear
July 16 2010, 03:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@jadeddog

edit: i don't see where you're getting the 0.54 number from, where is that on the site? i see the 0.5 number for an 18-to-22 year old //NHLer number, so 0.54 for 18-21 seems about right, but i can't actually find that number on the site anywhere.//

It is extrapolated from the curves. Desjardins curves are very accurate. the 17 year old curve shows at .72-.74 and the 18 year old shows at .49-.50. hall was 2 months short of 18 at the start of the season. Nov. birth.

The difference between the 12 month period is .72-.49=.23/12=.01916666 *2months =.0383333 .49=.03833333=.54 x1.86pts = 1.005 pts/gm

Crap 1.005 not 1.05 I have been making these simple mistakes latley.

1.005 X 82gm = 82.4 82 pts/season

I know you are looking at the 21 year point but full core development can be 21 to 22 year so i look to look at the 22 year point on the 17 and 18 curves. You can get expected performance thru each year of growth.

Avatar
#102 jadeddog
July 16 2010, 03:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@spOIler

i'm not sure where you are getting your 0.43 number from... can you point out where it says this... all i can find is the 18-22 year old number of 0.5

... and the (likely more accurate) number of 0.54 that rickithebear has posted

Avatar
#103 gretzkycurry
July 16 2010, 03:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Thanks for the math LT and others. You add a nice counter-balanced perspective to the op-ed of the nation.

Avatar
#104 spOILer
July 16 2010, 03:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jadeddog I took it straight from the graph, since in the text he only gives the 18 yo - 22 yo number. That's why I said "looks like". ;o)

Avatar
#105 jadeddog
July 16 2010, 03:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

spOIler: yeah, now that i look at it again, your 0.43 is more accurate than rickithebear's 0.54

Avatar
#106 commanfan13
July 16 2010, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

While 130 might be just a touch out of reach for Gagner next year, it feels to me like he might be ready for a breakthrough into the 70-point range.

All this type about the new kids - one of which is only a year younger than him, two of which don't have his draft pedigree, and all three of which never tore up junior the way he did - has to be motivating him.

Management might be kicking themselves soon if they don't lock him up for a while this summer.

Avatar
#108 Oil Kings 'n' Pretty Things
July 16 2010, 03:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

There certainly have been an influx of nerds since Lowetide came over. I think this is the first time I've really felt lost while trying to read through comments. Granted, I really haven't read any of Desjardins' stuff, but still.

Avatar
#109 spOILer
July 16 2010, 03:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm learning along with you, LT. Without you, and much of the rest of the Oilogosphere, I would know nothing about the new hockeymetrics.

Avatar
#110 mike
July 16 2010, 04:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"I was just wondering what the difference was"

I was just as lazy. But here goes. spOILer did two estimates for Hall @ 21 yrs in the NHL:

1.43ppg X .72 X 82g = 84 pts based on 08/09

1.86ppg X .43 X 82g = 66 pts based on 09/10

Seguin would be:

1.68 ppg X .72 X 82g = 99 pts based on 09/10

? X .43 X 82g = ? pts based on 10/11

But "December player projects to score 50% more points [over the career] in the NHL than the player born in January"

If you took that literally for 09/10:

Hall 66 pts + 25% = 82 Seguin 99 pts - 25% = 74

But if you interpolate the equivalencies by birth month, for 09/10 you get:

Hall 1.86ppg X .54 X 82g = 82 pts Seguin 1.68 ppg X .60 X 82g = 82 pts

So it looks like 82 pts is a good estimate for both for now.

Avatar
#111 washed up
July 16 2010, 04:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Oil Kings 'n' Pretty Things wrote:

There certainly have been an influx of nerds since Lowetide came over. I think this is the first time I've really felt lost while trying to read through comments. Granted, I really haven't read any of Desjardins' stuff, but still.

I would have to agree. I'm no dummy but all this math makes my brain hurt. Besides I hate pojections, sometimes it set the standards to high for the players. Nice to dream though.

Avatar
#112 Boris
July 16 2010, 04:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

All these numbers...by brain hurts.

