Your Ideal Roster - Cap Compliant $64.3 million

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

But Del Zotto isn't a better all around player. He's better offensively, but significantly worse defensively.

 

Okie Dokie....well, if you feel that way, let's compare him to Myers and Stralman to Sekera....and $4 million versus $7 million in salary to boot, then ask why I made the point!

[TheMatrix31]

Great rosters Matrix and AA. You guys think a little more like me.

 

Cool lol, good to hear it.

[deluca67]

But Del Zotto isn't a better all around player. He's better offensively, but significantly worse defensively.

Based on what?

[TrueBlueGED]

Based on what?

 

Possession, matchup difficulty, zone starts/finishes....you know, the stuff you think is a bunch of hokum. Sekera has better possession numbers and manages to tilt the ice against significantly harder competition and while being put in worse situations than Del Zotto. Del Zotto gets sheltered, easy minutes which allows him to flourish offensively as an individual, but also allows the team to mask his glaring defensive deficiencies.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

Possession, matchup difficulty, zone starts/finishes....you know, the stuff you think is a bunch of hokum. Sekera has better possession numbers and manages to tilt the ice against significantly harder competition and while being put in worse situations than Del Zotto. Del Zotto gets sheltered, easy minutes which allows him to flourish offensively as an individual, but also allows the team to mask his glaring defensive deficiencies.

 

Somebody is sheltered.......

 

The only thing I can give you is that DelZotto has not been a force in the playoffs. Giradi ups his game and takes over. But if you are trying to compare him to Sekera.....in his only playoff action, I actually saw him backpeddle from the blueline and end up behind his own goal line without ever laying a hand on the Philly player as he scored. It had to be the most pusstastic play I have seen in the history of the Sabres minus Hecht standing 6 feet away from Scotty Nichol when he coldcocked Spacek, and not only didn't touch him, but watched Biron try and fight him.

[deluca67]

Possession, matchup difficulty, zone starts/finishes....you know, the stuff you think is a bunch of hokum. Sekera has better possession numbers and manages to tilt the ice against significantly harder competition and while being put in worse situations than Del Zotto. Del Zotto gets sheltered, easy minutes which allows him to flourish offensively as an individual, but also allows the team to mask his glaring defensive deficiencies.

Which farm do you get all your straw from? I like numbers.

 

I like the numbers that show Del Zotto, per 60 minutes of on-ice time, his team has a gaa of 1.8 and allows 23.3 shots. Sekera numbers are 2.63 gaa and allows 28.10 shots. Those are real numbers.

 

What exactly if the determining factor that "Corsi" uses to determine "quality of competition?"

[TrueBlueGED]

 

Which farm do you get all your straw from? I like numbers.

 

I like the numbers that show Del Zotto, per 60 minutes of on-ice time, his team has a gaa of 1.8 and allows 23.3 shots. Sekera numbers are 2.63 gaa and allows 28.10 shots. Those are real numbers.

 

What exactly if the determining factor that "Corsi" uses to determine "quality of competition?"

 

It's not hard to find out which stats are good/bad and why, if you're actually interested. I'm not going to go into a detailed explanation because I'm on my phone and I highly question whether you really care.

[IKnowPhysics]

What exactly if the determining factor that "Corsi" uses to determine "quality of competition?"

It's not hard to find out which stats are good/bad and why, if you're actually interested.

 

Respectfully, here's some reading:

 

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/glossary/

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/pages/bsh-advanced-stats-glossary

http://hashtaghockey.com/glossary/

 

If you have genuine questions, I'm happy to discuss. Usually Blue is too.

[deluca67]

It's not hard to find out which stats are good/bad and why, if you're actually interested. I'm not going to go into a detailed explanation because I'm on my phone and I highly question whether you really care.

Do some quick research it seems that it is a "number" based on shots on goal, that can't be correct. Can it?

 

And the Start Zone times, does that mean start from a face-off? If so, aren't a good number of face-offs that start in a defensive zone a result of icing? Meaning it's not really a coaches decision but usually poor defensive play. And the OFF Zone Finish time, if Del Zotto starts in the off zone 59.7% of the time that means he starts in the def zone 40.3% of the time. If his Off Zone finish time is 51.2%, that means that 51.2 percent of the time he starts in the defensve zone the play ends in the offensive zone? Right? His number there would be better than Sekera's 50.1%?

 

I have a tone of questions regarding these numbers and what value they actually have.

 

Respectfully, here's some reading:

 

http://www.hockeypro...s.com/glossary/

http://www.broadstre...-stats-glossary

http://hashtaghockey.com/glossary/

 

If you have genuine questions, I'm happy to discuss. Usually Blue is too.

Please look at my response to TruBlue and advise. I'm probably looking at the numbers too simply.

