This contract is a POS
As the 2009-10 campaign reached its "1/3 of the way through the season" mark, another insignificant milestone was reached by a not-significant-enough player. Namely, Patrick O'Sullivan played his 46th game as an Oiler, reaching the quarter pole of the Edmonton portion of his three-year, $8.775 million-dollar contract. That's 183 games from date of acquisition to date of expiry, not that I'm counting or anything.
When O'Sullivan was acquired at the trade deadline, his acquisition along with a second round draft pick in exchange for impending UFA Erik Cole and a 5th rounder was widely considered a master stroke by Oilers' GM Steve Tambellini. "We got two years plus of O'Sullivan for 20 games of Cole ... what a steal!" went the refrain. Indeed, when Tambellini converted the second-rounder into Ales Kotalik, a big experienced winger who came a lot closer than O'Sullivan did to replacing Cole down the stretch, the argument could be made that Oilers got O'Sullivan for next to nothing.
Except the man with the unfortunate acronym of "POS" came with a contract, one that included both term and substantial dollars. In other words, we got an asset and a liability. Which weighs more?
At one level I try hard to separate a player from his contract and judge his performance in and of itself. However, when judging team's management, a player's contribution on the ice is part of a complex equation that includes salary cap, team payroll structure, the on-ice needs of the team, and how a given player fits into those various puzzles. In the case of Patrick O'Sullivan I'm pretty unimpressed with the contributions of the player, and very unimpressed with value for money. After the jump we'll examine O'Sullivan's production by a wide number of statistical metrics and try to draw some conclusions based on those numbers. I'll try to leave "saw him not-so-good" out of the equation as much as I can. Numbers rule, after all.
First of all, let's look at boxcars. (Note: all stats cited here were compiled before the EDM @ DET game on Thursday):
| Year | GP | G | A | P | +- |
| 2008-09 | 19 | 2 | 4 | 6 | -7 |
| 2009-10 | 27 | 4 | 9 | 13 | -11 |
| Oiler total | 46 | 6 | 13 | 19 | -18 |
... which prorated over a full 82 GP yields 11-23-34, -32. By way of comparison, in his one season here, Joffrey Lupul posted 81 GP, 12-16-28, -29. Lest you think that an unfair comparison, bear in mind that Lupul was on the first year of a 3-year deal that paid him exactly $8.775 MM. The Oilers were able to successfully divest that, but now have picked up the last 2+ years of O'Sullivan's identical pact. (Identical w.r.t. cap hit; O'Sullivan's contract was frontloaded so Katz is "saving" a million or so real dollars. Which is a sobering thought for a whole 'nother reason.)
OK, so the boxcars aren't flattering. There's more to the game than boxcars. Let's move on and look at those "underlying numbers" folks keep talking about. Here I will stick entirely to 2009-10 data, since that from '08-09 is inextricably mixed and heavily weighted towards what Patio did with the Kings. From the above boxcars it doesn't appear O'Sullivan's overall performance has changed noticeably. According to stats at NHL.com, he does however have a bigger role:
Time On Ice :: 512:46 (2nd)
EV TOI :: 371:23 (2nd)
PP TOI :: 90:08 (2nd)
SH TOI :: 51:15 (2nd)
... behind only Dustin Penner in all four cases. In terms of TOI per GP, Sully ranks 3rd or 4th in all cases, with Horcoff and/or Hemsky entering the mix. Let's just say the man is not wanting for opportunity.
Shots :: 77 (2nd)
Missed Shots :: 30 (1st)
Shots that didn't go in :: 113 (1st)
Shooting percentage :: 4.1% (13th/13, and behind a bunch of defencemen too)
Enough has been said about this already.
Turning to the data collected by Gabe Desjardins at his terrific resource behindthenet.ca, let's consider even-strength results of the 13 Oiler forwards who have played at least 10 GP so far this season. Where does Patrick O'Sullivan rank among them?
QualComp :: -0.001 (5th/13)
QualTeam :: -0.241 (9th)
ZoneStart :: 47.9 OPCT (6th)
Smack dab in the middle of the table for difficulty of competition and of zone assignments. Lousy quality of teammate, which I think can be fairly directly attributed to O'Sullivan's own results. Since Desjardi/ns bases QT on +/-, any individual with a crappy +/- will appear to have poor teammates, cuz whoever he was out there with was getting scored on too.
G/60 :: 0.51 (10th)
P/60 :: 1.70 (5th)
Middlin' production, especially on the Goals front.
