Hockey Analytics NHL Review

Transcription

1 Hockey Analytics 2007 NHL Review Copyright Alan Ryder 2007

2 2007 NHL Review Page 2 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Teams 5 Lucky and Unlucky Teams...5 Team Profiles...6 Offense...8 Shots and Shot Quality...9 Defense...10 Goaltending...11 The Shootout...13 Individual Performances 14 Hart Trophy...14 Norris Trophy...16 Vezina Trophy...19 Selke Trophy...21 Lady Byng Trophy...23 Calder Trophy...24 Shootout Awards...25 All Star Teams 26 NHL...26 East...28 West...28 Green...29 Grey...30 All Offense...30 All Defense...31 Even Handed...31 Power Play...33 Short Handed...34 Most Valuable Performances...35 All Cap Roster...36

3 2007 NHL Review Page 3 Introduction This paper provides a commentary on the most outstanding individual performances in the NHL during the ( 2007 ) season. I will also be commenting on certain aspects of team performance since individual performances are difficult to asses without understanding the team context. My tool for measuring individual player performance is Player Contribution 1 (PC). The method is a system of credits and debits. Offensively, a player is credited for goals and assists but debited for ice time (greater ice time, especially for forwards and on the power play, means greater expectations). Defensively, players get credited for ice time but debited for goals scored while on ice. Goaltenders are measured based on their save percentage, adjusted for the quality of team defense, in excess of a threshold. PCO is a measure of offense it is based on goals created in excess of a threshold level of performance. PCD and PCG are, respectively, based on goals prevented in excess of a threshold for defense and goaltending. PC is also determined for penalty taking. In this case, however, the benchmark is essentially the average propensity to take penalties (rather than the marginal propensity). Threshold performance is a mathematical construct. It is determined by observing that (a) the marginal impact of more/fewer goals on wins is nearly linear over the normal performance range of teams and (b) the slope of that linear relationship is the average number of goals scored per game. Marginal or threshold performance is determined by extrapolating the linear relationship between goals and wins until it predicts zero wins. Although not really true, you can think of a marginal player as a borderline NHLer. It is difficult to be precise about where the borderline is, so the PC method draws a line in the sand somewhere near that line. Why subtract out marginal performance? Because, in theory, performance at that level is worth nothing. Marginal players sit on the end of the bench and / or spend a great deal of time in transit to / from the minors. Marginal performance is so far from average as to be zero valued. Where we can, PC is measured separately for even handed (EH), short handed (SH), power play (PP) and shootout (SO) situations. This ensures that specialty team performance is assessed relative to marginal performance on specialty teams. In other words, a player who runs up big offensive numbers on the power play is judged against other power play performances while a penalty killing specialist has his offense judged against other penalty killers. 1 PC is described in

4 2007 NHL Review Page 4 On defense, short handed situations are further subdivided into penalty killing (SHK) and penalty taking (SHO). On offense, power play situations are further subdivided into power play production (PPP) and penalty drawing (PPO, essentially a non issue due to the lack of data on drawing penalties). Finally, since advancing in the standings is the objective, PC is denominated in points in the standings (that is goals created/prevented are translated into points in the standings). A PC point is scaled to be 1/10 th of a standings point and the PC points allocated to a team are therefore 10 x Points. To get a lot of PC points one needs to both (a) play a lot and (b) play well. As (a) and (b) tend to be correlated, PC is also a measure of talent. However, coaches tend to over play top talent with a resulting distortion of apparent relative value. As a rough rule of thumb it takes 100 or more PC points for a skater to be an all-star candidate (the story with goaltenders is different). At 80 points you would consider a skater to be a team star, 60 is a team leader, 40 is a solid contributor and 20 is a weak link. With a salary cap of $44 million (all figures U.S.) for the season, a rough guide to player value is $44,000 per annum per PC point (or $880,000 for every 20 PC points). This is based on a team spending the cap amount and targeting a 100 point season (a comfortable berth in the playoffs). A conference winner will need to get more value for players. And, of course the market value of a player may be different due to supply and demand and other factors. To put this in perspective I have shown, to the right, cap costs, the PC scores (rounded to the nearest integer) and cap costs per PC point (I have shown negative for the 2007 Anaheim Ducks Player Cap Cost PC Cost per PC Point J-S Giguere 3,990, ,267 Teemu Selanne 6,000, ,862 Scott Niedermayer 6,750, ,503 Chris Pronger 6,250, ,320 Andy McDonald 3,333, ,976 Ryan Getzlaf 739, ,946 Francois Beauchemin 500, ,582 Sean O'Donnell 1,634, ,021 Chris Kunitz 1,056, ,406 Dustin Penner 478, ,345 Ilya Bryzgalov 1,181, ,056 Corey Perry 614, ,865 Samuel Pahlsson 637, ,992 Todd Marchant 2,517, ,732 Travis Moen 475, ,004 Joe DiPenta 500, ,656 Shane O'Brien 495, ,536 Ric Jackman 1,368, ,916 Kent Huskins 450, ,123 Ryan Shannon 477, ,549 Rob Niedermayer 2,000, ,885 Travis Green 708, ,867 Bjorn Melin 625, ,722 Shawn Thornton 450, ,793 Curtis Glencross 655, ,787 Aaron Rome 615, ,655 Stanislav Chistov 800, ,507 Michael Wall 470, ,999 Ian Moran 450, ,999 Tim Brent 524, ,999 Sebastien Caron 650, ,999 Brad May 675, ,999 Mark Hartigan 450, ,999 George Parros 450, ,999 Todd Fedoruk 450, ,999

