The Copper & Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: SB Nation interviews Jerome Bettis

Stanley Cup 2010: Ruminations and Enumerations

After some general observations in Part One of this playoff recap, this time we'll focus a little more on the numbers posted by the new Stanley Cup champions.

The Hawks rolled through four series without ever facing an elimination game (although a miracle in Nashville sure helped). In the manner of a sabermetrician examining Opposition Batting Average, I had a look at the "boxcar" performance of the opposition's top centre in each series against the Hawks. The results are quite astonishing:

GP G A P +-
Jason Arnott 6 2 0 2 -3
Henrik Sedin 6 2 4 6 -4
Joe Thornton 4 0 1 1 -5
Mike Richards 6 1 1 2 -7

Add it all up and those big guns totaled 22 GP, 5-6-11, and a whopping -19 in those four series against Chicago. Quite a contrast to their regular season numbers (306 GP, 99-210-309, +50) and previous playoff results (34 GP, 10-30-40, +7). A point-per-game group whose production was halved against the Hawks, and a group of outscorers who fell into a wormhole to oblivion.

Whatever Joel Quenneville was doing to more-than-neutralize the opposition's top guns, it was working. Doubts were raised on this very site about the effectiveness of that strategy, as scoring-chance data were at times very much at odds with goals-actually-scored data. But whatever mojo Coach Q had going, it persisted right through four series and in fact grew stronger with each one - outscore the opposition's best player by a goal a game and I really like your chances.

The biggest part of the job was assigned to the five-man unit of Ladd-Bolland-Versteeg-Keith-Seabrook, who ranked 1-2-3-4-5 on the Hawks in all three of Behind the Net's Quality of Competition metrics. All but Keith (who cycled right through the line-up) were also near the bottom for Quality of Teammate. Moreover, the group was 2-3-4-5-6 on the club for toughest ZoneStart, with Bolland starting just 28.8% of his end zone faceoffs in the attacking zone. (Fourth liner John Madden became something of an own-zone-second-faceoff-guy specialist, posting an even more extreme OPCT of 26.6% in more limited minutes. Meanwhile every other forward on the team had an OPCT of at least 57% as Quenneville really leaned heavily on the four defensive forwards.)

Things were complicated in the Finals by the injury to Ladd, who missed the first three games before returning on a different line for the last three. The Bolland-Versteeg duo lined up first with Tomas Kopecky, then Dustin Byfuglien, and didn't really miss a beat.

On the boxcars Dave Bolland posted an impressive 22 GP, 8-8-16, +6 while assigned very, very tough minutes. 410 minutes in all, third among Hawks forwards. Own zone minutes many of them, against dangerous foes the likes of Sedin(s), Thornton, Richards. Moreover, Bolland was the Hawks' top penalty killing forward, posting the best GA/60 while scoring two shorties of his own. In the olden dayes of, say, 1 or 2 years ago, the advanced fan would have looked at all those numbers and gone, wow! Nowadays we have the additional nuanced information provided by scoring chances, which along with Corsi and PDO tell us that a significant portion of the success of this group came from "riding the percentages" and converting a much higher percentage of their own chances than the bad guys (which to me at least seems a very positive result). It even seemed to some that Bolland was getting "killed" at times, but somehow - by hook or by crook, by luck or by pluck - he kept coming out ahead on the scoresheet. As did the Hawks.

Star-divide

The trio of Kane-Toews-Byfuglien had a very different lot in life. They had the benefit of very cushy zone starts (a team-softest 78% and 76% for Buf and Kane) against second toughs, but had a much tougher time on the defensive side of the puck. Whether the top trio was allowing better quality of chances on the counter attack, or whether Niemi was alternately Ken Dryden or Dave Dryden depending on which line was in front of him, the top attacking trio of the Hawks had a poor Sv% ON and were lit up for more than their share. Among 15 Hawks forwards who saw action in the postseason, Toews (-1), Kane (-2) and Byfuglien (-4) finished up 12th, 13th, and 15th on the club in +/-.

One area where Toews was vastly superior to Bolland was in the faceoff dot. In the playoffs Toews won 150 more faceoffs than Bolland, and lost 13 fewer (Toews 277/460 = 60.2%; Bolland 127/323 = 39.3%). Now consider how many of those lost Bolland draws must have been own zone faceoffs...

Chicago even-strength points: Kane 16, Sharp 15, Hossa 14, Toews 13, Versteeg 12, Keith 12, Byfuglien 11, Bolland 10, (7 more between 5 and 8). Talk about balanced scoring spread throughout the line-up.

Meanwhile, back on the blue, the tale of the plus/minus tape also yielded ambiguous results. Campbell +11, Hjalmarsson +9, Seabrook +8, Sopel +7, Keith +2, Boynton +2, Hendry -4. Probably the only thing we can all agree on from that list is that Hendry was in over his head. Keith got a lot of the accolades and deservedly so, but the 2-3-4-5 guys on the blue all made solid contributions on the outscoring front. Campbell leading the NHL in +/- is a bit of a surprise, testimony to Quenneville's smart use of him: I note he's a solid 5th in that group in QualComp, but first with a bullet in (offensive) ZoneStarts at 70.6%. Same sort of thing that should have made Byfuglien and Kane plus players, in other words. Plus/minus aside, to my eye Campbell looked real good in the Visnovsky role. Meanwhile the trio of Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, and Sopel were rock solid. Hats off to Brent Sopel, a middling player who in theory is well past his best before date, but this was the best run of sustained hockey I've ever seen from this guy. Slow, but a battler in the Staios mould ... would give up shots, but very rarely uncontested shots. His steady play allowed the Blackhawks to survive the potentially crippling loss of deadline acquisition Kim Johnsson.