GF ON :: 13 (6th)
GA ON :: 22 (13th/13)
Now we're getting to the nub of it. Whoever he lines up with or against, O'Sullivan is getting outscored pretty badly.
GF ON/60 :: 2.21 (10th)
GA ON/60 :: 3.73 (11th)
Make that very badly.
+- ON/60 :: -1.53 (11th)
+- OFF/60 :: +0.27
That's a big difference. The team outscores with O'Sullivan on the bench. With O'Sullivan on the ice it's another matter entirely.
Corsi :: -12.05
REL Corsi :: -1.5 (7th)
The guy has a rep as a shooter with a poor Sh%, so I would hope and expect that his Relative Corsi would be a positive number. It's not.
Sh% ON :: 8.28%
Sv% ON :: .888
PDO :: .971
Obviously this is a key contributor to Sully's poor goal differential. Some would attribute all of this to luck, particularly the Sv% side of the equation. That said, David Staples' Errors project, a detailed study of all goals scored for and against in Oilers games, suggests that O'Sullivan is personally culpable on more than his share, leading all Oiler forwards in Errors with 16 at last count. On the Sh% side, we have to consider Patio's own poor record, 4.4% on 136 shots as an Oiler, and also the fact that a disproportionate percentage of all shots taken while he's on the ice are taken by him personally. It's certainly enough of an influence to drag down an entire line.
Let's turn now to special teams. Again I have limited comps to Oiler forwards with 10+ GP with an additional stipulation that they average 1:30/GP on the relevant special team. There are 8 such guys on the PP, just 4 on the PK.
G/60 :: 0.00 (8th/8)
P/60 :: 1.42 (8th)
Well, that's just downright lousy. 7th of the 8 is at 3.41 PPP/60, 2 full points ahead. Yes, I know O'Sullivan has played the point quite a bit, but all of the qualified defencemen are at 2.43 or better, 1 full point ahead. That 1.42 is almost Petersen-esque.
GF ON/60 :: 8.49 (4th)
That's better. The unit does alright with Sully out there, although it's not like he's contributing what Staples calls "unofficial assists" by screening the goalie, etc. At best he's the fourth last guy who touched the puck.
SH GA ON/60 :: -7.20 (2nd/4)
So-so. Pisani is first of course, but doesn't have the requisite 10 GP.
Penaties Drawn :: 6 (T-6th)
Penalties Taken :: 5 (T-2nd worst)
The funny thing here is that O'Sullivan came to the Oilers with a record of drawing penalties. He was supposed to replace Cole in this respect. Last year he had an outstanding record of 32 penalties drawn to just 8 taken, a ratio of 4:1. This year he's just breaking even, among the worst of the forwards in fact. What gives?
OK, let's look now at the dreaded RTSS counts.
Hits :: 19 (9th among all forwards)
More than a few of the other smurfs, but not a big part of his game. Reddox has 24 hits in 9 games, Stone 19 in 8, and both with far less ice time per game.
Blocks :: 24 (1st)
Takeaways :: 16 (2nd)
Giveaways :: 12 (9th)
OK, here's something promising. He will block a shot, and his Gv/Tk ratio is pretty good. Maybe there's a defensive player in there somewhere.
Faceoffs -- 43/107, 40.2% (12th)
Among the 7 forwards with 100+ draws, O'Sullivan ranks 7th, behind even Andrew Cogliano. The thing about these versatile guys that can do a lot of things is that they need to do some of them well or else they're not much help.
Oops, there I go straying into editorial remarks. I guess I'm just not seeing enough in any of these numbers to convince me this guy is come anywhere close to punching his $2.925 MM ticket.
Switching gears again, let's have a look at the scoring chance data generated by Dennis at MC79hockey and tabulated by Scott over at Gospel of Hockey. Here we have data for O'Sullivan's 19 games at the end of last year plus his results through Game 27 this season.
Last season:
First 8 games :: +49/-48 = 50.5%
Last 11 games :: +44/-63 = 41.1%
This season:
First 10 games :: +37/-41 = 47.4%
Next 10 games :: +41/-54 = 43.2%
Next 7 games :: +24/-39 = 38.1%
Hmmm, same trend, both years, starts out mediocre and descends from there. Some of it may be linemates, but if so, at the very least surely we can conclude that O'Sullivan isn't driving play in the positive direction.