[LGR4GM]

not to nitpick but arent their 3 zones? Offensive, defensive and neutral? or don't they use neutral zone for that? If the Romulins use the neutral zone I think they NHL stat guys should too.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

What exactly if the determining factor that "Corsi" uses to determine "quality of competition?"

 

GM in place for 17 years

Coach in place for 16 years

Take job there...because competition is non-existing

[IKnowPhysics]

And the Start Zone times, does that mean start from a face-off? If so, aren't a good number of face-offs that start in a defensive zone a result of icing?

Zone Start%

 

A ratio showing the percentage of a player's non-neutral-zone shifts that were started in the offensive zone. Zone starts use faceoffs as a proxy for all shifts. Players with a ZS% higher than 54% could be considered sheltered or deployed offensively while players with ZS% south of 46% can be considered to be deployed defensively or doing the "heavy lifting".

OZ%: the percentage of face-offs taken in the offensive zone while a player is on the ice. Even strength, minus empty net situations, only.

Zone Starts (OZ%) - This is a simple statistic that measures the proportion of shifts that start in a player’s own defensive zone vs. his offensive zone. We throw out neutral zone faceoffs and just look at offensive/defensive starts for a cleaner measure of a player’s role on his team. It is represented as the proportion of offensive zone starts out of the sum of (offensive zone starts + defensive zone starts).

 

Statiticians/analysts (analyticists?) can use different methods/math for analysis but most of the ones I see include all faceoffs that are even strength, not in the neutral zone, and not empty netted. It's used as a relative guide about which players are used more or less in which even strength situations and how coaches are using or not using zone matchups.

 

For example, let's use the player usage charts from a year ago (http://bit.ly/1eeFS1u) and let's look at the Sharks and the Canucks. Take a look at the Canucks. Notice that the Sedins and top six are way right with high OZ% and Sammy Pahlsson the bottom six are way left with low OZ%. That's an indication of how those players were used by Alain Vigneault; he was very focused on getting his offensive players starts in the offensive zone. They're sort of in the middle of QoC (up-down), because Vigneault didn't care what other players the other team had on the ice. Take a look at the Sharks. Notice that the best players (Thorton, Pavelski, Marleau, et al) are in the middle of the pack in OZ%, but way high in QoC. That's how Todd McLellan uses his players. He gives his best players the hardest minutes against the other team's best players and doesn't care about zone starts.

 

These stats, even though they seem crude and you can find flaws in them and ways to improve them, are fairly simple and can suggest some interesting ideas. Maybe OZ starts, if you ignore icing, look different and suggest different ideas about how some coaches exploit tired players after an icing change or maybe which players like to ice the puck more. I think percentage of icing plays vs Corsi Rel QoC could be an interesting plot: does better competition make you ice the puck more in a statistically significant way?

 

Do some quick research it seems that it is a "number" based on shots on goal, that can't be correct. Can it?

Yep, the "Corsi number" is that simple. It's like +/-, except you tally shots (shots taken, shots that missed, and shots that were blocked) instead of goals. So if a player's team takes a lot of shots or prevents a lot of shots while he's on the ice, he (and his linemates) has a positive Corsi; if a player's team doesn't shoot at all or has a lot of shots against while he's on the ice, he has a negative Corsi.

 

But if a team is powerful or weak, all of that team's players might have a high Corsi or a low Corsi. So then to factor out his team's bias, you can look at the Relative Corsi, which compares his team's Corsi when he's on the ice and when he's on the bench. That's Rel Corsi. It's better for comparing players between different teams.

 

You can measure the quality of competition seen by a player by examining the Corsi numbers of players he plays against. That gives you Corsi QoC. But if you weight that vs head-to-head ice time, you get Corsi Relative Quality of Competition (Corsi Rel QoC). Corsi Rel QoC is starting to be more widely used as the measure of strength of competition that an individual player encounters and is the measure used in the Player Usage Charts.

[deluca67]

Yep, the "Corsi number" is that simple. It's like +/-, except you tally shots (shots taken, shots that missed, and shots that were blocked) instead of goals. So if a player's team takes a lot of shots or prevents a lot of shots while he's on the ice, he (and his linemates) has a positive Corsi; if a player's team doesn't shoot at all or has a lot of shots against while he's on the ice, he has a negative Corsi.

So, comparing Del Zotto and Sekera last year:

 

Corsi Relative:

 

Del Zotto : -7.4

Sekera: -9.0

 

Corsi On:

 

Del Zotto: -1.22

Sekera: -16.18

 

Corsi Off:

 

Del Zotto: 6.18

Sekera: -7.19

 

The "Corsi" numbers favor Del Zotto? Or am I misreading them?