5 2007 NHL Review Page 5 Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks. Note that cap costs in this table are (a) annualized (the actual cap hit depends on days on the roster, which is a big factor for those at the bottom of the table) and (b) not salary (cap costs are the average salary/bonus over the contract). This team ranked third in the overall NHL standings with 110 points. Note how many inexpensive performances the Ducks got. The success of this team was due to the likes of Getzlaf, Penner, Perry, Pahlsson, Kunitz and O Donnell. And due to the inexpensive contribution of Giguere and Bryzgalov in goal. Team Performances Although I want to focus on individual performance it sets the stage best if I first look at some team metrics using a marginal goals analysis. Marginal goals, a building block for Player Contribution, are simply goals scored in excess of a threshold plus goals prevented in excess of a threshold. Marginal Goals per Point Lucky and Unlucky Teams Wins are about 94% predicted by goals for and against (or by marginal goals totals). When a team wins in spite of a low marginal goal performance it is either very skilled at winning close games or it is lucky. Historical analysis suggests that this is mostly luck. I would not completely rule out some intangible, but nobody has found it yet. To the right is a table of the marginal goals scored per point during the conventional part of the game ( skating time ) and during the shootout. During skating time the most efficient team in the NHL in 2007 was Boston, requiring only 2.40 marginal goals per point. Other lucky teams (highlighted in green) were Vancouver (2.56), New Jersey (2.57), Carolina (2.60) and Atlanta (2.60). Lucky teams tend to regress the following season. But these teams may also be systemically able to win tight games. Note that Vancouver, New Jersey and Atlanta each had very good goaltending in Team In Skating Time per Skating Point In Shootout per Shootout Win ANA ATL BOS BUF CAR 2.60 NA CBJ CAL CHI COL DAL DET EDM FLA LA MIN MON NJD NAS NYI NYR OTT PHI PHO PIT SJ STL TB TOR VAN WAS AVG

6 2007 NHL Review Page 6 The Rangers were the unluckiest team, requiring 3.04 marginal goals for each point in the standings. Other unlucky teams (highlighted in red) were the Senators (2.97), Wild (2.95), Flames (2.90) and Sabres (2.87). Unlucky teams tend to improve the following season. Average marginal goals per point are determined by dividing goals scored by regulation time and overtime points and were 2.75 (down from 2006). In the shootout the luckiest team, by far, was Washington who bunch up their 5 shootout goals scored (in 40 attempts) just well enough to eek out a shootout win (0.10 marginal shootout goals per shootout win). Other lucky teams (highlighted in green) were Philadelphia (1.17), Pittsburgh (1.90), Montreal (2.04) and St. Louis (2.04). The unluckiest shootout teams (highlighted in red) were Ottawa (3.61, the only doubleunlucky team), Los Angeles (3.40), Toronto (2.99) Anaheim (2.90) and Vancouver (2.84). Carolina achieved the unenviable distinction of failing to collect a shootout win. But this was not surprising as they scored only once in 17 attempts. Average marginal shootout goals per shootout win (shootout goals divided by number of shootouts) were 2.43 (up from 2006). Note that PC attempts to allocate team performance, whether lucky or skilled, to individuals. It does not set out to determine whether a performance is from luck or skill. It translates a player s marginal goals into PC points using these marginal goal factors. The implicit assumption here is that these observed team performances are a result of skill. This means that a goal scored (or prevented) by a Bruin is worth more than a goal scored (or prevented) by a Ranger. Team Profiles For the most part, all goals scored or prevented are of equal value. This means that there are many ways to build a team and there is not a clearly superior formula. Below is a graph, for each team, of the relative totals of marginal goals on offense (MGO), defense (MGD) and goaltending (MGG) during skating time. For each team I have also indicated their rank in the overall standings. As a benchmark, note that Calgary was the most average team in the league, deriving 43% of its success from offense, 41% from defense and 16% from goaltending and finishing 13 th overall. The relative importance of team offense (MGO) ranged from as little as 27% (New Jersey are we surprised?) to as much as 54% of the totals (Buffalo). Although the Sabres ranked number one in the relative importance of their offense, such an investment is not an obvious way to build a team. Detroit, for one, got to the same place with a defensive emphasis.

7 2007 NHL Review Page 7 The correlation of offensive emphasis and overall success is quite weak or even negative. Philadelphia and Washington were offensive teams without success. Each of Detroit, Anaheim, San Jose, Dallas and New Jersey had 40% or less of team success from offense. BUF (1) TOR (18) COL (14) PHI (30) WSH (27) PIT (8) OTT (8) TBL (16) LAK (28) FLA (21) MTL (19) CAR (20) BOS (23) PHX (29) NSH (3) CGY (13) Four teams (Toronto, ATL (12) Tampa Bay, Columbus NYI (17) and Phoenix) had less SJS (5) than 5% of their ANA (3) marginal goals derived from goaltending. Note that Columbus went DET (1) NYR (15) STL (22) CHI (25) from highly dependent MIN (11) on goaltending in 2006 CBJ (24) to independent of VAN (8) goaltending in So DAL (5) you might have thought that when Tampa Bay EDM (25) NJD (5) picked up Marc Denis from the Blue Jackets -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% they would have improved the relative impact of their goaltending. Alas this was not the case. Toronto fans watched Andrew Raycroft break the team record for goaltending wins. But, notwithstanding the media hype, this was due to factors well outside of his control (the Leafs were a good offensive team with a solid defense). The Coyotes actually had a negative contribution in net (which is why their bar chart is strange). While such a below-threshold performance is mathematically possible with marginal goals, it is pretty rare and indicative of performance that clearly was disappointing in Phoenix. And, by the way, Phoenix goaltenders still got credited with 31 wins. At the other end of the scale, Nashville, Atlanta, NY Islanders and Vancouver were heavily dependent on the guys in the crease. Defensive dependence was the story with two teams with no goaltending, Columbus (67% of marginal goals) and Phoenix (65%), and to a lesser degree with Edmonton (54%) and Dallas (53%). Nashville (27%), Atlanta (28%) and NY Islanders (29%) were MGO MGD MGG

