Analysis: Which Caps Play Better Against Good Competition – And Which Don't
When Mike Gartner was traded for Dino Ciccarelli in 1989, it sent shockwaves through our fan base. We were trading a perennial goal-scoring dynamo who played a finesse game for a rough-around-the-edges winger who had no problem planting himself in front of the net and wreaking havoc on everyone -opponents, teammates, neighbors, adolescent girls - in his path. It was a gamble for GM David Poile as he was giving up a very popular player in Gartner because, for whatever reason, Gartner chronically faded in the playoffs. Dino was brought here solely to change that.
With all due respect to #11, I have a burning suspicion that we have players with Gartner syndrome, padding their stats against middling competition but failing to produce similarly against elite competition – the type we need to beat in May and June to have this season be considered a success. So I set out to figure out which Caps players failed to step up their game against elite competition as well as those who do.
What I did was separate this season’s Caps games into two groups: those played against top 10 teams (really, teams #2 through #10 based on the current standings since we’re #1) and those against the remaining 20 teams in the NHL. I then compared player’s even strength performance against teams in the Top 10 with those in the Bottom 20, which you’ll see further below. From there I bucketed players into three groupings:
- Those who play better against Top 10 teams, rather than Bottom 20 teams (aka, "The Big Game Hunters")
- Those who stay consistent no matter the opponent ("The Steady Eddies")
- Those who play better against Bottom 20 teams (aka, "The Bottom-Feeders").
The Big Game Hunters are great. They thrive on playing better competition and, come playoff time, we shouldn’t be worried about them elevating their game as those guys step up when they need to. The Steady Eddies are great as well. Nothing beats consistency, right? It’s the Bottom Feeders that scare me, because I worry that we over-inflate their value to our team. Sure, you may have a player with great stats, but when it’s piled up against the Islanders and Thrashers - and not the Penguins or Devils -that worries me. Because as we all know it’s how we’re going to play against the Penguins, Devils, Hawks and Sharks that will define whether this season’s a success.
The Stats I Tracked
Like I stated earlier I looked solely at even strength stats (GFON/60, GAON/60, +/-ON/60) to figure out where to bucket our players. For those not familiar with these stats:
- GFON/60 is the number of goals a team scores across 60 minutes when this player is on the ice
- GAON/60 is the number of goals the other team scores across 60 minutes when this player is on the ice.
- +/-ON/60 is the difference.
So if a player has a 3.00 GOF/60 and a 2.30 GOA/60, his +/-ON/60 is 0.70 indicating that his presence is a net positive for the team based on even strength production. When the +/-ON/60 number is negative, it means he has a net negative impact on the team during even strength situations.
Some Prep Work First…
I’m almost ready to show you the results but there’s two more prep items you need to know. The first one is the difference between the Caps even strength +/-ON/60 against the Top 10 vs their +/-ON/60 against the Bottom 20 teams. It’s 0.69.
|
Grouping |
EV GOF/60 |
EV GOA/60 |
EV +/-ON/60 |
Delta +/-ON/60 |
|
Top 10 |
3.60 |
2.76 |
0.84 |
-- |
|
Bottom 20 |
3.56 |
2.03 |
1.53 |
0.69 |
Why is this 0.69 important? Because if a player has an +/-ON/60 of 1.50 against Bottom 20 competition but it drops to 0.81 against Top 10 competition that’s actually okay. His 0.69 production drop is exactly in line with the team’s overall performance drop against better teams. In fact, it means he’s pretty darn consistent – a Steady Eddie. (One of our players fits this bill.) If a player’s Top 10 +/-ON/60 were to drop more than 0.69 compared to his Bottom 20 +/-ON/60 - say from 1.50 to -0.35 - that 1.85 drop would indicate that he plays worse against good competition. He’s a Bottom Feeder. Finally, if a player’s Top 10 +/-ON/60 decreases less than 0.69 (or even increases), then he’s a Big Game Hunter, or one who plays better against elite competition.
The second item is sample size. The Caps are 34-8-5 against Bottom 20 competition for a 77.7% points percentage. They are 7-5-3 against Top 10 competition for a 56.7% points percentage. More importantly, 15 games against Top 10 competition is, in my opinion, a large enough sample size for the data to tell an accurate story.