[IKnowPhysics]

So, comparing Del Zotto and Sekera last year:

 

Corsi Relative:

 

Del Zotto : -7.4

Sekera: -9.0

 

The "Corsi" numbers favor Del Zotto? Or am I misreading them?

 

You're reading it right, and Corsi Rel sums it up, sort of: Del Zotto is slightly less negative, which mean he had a slightly less negative impact on the team's Corsi (shooting differential) when he was on the ice (vs not on the ice). But I'd also say it's important to give that some context:

 

Corsi Rel QoC:

Del Zotto: 0.057

Sekera: 0.950

 

So while the shot differential slightly favors Del Zotto over Sekera, Sekera played measurably tougher minutes than Del Zotto. Including that information, I'd probably say advantage Sekera.

 

edit: Even more context, looking at teammates:

 

Corsi Rel QoT:

Del Zotto: 1.656

Sekera: 0.366

 

So it appears statistically that Del Zotto had a good bit of talent/help/players-good-that-had-good-shot-differentials with him on the ice. Sekera had measurably worse to work with. I'd say Corsi Rel QoC and Corsi Rel QoT tell the story: Sekera measures roughly the same as Del Zotto in shot differential, except he did it with less help against tougher competition.

[IKnowPhysics]

edit2: Also, Blue, I don't know if you saw, Vollman has all of the 2012-13 raw data in an Excel spreadsheet for download: http://www.hockeyabstract.com/testimonials/nhl2012-13playerdata

 

Might be fun to dick around with.

[deluca67]

You're reading it right, and Corsi Rel sums it up, sort of: Del Zotto is slightly less negative, which mean he had a slightly less negative impact on the team's Corsi (shooting differential) when he was on the ice (vs not on the ice). But I'd also say it's important to give that some context:

 

Corsi Rel QoC:

Del Zotto: 0.057

Sekera: 0.950

 

So while the shot differential slightly favors Del Zotto over Sekera, Sekera played measurably tougher minutes than Del Zotto. Including that information, I'd probably say advantage Sekera.

 

edit: Even more context, looking at teammates:

 

Corsi Rel QoT:

Del Zotto: 1.656

Sekera: 0.366

 

So it appears statistically that Del Zotto had a good bit of talent/help/players-good-that-had-good-shot-differentials with him on the ice. Sekera had measurably worse to work with. I'd say Corsi Rel QoC and Corsi Rel QoT tell the story: Sekera measures roughly the same as Del Zotto in shot differential, except he did it with less help against tougher competition.

Keeping this all in perspective, by "tougher competition" you mean players/teams that attempt more shots? Because that is the base statistic?

 

Another question I have regarding "quality of competition", two teams that play in the same division playing a balanced schedule would have similar quality of competition, any difference being the quality of the two teams themselves playing each other?

[Trettioåtta]

Keeping this all in perspective, by "tougher competition" you mean players/teams that attempt more shots? Because that is the base statistic?

 

Another question I have regarding "quality of competition", two teams that play in the same division playing a balanced schedule would have similar quality of competition, any difference being the quality of the two teams themselves playing each other?

 

Yes to the first question and no to the second question - they play the same teams the same number of times (roughly) but who on those teams Sekera/DZ go against will change. For example, a game against the devils, Sekera might be lined up against Kovalchuk's line, whereas when the Rags play them, DZ faces off against Zubrus' line

[IKnowPhysics]

Keeping this all in perspective, by "tougher competition" you mean players/teams that attempt more shots? Because that is the base statistic?

By a player having "tougher competition" I mean that player has a higher Corsi Rel QoC- they played against opponent players whose average Corsi Rel is relatively high compared to other players. The calculation of Corsi Rel is the same for those opponent players as it is for the player under examination. So, yes, the base statistic is still shots, because Corsi (and Corsi Rel, and by extention Corsi Rel QoC and Corsi Rel QoT) is based on shots. So the regular englishing speaking version of what I mean by "tougher competition" is that player played against players whose shot differentials were, on average, really good, or at least better than some other players.

 

Another question I have regarding "quality of competition", two teams that play in the same division playing a balanced schedule would have similar quality of competition, any difference being the quality of the two teams themselves playing each other?

 

Mathematically/logically, that seems correct. So far, though, our conversation has been about a specific player's QoC. That could be much different than a team-wide shot differential, which is what you're positing here.

 

If it's not clear, the Corsi Rel QoC of a player accounts for only the players that he sees ice time against, not the entire team he plays against. So if, in your example, Ottawa and Buffalo were those two teams, if John Scott played against Erik Karlsson all of the time (or something), each would probably see vastly different Corsi Rel QoC's (Scott's higher, Karlsson's lower), even though the teams are equal.