8 2007 NHL Review Page 8 least dependent on defense. Each of these teams each had stellar goaltending and made a lesser investment in defense. Offense A marginal goals analysis helps us to deconstruct offenses. Below is a summary of marginal goals created (MGC) by situation even handed (EH), power play (PPP), penalty drawing (PPO) and short handed (SH). The NHL s so-called more open game actually is not. Yes there is an increase in scoring. But this is almost entirely due to an increased number of power plays, especially 5 on 3 situations. The big power play teams in 2007 were Pittsburgh (53 marginal goals), San Jose (51), Anaheim (48) and Sheldon Souray (sorry, I meant Montreal, at 45 marginal goals). Les Canadiens had the distinction of being the only NHL team with more marginal goals on the power play than while even handed. In this new era you cannot afford to have Chicago s power play (2 marginal goals, 6 worse than in 2006) or that of the Blues (5) or Flyers (12). But strangely Philadelphia had one of the more potent shorthanded offenses (10 marginal goals). Other leaders were Ottawa (12), Montreal (12 - certainly not Souray) and Calgary. MGO PPO (Marginal Goals on Offense from Power Play Opportunities) Marginal Goals - Offense Team MGO MGOEH MGOPPP MGOPPO MGOSH BUF OTT COL PIT NAS SJ CAL TOR ANA DET FLA TB CAR NYI MON ATL WAS NYR MIN LA VAN DAL PHI PHO BOS STL NJD CBJ CHI

9 2007 NHL Review Page 9 measures a team s relative ability to generate power play opportunities. Some teams could do that. Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Carolina each won (roughly) an extra game by their ability to draw penalties (LA and Carolina did this in 2006 as well). Florida (for the second season in a row) and the Islanders each lost an extra game by their inability to draw penalties. Shots and Shot Quality Marginal goals analysis is an even more helpful tool for assessing defenses. But, to get at MGD, it is necessary to separate goal prevention into defense and goaltending. To identify a team s contribution from goaltending I compare its goals against, adjusted for shot quality, to a threshold level (based on the shots allowed). A high save percentage against high shot totals suggests a big goaltending contribution. A low save percentage against low shot totals suggests a small goaltending contribution. And whatever is not goaltending must be attributable to defense. If you do this math you are attributing to defense the responsibility for the number and quality of shots on goal. To the right are the shots and shot quality leader boards for the 2007 season. Average shots per game is a familiar metric. In the table above we see Detroit, Dallas and San Jose leading the way again in Edmonton was near the top of this list in 2006 but became average this season. The most shots allowed were by Boston, Washington, Montreal, Philadelphia and NY Islanders. Defensive Measures Team Avg Shots Team Shot Quality Team Defensive Index DET 24.6 CAL SJ 24.3 DAL 25.4 MIN DET 25.0 SJ 26.2 SJ DAL 25.2 TB 27.2 NJD MIN 26.7 ANA 27.4 BUF NJD 26.9 NYR 28.4 CBJ CBJ 27.4 TOR 28.4 PHO CAL 27.8 NJD 28.4 WAS NYR 27.9 CAR 28.5 EDM ANA 28.0 CBJ 28.6 NYR CAR 28.0 MIN 28.8 CAR TB 28.4 STL 28.9 VAN TOR 28.7 COL 29.0 MON EDM 28.8 VAN 29.2 DAL PHO 28.9 FLA 29.3 BOS VAN 28.9 CHI 29.4 OTT BUF 29.4 EDM 29.7 TOR FLA 29.7 LA 29.8 PIT COL 29.9 PHO 30.1 NYI OTT 30.5 OTT 30.2 FLA STL 31.0 CAL 30.5 DET CHI 31.1 PIT 30.9 PHI PIT 31.2 BUF 31.0 NAS LA 31.4 NAS 31.2 ANA NAS 31.8 ATL 31.5 COL WAS 32.1 NYI 32.6 TB MON 32.4 PHI 32.6 LA NYI 33.0 MON 32.7 CHI PHI 33.1 WAS 33.3 ATL ATL 33.7 BOS 33.5 STL BOS 33.7