Sopel and Hjalmarsson were 1-2 in SH TOI and both posted superb SH+/- results of < -3 per 60. They were the rocks that every Stanley Cup champion has to have. Last year they were named Rob Scuderi and Hal Gill, and next year they won't be named Taylor Chorney and Jason Strudwick. Sigh.

* * * 

That's all I got. Congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks, 2010 Stanley Cup champions!

0 recs  |  Comment 13 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Good stuff Bruce.

By my eye the return of Campbell to the lineup and then his return to form was a big part of this club’s success. Good player with a bad contract so often he gets overlooked.

Hard to believe Sopel – he wasn’t all that good when he was good, imo, but kudos to him on remaking his game. I love seeing veteran guys who have never won hoist the Cup, of course with these guys you had really only Hossa, Campbell and Sopel, it was nice to see how much it meant to him though, Sopel that is.

Hjalmarsson is really something, isn’t he?

Finally Bolland certianly managed to get it done, smoke, mirrors or whatever it was but the end results were there. He may have been a little lucky but you have to be good to be lucky, imo, and even when Thornton was kiling him SC wise by my eye Bolland was doing ok. Not sure how that computes – I just never had the feeling that it was a disaster when he was out there, not like, say, Matt Greene in the spring of 2006. You knew when that fucker was out there.

by Pat Mc on Jun 11, 2010 7:53 PM PDT reply actions  

I’ll preface this by saying that I completely agree about the fact that the Bolland group was facing top competition. However, the QC and QT stuff is going to be much less useful in the playoffs because you just don’t have the variety of opponents and with the Hawks, there wasn’t a whole lot of tinkering going on for the majority of the playoffs. If you want to judge that stuff in the playoffs, I think you’re much better off remembering (or looking up) the matchups that each guy faced most often. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what Gabe is doing with those for the playoffs. If he’s just using each guy’s ranking from the regular season and cross-referencing it with playoff icetime, it probably gives a much better look than I’m giving it credit for here.

by Scott Reynolds on Jun 12, 2010 3:33 AM PDT reply actions  

My understanding is he’s doing the latter. That would help explain why Ladd-Bolland-Versteeg had such poor QualTeam numbers even though those same teammates all had dynamite playoffs. The key point is the one that we agree on, that they were playing (and outscoring) top competition.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Jun 12, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks very much for the update Bruce. That does make a lot of sense, especially considering the QT, as you’ve said.

by Scott Reynolds on Jun 20, 2010 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bruce, would you mind hitting me up with the formula for OPCT? I need to get into the zone start stats on Gabe’s site. Also, do lower percentages indicate that a player started in the d zone more often?

And great article as well.

Pittsburgh sports all the way

by GoPens! on Jun 12, 2010 2:38 PM PDT reply actions  

Thanks, GoPens! OPCT completely discounts neutral zone faceoffs, and simply calculates offensive zone faceoffs as a percentage of all end zone draws [O Zone draws / (O Zone + D Zone draws)].

e.g. in the playoffs Dave Bolland was out for 57 offensive zone draws, 141 defensive zone draws, and 134 neutral zone draws. Ignore the last, and calculate [57/(57+141) = 57/198 = 28.8%].

So a high OPCT like Byfuglien, Kane, or Campbell indicates the coach is deploying those players in offensive situations and that one should expect better results from them; and a low OPCT like Madden or Bolland means that those guys are doing the heavy lifting from their own end of the rink. Chicago’s playoff numbers were pretty extreme in this category, meaning that Quenneville’s personnel choices were heavily influenced by where the next faceoff was taking place.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Jun 12, 2010 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks a ton for the explanation, Bruce.

Pittsburgh sports all the way

by GoPens! on Jun 12, 2010 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

pretty extreme in this category,

The only thing that appears extreme is the percentage of the team in the positive category.

On the Hawks, you have the Power Kill forward and defensemen specialists with less then 50% values. Then you have the Hawks “checking line” and top D-pair in the 40 – 50% values.

Everybody else on the team started in the Offensive zone more than the Defensive zone.

by DaleHalas on Jun 12, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

What I meant is extreme is the range, from Madden at 26% to Byfuglien at 78%. The only other team in the final 8 that came anywhere close to that range was (drum roll) Philadelphia.