The Stats
Enough explaining…now the fun begins. Let’s look at the stats ordered by the difference between their "Top 10 +/-ON/60" and their "Bottom 20 +/-ON/60". I call this the "Delta +/-ON/60", or the "score". Note, the higher the score the better this person plays against better competition:
|
Player |
Top 10 Teams |
Bottom 20 Teams |
Score |
||||
|
EV GOF/60 |
EV GOA/60 |
EV +/-ON/60 |
EV GOF/60 |
EV GOA/60 |
EV +/-ON/60 |
Delta EV +/- ON/60 |
|
|
STECKEL, DAVID |
3.21 |
0.92 |
2.29 |
1.73 |
1.73 |
0.00 |
2.29 |
|
SLOAN, TYLER |
3.42 |
2.56 |
0.85 |
1.78 |
2.84 |
-1.07 |
1.92 |
|
OVECHKIN, A. |
5.48 |
1.37 |
4.11 |
4.01 |
1.78 |
2.23 |
1.89 |
|
LAING, QUINTIN |
2.01 |
0.00 |
2.01 |
1.84 |
1.47 |
0.37 |
1.65 |
|
BRADLEY, MATT |
2.76 |
1.18 |
1.58 |
2.15 |
2.15 |
0.00 |
1.58 |
|
GORDON, BOYD |
1.11 |
1.11 |
0.00 |
2.33 |
3.11 |
-0.78 |
0.78 |
|
MORRISONN, S. |
3.86 |
2.68 |
1.19 |
3.33 |
2.80 |
0.54 |
0.65 |
|
KNUBLE, MIKE |
4.09 |
1.70 |
2.38 |
3.54 |
1.34 |
2.20 |
0.19 |
|
ERSKINE, JOHN |
3.89 |
2.33 |
1.55 |
3.40 |
1.70 |
1.70 |
-0.15 |
|
BACKSTROM, N. |
4.56 |
2.95 |
1.61 |
4.23 |
1.95 |
2.28 |
-0.67 |
|
GREEN, MIKE |
3.53 |
3.06 |
0.47 |
4.36 |
2.38 |
1.98 |
-1.51 |
|
POTHIER, BRIAN |
4.08 |
4.60 |
-0.51 |
2.29 |
0.98 |
1.31 |
-1.82 |
|
FEHR, ERIC |
3.02 |
3.02 |
0.00 |
3.45 |
1.35 |
2.10 |
-2.10 |
|
POTI, TOM |
2.32 |
2.90 |
-0.58 |
3.07 |
1.49 |
1.58 |
-2.16 |
|
FLEISHMANN, T. |
2.60 |
4.08 |
-1.48 |
3.37 |
2.59 |
0.78 |
-2.26 |
|
SEMIN, A. |
3.08 |
3.38 |
-0.31 |
4.60 |
2.25 |
2.35 |
-2.66 |
|
SCHULTZ, JEFF |
2.58 |
2.58 |
0.00 |
4.08 |
1.27 |
2.81 |
-2.81 |
|
MORRISON, B. |
1.61 |
2.58 |
-0.97 |
3.45 |
1.58 |
1.87 |
-2.84 |
|
LAICH, BROOKS |
1.83 |
3.65 |
-1.83 |
3.78 |
2.32 |
1.45 |
-3.28 |
|
CHIMERA, J. |
1.82 |
4.55 |
-2.73 |
3.64 |
1.09 |
2.55 |
-5.28 |
Notes: I left out players with less than 20 games played. Jason Chimera and Tyler Sloan have only 5 and 6 games (respectively) played against Top 10 competition.
Before jumping into "Observations", keep in mind that this data set tells you more than just who steps up in big games and who doesn’t. It also shows you how our players fare at even strength against Top 10 competition. This should be a strong indicator of how our players will play against playoff opponents.
Observations: The Good…
- Captain Ovi (1.89), as expected, brings his "A" game against good competition. We knew this.
- Our fourth liners (Steckel, Gordon, Laing and Bradley) all elevate their game against top 10 teams. That’s impressive. Consequently, I’m not worried about them come playoff time.
- That said...Boyd Gordon (0.78) is truly an oddball. He genuinely plays worse against weaker competition. His Bottom 20 GOA/60 is 3.11, by far the worst on the team. His Top 10 GOA/60 is a very impressive 1.11. Unless one of you can explain this, it screams out "ANOMOLY"
- Knuble (0.19) being a plus player in big games is no surprise.
- Backstrom’s performance (-0.67) is consistent regardless of opponent. He is our Steady Eddie. No complaints.