10 2007 NHL Review Page 10 Shot quality is based on an assessment of the characteristics of each shot allowed 2. The expected goals from this assessment, normalized for variations in shots on goal, can be compared to average. My shot quality factors are the ratio of these normalized expected goals to average (a shot quality factor of means that shots taken are, on average, 5% less likely to result in goals). This season I studied, for the first time, home and road shot quality factors for each team. The results were meaningful 3. There is a clear recording bias in certain arenas rendering home shot quality factors meaningless. The SQ factors indicated in the table above are road factors only as the use of road factors eliminates most of this reporting bias. The worst reporting bias is in Madison Square Garden. The data there wrongly suggests that the Rangers give up shots of high quality (danger). The use of road factors shows the Rangers to be an above average (defensive) shot quality team. The true laggards were St. Louis, Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles. The leaders in defensive shot quality were Calgary, Minnesota and San Jose. Defense If you multiply shots allowed and shot quality you get a defensive index. This is a comprehensive, simple assessment of team defense (see table above). Using this measurement the top defensive teams in the NHL in 2007 were San Jose, Detroit and Dallas and the worst defensive teams were Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia and NY Islanders. Marginal goals provides a slightly more sophisticated look at this (the enhancement being largely a reflection of the one-ice situation) with nearly identical overall results. Below is a summary of marginal goals from defense (MGD) by situation even handed (EH), power play (PP), penalty taking (SHO) and penalty killing (SHK). Proving that playoff teams don t need to play defense were Atlanta (MGD of 65), the Islanders (70) and Nashville (78). Each of these teams seemed to make the decision to rely on strong goaltending. San Jose (MGD of 144), Detroit (143) and Dallas (137) lead the way on defense. The Sharks ranked third in both shots allowed and shot quality allowed. Although both were average in shot quality, the Red Wings lead in shots against and the Stars ranked number two. Detroit was the most effective defensive team while even handed (MGD EH of 103) and ranked third in marginal goals from penalty killing (MGD SHK of 40). 2 My approach to Shot Quality is described in 3 See

11 2007 NHL Review Page 11 The MGD SHK leaders were Carolina and, proving that something was working in Philadelphia, the Flyers (both with 43). Atlanta (15 MGD SHK ), because they were poor penalty killers, and Tampa Bay (18), because they were very good at penalty avoidance, had the lowest MGD SHK totals. The Sharks were, as in 2006, one of the league s best teams at avoiding penalties. They earned 15 marginal goals staying out of the box (MGD SHO ). They were (as in 2006) bested by only New Jersey (24), who annually leads the league in this measure of disciplined play, and Tampa Bay (24). Columbus (-14), Florida (-10), Chicago (-9) and Phoenix (-9) owned the NHL s worst penalty taking records. To put all of this in perspective, recall that 2.75 goals translates to one point in the standings. That means that the Devils and Lightning were both nearly 9 points better (and Columbus about 5 points worse) in the standings than they would have been had they had average discipline Goaltending Marginal Goals - Defense Team MGD MGDEH MGDPP MGDSHK MGDSHO DET DAL MIN NJD CBJ NYR ANA CAL CAR TB PHO VAN TOR BUF EDM FLA COL OTT PIT STL CHI LA NAS MON WAS NYI ATL PHI BOS Isolating shots and shot quality lets one better assess goaltending. The impact of goaltending is highest when a strong goalie allows few goals notwithstanding a high number of shots faced and / or shots of high quality.

12 2007 NHL Review Page 12 Below is a table of the marginal goals from goaltending (MGG) by team (excluding the shootout which is discussed below). Although it is certainly possible, you won t normally find impactful goaltending behind a great defense. It just does not get the opportunity to shine. So it is not so surprising to see the goaltending of San Jose, Detroit and Dallas some distance from the top of the list. On top was Nashville, by some distance, followed by Vancouver, the Islanders and Atlanta. The Canucks had a rather average defense but rise to the top of the goaltending impact list through the stellar performance of Roberto Luongo. The other three teams had generally weak defense and strong goaltending. A marginal goals analysis compares performance to a threshold. The threshold is based on my estimate of zerovalue performance. You can see from the table to the right that the threshold was cleared by every team, save one. Phoenix goalies collectively did not make the grade. And the problem was not the pass mark. There was also a serious shortage of goaltending in Carolina, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Columbus, Toronto and Tampa Bay. The Lightning seemed to understand this, splitting the duties between Marc Denis and Johan Holmqvist in search of a saviour. The Kings gave at least 20 starts to three of five different starters. But the Leafs trotted Andrew Raycroft out for 72 starts and the Hurricanes started Cam Ward 60 times. These teams denied the problem. Let s follow the bouncing goalie: Carolina, the defending Stanley Cup Champions, shipped Martin Gerber to Ottawa and went with Cam Ward (Carolina s MGG went down 33 goals and the Hurricanes missed the playoffs). Gerber struggled in Ottawa but the Senators got lucky when Ray Emery rose to the occasion (Ottawa MGG -1). Ottawa declined to re-sign Hasek, so he re-joined Detroit (Detroit MGG -3). Vancouver acquired Luongo (Vancouver MGG +31) and went from playoff spectators to division winners. Florida received Alex Auld in exchange but relied more on re-tred Belfour (Florida MGG -43). Marginal Goals - Goaltending Team MGG NAS 88 VAN 71 NYI 69 ATL 68 MIN 65 OTT 65 NJD 60 ANA 59 MON 51 PIT 47 NYR 45 DAL 44 CAL 42 STL 41 DET 40 CHI 38 BUF 34 SJ 33 COL 32 BOS 31 EDM 29 FLA 27 WAS 27 CAR 15 LA 15 PHI 13 CBJ 10 TB 7 TOR 7 PHO -15