Avatar
#113 Oil Kings 'n' Pretty Things
July 16 2010, 04:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
washed up wrote:

I would have to agree. I'm no dummy but all this math makes my brain hurt. Besides I hate pojections, sometimes it set the standards to high for the players. Nice to dream though.

I'm actually alright with projections. The only Desjardins stuff I was familiar with was the quick primer Willis provided when comparing Kane to Gagner and their respective transitions to the big show. I thought it was interesting then, and I think it's interesting now. It'll never be an exact science, but as Lowetide says, the Oil have something special in Taylor Hall. You can tell by watching him play (which satisfies the anti-stats brigade), and the fact that the stats support that is the icing on the cake.

I am 100% satisfied.

Avatar
#114 mike
July 16 2010, 04:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"There certainly have been an influx of nerds since Lowetide came over. I think this is the first time I've really felt lost while trying to read through comments."

Actually Lowetide's article is easy too follow. It's just the jotting on the back of napkins in the comments that is overwhelming.

Apologies.

But putting the numbers aside it is very interesting that January-March born players outnumber October-December born player 3:1 in Junior but only 2:1 in the NHL.

That's a lot of October to December prospects that do better than you'd expect. Without using numbers I'd just say there's a lot of January-March kids finally being exposed when everyone catches up on growth.

Avatar
#115 mike
July 16 2010, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

(But putting the numbers that need calculators aside)

Avatar
#116 Adam
July 16 2010, 04:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

It would be interesting if someone could run these same numbers for guys like Stamkos and Seguin too.

Avatar
#117 Oil Kings 'n' Pretty Things
July 16 2010, 04:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
mike wrote:

"There certainly have been an influx of nerds since Lowetide came over. I think this is the first time I've really felt lost while trying to read through comments."

Actually Lowetide's article is easy too follow. It's just the jotting on the back of napkins in the comments that is overwhelming.

Apologies.

But putting the numbers aside it is very interesting that January-March born players outnumber October-December born player 3:1 in Junior but only 2:1 in the NHL.

That's a lot of October to December prospects that do better than you'd expect. Without using numbers I'd just say there's a lot of January-March kids finally being exposed when everyone catches up on growth.

Yeah - that's what I was getting at. I understand his article.

Here's the Willis post I was referring to earlier.

Edit: Wait, no it wasn't. Back to the archives.

Re-Edit: Wait, yes it is! The picture is wrong! It used to be a line graph. Now the article doesn't actually describe the picture like it used to. It used to be a comparison chart between Gagner, Eberle, Kane, and Hemsky and how their production increased through junior and into their draft year. There may have been 1 more player but I can't remember off the top of my head.

Avatar
#118 spOILer
July 16 2010, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Mike, Desjardins also mentions a 35% haircut in his article on the PPG basis:

An entire year’s worth of players become eligible for the draft, but the players born earlier in the year have a peak value 35% lower than players born late in the year.

That would give a bottom end of the range at 64 pts for Seguin.

Avatar
#119 spOILer
July 16 2010, 04:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If we were to pretend Seguin was born 32 days earlier, (Dec 31, 1991) his 21 yo projection would range 59-65 pts based on the same 2 equations I used above for Hall. Which seems to support Desjardins' Q1 haircut.

Avatar
#120 mike
July 16 2010, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@ Lowetide

If anyone can crunch Desjardins' raw data it would be good to recalcuate the equivalencies by quarter. (somewhere else!)

This would make way more sense than using .43 and .72 for 2 prospects 2 months apart by age. Desjardins noted that an Nov. 18 yr. old (Hall 09/10) is going to out produce a Jan. 18 yr. old (Seguin 10/11) by 50% which means he really needs roughly the same equivalency factor as a Jan. 17 yr old (Seguin 09/10).

Avatar
#121 mike
July 16 2010, 04:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"If we were to pretend Seguin was born 32 days earlier, (Dec 31, 1991)"

But only if you pretend that was his 3rd OHL year. ;)

But your quick pretend does show that interpolating by quarter is probably better than Gabe's current method. In other words the data and all those missing Q4s and superfluous Q1s do suggest that exact age is more relevant to projecting than number of years in junior.