- One person who I was surprised to see on this list was Shaone Morrissonn (0.65). I envision him being no higher than a 5th or 6th defense on a playoff team, but it appears he can step up his game when he needs to in his role as #4 d-man. That’s comforting to know.
- Sloan (1.92) and Erskine (-0.15) are tough players with very respectable scores, but they’re simply not who you want on the ice in the playoffs. Thank them for stepping up their games against good teams in the regular season but let’s hope they aren’t called upon in the playoffs.
…And The Bad
- The data shows our top 3 defensemen - Green, Poti, Schultz - regress more than expected against better competition with scores of -1.51, -2.16 and -2.81 respectively. What really concerns me is their rather high GAON/60 numbers against Top 10 competition (3.60, 2.90, 2.58). You don’t want to see your top defensemen have even strength GOA/60 numbers above 2.0 because when you factor in other teams’ power play efficiency, you’re looking at giving up 3 + goals/game with your BEST defensemen on the ice. That’s not sufficient for playoff hockey. (If that isn’t a sign that the Caps need to upgrade the defense, I don’t know what is.)
- Semin’s (-2.66) and Flash’s (-2.26) appearance so low on this list doesn’t surprise me. I’ve suspected that they feast on lesser teams while disappearing against tougher competition and –well - this confirms it. But before throwing those two entirely under the bus know that they at least chip in on special teams. (Nonetheless, they do make interesting trade-bait if you believe in the selling high theory.)
- Chimera, with a team-worst -5.28 score, can’t fall back on the special teams excuse. He really needs to step up his game. He doesn’t chip in on special teams, and he isn’t exactly a Matt Cooke-style agitator. The expectation is that he plays physical, chips in occasional goals and keeps the puck out of our net. His numbers show that he’s failing miserably.
- I’m surprised – dumbfounded actually – that Books Laich is so low on this list (-3.28). It indicates a bigger trend: our entire 2nd and 3rd lines are on the entirely wrong side of this list. I think that points to our glaring weakness at the center slot. Morrissonn and Fleishmann are clearly getting outplayed against elite competition. We need to shore this area up to compete with the better teams we’re going to play in the playoffs. I think once we do, you’ll see Semin’s, Laich’s and Fehr’s +/- ON/60 numbers improve. After all, unless your name is Ovechkin a winger is only as good as his center.
- Did anyone notice that our tougher players - save for Laich and Chimera – all seem to hover around the top of this list? I don’t believe this is a coincidence. Tougher players are better equipped to play tougher opponents. (Somehow Sloan snuck in there too!)
What does all of this tell us?
We need to improve before the trade deadline. None of this is new to anyone, but the following needs to be done to be Eastern Conference favorites.
- We need to upgrade the defense
- We need to get tougher
- We need a second line center that doesn’t disappear against good competition andmais linemates better.
Also, we need to guard against over-valuing players. And this is where this write-up gets downright scandalous. Some of our superstars aren’t quite performing at super-star level. I’m specifically referring to Mike Green and Alex Semin. In Green’s case, yes, he still is a positive player against Top 10 Competition (0.47) but it’s not a special number for a guy that will get 20 even strength minutes/game in the playoffs. Green gives us a lot on the power play but I simply expect a more dominant performance out of someone who Caps fans fancy as one of the top defensemen in the game. It’s time he showed it. Otherwise, his gaudy point production, incredible fantasy numbers and impressive GVT – to me – are really just a product of bottom-feeding against weak competition.
It’s even more egregious with Semin, a Bottom Feeder with a -0.31 even strength ON/60 against Top 10 competition. That’s a very poor number for a "star" player with the gifts he has. At least Green is a positive player - Semin’s not even that! Like Green, Semin adds a lot to the power play, but this guy will also get ~15 even strength minutes/game in the playoffs. Sure, you can say that his center production is deficient and is deflating his effectiveness. That’s valid. But the same can be said for the less gifted Eric Fehr, who has a 0.00 Top 10 even strength rating while playing with lower quality teammates. Simply stated, Semin needs to start being more productive against elite competition, or we should ship him out now while his trade value is inflated over his actual performance level.
In summary, for the Caps to be legit SC contenders we need to see significant improvement from our Bottom Feeders and our stars need to start living up to their hype. Or we’re watching the Finals again on TV this June. GMGM knows this, so don’t be surprised if we see a trade on the scale of Gartner-Ciccarelli.
Now, it’s your turn. Agree? Disagree? See any conclusions from the data that I didn’t? Let’s hear it. (And thanks for getting this far!)
