The always enlightening and wonderfully-named Bettman's Nightmare posted a piece this morning at www.behindthenethockey.com about expected zone shifts.  I am not going to be able to explain this any better than him, so I'll just quote him at length:

Looking at Zone Starts more and more lately has brought me to the realization that I need something in the back of my mind to remember the expected finishes for players at each level of the spectrum.  To explain, Zone Starts (to horribly butcher and paraphrase these superior descriptions), a concept developed by Vic Ferrari, takes the number of faceoffs that start a player's shift and expresses it as a ratio of offensive zone faceoffs over the total of offensive and defensive zone faceoffs, or O-Zone FO / (O-Zone FO + D-Zone FO).  Paired with Zone Finish (which does the same equation with faceoffs that end a player's shift) and you have a loose idea of territorial control and coach usage, and the differential (coined "Zone Shift" by Ferrari) gives you a glimpse of whether the player is moving the puck in the right direction.  It's a pretty solid set of metrics, as high Zone Starts have had a positive correlation with Corsi, with the caveat that you need to have a sense of where the league-average Zone Shift is to know a.) players being deployed significantly in their own zone, and b.) whether the Zone Shift is below-average, roughly average, or above-average.  As Gabe's noted in the past, Zone Starts vis-a-vis Finishes pull hard to 50%, so anyone starting at 40% in the O-Zone is far more likely to finish with a positive Zone Shift, and anyone starting at 60% in the O-Zone is far more likely to finish with a negative Zone Shift.

As with most things, I immediately thought about how this applies to the Leafs.  Which Leafs outperform their expected zone shifts?  Which underperform?  The answers, after the jump, are not terribly surprising.

Continue reading this post »

The Leafs have for some time now been a statistical anomaly.  Year after year post-lockout, they have posted decent shot, corsi (which includes all shots directed at net), and fenwick (which includes shots on goal, missed shots but not blocks) numbers.  Most statistical analysis indicates that puck possession (as measured by shot/corsi/fenwick) tends to be reflected in the scoresheet.  The Leafs have been the rare team that demonstrates excellent puck possession but terrible results.

Gabe Desjardins had this to say about the Leafs' ability to defy basically every statistical model he has (the quote is from the comments, not the article):

Of course, the Leafs of the last two seasons may be the rare team that doesn’t fit into any of these buckets: no defensive shell when up; a legitimately -3 sd team in terms of shooting skill; an inability to get to the net, hence weaker chances; and no chance prevention skills on defense.

 In this piece I'll briefly touch on shooting ability and chance prevention, and then turn to the "defensive shell" issue, which is a legitimate observation and fortunately one that early returns suggest may be changing this year.

Continue reading this post »

I have long been aggravated by references to Toronto's supposedly terrible defence post-lockout.  People look at goals against, see a very large number, and automatically conclude the defence is terrible.  Left out, of course, is that the Leafs have received historically bad goaltending, at least according to save percentages. Advanced hockey analytics have taught us that given the relatively narrow band of NHL shooting talent, for the most part shots for and against are the best predictor of future success.  The Leafs have been merely mediocre at preventing shots post-lockout (rank for the past five years: 22nd, 7th, 17th, 17th, 13th); they meanwhile they are perennial bottom dwellers in goals against.

But is there more to it?  Is it possible that while the Leafs may not give up an unusual number of shots, we do give up an unusually high quality of shots?  That's the question I'm going to tackle here.  The bad news is, the evidence suggests that the answer is yes.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: The '67 Sound takes a look at some of Brian Burke's latest public comments and examines how they apply to his team building philosophy. It's a bit of a longer piece but definitely worth a read.

In various comments over the past week, and in reaction to some typically thoughtful pieces over at Copper N Blue, I have been thinking about who is going to make this Leafs team and what role they are likely to play.  I should also credit various members of PPPPP who are always emphasize that the NHL is not a fantasy league or video game, and team roles are important.  As Brian Burke often likes to refer to his Cup-winning team in Anaheim as a model of how he likes to build a team, I thought I would take a closer look and see what lessons can be learned.  Karina's helpful reference to an outstanding Mirtle article from three years' ago is also a must-read on this front.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: Here is one of our first entries to our random draw. The '67 Sound makes a great case for his selections. Let him know what you think or put forth your own.

What better way to waste time in the dog days of August before training camp begins.  I have come up with several different iterations of this, but believe I have finally settled on four.  In chronological order:

• Conn Smythe
• Ted "Teeder" Kennedy
• George "Chief" Armstrong
• Mats Sundin

After the jump, I'll set out my criteria and reasons for my picks (with a hat tip to Matt Roberts, to be explained below).