Avatar
#122 Ribs
July 16 2010, 04:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Adam wrote:

It would be interesting if someone could run these same numbers for guys like Stamkos and Seguin too.

Stamkos' numbers are in the examples LT provided.

Avatar
#123 @NateInVegas
July 16 2010, 04:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Nate:

"Try watching a game live to form an opinion, I've found that technique very useful"

Lowetide today:

"I promise not to bore you with too much math here at ON. However, based on my early experience it looks as though math is regarded as a guide along with observation at Oilers Nation, so there's an opportunity to discuss some very useful tools that some very smart people have created or derived over the last few years."

Just sayin......

Avatar
#124 mike
July 16 2010, 04:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"The majority of the comments following #95 carried the bulk of the conversation. Today's article you picked up where I left things off. My comments bring the numbers, just an observation."

Nate, You count like the seagulls in Finding Nemo.

A better prediction would have been LT will watch the comments for a while before doing a numbers heavy post:

"based on my early experience it looks as though math is regarded as a guide along with observation at Oilers Nation, so there's an opportunity to discuss some very useful tools that some very smart people have created or derived over the last few years"

Avatar
#125 mike
July 16 2010, 04:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Just sayin...... Captain Obvious is stuck in front of his mirror again.

Avatar
#126 Ribs
July 16 2010, 04:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Where's the link to Nates blog? It must be a pretty good one.

Avatar
#127 mike
July 16 2010, 04:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"Mike, Desjardins also mentions a 35% haircut in his article on the PPG basis"

spoiler, a 50% premium, a 35% discount. tomato. tomatoe.

Avatar
#128 @NateInVegas
July 16 2010, 04:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Lowetide wrote:

Nate: Saying I'm going to use numbers in a future post isn't exactly predicting the future. You know?

Lowetide: Denying today's intro wasn't in part aided by the direction of conversation I provided would be a lie.

My observations generate as many comments as your stats have..You like math, add em up..

Avatar
#129 mike
July 16 2010, 05:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Mine. Mine. Mine. Did I mention? Mine.

Odds of LT not using stats? 0%

Odds of the LT going easy on stats at first. High.

Odds on a stats discussion breaking out on value contracts? Close to 100%

Odds on LT using the first stats discussion as an entry? Very high.

Go easy on that mirror.

Avatar
#130 @NateInVegas
July 16 2010, 05:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Ribs wrote:

Where's the link to Nates blog? It must be a pretty good one.

I'd blog but you're all a bunch of haters!

Avatar
#131 mke
July 16 2010, 05:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

So kind of Captain Obvious to lavish his immense value to other people's blogs.

Avatar
#132 RossCreekNation
July 16 2010, 05:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
@NateInVegas wrote:

@ Lowetide,

The topic of your previous article was "value contracts".

I took a jab @ Ross Creek suggesting "he doesn't know what the hecht he's talking about".

You backed Ross up with stats, I suggested stats can be used to sway discussions when I prefer observation.

The majority of the comments following #95 carried the bulk of the conversation...

Today's article you picked up where I left things off.

My comments bring the numbers, just an observation.

Disrespectfully yours, Nate

So what you're really saying, is that I - me, me, me - I started the conversation, that lead to your jab, that lead to Lowetide's defence with stats, that lead to the majority of the comments after, that lead to this article. Your welcome.

Avatar
#133 Archaeologuy
July 16 2010, 05:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@RossCreekNation

I think what we've established is that Nate invented "Not believing it until you see it" and that the numbers for Seguin project better than Hall at a quick glance.

Avatar
#134 @NateInVegas
July 16 2010, 05:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@RossCreekNation

@ Ross,

Correct!

Today's intro wasn't a coincidence...

Avatar
#135 @NateInVegas
July 16 2010, 05:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

I think what we've established is that Nate invented "Not believing it until you see it" and that the numbers for Seguin project better than Hall at a quick glance.

Holy crap dude, huge props you get me!

I don't think Seguin's numbers will be better than Hall's but feel he'll be more valuable.