13 2007 NHL Review Page 13 Toronto dumped Belfour in favour of Raycroft (Toronto MGG -29), and missed the playoffs again. Marc Denis was shipped to the Lightning by the Blue Jackets. This failed to help Tampa Bay (MGG +1) but hurt Columbus (MGG -40). The Shootout My method for assessing shootout performance for goaltenders is the same as for skating time. To get marginal shootout goals saved (MGGSO) I compare save percentages to a threshold and then multiply the difference by the number of attempts faced. For skaters I use the same kind of logic to derive MGOSO 4. Note that marginal shootout goals have a different value than marginal goals in skating time. During conventional play 2.75 marginal goals earned a point in the standings. In the shootout it took 2.43 marginal goals to earn a point. So each shootout marginal goal has a bit more value. Furthermore, a limited number of players attend to the shootout. This has a material impact on the contribution of certain players. The top shootout team in 2007 was Tampa Bay. They collected 10 wins on the basis of 29 marginal goals, 19 of which were from goaltending (only 6 goals allowed in 53 attempts). Four other teams picked up 10 shootout wins New Jersey (24 marginal goals), Minnesota (24), Buffalo (23) and Pittsburgh (19). Carolina had the distinction of being the first team to fail to record a shootout win in an NHL season. The Hurricanes went 0-5 scoring exactly 1 goal in 17 attempts. But the goaltending was no more helpful (allowing 8 goals in 17 attempts). Washington was arguably worse (on the basis of 0 marginal goals in 12 outings) yet somehow managed a win. Marginal Goals - Shootout Team SW MGOSO MGGSO ANA ATL BOS BUF CAL CAR CHI COL CBJ DAL DET EDM FLA LA MIN MON NAS NYI NYR OTT PHI PHO PIT SJ STL TB TOR VAN WAS For a full description of my method see

14 2007 NHL Review Page 14 Individual Performances Hart Trophy I have stated before that this trophy ought to go to a goaltender almost every year. I won t say any more except that the PC points speak for themselves. This year s winner of the Hart Trophy was phenom Sidney Crosby. I love to watch King Crosby play. He had an awesome year. I think he is headed for a stunning career. But he was not my MVP. My most valuable skater was Vincent Lecavalier of the Tampa Bay Lightning. His PC score (135) says that he was worth 13.5 of Tampa s 93 points. His PCO score of 115, based on 52 goals and 108 scoring points, was tops in the league. While even handed he had a PCO EH score of 66 (again tops in the league). He scored 5 short handed goals and assisted on 4 others for a PCO SH score of 15. He contributed 29 points on the power play (PCO PPP ) and 5 points in the shootout. Given that the best defense is frequently great offense, Lacavalier was lax defensively. His PCD EH score was quite low, matching his jersey (4). On the penalty kill his defense amounted to 6 PCD SHK points. His largest defensive contribution came through penalty avoidance (PCD SHO of 10). To the right are the top six PC performances by skaters. You can see that they were quite tightly bunched. A case could be made for any of them to be MVP and certainly Crosby was not a bad choice. Why is it that we have trophies for the top defender and top goaltender but no such trophy for the top forward? The answer is that forwards get disproportionate consideration for the Hart Trophy. This was a year where that treatment was deserved. Hart Trophy Most Valuable Player (Skater) Player Team PC Vincent Lecavalier TB 135 Martin St. Louis TB 132 Marian Hossa ATL 132 Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130 Pavel Datsyuk DET 124 Sidney Crosby PIT 123 To see how Lecavalier nosed out the pack (and Crosby in particular) as my top forward, I have shown the details of the PC calculation for the top 30 forwards (see below).

15 2007 NHL Review Page Player Contribution Forwards (items may not total due to rounding) PCO PCD Player Team POS PC EH PPP PPO SH SO PCO EH PP SHK SHO PCD Vincent Lecavalier TB C Martin St. Louis TB RW Marian Hossa ATL RW Pavel Datsyuk DET C Sidney Crosby PIT C Jarome Iginla CAL RW Teemu Selanne ANA RW Dany Heatley OTT RW Thomas Vanek BUF LW Joe Thornton SJ C Alexander Ovechkin WAS LW Daniel Sedin VAN LW Olli Jokinen FLA C Joe Sakic COL C Daniel Briere BUF C Simon Gagne PHI LW Zach Parise NJD LW Paul Kariya NAS LW Henrik Zetterberg DET LW Kristian Huselius CAL LW Brad Richards TB C Rod Brind'Amour CAR C Patrick Marleau SJ C Brian Rolston MIN RW Patrice Bergeron BOS C Alexander Frolov LA LW Mats Sundin TOR C Jason Pominville BUF RW Daniel Alfredsson OTT RW Milan Hejduk COL RW Only two players, Crosby and Marian Hossa, were close to Lecavalier offensively. Crosby (36 goals, 120 points) was a much more potent force on the power play (where he picked up 48 assists), amassing the second highest PCO PPP (43) score among forwards (Teemu Selanne developed 48 points on 25 goals and 23 assists). Hossa was also better than Lecavalier on the power play. Crosby and Hossa also outperformed in the shootout. But Lecavalier was the league leader in even handed offense and second only to teammate Martin St. Louis in short handed offense, well ahead of the competition.