Continue reading this post »

We always sit back and laugh at bad contracts after the fact (or in the case of the Jokinen and Boogard signings, as they happen), once they've proven to be overpayments.  I thought I'd go on record with some of the major signings, so I can check back in a year or two and see if I've made a fool of myself.  This will either teach me that I'm an idiot, or become Exhibit "A" in my application to become the Leafs' newest deputy assistant to the associate GM's secretary.

I only had time today to look at five of the most high profile D-men signings, and four of the forwards.  My conclusion: (1) Michalek is the only D contract I like; (2) Steen is the only F contract I kind of like; and (3) the Devils desperately need Kaberle but currently lack both the assets and the cap space to acquire him.

At the suggestion of Phaneuf's Rock Collection, I'm fanposting this from my comment in the FTBs.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: Here is the fourth part of The '67 Sound's analysis of what moves Brian Burke should make beginning tomorrow. Part I looked at the basis on which he was evaluating the Leafs' roster, part II he looked at the current, established NHLers on the roster, and part three tried to project out what the Leafs' have in terms of their top prospects. Now it's up to the question of What Should Brian Burke Do?

Having looked at what the Leafs have, and what they need, here without further ado are my humble suggestions for how to go about filling those holes.

The name of the game in a salary-capped world is efficiency.  You need to maximize production and minimize cost for every player.  So what exactly is an efficient player?  I calculated this by figuring out what a team needs, what they have to spend, and dividing the two.

Since I'm using GVT as my primary sorting tool, I need to know what "team GVT" will make you a contender.  The "threshold" in "goals versus threshold" is what a team of marginal NHL players would produce.  The worst team in the NHL this year, the Oilers, were -70 in goal differential.  They were better than a threshold team, which would be composed exclusively of players readily available from the AHL or waiver market.  The Oilers weren't that bad--so let's set the bottom limit at 150% of the Oilers, or -105.  By how much does a contender need to exceed that?  The top 8 teams this year in goal differential had an average of +44.  Our team therefore needs to have a GVT of 150 - 150 better than the threshold of -105, not a +150 goal differential, mind you - to be a contender.  As a reality check, last year the Canucks were 170, the Sharks 165, and the Devils 145.  150 sounds about right for "legitimate contender".  The Leafs, by the way, were 67.  There's a long way to go.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: Here is the third part of The '67 Sound's analysis of what moves Brian Burke should make beginning tomorrow. Part I looked at the basis on which he was evaluating the Leafs' roster, part II he looked at the current, established NHLers on the roster, and in part three...well, read on. 

In Part II I looked at what we have in the Leafs current roster of "established" NHL players, to determine what holes remained.  My conclusion was that we are set for defencemen, but have significant holes up front.  So far, no stunning revelations.  In this part I make the argument for putting Stalberg, Caputi, Hanson and possibly Kadri on the team, minimizing our needs in free agency.

Here are the stats on Leafs forwards who appeared for the Leafs last year and remain under contract, plus Mike Brown:

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: Here is part two of The 67 Sound's plan for free agency. This one focuses on the Leafs' established NHLers. Part one can be found here.

Part I introduced the statistics I intended to rely on.  Now I use some of those statistics to take stock of what the Leafs have in the way of established NHL players.

Here's the current Leafs roster of "established" NHL players, divided by position, and ranked by GVT normalized to an 82 game schedule:

Forwards

From this, it would appear there are multiple holes both in the Top 6 and the Bottom 6.  Moreover, while the precise lines will be fluid, it's pretty clear who is Top 6 or Bottom 6 material.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: The '67 Sound is going to publish a really long look at what moves Brian Burke should make based on the current make up of the Toronto Maple Leafs' roster. This is part one of many. He's going to publish them throughout the day so that you don't hurt yourselves reading too much at once.

We've all been speculating since the season ended (and even before) about what Brian Burke should do come July 1 ("our draft", I think he called it).  I was pretty firmly in the "don't do anything camp", but I wanted to test my preliminary instincts in that regard.  I have come to a slightly different conclusion.  I still think Burke should not do anything, unless he can acquire a premium player like Ilya Kovalchuk or Marc Savard.

I do not purport to have any skills as a scout.  I also do not have the mathematical skills to pull off the advanced statistical work being performed by people like Gabe Desjardins, Vic Ferrari, mc79 or many others.  I do, however, have Internet access, a willingness to challenge my own assumptions, and an lack of any shame to steal others' work.  What follows is my attempt to use the tools available to an average fan like myself and come up with some suggestions for what the Leafs should do next.