Of the 95 forwards in the NHL who played 8 or more playoff games, 60 had an OPCT somehwere between 40% and 60%. Only 5 had an OPCT higher than 70%:

Byfuglien, CHI ….. 78.0
Kane, CHI ……….. 75.9
Leino, PHI ……….. 74.6
Eager, CHI ………. 71.1
Brouwer, CHI …… 70.2

… and only 7 had an OPCT below 30%:

Bolland, CHI ………. 28.8
Nichol, SJ ………….. 27.0
Powe, PHI …………. 26.9
Madden, CHI ……… 26.6
Laperriere, PHI …… 25.9
Betts, PHI ………….. 25.0
Nodl, PHI …………… 20.0

One way of interpreting that is that the coaches who paid the most attention to zone faceoffs were the coaches who had the most success. Which you can file under “A” for “Anecdotal”, but it’s interesting as far as it goes.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Jun 12, 2010 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

What I meant is extreme is the range

Yea, I got that, I just don’t agree with your analysis. If you look at the season the range is just under 70% to around 33%. So the playoff range is slightly larger due, in my opinion, to a lower sample size.

Then the lower range for forwards were almost all centers. This can be explained by coaches putting two centers out in the defensive zone for defensive zone faceoffs.

And the upper range can be explained by the territorial dominance of the Hawks. When you get more faceoffs in the offensive zone you can have 4 players with over 70% of their faceoffs in that zone.

If you think about 2 offensive lines and one defensive line it would be really hard for a team with a 50/50 split to have a large range of players. For a team that is losing the faceoff edge, they can have players in the lower range but don’t have enough faceoffs in the upper. You need to have a distinct edge in faceoffs to have a large range in players stats. And a coach playing two centers in the defensive end…

by DaleHalas on Jun 13, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Great stuff!

I think you guys are doing a great job of pointing out the discrepancy between the numbers and the results. Obviously there are some other factors at work here.

One that sticks out in my mind, however, is that of Corsi/chances vs. defensive zone starts. If you think about it, you’re going to start off at a disadvantage in these categories simply because you’re there to begin with. So I wonder if there’s some way to reconcile that — because, like you said, they did end up converting a higher percentage of their chances.

My biggest question is how much of that low percentage can be attributed to “pressing” because the results weren’t there, but perhaps the answer is none at all — I was never able to identify a trend in the numbers; it seemed relatively consistent.

by VerStig on Jun 13, 2010 3:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Thanks, Verstig. As I understand it, there has been a reconciliation attempted between ZoneStart and Corsi, with each +1 faceoff differential in the offensive zone equating to roughly +0.8 Corsi or +0.6 Fenwick. Same on the minus side of the ledger of course. So all else being equal (which it never is of course) a guy with 100 more ZoneStarts in his own end than the good end can be expected to have a Corsi of -80 and a Fenwick of -60. If he does better than that he’s doing alright, even though he might still have a minus figure.

No such reconciliation has been attempted as yet w.r.t. scoring chances, at least not that I’ve heard of.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Jun 13, 2010 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hmm, I was just thinking about this

It’s kind of interesting. At first, I figured, as above, that chances/Corsi are affected by the fact that you’re starting in your own zone a lot. So, that makes saying that you got “outchanced” a tough sell.

Then, I thought — doesn’t that work the other way around, too? Say if your own goalie has to cover the puck, if you’re not deep into your shift, you might just stay out there. Does that still count as a defensive zone start?

I’m just glad that y’all have done the work to even bring up these questions, and provide the forum to discuss them.

by VerStig on Jun 13, 2010 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.
Start posting about the Oilers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 82 49 28 5 103
Colorado 82 43 30 9 95
Calgary 82 40 32 10 90
Minnesota 82 38 36 8 84
Edmonton 82 27 47 8 62

(updated 4.12.2010 at 6:21 AM PDT)

Oilers Stats Leaders

Stat

Forwards

Defense

TOI/G:

Horcoff (19:23)

Gilbert (22:24)

ESTOI/G:

Horcoff (14:24)

Visnovsky (17:14)

Points:

Penner (63)

Visnovsky (32)

Goals:

Penner (32)

Visnovsky (10)

Assists:

Penner (31)

Gilbert (23)

EV+/- /15

Penner (.152)

Smid (.090)

Shots:

Penner (203)

Gilbert (96)

Corsi/15:

Penner(.405)

Visnovsky (.460)

SCF/15:

Penner (5.241)

Visnovsky (4.517)

SCA/15:

Stortini (3.850)

Gilbert (4.360)

SCDiff/15:

Penner (.448)

Visnovsky (.122)

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Photo link

Dan Ellis Leaves Twitter; Can Athletes Have Truly Honest Public Opinions?

Photo +5 updates

SB Nation's Mock NHL Expansion Draft: Winnipeg And Quebec Select Their Teams

Vancouver Canucks' Willie Mitchell, centre, reacts as Calgary Flames' Michael Cammalleri, left to right, Jarome Iginla and Olli Jokinen, of Finland, celebrate Iginla's goal during second period NHL hockey action at GM Place in Vancouver, Tuesday, April 7, 2009.  (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Jonathan Hayward) link

Is Willie Mitchell A Socialist?

More from SBNation.com >


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Columnists

Willis_small Jonathan Willis

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Zorg_small Bruce McCurdy

Small Jaysen Knight

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Hat_small Lisa McRitchie

Neal_small Neal Livingston