Filter posts by...
Hockey
Monday, December 12, 2011
After how many years would you put someone in the Hall of Fame? Ken Dryden for example played seven full seasons (plus an 8th year in the playoffs). He retired at his peak. He’s in the Hall of Fame. He was 1st or 2nd team all-star six times.
Bobby Orr won the best defenseman award in 8 of his 9 full seasons. He’s not only in the Hall of Fame, but considered one of the 4 best players of all time. His last full-season was at the age of 27.
Guy Lafleur had a fairly long career, but only six of those seasons were of high-caliber (all as 1st-team all-star), with the rest of his career being a very good, but not great, kind of player. I think if he retired after his last great season, he’s still have made the Hall of Fame.
After how many years would Gretzky have been enshrined? Five?
And so we have Sidney Crosby, who has a chance to have concussion knock him out permanently from the NHL. Including the playoffs, he’s played almost five full seasons. How much more does he need to do? Six? Seven? (Ovechkin, his peer, has played nearly 7 full seasons including playoffs. Is he in right now?)
How many Pedro, RJ, Clemens, or Maddux years would you need? Do you need the filler seasons? What about Doc and Pujols? Allegations aside, are the 4 Bonds years enough (ala Gretzky)?
I’m confused:
The average NHL team is worth 47 per cent more than it was before the lockout that cancelled the 2004-05 season. Let’s hope a the NHL can get a more economically sound CBA without having another work stoppage. Business has improved too much the past seven years.
How does the bold part make any sense? Team values jumped. Business has been great. And they still need a “more economically sound” CBA? Elsewhere in the article he talks about needing to get into NBA-style splits:
The NHL must move much closer to the 48 per cent model the NFL agreed to before this season or the 50-50 revenue split National Basketball Association owners and players recently agreed to.
Must?
He talks about some teams not being profitable, while completely ignoring that teams can share revenue among themselves to make up for the haves doing so well. That the players should have the onus.
It’s quite the striking read, that it lays out the facts as he did, and then ignores those facts in favor of a political argument.
About 30 years ago, the Minnesota North Stars and the Cleveland Barons merged into one team (as North Stars). Now, how about if you have a team, oh, the Toronto Maple Leafs, that is so hugely valued, and playing in the largest hockey market in the world, and so very under-served that it could easily support two NHL teams, that the co-owners decide to split the team into two?
As it so happens, the Ontario Toronto Pension Fund has sold the MLSE (owners of the Leafs, as well as the arena they play in) to Bell and Rogers (the equivalent of Verizon and Comcast). Having Bell and Rogers being co-partners in anything is quite shocking, but this fellow lays out the case for why it makes sense. And that is, have TWO teams in Toronto, with Bell owning one, and Rogers owning the other (Rogers also owns the Jays).
Bell is also a minority owner in the Montreal Canadiens. How Bell can exist as a minority owner to TWO teams is also quite a shock. So, who knows what kind of machinations are in place. Maybe Bell sells its new Toronto team to someone, and then splits Montreal into two as well (with co-owner Molson).
Anyway, fun stuff to follow for any sports fan.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Quite a compilation of fight stats.
Friday, December 09, 2011
26 cents an ounce in Colorado, and 62 cents an ounce in Montreal. And everything else in between:
Great recap from Katie Baker. Quickly becoming my favorite feature online.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
This Washington writer asks, and tests:
Vokoun and Michal Neuvirth have an underwhelming .896 save percentage and 3.09 GAA.
Is it possible it’s just two goalies experiencing slumps that just happened to coincide with Vokoun signing with Washington? Not sure, so let’s ask the Monte Carlo Machine.
Specifically, I’m going to simulate 10,000 26-game seasons based on the career save percentages of Vokoun and Neuvirth. For each game they have started in 2011-12, I will use a random number generator to determine what their save percentage was based on their historical performances to date. Then, I will average those games to see if both players were at or below their actual 2011-12 averages. Finally, I will repeat this process 10,000 times and count how many simulations contained averages at or below the actual 2011-12 save percentages, which will give us the probability that the declines of Vokoun and Neuvirth have been due to random fluctuations in performance.
On to the results!
Out of 10,000 simulations, 2,457 contained stretches in which both Vokoun and Neuvirth simultaneously put up average save percentages as low as they’ve posted so far in real life. This means there’s a 24.6 percent chance that Vokoun and Neuvirth currently have the same inherent “save skills” as their post-lockout averages suggest, but have merely gone through two simultaneous slumps.