The analysis proceeds in three steps.  First, I looked at the Leafs' current roster of "established" NHL players-guys who are a lock for the big club next year.  This tells us what holes need to be filled. 

The second step is to look at our internal resources-both guys like Luca Caputi, Viktor Stalberg and Christian Hanson, who have seen some NHL time, and guys like Nazem Kadri who have yet to see any significant NHL time.  I looked at development paths for currently successful NHLers to come up with some recommendations for how many roster holes can and should be filled by these internal resources.

The third and final step, having determined how many roster holes remain, is to look to the UFA market for help.  I have done so by trying to determine what is an "efficient salary", and making some projections as to who might fit that description.

Below is a brief note on some of the statistics I will use.  The three parts of the analysis will be posted throughout the day.  I apologize in advance for the length of these posts.

Continue reading this post »

Barring a deal, the Leafs won't pick until the 3rd round.  What should they do with those picks?  Some quick research suggests a strategy unlikely to be favoured by our truculent GM.

I looked at the five drafts from 1999 to 2003.  Why that time frame?  Because we can safely evaluate most guys from the 2003 draft by now, and I didn't feel like spending more than five minutes looking, OK?

I then looked for "impact players" in the 3rd round and lower from those drafts, which I defined as guys who have been Top 6 forwards or Top 4 defensemen.  This was based on a quick review of stat lines on hockeydb.com and my own recollection of players, so feel free to tell me if I'm overlooking any gems here.  Here are the lists I came up with:

Forwards:

Matthew Lombardi

Lee Stempniak

Joe Pavelski

Kyle Wellwood (hey, he was good for a couple years and it's a low bar)

Ryan Clowe

Marek Svatos

Petr Cajanek

Brooks Laich

Niklas Hagman

Jussi Jokinen

Mike Comrie

Ryan Malone

Martin Erat

Henrik Zetterberg

Radim Vrbata

Defencemen:

Ian White

Dennis Wideman

Christian Ehrhoff

Kevin Bieksa

Marek Zidlicky

Johnny Oduya

Lubomir Visnovsky

John Michael Liles

What are the italicizations?  As you may have guessed from the title, they are guys likely viewed in their draft year as "undersized".  All the italicized forwards are listed in hockeydb as 5'11" or less, and all the defensemen are 6'0" or less.  And even for the remaining guys who met those thresholds, Malone is probably the only one you would call "big".

In summary, 14 out of 23 late round gems from 1999 to 2003 are undersized guys who score.  Moreover, of the nine "big" guys, no less than five of them--Hagman, Zetterberg, Erat, Malone and Vrbata--were from 1999.  Maybe scouting wasn't as good back then.

The reason for this phenomenon is obvious.  The minors are full of high scoring hobbits who crash and burn at the next level.  NHL talent evaluators have become obsessed with "NHL bodies", figuring they can develop their skills but can't change their size.  Well guess what?  Given the dearth of hulking "late bloomers", it looks like for the most part you can't soften hands of stone.  Guys who don't score in junior won't score in the NHL.  And guys with size and skill are gone by the 3rd round.

mf37 and I have debated this--is it better to swing for the fences with late round picks or go for a "safe" choice?  To me, there are no safe choices beyond the second round and so I'd swing the fences.  The best way to do that is to pick the little guy who puts the puck in the net.

And for the love of God don't draft another Jamie Devane.

Inspired by a little debate in the FTBs between leafer1984 and mf37, I thought I'd look at potential reasons for Phaneuf's declining offensive production in his last two seasons.

I'll start with the raw stats: 

 What does this tell us?

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: The '67 Sound takes stock of what Brian Burke has done since taking over as General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs in November of 2008. Share your thoughts about whether Burke's putting the Leafs on the right track or if things are headed down the wrong path.

The passing of the deadline is perhaps an appropriate moment to take stock of where we are. Brian Burke has been the GM since November 2008: two trade deadlines, the better parts of two NHL seasons, and one free agency season. He's turned over most of the roster and clearly put his stamp on his team. I have always believed that he knew what he was doing and had a plan to make this team better. A lot of people have suggested that he was given nothing and has been doing a good job with those negligible assets. Unfortunately, this trade deadline has led me to take stock of the team and how it compares to when Burke took over. Unfortunately I don't like what I see.

My analysis is driven by one principle: In a salary cap world, what matters most is whether your players are outperforming their contracts. To borrow mc79's line, NHL hockey is an efficiency contest: whose gets the most bang for their buck? Unlike baseball, we don't have the tools in hockey to assign an objective "value" to a player based on performance that can then be compared to his salary. I will therefore use this basic rule of thumb: if offered a player on his current contract for nothing, would the average smart GM take the player? If the player is overpaid (see: Blake, Jason; Finger, Jeff) the average smart GM would not and the player is an anchor. If the player is fairly or underpaid, the average smart GM would take him, and the player is an asset.