16 2007 NHL Review Page 16 Defensively Hossa matched Lecavalier s 20 PC points with a rather similar profile. Crosby s defense was the best of the three even handed but did not do much penalty killing (19 minutes versus 125 for Lecavalier and 174 for Hossa). The reason Crosby trailed Lecavalier and Hossa was penalty taking. There he was league average while Hossa and Lecavalier picked up 8 and 10 PC points respectively. St. Louis trailed these three on offense (88 PC points from 43 goals and 59 assists and another 9 PC points from the shootout). But he made up ground defensively, especially from penalty avoidance. The really interesting name near the top of the leaderboard was Pavel Datsyuk. His 41 PCD points were tops among forwards (more on that below). This, and his not-to-shabby 83 PCO points, put him right up there with Crosby. And most people would not have noticed that kind of impact. The shootout really shuffled the order of this list. Mats Sundin, Patrice Bergeron, Brian Rolston, Brad Richards, Paul Kariya and Zach Parise all showed up on the top 30 list because of their shootout performance. Most people have no way of combining the two parts of the game. Now you do. Norris Trophy Having won 5 of the last 6 Norris Trophies, Nicklas Lidstrom has now emerged as one of the greatest defensemen of all time. Since I started doing Player Contribution I had him ranked as the league s MVP and Norris Trophy winner in 2003 and fifth amongst defenders in2004. In 2006 I had him ranked second but only because of Sergei Zubov s unusual shootout contribution. And, in 2007, I have him as the Norris guy again. To the right I show the top six PC performances by defensemen. Least you think that Kaberle and Boyle are flukes, five of these names are repeats from last season s top six with Niedermayer re-entering the leaderboard after an off season in Kaberle s PC scores (since when I started developing them) were 92, 73, 107 and now 110. Boyle s have been 98, 72, 101 and 94. The table below shows the PC breakdown for the top 20 defensemen. This says that Lidstrom was clearly the number one blueliner in the NHL. Norris Trophy Top Defenseman Player Team PC Nicklas Lidstrom DET 130 Sergei Zubov DAL 113 Tomas Kaberle TOR 110 Scott Niedermayer ANA 101 Chris Pronger ANA 96 Dan Boyle TB 94

17 2007 NHL Review Page Player Contribution Defensemen (items may not total due to rounding) PCO PCD Player Team POS PC EH PPP PPO SH SO PCO EH PP SHK SHO PCD Nicklas Lidstrom DET D Sergei Zubov DAL D Tomas Kaberle TOR D Scott Niedermayer ANA D Chris Pronger ANA D Dan Boyle TB D Philippe Boucher DAL D Brian Rafalski NJD D Lubomir Visnovsky LA D Sami Salo VAN D Ryan Whitney PIT D Sheldon Souray MON D Scott Hannan SJ D Jay Bouwmeester FLA D Brian Campbell BUF D Kimmo Timonen NAS D Mathieu Schneider DET D Bryan McCabe TOR D Sergei Gonchar PIT D Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ D Offensively his 42 PCO points were bested clearly by only one player, Sheldon Souray (62!). Several others were a tad ahead Niedermeyer (49), Zubov (46), Boyle (46), Boucher (46) and Visnovsky (46). And Zubov ranked ahead only because of his unusual (for a defender) shootout contribution (13). Defensively nobody was close (PCD of 88). His 50 PCD EH points were tops in the league. On the penalty kill his PCD SHK score was third highest. And he did this without taking penalties (PCD SHO of 12). Player Contribution can be reduced to performance times ice time. Lidstrom certain had the ice time 2199 minutes on ice, fourth among defensemen behind Zdeno Chara (2237), Dan Boyle (2218) and Bryan McCabe (2200). Runner up was Zubov with 67 PCD points (ranking him 6 th in the NHL) and 46 PCO points. Kaberle had a very similar defensive profile and he would have been runner up for the Norris Trophy had it not been for the shootout.

18 2007 NHL Review Page 18 Defensemen usually play defense. But, from time to time, you find defensemen who are more valuable on offense. Which brings us to Sheldon Souray. Since I have been determining Player Contribution, only one player has looked like Souray s 2007 Performance: Sheldon Souray the new Dick Tarnstrom? Player Team Year PC EH PPP PPO SH SO PCO EH PP SHK SHO PCD Sheldon Souray MON Dick Tarnstrom PIT NA These two guys look pretty similar except for penalty killing (PCD SHK, where Souray demonstrated some skill but where Tarnstrom got little opportunity) and penalty taking (PCD SHO, where Tarnstrom showed much more discipline than Souray). Souray s performance landed him a five year, $27 million contract with an Edmonton team that was desperate to spend on free agents. Tarnstrom, who split last season between the Penguins and Oilers, will get $2 million this season. And these two exceptional players will be vying for the same role with Edmonton. Souray s new contract is right priced for an all-star defenseman and is a contract the Oilers will regret. How bad is Souray s defense? His 22 PCD points ranked in 139 th amongst defensemen (and behind 42 forwards) in the NHL. There are 180 regular jobs for blueliners and this ranking makes him a third-pairing (defensive) player. The list of top defensemen is usually highly influenced by offensive play. The NHL needs a defenseman s version of the Selke Trophy. Who were the best defensive defensemen in the NHL? Below I present a list of the top defensive defensemen (based on performance in 2007). It is an interesting list with some big names and some no-names. Four Ducks made the top 20 (with Niedermayer being the final player to make the cut). No-name defenders included Michalek (who benefited from my assessment of goaltending in Phoenix), the Blue Jackets Hainsey and Eriksson and rookie Vlasic (SJ). Paul Martin s run to the top of the defensive depth chart in New Jersey has been well documented by Player Contribution over time. And there is the old guy, Chris Chelios, continuing his journey to the Hall of Fame. As I consider penalty avoidance to be an element of defense, it is not surprising that each of these players was above average in taking penalties (with Kaberle leading the way). Given the way PCD is determined we are unable to separate the work of a defensive pair. If two defenders play together at all times they will have the same PCD score (save for penalty taking). If they play together a great deal, they will have similar scores. It is always possible that one player carried the other but it is probable that a material difference in performance would result in less playing time for the inferior player. PCO PCD