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
21 comments
|
14 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting analysis of the team, and definitely it shows. Against the Pens last year, Bradley-Steckel-Gordon line did quite well, and Ovechkin and Backstrom were very strong, while Semin wasn’t quite the player he was in the regular season.
Adding Knuble has definitely helped this team for the upcoming playoffs already, since the Caps really didn’t have someone like that… we’ll see what happens. I’m sure that there’s a deal in the works for this team…
Let's go Caps!
as I pointed out last week, Semin played the Pens series with a nasty thumb injury that clearly prevented him from holding his stick securely. He couldn’t stick handle or shoot very well as a result.
Kung-fu Rink Rabbit
On Draper having to wear a USA jersey at practice: "well at least the Wings can settle bets without involving gold plated desert eagles!"
True, but Semin doesn’t play nearly as well as he does against the top teams as he does against the bottom feeders. I’m not saying Semin is a bad player, far from it, he’s very strong, and in the regular season when you get to play Edmonton, Carolina, Columbus, etc. he’s definitely helping the team win those games. And part of being a good team is to win the games you’re supposed to win.
That said, his play does tail off against better opposition more than most of the other players on the team. I won’t hold him up to the standard of AO, Backstrom, etc. because those are better players, but if his level of play falls off against the good teams more than Fehr or Fleischmann, there’s something going on there…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on Mar 1, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
I’d be quite curious to see Semin’s values if you excluded the games against the Devils. They make up 27% of the sample, and he was demonstrably terrible in those games to the tune of 0-1-1 -2 8PIMS.
Which may say more about finesse guys freaking out about a trapping system than it does about his ability to play against big competition
by Tromni on Mar 1, 2010 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
*Laich-Steckel-Bradley I think
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 1, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
By my count, of the 9 teams fitting your “big game” status, 6 of them are out West (San Jose, Chicago, Phoenix, LA, Vancouver, Colorado) versus 3 in the East (New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Ottawa).
So we’re talking 15 games total against those teams. I’ve got us at 7-6-2, saying broadly that we’re plenty competitive. (We’re 2-1 against Buffalo, who’s next on the list)
Famously in baseball statistics, you can come up with all kinds of metrics for “clutch-ness”, but they’re never consistent across years. Players might show up as “clutch” in the stats one year, then regress to the mean the next, or vice versa. There’s next to no predictive value to such statistics.
And some of the findings completely contradict past evidence. Semin’s 14 points in 14 playoff games last year really ought to count a lot more than 15 regular-season games this year.
by Tromni on Mar 1, 2010 11:05 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I never said we weren’t competitive against Top 10 teams…we have ~a 60% points percentage against them. We’re not dominant, but we’re still good. We’re just not good enough, imo, to get by Pittsburgh yet. Hopefully, come Wednesday morning we will be.
I’m not sure using Semin’s 2009 playoff performance contradicts his nature as a “Bottom Feeder”. Semin had 8 points against the Rangers – by no means a top 10 NHL team last year – last year in the playoffs. He had 6 points in 7 games against the Penguins, way off his regular season pace of 1.3 ppg last year. Okay production, but nothing special considering his regular season exploits. (Injuries were a factor, but as we know one simply can never bank on a fully healthy Sasha.)
Grimm's in. Jacoby's next?
But to be clear, if you flip a fair coin 10 times, you’d expect 5 heads. But since the sample is so small, you wouldn’t be surprised to get 3 heads or 7 heads.
So to say 6 points in 7 games is “way off” Semin’s regular season performance, is to make a statistically indefensible claim.
In games against the 9 other members of the top 10, the Pens are 3-10-2. I suspect, given that set of results, that if you ran a similar analysis of Penguins players, you would find a great many of them are significantly worse against “good competition” than they are against your “bottom-feeders.” After all, of the top 9 teams they’ve only defeated Colorado and Ottawa.
In short, you can mis-use statistical analysis to “prove” anything under the sun. But without a considerably higher level of rigor, the numbers you’ve given us don’t mean a thing.
I would never go in front of Congress and testify that a sample size of 16 games is large enough to justify drawing absolute and unequivocal conclusions. But as I stated in the text, I am assuming that 16 games is enough of a sample size to identify trends and tell the story. Clearly you disagree.
Sure, I understand that one game can skew data when the sample size is relatively low. Semin can go +4 against Chicago in two weeks and see significant improvements in his score. But we know that’s not his consistent performance and he’ll eventually regress to his mean performance. And it doesn’t change the fact that he’s still really low on this list in terms of his performance against Top 10 teams relative to his teammates. Adding another 20 or 30 Top 10 games to the sample size and I’m confident he won’t move up (or down) more than 3 places on that list.