Continue reading this post »

Leading up to and following the big win last night, we heard a lot about Canada's "50 year drought" against Russia/USSR in Olympic hockey.  This, however, is a silly statistic given that best-on-best hockey only came to the Olympics in 1998 and we had only played once since that time.  So how has Canada fared against Russia in best-on-best hockey?

I've indicated individual scores except for the '72 Summit Series, where I just indicated the win-loss-tie record.  I've also indicated where one team or another was the winner of the overall tournament.

2010 Olympics: Canada 7, Russia 3

2006 Olympics: Russia 2, Canada 0. Sweden wins Gold

2004 World Cup: Canada (Winner) 3, Russia 1

2002 Olympics: Did not play. Canada wins gold

1998 Olympics: Did not play. Russia wins silver, Czechs win Gold

1996 World Cup: Canada 5, Russia 3. US wins Gold

1991 Canada Cup: Canada 3 (Winner), Russia 3

1987 Canada Cup: Canada 3, Russia 3; Russia 6, Canada 5; Canada 6, Russia 5; Canada 6 (Winner), Russia 5

1984 Canada Cup: Russia 6, Canada 3; Canada 3 (Winner), Russia 2

1981 Canada Cup: Canada 7, Russia 3; Russia 8 (Winner), Canada 1

1976 Canada Cup: Canada 3 (Winner), Russia 1

1972 Summit Series: Canada (Winner) 4-3-1

So even before we broke our "50 year drought", Canada had gone 11-7-3 against Russia in "best on best" competition (excluding all Olympics pre-'98, the 1974 Summit Series which featured only WHA players, and all "World Championships"). Looking at overall results and not just head to head, Canada has won seven of eleven tournaments (with a chance at another this year), Russia only one (same as the US, Czechs and Swedes).

I think a lot of Leafs fans were looking forward to the Olympics as a respite from this disappointing year.  How frustrating has it been to continually outshoot teams but be doomed by spectacularly bad netminding?  Finally we get to see a dominant team with great goaltending, right?  Right?

Wrong.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: So I dig some digging (ie read the CBA) and I found the relevant passage:

ARTICLE 3 - DURATION OF AGREEMENT

3.1 Term. 

(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2004 (the "Effective Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight New York time on September 15, 2011, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a), the NHLPA shall have the right: (i) to terminate this Agreement as of September 15, 2009 by delivery of written notice of termination to the NHL at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2009; or (ii) to extend this Agreement for one additional year to September 15, 2012 by delivery of written notice to the NHL of such election to extend at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011. 

If I understand the rest of the cap correctly that means that bonuses will count towards the cap unless the deal is extended and the latest it can be done is June 15th, 2011. I believe that means that for now, because the cap is ending, that they will count. With the NHLPA in disarray they might extend the agreement one more year in order to buy themselves some time to get their act together. Either way, for now it's clear as mud.

Wow.  In one day Burke unloaded one of the Leafs worst contracts (Blake) and our worst player (Toskala), but he also unloaded two of our best contracts (White, at least for this year, and Hagman).  What does this mean for the future, and specifically our cap space?  Mirtle has the basics here, but let's go a bit further.

Continue reading this post »

I suppose I've been feeling some guilt about so readily proposing to jettison Matt Stajan in my salary cap post.  I also have been somewhat disheartened by how readily others have dismissed Stajan's successes this year.  So let's just take a minute to appreciate what a strong season Matt Stajan is having thus far.

Continue reading this post »

Editor's Note: Do the Toronto Maple Leafs really have that much cap space available this summer? Sure doesn't look that way unless Burke can move some unwieldy contracts (yeah, right), the cap goes up (good luck), or he moves some assets at their peak value (hmmmm...) Here's a breakdown by The '67 Sound

A lot of comments seem to assume that we have boatloads of cap space next year with all the expiring contracts.  And indeed, capgeek.com lists almost $22 million in cap space next year.  But how much can we reasonably expect to be available?

The first thing is to remember that while there is only $37 million committed next year, that only covers 11 players (5 F and 6 D).  That means our $22 million has to pay for 12 players given a standard 23 man roster.  We still would need 8 more forwards, a defenceman and 2 goalies.

Continue reading this post »

"Kessel is the only Leafs player who can even remotely be considered a top-six forward"

Jeff Blair in the Globe

Continue reading this post »