Avatar
#136 Oil Kings 'n' Pretty Things
July 16 2010, 05:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

I think what we've established is that Nate invented "Not believing it until you see it" and that the numbers for Seguin project better than Hall at a quick glance.

Do we actually know who invented "being a dick until Brownlee catches wind of it"? Was it Nate, too?

Avatar
#137 Max Powers - Team HME Evans
July 16 2010, 05:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@@NateInVegas

So Nate, it seems as if you're taking pride in generating comments.

It's well known you're a troll looking for an argument and it's also well known no one likes trolls. So, in fact, you're taking pride in being disliked. You seriously don't have anything better to do that convince more people not to like you? Come on man.

Avatar
#138 mike
July 16 2010, 05:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"Today's intro wasn't a coincidence"

Such dogged pursuit of the obvious.

"based on my early experience it looks as though"

Yeah, he was waiting for the first stats discussion to start without him.

Ross wins that lottery.

Avatar
#139 @NateInVegas
July 16 2010, 05:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Max Powers - Team HME Evans wrote:

So Nate, it seems as if you're taking pride in generating comments.

It's well known you're a troll looking for an argument and it's also well known no one likes trolls. So, in fact, you're taking pride in being disliked. You seriously don't have anything better to do that convince more people not to like you? Come on man.

Oilers drafted Hall I prefer Seguin...

I prefer observation, Lowetide prefers stats...

You don't have to like me or my opinions but I do represent what many people think but don't always say.

Avatar
#140 washed up
July 16 2010, 05:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The Hall vs. Seguin debate. Will some people ever be able to let it go........... I think not!!!!!!!!!

Avatar
#141 Max Powers - Team HME Evans
July 16 2010, 05:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
@NateInVegas wrote:

Oilers drafted Hall I prefer Seguin...

I prefer observation, Lowetide prefers stats...

You don't have to like me or my opinions but I do represent what many people think but don't always say.

Well, you may justify being an ass to yourself by claiming to speak for the minority but you don't seem to be justifying it to anyone else. You're obviously a smart dude, one day you might grow up and use your powers for good and not evil.

Avatar
#142 Yakman
July 16 2010, 05:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Observation: I like pie...

Discuss!

Avatar
#143 Archaeologuy
July 16 2010, 05:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@washed up

It was used for Hall, I never saw it used for Seguin, I wanted to know. Since we were already projecting kids, why not project one for a kid that will be compared to Hall for the rest of their careers.

Avatar
#144 mike
July 16 2010, 06:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Good thing someone somewhere taught LT and more importantly the Oilers that stats aren't everything.

Avatar
#145 mike
July 16 2010, 06:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Archaeologuy, They were that close even down to NHLE. Their results will be compared going forward.

Avatar
#146 washed up
July 16 2010, 06:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Archaeologuy wrote:

It was used for Hall, I never saw it used for Seguin, I wanted to know. Since we were already projecting kids, why not project one for a kid that will be compared to Hall for the rest of their careers.

I was just getting a jab in on Nate " see post #136" He seems to still be abit bitter about the situation. I do seem to recall someone running the numbers on Hall vs. another player, who's name i can't think of. They weren't using the same formula, but it was similar to this one. Besides your post usually add to the conversation on here. Anyone can wirte something to get a rise out of a few people.

Avatar
#147 TigerUnderGlass
July 16 2010, 06:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Mike and spOiler,

You guys have added some very interesting commentary to a good post by LT.

If I find the it me this weekend you have inspired me to look over the predicted 21 year old seasons for a bunch of guys to test for accuracy.

Avatar
#148 TigerUnderGlass
July 16 2010, 07:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robin Brownlee

This is embarrassingly off topic, but given the new business venture you mentioned a while back I thought you needed to see this link.

http://thecheeky.com/?p=10

Avatar
#149 David S
July 16 2010, 08:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sanity returns! Thanks Robin.

Avatar
#150 Robin Brownlee
July 16 2010, 08:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@TigerUnderGlass

We've already acquired the local distribution rights for Glenora and Bellamy Hill.

Comments are closed for this article.