Now, you didn’t really need a sim to do all that. Vokoun has a .917 career save percentage, and his backup has a career .908. Their weighted average is .914. They’ve faced 815 shots, so, .914 save percentage means 70 goals expected compared to 84 actual goals, or a difference of 14 goals.
One standard deviation is sqrt(.914 * (1-.914) * 815) = 8 goals, or 1.75 standard deviations from the mean. That’s 4% chance of luck. I don’t know where he got 24.6% though. Maybe he used a lower save percentage? 24.6% means only .69 standard deviations from the mean, which would imply a difference of only 5.5 goals, which would imply an expect save percentage of .904 (instead of the .914 I used).
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Story. Timeline of Fleury’s story.
Graham James also was convicted years ago of assaulting Sheldon Kennedy.
To show you how delusional these predators are:
James also later recounted, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, that he felt surprised and betrayed by Kennedy’s coming forward. “Did I expect Sheldon Kennedy to do this? Absolutely not. Sheldon and I were close...He legitimately cared. Not about (the sex), obviously. He cared. He knew I was lonely, and you know, that sort of registered as desperation. He cared enough to put up with limited things...I didn’t think, at the time, that this was something that was bothering Sheldon. It wasn’t that Sheldon was gay—he’s not gay. It wasn’t that he enjoyed it—he didn’t. Maybe I’m just trying to legitimize things myself, but at no time did I think it was a major thing for him.” (Ottawa Citizen, 1/8/97)
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Gabe documents the various divisions in NHL history that failed at adhering to geographical divisions. (Not that MLB was any better mind you. At least the NHL made changes at a quicker pace.)
Anyway, so with the four new conferences, we have some odd setup, notably the two Florida teams playing in the same conference as Montreal. As Gabe noted, you have to put them somewhere.
Monday, December 05, 2011
That’s what the NHL is now doing. That means two 7-team conferences and two 8-team conferences.
The first two rounds will feature 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 for each conference. Presumably, the four teams that come out of there won’t be stuck in an east/west setup like it currently is.
We’ve talked about this in the past for MLB, and it’s a great setup. I’m not sure how the schedule is going to shake out, but if you do 2 games against the 22 or 23 teams in the other 3 conferences, that leaves you with 36 games against the other 6 intra-conference teams or 38 games against the 7 other intra-conference teams.
Anyway, back in 1997-1998, the NHL had 4 divisions (two conferences) of 6 and 7 team divisions. So, the new setup is more of a throwback to that. But the wrinkle here is that we have no divisions, and instead it’s 4 conferences. (Presumably, as I read it.)
This really will open things up. The difference is most clear in the NBA, where the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs can never meet in the finals. Now, with the new setup, if the Canadiens and the Penguins are in different conferences, they can potentially meet in the Finals.
***
As for Conference names, I will propose:
Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux
As a bonus, the Oilers/Kings, Redwings, Bruins, Penguins are in separate conferences already.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
There is one school of thought that having stronger penalties for fighting in the NHL will simply shift the infraction into something else, like stick fouls. And rather than fighting be a “red light district” limited in large part to a few players, the stick fouls, or whatever other aggressive fouls that will take its place, will then be distributed across a much larger group of players. In effect, the enforcers act as a few policemen to prevent anarchy.
The other school of thought is that the idea of fighting is barbaric, and it should be accompanied with harsh penalties. And, if, and when, the unintended consequences rear its ugly head, then we’ll deal with it then. That it’s more important to get on the right path, then to try to have this balance of terror in perpetuity.
***
What is also interesting is that by giving prominence to fighting, those fighters have to come from somewhere. And, as we can see in this powerful account of Derek Boogaard, it starts at a young age. We are, basically, growing enforcers from the outset. It is one thing for a good hockey player to have to defend himself in the course of a physical confrontation. And it’s another thing to cultivate an enforcer simply for his raison d’etre.
So, removing fighting may have an unintended consequence of stick fouls (and those may be even more dangerous than fighting), but it will have the intended consequence of no longer promoting, and thereby no longer needing to cultivate, fighting.
I think the players are smart enough, experience enough, that if challenged to create a climate, via the rule book, that eliminates fighting, and reduce unintended consequences, they’d be able to do that. And, I think having Brendan Shanahan head up, or appoint, a committee to that effect may have some fantastic results.