19 2007 NHL Review Page Player Contribution Defense Defensemen (items may not total due to rounding) Vezina Trophy PCD Player Team POS EH PP SHK SHO PCD Nicklas Lidstrom DET D Scott Hannan SJ D Marc-Edouard Vlasic SJ D Paul Martin NJD D Tomas Kaberle TOR D Sergei Zubov DAL D Zbynek Michalek PHO D Brian Rafalski NJD D Michal Rozsival NYR D Chris Pronger ANA D Chris Chelios DET D Jay Bouwmeester FLA D Sami Salo VAN D Ron Hainsey CBJ D Francois Beauchemin ANA D Anders Eriksson CBJ D Trevor Daley DAL D Sean O'Donnell ANA D Brian Campbell BUF D Scott Niedermayer ANA D The Vezina goes to the goalkeeper adjudged to be the best at this position as voted by the general managers of all NHL clubs. I always struggle with this definition. If a goalie has great stats and plays 70 games, should he lose this award to another with better numbers but in only 45 games? I don t think so. So I tend to stick with PC (an impact measure). Martin Brodeur collected his third Vezina Trophy in four years. Roberto Luongo, Miikka Kiprusoff and Henrik Lundqvist joined him as finalists. Although Brodeur had his finest season ever, PC says that this trophy belonged to Roberto Luongo. The Vancouver goalie was cleanly ahead after skating time (263 to 238). Brodeur closed the overall gap to 9 PC points by out-pointing Luongo (34 to Vezina Trophy Top Goaltender Player Team PC Roberto Luongo VAN 278 Martin Brodeur NJD 269 Kari Lehtonen ATL 257 Rick DiPietro NYI 240 Henrik Lundqvist NYR 218 Chris Mason NAS 199

20 2007 NHL Review Page 20 16) in the shootout. But it should be noted that his out-performance in the shootout was due to opportunity (60 shots faced versus 31) rather than performance (.667 save percentage vs.677). Brodeur played in more games (78 versus 76) and played more minutes (4697 versus 4490). So he would have seemed to have more opportunity to excel. But the New Jersey defense was better at shot prevention. Brodeur faced only 13 more shots (2182 vs 2169), the best conventional measure of a goaltender s workload. The New Jersey netminder posted a better save percentage (.922 vs 921), so how did Luongo rank ahead. The answer is in shot quality. I calculated 5 a.944 shot quality factor for Brodeur (shots 5.6% less likely to enter the net than average), which gives a shot quality neutral save percentage of.917, and a.986 SQ factor for Luongo (SQNSV% of.920). With the workload of these goalies, a 3 point difference in (shot quality neutral) save percentage amounted to 25 PC points (or about 2.5 points in the standings). Another way see the shot quality story is that, although Luongo had a lower overall save percentage, he actually had the higher save percentage while even handed, while short handed and while on the power play. His overall save percentage was lower only because of more short handed time (which is a factor used in determining shot quality). Again the shootout affected the rankings. Both Lundqvist (55 PC points from the shootout) and DiPietro (42) collected a significant percentage of their PC totals from the shootout. Kiprusoff had no business being on the list of finalists. I had him ranked 14 th among goalies and a big part of this was a terrible performance in the shootout (2 PC points). As the Vezina goes to the best goalie we should have a look at two other candidates before moving on. Both of these players had limited work this season but posted good numbers. Over the course of the season Niklas Backstrom emerged as the number one goaltender of the Minnesota Wild (causing Manny Fernandez to tend goal for the Bruins next season). In 41 games he played 2227 minutes, faced 1028 shots and posted a stellar 1.97 goals against average. His.929 (raw) save percentage needs to be deflated because of Minnesota s defense. But his shot quality neutral save percentage of.922 is still very respectable. Chris Mason started and finished the season as the back up to Tomas Vokoun in Nashville (but his performance helped run Vokoun out of town). However, in 40 games he played 2342 minutes and faced 1244 shots. He did this rather well posting a raw save 5 For 2007 I determined a shot quality factor for individual goaltenders rather than applying team shot quality factors.

21 2007 NHL Review Page 21 percentage of.925 (behind sub-standard defense, a shot quality neutral save percentage of.928). Mason s.928 SQNSV% is some distance ahead of that of Luongo (.920). So I think one could make the case that Mason was actually the best goaltender in the NHL. But his playing time and story don t win Vezinas. So I will stick with Luongo as my most valuable goaltender. But keep an eye on Chris Mason. In 2008 he could be great, or he could be another Cam Ward. Selke Trophy The Selke trophy goes to the best defensive forward in the NHL. Having no metric for defense on which to rely, the voters rarely get this right. Reputations rule. And Carolina s Rod Brind Amour won his second Selke Trophy in a row. The NHL s three finalists were Brind Amour, Samuel Pahlsson (ANA) and Jay Pandolfo (NJD). The best of these was clearly Pandolfo, but I had four players ranked ahead of him including three time winner Jere Lehtinen. My winner was Pavel Datsyuk who put up very impressive PC numbers. Selke Trophy Top Defensive Forward Player Team PCD Pavel Datsyuk DET 41 Brad Richards TB 38 Jere Lehtinen DAL 36 Martin St. Louis TB 36 Jay Pandolfo NJD 36 Alexander Steen TOR 32 Below are the details for the PCD calculation for the top 20 defensive forwards in Let s compare the performance of Brind Amour to his peers (including Datsyuk). PC had his even handed defense matched to that of Brad Richards (12 PCD EH points), ahead of Pahlsson (10) but behind Pandolfo (14) and Datsyuk (16). Brind Amour averaged 2.72 goals against while even handed. This is similar to Richards (2.63). Both skated in front of weak goaltending (although Carolina s was the better of the two). The even handed goals against averages of Pahlsson, Pandolfo and Datsyuk were 2.24, 1.81 and 1.73 respectively. But each of these guys had better goaltending support than did Brind Amour or Richards. From the leaderboard the GAA EH leaders were Nikita Alexeev (1.57), Brian Rolston (1.60) and Lehtinen (1.66). Rolston (MIN) and Lehtinen (DAL) played 1047 and 938 even handed minutes, respectively, in front of strong goaltending. But the sleeper was Alexeev who collected his 13 PC points in only 762 even handed minutes in front of poor goaltending. Datsyuk lead in even handed defense. Brind Amour s even handed defense was solid but he was not among the leaders.