Grimm's in. Jacoby's next?
So add the extra games and see what happens. Go back to the start of the Boudreau era. It won’t be perfect, but it should smooth out any rough edges.
And then, go ahead and put up the same values for the Penguins under Bylsma since obviously winning a cup proves they collectively had what takes to win against top competition.
The Penguins are 3-10-2 against “top competition” for the purposes of this study. Nobody in their right mind discounts their ability to win big games or posits that maybe secretly some of them are chokers.
Again, if we’re using numbers to try and prove something, we may as well use the best numbers possible and use them in a mathematically meaningful way. Otherwise, we’re just having a sports bar pissing match in the most pretentious way possible
I’m not looking to pour any oil on the fire, but I have to agree completely with Tromni.
It’s an interesting study, but the sample size is too small. Semin’s minus against top teams are troubling, but we’ve seen big-game Sasha before and I’m sure he’ll step up come playoff time (if he’s healthy).
Also, the study of the Pens would surely invalidate this whole theory as they’ll all be minuses for this season.
re: Sample Size
I agree that it’s a small sample size, but it’s not an inadequate sample size. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater because you think 15 games isn’t enough. After 15 games we knew the Caps were the class of the Southeast, that San Jose and Chicago were the class of the West, that the Kings were a surprise team, that the Devils were good, that the Bruins weren’t as good as last year, that the Hurricanes sucked, etc. Overarching trends definitely appear after 15 games. Sure, there are teams that come out of nowhere (Ottawa) after Game 15, but for the most part, you knew who the high-achieving teams would be by mid-November. You may not agree with my conclusions from the data, but I think the data does provide a glimpse into some trends that should be considered when figuring out player’s potential playoff performances and their trade values.
re: Semin
For 5 seasons now we’ve seen big-game Sasha and WTF-Sasha. The only consistent thing he does well is be inconsistent. He’s a volatile player with the ability to go on a 6-game, 14-point tear followed by 1-point/5-penalty play for the next six. GMGM cannot bank on big-game-Sasha for the playoffs; he can hope for it but can only bank on Mixed-Bag Sasha.
re: Penguins
This analysis was meant to be an internal team comparison so that you can compare Caps players against Caps players.This analysis is not a team-by-team comparison, nor can it be used as one. First of all, the Penguins don’t need message board banter about whether they’re clutch or not. We already know they are. We don’t know if the Caps are clutch – we’ll likley be adding pieces in the next day to make us more cutch. Second, if I did this analysis across teams (and I’m not – too much effort) you still couldn’t compare players across teams. A 0.50 score for a Penguins player does not mean he’s as productive or non-productive as a 0.50 Caps player. Scores are relavant only within their team. Comparing player’s scores across teams is an apples-to-oranges exercise. This analysis was solely meant to attempt to convey which Caps are more likely to show up when the games really count. Fifteen games may not be enough to make absolute judgements on this, but it’s definitely enough to identify trends.
Grimm's in. Jacoby's next?
My only complaint is with the observations. How can you say that Backstrom is our steady eddie with -0.67, but claim that Knuble at 0.19 is a positive force? I guess a slight positive, but if Backstrom is steady at -0.67, anyone within 0.67 from 0 should be considered steady, and not + or -, I suppose.
Fehr and Flash are really close on this.
Again, sample size is an issue, I think. I don’t think 15 games is enough. Maybe recalculated over an entire season, but I’d be interested in seeing regular season vs playoffs when all is said and done.
I should have saved my old signature. Oh well!
I arbitrarily designated the cut off for Steady Eddie at plus or minus 0.50 of -0.67. So scores of -0.17 to -1.17 would be considered Steady Eddies and, hence, Backstrom is the only Steady Eddie. Granted, it is purely a subjective range of numbers.
The only other person who came close to being a Steady Eddie was Erskine, but even he improves +0.54 against Top 10 competition. Knuble at +0.19 means there is a +0.86 improvement when he plays Top 10 competition. That’s why I have him as a positive force.
Grimm's in. Jacoby's next?
There’s something I’m not getting, then. How does Knuble at +0.19 becomes a +0.86?
I should have saved my old signature. Oh well!
Oh. The teams drop/gain with his drop/gain. I get it now after I read a little more.