If you convince yourself that things can’t be better than it is, then you assure yourself that they won’t be. But, if you allow the possibility that things can get better, then you’ve opened up the door to a chance that it will get better.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
I used Gabe’s data found here to select all goalies with at least 3000 shots faced on 5 on 5, over the 2007/08 through 2010/2011 seasons.
http://behindthenet.ca/goalie_shot_quality.php?sort=12&mingp=3000
This gave me 42 goalies that were the most used. I calculated the league average goals/shot rate (5.62%), as well as how many standard deviations each goalie was from the mean (given the number of shots he faced), or his z-score.
If all goalies were the same, and all the shots they faced were of the same quality in front of the same defense, we’d expect the standard deviation of all the z-scores will be 1.00.
Of course, we won’t find that because we expect at least one of those three things to be different:
1. There’s no reason to expect that all goalies have an identical skill.
2. Nor would be expect each goalie to have faced identical quality of shots, even if their total shots faced is from 3000 to 8000. Though the hope is that it will cancel out to a large degree.
3. In addition, given that goalies are married to a limited number of teams, and there is an obvious difference in defense talent and defense setups, we don’t expect that to work itself out in the wash. Indeed, this would be an example of a systematic bias, and so, would actually be somewhat persistent.
So, no longer do we have 1.00 as the standard baseline to use to presume a random context for each goalie.
Anyway, so the standard deviation of all the z-scores is 1.32, which shows a substantial amount of ... well, something non-random.
To the extent that there’s SOME goalie talent, the one goalie that stands head-and-shoulders above them all is Tim Thomas. His z-score is 3.30, while the next three are at 2.29, 2.19, and 2.11 (Bryzgalov, Luongo, Hiller, respectively). After that, it’s a steep drop.
Bringing up the rear, by far is Brian Elliott (-3.13), and then a cluster of goalies.
We have to add about 3000 shots faced at league average to do a regression toward the mean to remove the noise (presuming that the goalie is the ONLY variable in play here). On the other hand, if we believe that the other two variables have at least as much impact as the goalie, we need to add 7500 shots at league average for regression toward the mean.
What is the impact here? Let’s look at Tim Thomas. He faced 6395 shots and allowed (or rather, was in the net when there were scored) 298 goals. He is, unadjusted, +69 goals better than average over the 4 year period. Regression toward the mean however would suggest regressing that total at least 32% and perhaps even 54%. That would then given us a true talent estimate for Tim Thomas of +47 goals, or perhaps even +32 goals. Divide by 4, and that’s a value of +12 goals (or perhaps +8 goals). This is limited to the 5 on 5 time, which would roughly correspond to 75% of all shots faced. Increasing the above totals by four-thirds, and we get +16 goals (or +11 goals) per season.
***
It could even be much lower than that. Take for example the goals per shots allowed of the 42 goalies with the most shots faced (hence, the goalies that the coaches trusted the most) and the rest of the league. Now, we have a bias because a coach will be guided by observed outcomes as to who he’s going to put in nets. Take for example the possibility that all goalies are equal in talent (but the coach thinks otherwise). If one goalie gives up 2 goals a game, and the other gives up 3 goals a game, which goalie will continue to see ice time?
So, we expect to see some difference between the two groups of goalie, based purely on the selection bias issue. How much? Well, I don’t know!
The regular goalies allows goals at a .056 rate per shot, while the backup goalies are at .061. Is it possible that selection bias is at play here, such that the better goalies have an actual talent of .058 goals per shot (instead of .056) and the backup goalies are at .059 goals per shot (instead of .061)? Sure, I’m not excluding anything here.
The Capitals fire a coach that went 201-88. A few days later, the Ducks fire a coach that went 273-182, only to replace him with the fired Capitals coach. Just waiting for the Ducks coach to be hired in a few days…
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sounds fantastic. My only suggestion is to ditch the name “Three-sided” and call it “Menage a Trois”.
When we were kids, and we only had 12 players for a baseball game, we’d create three teams: 4 infielders, 3 outfielders + pitcher, 4 batters. After three outs, we simply rotated (infielders go to outfield, and batters to infield). Worked out wonderfully. It was fairly easy to lose track of score, but, we didn’t really care.
I don’t think the Menage a Trois soccer can apply to hockey. First, you are really limited to the ice. But, even if you do this for street hockey, I think you will lose the fluidity in the game because players will be too clustered. That’s my guess anyway.