I didn't tabulate special teams chances except for one thing: in 46 games as a regular penalty killer, O'Sullivan has been on the ice for three (3) shorthanded scoring opportunities. For a guy with his speed and supposed offensive game the counterattack "should" be part of his weaponry, but very clearly it just isn't.
One last stat based on O'Sullivan's 46 GP as an Oiler:
Cap hit :: $1,640,853.66
***
Conclusion: It must seem that I hate this player, but I don't. I even hold out a little hope for him based on occasional "seen-him-goods" which clearly do not show up in his numbers. What I do Hate is that contract, which he hasn't even begun to cover. I realize with long-term pacts one can expect younger players to underperform the early years and older guys to underperform at the end, but in the middle year of any contract the player should be delivering somewhere close to value for money.
In 2009-10 Patrick O'Sullivan's cap hit is more than double that of Ladi Smid. It's more than triple Gilbert Brule. It's more than Zack Stortini, Ryan Stone, Ryan Potulny and J-F Jacques combined, with $500,000 to spare! He should be way clear of all of those guys. Is he?
Finally it's interesting to note that O'Sullivan has already been traded three times in his young career: with a first-round pick for Pavol Demitra; with a second-round pick for Justin Williams; and with a different second-round pick for Erik Cole. The first one was a weird trade, but the last two fit the equation of a salary dump. If it seemed to be too good to be true when we got that second-rounder to sweeten the pot, it probably was.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Chicken and egg on errors. Are errors directly responsible for goals against; i.e save percentage is driven down because of allowing a goal-scoring opportunity, or are goals against directly responsible fore errors; i.e errors are driven by save percentage too because we never would have snagged the error if not for the goalie missing the puck?
(Please note: I’m fairly sure the above sentence is not gramatically correct, but I do love my semi-colons).
I’d bet on the latter, but that’s more intuitive than researched.
A posse ad esse.
The Copper & Blue|OilersNation|Hockey or Die!
Twitter: @JonathanWillis
Mail: jonathan.willis@live.ca
Agreed there is some of that in a small sample size. That said, would you hang your hat on Sv% ON being 100% luck, or do you think the player’s own performance has some bearing on it? Sometimes the goalie misses the puck cuz the backchecker failed to do his job.
I know there are studies out there that suggest players have no influence on Sv% but quite frankly I refuse to accept that conclusion at face value. It just seems intuitively wrong to me. It may be there are flaws in the method — the player sample (all first liners, all second liners, etc. as I recall) is too large and averages everything out? I’m going to be scratching my head about that one for awhile yet, I suspect.
Also, never forget that all G-A-P, GF/GA ON, etc. etc are also counted only on plays where the goalie misses the puck. I’m not sure I understand what all the objections are against trying to enumerate defensive “contributions” to GA as we do offensive input to GF. A goal has to be scored to trigger any of these. In all cases it becomes more meaningful as sample size gets bigger. i.e. a guy with 3 points tonight may or may not be your best offensive player, but a guy who scores 80 on the year and leads your team in scoring very probably is.
Anyway, please do not get hung up on errors, it was one little thing I cited to suggest that O’Sullivan’s PDO might not entirely be bad luck. It is one stat of dozens listed from several different sources, almost all of which support the notion that Patio is somewhere between mediocre and flat-out bad. Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 4, 2009 9:29 PM MST up reply actions
I am a little befuddled at times by how much flak Staples gets for his errors thing. I have some issues when he tries to make them the opposite of points and talks about “real +/-” but the idea of tracking what kinds of mistakes are leading to goals seems fundamentally beneficial at its basic level. If nothing else, you’ll learn some specific weaknesses facing each player.
As for the Sv% stuff, the data seems to suggest that there’s a lot of randomness in it but it makes a lot of sense that some players will be better on skill. It would just be very, very difficult to suss out what belongs to a player’s skill and what doesn’t. Even with shooting percentage, I think we tend to get ahead of ourselves quite a bit. On the player level there’s not a lot of dispute about some guys being better shooters but the accepted variance from season to season is pretty enormous. Even just looking at O’Sullivan we have two full seasons, one of 10.0% and another of 6.2%. That’s a lot of flex! If O’Sullivan had on-ice save percentages of .900 one season and .938 the next we’d be talking about how the numbers have no sustain and will inevitably regress to the mean. And in a sense we’d be right. But there’s probably some skill mixed in there. Just as there is with shooting. The problem is sussing it out.
by Scott Reynolds on Dec 4, 2009 9:50 PM MST up reply actions
I am a little befuddled at times by how much flak Staples gets for his errors thing. I have some issues when he tries to make them the opposite of points and talks about "real +/-" but the idea of tracking what kinds of mistakes are leading to goals seems fundamentally beneficial at its basic level. If nothing else, you’ll learn some specific weaknesses facing each player.