I see what you mean, but I think since the team drops on the whole, his 0.19 looks more impressive compared to some of the bigger minus numbers. I don’t think you need to add that number as well.
It’s a good study, though, but I think it definitely reflects team stats.
I should have saved my old signature. Oh well!
I’ll say up front that Semin is the player I most enjoy, so your analysis caught my attention. I am not a statistical professional, but have had enough exposure/education to know that if a few data points in a small sample size (which this is) are suspect, then the premise falls apart.
Yes, a couple of the Devils games were atrocious, back in Nov. But, when I looked closely at each game against the current top 9 after us, I come to different conclusions.
First, we have yet to play the Blackhawks. While I understand you were looking at ES, Semin had a PPG against the Sharks in the first game (4-1 W), and in the second they pretty much blew us away (2-5), so a team fail.
Against Phoenix, Semin had a goal and 3 assists, including the GW; a hand in each goal (4-2 W). When we played the Kings, we had only 1 goal, and that was on the PP by Green (1-2 L), so no one even had an ES goal. In Vancouver, he had one goal (ES) of 2 goals in 2-3 L.
The Devils games were not good, especially 2 of them. He did have an assist in the last one (4-1 W). I think it is worth noting that in the 3rd Devils game, Semin evidently was playing hurt (wrist). We did not really know that then. Ovi was out, so I imagine he felt he had to play. As soon as Ovi was back, Semin was out as of the next game right after the 3rd Devils game and missed 7.
Ottawa: he did not play in the first game due to the wrist injury; he had no points in a 5-2 W in the 2nd game; but, had the hat trick and 1 assist in the 5-6 L in the 3rd game.
Against the Avs, he had no points in 6-1 W. In the first Pens game he had an assist in a 6-3 W, but no points in the 5-4 OT W in the 2nd game.
The conclusions I can draw from this, if any, are only that he did not “show up” for Devils games in November, and that, generally, he does not score when we win (or lose) by a healthy margin (>2). Otherwise, I could conclude that he’s a difference-maker in close games, whether we win or lose, against these top 9. Again, you have to throw out when he did not play, when no one scored an ES goal, and perhaps when we know he was playing hurt because Ovi was out.
Finally, I don’t think you can really call the next few teams down the list bottom dwellers. Is the bottom really 2/3 of the league? He put up decent points against them, especially Philly, the Ducks, and Sabres.
Great analysis, if admittedly based on a small sample size, and yet most of the numbers are still in line with my gut feelings.
Semin, Flash, Schultz, BMo are all guys that tend to under perform in the most hostile environments, possessing some combination of not being able to “impose their will” on opponents, while at the same time have inflated value against less tenacious opposition.
And the 4th line. You would be hard pressed to find a smarter, more disciplined 4th line in the league. They play their system, textbook cycling, every time they’re on the ice. And clearly this type of dump in, board play down low is going to hold up against tougher opponents. I was kind of shocked at the Scott Walker pickup because I just can’t imagine breaking them up for any reason. All they do is kill time in the offensive zone, even if they don’t score much.
One initial surprise was Lars, but it’s not hard to imagine his stats being a bit inflated from feasting on lesser opponents, not necessarily meaning he struggles against good opponents.
Again, great post. Thanks.
by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Mar 4, 2010 2:20 PM EST reply actions
Rec’d. A really interesting post and with a few more recs and we can get this sticky’ed and some more commentary.
I agree with the comments about sample size but also the OP’s observations. Chimera is either Columbus stats, or too small a sample. That makes interested to see Jurcina (with the Caps) though, since our bottom three D seem to be doing better than our top three. Maybe something that made him more worth shipping away in the first place?
Pothier surprised me, disappointingly so. And I was sad to see him go as I thought he was a decent performer and undervalued by some on these boards. But that was partly colored by a league-toping performance in GAON/60 (scroll to the bottom):
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2009/new_5_on_5.php?sort=27§ion=goals&mingp=20&mintoi=&team=ALL&pos=D
So it’s interesting to see that it’s pretty much all against lesser teams, or that he’s been protected in the lineup. Or that his sample is low against top teams …
Brooks Laich hasn’t had a great year, other than the first few games. Boyd Gordon has had a pretty good year, except for his first several. I’m assuming those were against lesser teams accounting for his GAON/60 there. But mostly our first and fourth lines look better than our competition. Maybe next year we find a stud 2C with some grit and can move Laich down to 3rd line?




































