thewookie1 Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 I was thinking the other day about the many underachievers on the team and thought, how can we judge how much they should produce based on their cap hit. So at first I thought of merely taking their cap hits and dividing by 100,000 and saying that's the bare minimum in production they can have without underachieving. So for example, Leino has a 4.5 mil cap hit, thus would have a minimum of 45 points. However after looking through past seasons, 645 points or around 215 goals (645 divided by 3 2/3rds are assists) won't cut it if you want the cup. About 250 goals a season is what one needs on average to be a playoff team thus I came up with about 75,000 per point required. (Boosts goals to about 280.) To be honest though this is very rough seeing as it would expect D-man to perform = to forwards, and goalies are completely wasted. Leino, Ville » $4,500,000 60 pts Hodgson, Cody » $4,250,000 57 pts Stafford, Drew » $4,000,000 53 pts Moulson, Matt » $3,133,333 42 pts Ott, Steve » $2,950,000 39 pts Ennis, Tyler » $2,812,500 38 pts McCormick, Cody » $1,200,000 16 pts Girgensons, Z. » $894,167 12 pts Foligno, Marcus » $826,667 11 pts Scott, John » $750,000 10 pts Adam, Luke » $735,000 10 pts Flynn, Brian » $637,500 9 pts D'Agostini, Matt » $550,000 7 pts Ellis, Matt » $550,000 7 pts Defensemen (8) Myers, Tyler » $5,500,000 74 pts Ehrhoff, C. » $4,000,000 53 pts Tallinder, Henrik » $3,375,000 45 pts McBain, Jamie » $1,800,000 24 pts Weber, Mike » $1,666,667 22 pts Pysyk, Mark » $870,000 12 pts Sulzer, Alexander » $725,000 10 pts McNabb, Brayden » $715,000 10 pts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 You may enjoy this: http://www.hockeyabstract.com/testimonials/gvsgoalsversussalary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 You would also have to take in RFA/UFA differences (but as salaries are often inflated if they enter the players UFA years, a formula would be needed rather than a simple split) The main issue with all stats at the moment (traditional ones) are that they don't lend themselves to defence (and even worse to goal*). For example, Kane is better offensively than Toews, however, Toews is the better defensive and all round player, which is why they get paid the same. But looking at points you would say Kane's agent was an idiot for accepting the deal when his client puts up more points than Toews. However, i bet anything it would be a lot easier to get Kane out of Chicago than Toews * this is primarily because goal is a reactive not a proactive position. No matter how well you play you/your team can never gain possession of the puck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 GVS factors defense. That would be why Kane's GVS was 5.0 last season and Toews' was 5.5 (better). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 GVS factors defense. That would be why Kane's GVS was 5.0 last season and Toews' was 5.5 (better). But, apparently, doesn't factor in injuries. For example, the Penguins are clearly run by incompetents, since they signed one of the worst players in the league, Sidney Crosby (7th worst GVS in 2011-12), to one of the biggest contracts in the league in June of 2012. I would rather see performance versus prorated salary (salary*GP/82), and then take into account injury history after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted December 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 You may enjoy this: http://www.hockeyabstract.com/testimonials/gvsgoalsversussalary Thanks, very interesting stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 But, apparently, doesn't factor in injuries. For example, the Penguins are clearly run by incompetents, since they signed one of the worst players in the league, Sidney Crosby (7th worst GVS in 2011-12), to one of the biggest contracts in the league in June of 2012. Correct. It only measures contributions that were made, not potential contributions. So if you pay a player a lot of money, and he doesn't play, considering the context, it can look pretty stupid. See also: Leino, Connolly. It's worthwhile to examine things like GVT/G, GVT/60, and then maybe head in the direction you propose, calculate something like GVS/G or GVS/60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted December 17, 2013 Report Share Posted December 17, 2013 Correct. It only measures contributions that were made, not potential contributions. So if you pay a player a lot of money, and he doesn't play, considering the context, it can look pretty stupid. See also: Leino, Connolly. Right and the problem with injuries isn't so much how one injury affects one year, but rather when (seemingly) systemic injuries affect multiple years. As you say, see: Leino, Connolly. I'd like to see a chart of GVS/G (or GVS/60) against GP/G (or TOI/60), where the latter is league-wide games played. I didn't calculate GVS, but Crosby was (0.51, 0.74) in (GPG, GP/G)* since the lockout going into this season, while Connolly was (0.23, 0.65**). For fun, Jason Pominville was (0.32, 0.98) and Thomas Vanek was (0.43, 0.94). It's also interesting to use PPG instead of GPG: Croby was 1.41, Connolly was 0.77, Pominville was 0.79 and Vanek was 0.83. * GPG = Goals Per Game, while GP/G = Games Played per Game (NHL) ** Excluded last season since he was in the AHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.