Basketball wouldn’t work either, because in that game, it’s practically always a 5-on-5 game. Players are not spread out like soccer. So, a Menage a Trois basketball would have say 3-on-3-on-3, which is really 6-on-3. But then again, with two ends left unguarded, you might have two guys back at all times, so it would be 4-on-3, with the two other guys guarding the net for a fast break. So, I take that back. I think it might work pretty well for basketball.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Matt makes the point that even with the draft pick cap limits, baseball prospects in high school will still choose baseball, because it’s the best game in town. But, at what point would they actually start to leave? How low a signing bonus would you have until baseball is shunned as an option?
The idea of “signing bonuses” is interesting, because that doesn’t exist in the NHL. The reason you don’t need a signing bonus with NBA or NFL is that you are signing a major league contract right away and playing in the majors right away. The NHL is setup like MLB, with minor leagues. So, you are actually signing a two-way deal, like MLB would.
The NHL has a rookie cap at just under a million$, and is stuck there at 3 years (so the most you can sign is a 3 year 3MM$ deal from your draft, as long as you make it to the pros, with some bonuses, that used to be easy to attain, but they clamped down on that). NHL 18-yr old prospects also have nowhere else to go. There’s no such thing as a big-business college hockey, and the cost of education in Canada is far lower than it is in USA, so scholarships don’t have as much value.
So, signing bonuses exist in MLB as some sort of incentive to push you toward MLB, and away from college. But the reality is that MLB can have no signing bonuses whatsoever, effectively making all the high school players choose college instead, and wait to draft players after college… and then have no signing bonuses at all… just like the NHL.
What would happen here? Would Bryce Harper and the Upton boys choose football instead? And when they graduate college, prefer NFL to MLB?
And even if all that did happen, how many players are we talking about? 1% of the star players? 5% even? No one is going to notice that MLB doesn’t have all the best players in North America if 5% of them intentionally “pre-retire”.
So, why not simply do away with signing bonuses completely?
Let’s go even further. We’ve established that a 1MM$ or 2MM$ signing bonus, or no signing bonus at all, will barely affect the talent pool eventually entering MLB. What if the prospects themselves have to PAY TO GET INTO MLB?
If MLB provides access to so much future money to these players, and if these players really have nowhere else to go, how much would they be willing to pay to register to get drafted? It’s no different from college, right? I had to pay to go to school, as it was a gateway to getting a job in the real world.
What if MLB had baseball academies that you had to pay to get into? (That is basically what each team’s minor league is.)
And you can go even further: what if a player, rather than paying, agrees to give up 50% of his first year salary (if he makes it that far), or 5% of his lifetime earnings?
Here’s my challenge to you: start with a clean slate. Blow up everything you even thought of regarding MLB and its draft. Explain to me the impact of having no signing bonuses at all (like NHL). And explain to me the impact of making players pay (like NBA and NFL effectively are making them do by making them go to college).
Teach me.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
It’s the same basic idea here: figure out where the shot is taken, and whether it’s a rebound or not, and if it’s with the man advantage or not, to calculate how often an average player would have scored a goal. Compare that to how many goals he actually scored, and you get a measure of how good a scorer he is GIVEN THAT HE GOT A SHOT AWAY AT THAT LOCATION. (Just BEING at that location requires skill as well, so, that’s a separate metric.)
Kovalchuk gets +.042 goals per shot taken (given the above parameters). Over the 4 years, that’s +63 goals above average. So, once he takes a shot, he’s deadly.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Not since Tim Raines’ return on May 2, 1987, has any veteran athlete come back from an extended hiatus with exactly zero pre-season games, and simply took over in his first game back.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The NHL pays out around 55% of their revenue to the players (it’s 54% as the base, then marginal values above thresholds are paid out at 55%, 56%, 57%). The NBA is insisting it should pay out at 50% (when they used to pay 57%).
The NBA and NHL have plenty of overlap: they play is many of the same cities, sharing the same arenas, with the same number of games in the regular season, and a very similar playoff format. Their seasons cover similar months.
So, what are the differences that would cause one to pay 55% and the other 50%?
Is it how hockey-related revenues (HRR) are calculated, compared to basketball-related income (BRI)? Does it have to do with pension, or other parts of the compensation system? Is there someone out there that follows both who can tell me?
Monday, November 14, 2011
Brian Burke does a good job for football.
***
He also signs off with some MGLism:
If you gave the Saints coaches the choice between receiving the punt and letting the Falcons roll the dice on 4th and inches, they’d take the punt every time and twice on Sunday. That tells you something, doesn’t it?
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 3 of 342 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date