[Charlemagne]

Thought this looked fun. Gave it a Shot

 

Line 1 - Lucic (6) Tavares (5.5) St. Louis (5.6)

 

2- Kunitz (3.7) Giroux (3.75) Benn (5.2)

 

3- Glenncross(2.5) Prust (2.5) T. Lewis (1.325)

 

4- Asham (1) Krueger (1.3) Kaleta (1.25)

 

 

D 1- Keith (5.5) Hedman (4)

 

2- Subban (2.8) Harmonic (3.9)

 

3- Brodin (1.4) Pysyc (.870)

 

 

Goalies Crawford (2.75) Enroth (1.25)

 

The team does not posses the greatest depth but every top 6 player could reach 70+ points. Lines 3 and 4 are solid defensively with good draw men. Defense could be the best unit in the league in terms of two way play. Lots of big bodied forwards would require a lot of attention in front of the net and \open up alot of time and space for Keith and Subban to activate offensively and make plays. I love the thought of Keith setting up Hedman's huge one timer with Tavares and Lucic lurking around the crease.

 

What do some of the vets on here think?

[Andrew Amerk]

 

Your salaries are off by 10.144million and it puts you 8.744 over the salary cap.

 

Sorry Liger. It was a lineup that I came up with in 10 mins, and went by the first Google responses on the salaries. I didn't feel like consulting CapGeek and getting too serious.

[LGR4GM]

Thought this looked fun. Gave it a Shot

 

Line 1 - Lucic (6) Tavares (5.5) St. Louis (5.6)

 

2- Kunitz (3.7) Giroux (3.75) Benn (5.2)

 

3- Glenncross(2.5) Prust (2.5) T. Lewis (1.325)

 

4- Asham (1) Krueger (1.3) Kaleta (1.25)

 

 

D 1- Keith (5.5) Hedman (4)

 

2- Subban (2.8) Harmonic (3.9)

 

3- Brodin (1.4) Pysyc (.870)

 

 

Goalies Crawford (2.75) Enroth (1.25)

 

The team does not posses the greatest depth but every top 6 player could reach 70+ points. Lines 3 and 4 are solid defensively with good draw men. Defense could be the best unit in the league in terms of two way play. Lots of big bodied forwards would require a lot of attention in front of the net and \open up alot of time and space for Keith and Subban to activate offensively and make plays. I love the thought of Keith setting up Hedman's huge one timer with Tavares and Lucic lurking around the crease.

 

What do some of the vets on here think?

I think everyone but Kunitz has a shot at making it to 65pts or more. The issue as you mentioned is depth. I wouldn't want any of your 3rd line on the 2nd line. My only other issue is there really aren't any kids on there, this however is more of a personal thing for me. I like putting a couple guys close to breakouts on there. The most solid part of your team is perhaps your defense. It seems pretty good but again I worry about depth.

 

Sorry Liger. It was a lineup that I came up with in 10 mins, and went by the first Google responses on the salaries. I didn't feel like consulting CapGeek and getting too serious.

No worries, just thought you should know. Next year if the cap goes up to what it is supposedly going to be (74) than that team would be damn good.

[JJBuffalo]

Neal(5.0) Toews (6.3) Oshie (4.175)

 

2- Eriksson (4.25) Giroux (3.75) Brown (3.175)

 

3- Ott(2.95) Helm (2.125) Saad (0.894)

 

4- Paille (1.25) Nolan (0.70) Kaleta (1.25)

 

 

D 1- Chara (6.9) Erhoff (4)

 

2- Subban (2.8) Orpik (3.75)

 

3- Boychuk (3.4) Sekera (2.75)

 

G Anderson(3.187)

Enroth (1.25)

 

Total: 63.856

[deluca67]

By a player having "tougher competition" I mean that player has a higher Corsi Rel QoC- they played against opponent players whose average Corsi Rel is relatively high compared to other players. The calculation of Corsi Rel is the same for those opponent players as it is for the player under examination. So, yes, the base statistic is still shots, because Corsi (and Corsi Rel, and by extention Corsi Rel QoC and Corsi Rel QoT) is based on shots. So the regular englishing speaking version of what I mean by "tougher competition" is that player played against players whose shot differentials were, on average, really good, or at least better than some other players.

 

 

 

Mathematically/logically, that seems correct. So far, though, our conversation has been about a specific player's QoC. That could be much different than a team-wide shot differential, which is what you're positing here.

 

If it's not clear, the Corsi Rel QoC of a player accounts for only the players that he sees ice time against, not the entire team he plays against. So if, in your example, Ottawa and Buffalo were those two teams, if John Scott played against Erik Karlsson all of the time (or something), each would probably see vastly different Corsi Rel QoC's (Scott's higher, Karlsson's lower), even though the teams are equal.

Thanks for the info.

[IKnowPhysics]

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Always welcome.