I think it’s funny that he takes flak from the statheads, when, if this was counted league-wide, the statheads would have already derived working formulas for errors.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Staples’ fatal flaw is that he is a MSM guy, and therefore the mortal enemy of bloggers everywhere. It’s like he’s horning in on the stats guys’ territory or something.
I find his Errors project useful in two ways: as an analysis tool on the micro level, and as a statistical tool on the macro level. Now that he’s using the same method for two years running there’s some year-over-year comparisons that can be made (one of the issues with almost all of the “new” statistics).
I think he deserves credit for developing the idea(s) and sticking with it as long as he has. It’s a lot of work. He does tend to hype it overmuch for my taste on his site, but I have no idea what percentage of his readership is “new” vs. “returning”.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 11:31 AM MST up reply actions
small
small forward, sounds about right for the way we are going. blame mangement not him. you want big , trade big
blame mangement not him.
Believe me, I do. That was a major part of the point of the foregoing.
you want big , trade big
Pronger 6’6, 214 → Lupul 6’1, 205 → Pitkanen 6’3, 210 → Cole 6’2, 205 → O’Sullivan 5’11, 190
We seem to like trading smaller. And I blame management for that too.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 4, 2009 9:35 PM MST up reply actions
The “three trades” remark is a bit odd since he’s really only been traded twice. And the salary dump thing doesn’t really make sense to me since all three guys involved in that deal had some risks and all (were going to) have similar contracts. My understanding has been that the Oilers got the 2nd round pick because they felt someone had lied to them and were going to pull out of the deal altogether. Or at least, that’s how I recall Rich Hammond conveying things at the time.
Aside from all of that, O’Sullivan’s performance has been pretty disappointing thus far in his tenure. I was supportive of the trade at the time because I really thought O’Sullivan could stir the drink on a second line. At this point, he looks more like an effective complementary player that doesn’t have enough to get it done without + linemates.
Well like I said, the first trade was real weird, never could figure that one from a Minnesota perspective. But last year LA traded him to Carolina and then Carolina traded him to Edmonton and both bundled a pick with him, suggesting he was the second best player in both deals. Carolina was willing to roll the dice on re-signing Cole over having O’Sullivan already signed and sealed for two more years. In the end they did re-up Cole for those same 2 years for slightly less than Oiler are paying Sully … still doesn’t explain the 2nd round pick. “Salary dump” is one theory that kind of fits the facts, is all I was saying.
As for your last comment, to me he looks more like an ineffective complementary player that hasn’t gotten it done with any linemates. We haven’t seen any kind of extended run on the 1 Line but even less evidence that he has earned one.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 12:48 AM MST up reply actions
Now, I really don’t think Carolina ever traded for O’Sullivan. It was a three-way deal between Edmonton, Carolina and Los Angeles in which Los Angeles ended up losing a 2nd round pick and Edmonton a 5th round pick in addition to the three players involved. It was reported that the extra pick was included because the Oilers were upset that they were kept in the dark about Williams moving to L.A. in the deal and threatened to nix it. I haven’t seen any reason to doubt that narrative and I think presenting the transactions as two distinct deals is misleading. Do you really think Carolina would have dealt for O’Sullivan unless they were sure the end result was Cole coming to the Hurricanes?
O’Sullivan has in fact been an effective complementary player in the past. Certainly in L.A. he was effective when put with players like Kopitar, Brown, Cammalleri and Frolov. When he was with lesser players there he was unable to perform well. In Edmonton he generally hasn’t received that kind of quality and isn’t good enough to carry a group of lessers to any kind of good performance. When evaluating where he fits best in the Oiler lineup I think it helps to ask “Where (in the lineup) has this player had success in the past?” and in L.A. it was as the third best player on a line. In that situation, he actually did pretty well. As such, if the Oilers are planning on having him around it likely makes the most sense to put him on a line with Penner and Horcoff rather than letting Penner juice the numbers of Brule and Gagner while Horcoff and O’Sullivan take on the toughs with Jacques.
by Scott Reynolds on Dec 5, 2009 1:09 AM MST up reply actions
March 4, 2009: Traded to Carolina by Los Angeles with Calgary’s 2nd round choice (previously acquired, Carolina selected Brian Dumoulin) in 2009 Entry Draft for Justin Williams, March 4, 2009.