22 2007 NHL Review Page 22 The top penalty killing performance by a forward in 2007 was by the Coyotes Mike Zigomanis. He was on the ice for 26 goals against in 231 minutes of penalty killing. This translates to a short handed PGAA of Others had better nominal results, but also played in front of real goaltending. His PCD SHK score of 16 reflected my assessment of negative goaltending. From the leaderboard, other top short handed defensive performances (each for 14 PCD SHK points) were from Pahlsson (38 goals against, 367 minutes, GAA SH 6.21), Matt Stajan (10, 153, 3.92) and Sami Kapanen (23, 255, 5.41). Of these players, only Pahlsson 2007 Player Contribution PCD for Forwards Defense (PCD) Player Team POS EH PP SHK SHO PCD Pavel Datsyuk DET C Brad Richards TB C Jere Lehtinen DAL RW Martin St. Louis TB RW Jay Pandolfo NJD LW Alexander Steen TOR C Simon Gagne PHI LW Jozef Stumpel FLA C Samuel Pahlsson ANA C John Madden NJD C Mike Grier SJ RW Rod Brind'Amour CAR C Nikita Alexeev TB RW Matthew Stajan TOR C Todd White MIN C Niklas Hagman DAL LW Sergei Brylin NJD C Sami Kapanen PHI RW Brian Rolston MIN RW Mike Zigomanis PHO C played in front of strong goaltending. His GAA SH was therefore unimpressive, but 367 minutes is a great deal of penalty killing. Stajan s record was awfully good, but he only got 153 minutes of penalty killing time. The lowest GAA SH posted by a player on the leaderboard came from Datsyuk (3.58 from 9 goals against in 151 minutes). The only other player on the leaderboard under Stajan s record was Todd White (3.61, 12, 199). Both of these players had much better goaltending support than Stajan received in Toronto. Brind Amour s penalty killing performance was solid but he was not among the leaders. Datsyuk had a better penalty killing record. Let s talk about Brad Richards. I have him as the number two defensive forward in the NHL in spite of a GAA EH of 2.63 and a ghastly GAA SH of In his defense, these numbers reflect poor goaltending. But Richards is ranked number two because, whatever he does on defense, he does it without taking penalties. In 1977 minutes of playing time this season he took exactly 9 minor penalties. This kind of discipline in front of poor goaltending was worth 24 PCD SHO points. I consider that penalty avoidance is a big part of defense and PC measures it. To study this point consider Dallas teammates Jere Lehtinen and Niklas Hagman. Lehtinen

23 2007 NHL Review Page 23 chalked up 24 PCD points while even and short handed (in 1161 minutes of playing time). In front of the same goaltending and with the same teammates Hagman collected 23 PCD points (in 1134 even and short handed minutes). Ignoring the power play (where Lehtinen played and Hagman did not), these two guys are about the same until you consider penalties. Hagman took 17 took minor penalties while Lehtinen took only 8 (playing 235 more minutes, including power play time). This means that Hagman (probably, we don t know for sure) created 9 additional short handed situations and PC gives Lehtinen 10 more PCD SHO points than Hagman (1 point to Dallas in the standings) for this. Penalty taking matters. It would be unfair to not give credit to Lehtinen. Brind Amour s penalty avoidance was above average but he was not among the leaders. Datsyuk had a better record of penalty avoidance. PC tries to sort out the impact of goaltending on defense, but these stats still include the noise of the performance of teammates. So we see some pairings from certain teams. And sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Spending a great deal of time on the attack is a great way to prevent goals (note some famous offensive players on the leaderboard). Another caveat is that not all forwards receive uniformly difficult defensive assignments. Top offensive forwards frequently skate against checkers and vice versa. This tendency may cause the defense of top offensive forwards to be over rated (and the defense of checkers to be underrated). The table to the right shows the four year PCD performance of selected forwards. Three of these players have won Selke Trophies, Lehtinen (3), Brind Amour (2) and Madden (1). This table says that Jay Pandolfo is long overdue. If the voters should consider penalty avoidance as a piece of defense (as I feel), then Richards and St. Louis have also been shut out unfairly. Finally this chronicles the development of Datsyuk as a defensive force. Lady Byng Trophy Player Contribution Historical PCD for Forwards Player Team POS Total Jere Lehtinen DAL RW Jay Pandolfo NJD LW Brad Richards TB C Martin St. Louis TB RW John Madden NJD C Rod Brind Amour CAR C Pavel Datsyuk DET C The Lady Byng Memorial Trophy goes to the player adjudged to have exhibited the best type of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct combined with a high standard of playing ability. The word combined is an AND condition. With AND conditions