March 4, 2009: Traded to Edmonton by Carolina with Carolina’s 2nd round choice (later traded to Buffalo – later traded to Toronto – Toronto selected Jesse Blacker) in 2009 Entry Draft for Erik Cole and Edmonton’s 5th round choice (Matt Kennedy) in 2009 Entry Draft, March 4, 2009.
Two separate trades bundled with two separate draft picks, for the record. Interpretations may vary.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 3:24 AM MST up reply actions
Bruce… the trades were announced two minutes apart. Sure the picks varied but if you’re trying to tell me that Carolina actually had an interest in acquiring O’Sullivan to have him play hockey games and that Edmonton hadn’t already negotiated the acquisition of O’Sullivan from before Carolina had him, I think you’re ignoring the context of the transaction.
by Scott Reynolds on Dec 5, 2009 8:47 AM MST up reply actions
Yeah, I get that
My point is, L.A. had to sweeten the pot when trading him to Carolina — presumably because Justin Williams is a better player — and then Carolina had to sweeten the pot when trading him to Edmonton, because they actually preferred 20 games of Cole and no guarantees beyond that to the longer commitment to O’Sullivan. Speaks to my point that an expiring contract is not all bad, and that a player who is locked up for awhile needs to provide value for money or he’s no bargain. Disregard the term “salary dump” if it doesn’t sit well.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 11:37 AM MST up reply actions
Except that Carolina didn’t have to sweeten the pot when they traded him to Edmonton since, essentially, LA lost a 2nd and Edmonton gained one. The extra 2nd went from LA to Edmonton and a 5th went from Edmonton to Carolina. There’s no value in separating these into two different deals because, well, they weren’t.
In terms of, why the pick went from LA, it seemed to have something to do with the Oilers learning about Williams going to LA, as per Hammond. I trust Hammond as a pretty connected and honest guy (he writes for the Kings website now I believe) and have no real reason to doubt the narrative as he tells it.
The point about an expiring contract not being bad is, of course, correct. They were dealing for Cole and cap space (that they then used on Cole).
by Scott Reynolds on Dec 5, 2009 3:08 PM MST up reply actions
Like I said, interpretations may vary. I do remember being mighty surprised that we got a pick out of the deal.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 9:41 PM MST up reply actions
great article
i’m always upset when i see smyth and williams on LA’s 1st line
my head hurts
do we tank it and go for THE pick. och,,,,,och,,,,
Ales Kotalik, a big experienced winger who came a lot closer than O’Sullivan did to replacing Cole down the stretch
No. Kotalik was abysmal. He is and was a power play specialist.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Uh, your opinion doesn’t exactly match the stats of what Kotalik actually did while he was here.
Kotalik: 19 GP, 7-4-11, +2, 1 PPG, 6 ESG
O’Sullivan: 19 GP, 2-4-6, -7, 0 PPG, 2 ESG
So which one do you think came closer to replacing Cole?
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 12:30 AM MST up reply actions
Kotalik was rolling the dice on the right side of the numbers.
He got the best possible qualteam in his stint, barely outchanced, barely outshot.
Subjectively – he never drove the play, he was being taken along with it. I’m not saying O’Sullivan is better, just that O’Sullivan would have been as good or better than Kotalik with Hemsky and Horcoff last year.
Which is to say, neither would have been as good as Penner :)
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Agreed on that last point for sure.
My crude equation from the two deals was that Kotalik ≈ Cole (expiring contract, age, size, numbers all similar), therefore O’Sullivan approximately cost the 5th round draft pick. Oh, and $6,527,743.90.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
by Bruce McCurdy on Dec 5, 2009 11:45 AM MST up reply actions
My crude equation from the two deals was that Kotalik ≈ Cole (expiring contract, age, size, numbers all similar), therefore O’Sullivan approximately cost the 5th round draft pick. Oh, and $6,527,743.90.
I get where you’re coming from now.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Oh, here was a recent Pat Quinn quote about O’Sullivan (after the Detroit game):
“He’s gotta hit the net more. I’ve never seen a young man shoot so much and not hit the net. He certainly leads our team for sure. Maybe this will help, I hope so.”

by Hockey Noob on Dec 5, 2009 12:53 AM MST reply actions 1 recs

by 
































