Are The 2011 Minnesota Wild Better Than Their 2010 Team?

by Derek Zona on Dec 29, 2011 6:30 AM MST in Analysis

"Puck possession is everything."
--Mike Babcock

One of central pillars of the arguments from those who believe the Wild are a legitimate top-tier team is shot quality. The argument says something to the effect that possession metrics don't explain the Wild because they get better shots and generate more scoring chances as part of believing and playing in Mike Yeo's system.

The terrifying Vic Ferrari used the Babcock quote in an article he penned of the same name. In that article, Ferrari explained his study on the correlation between scoring chances and possession (Corsi). The money quote is here

The idea is that the more games you're looking at, the more luck washes out. And you can see that over a small batch of games the player's scoring chance rates mesh reasonably well with results (goals) for these 20 Oiler players as a group. But as the sample of games grows larger, near the 77 total, the relationship becomes overwhelming and obvious.

Over time, the ability to create a gap in the possession metrics and scoring chances for disappears. Back to Ferrari:

I think that Mike Babcock is right, possession is everything. Damn close to it at even strength, anyways. I also agree with his thinking that being a "puck possession^(TM)" team has little to do with coaching style, and everything to do with how good your players are.

For those of you that haven't clicked through to Vic's article, the last sentence is tremendous.

How does all of this apply to the Wild?

Our resident internet physiotherapist, doogie, tried to find a silver lining in Minnesota's underlying numbers in the comments of my last look at the Wild:

"I still sort of expect this team to improve its possession standing by the end of the year (no one can be that bad, can they?),"

Yes, actually, they can. Remember what Vic said "...being a "puck possession^(TM)" team has little to do with coaching style, and everything to do with how good your players are..." I've looked at season segments and demonstrated they aren't getting better this year. Gabriel Desjardins' season tracker shows the same thing in graphical form. But getting their lunch handed to them at even strength is not a new trend for the Wild. In the table below I've listed Minnesota's possession metrics for the last three seasons.

Fenwick Category	%	NHL Rank	Standings Finish
2011 Tied	42.24	30th	?
2010 Tied	42.97	30th	21
2009 Tied	46.11	28th	22
2008 Tied	46.92	23rd	19

Fenwick Category	%	NHL Rank	Standings Finish
2011 Close	44.45	29th	?
2010 Close	43.14	30th	21
2009 Close	47.31	25th	22
2008 Close	46.80	24th	19

I've also listed their NHL rank in those metrics as well as their final position in the league-wide standings. The Wild have been one of the worst teams in the league when it comes to possessing the puck and have consistently finished in the bottom third of the league. The key, however, comes in understanding that the Wild aren't better than last year and are worse than the teams from 2008-09 and 2009-10.

But what about the claim (the same claim made by Avs' fans two years ago) that they are able to generate key shots and scoring chances because of their system? Thanks to the Scoring Chance Project, we can test that. Our scorers have recorded all but three Wild games and the Wild have tallied a Scoring Chance Close Percentage of .459, which is slightly better than Edmonton's close percentage from last season.

The Wild are full value as one of the worst even strength teams in the league. No, the Wild have no specific talent for generating scoring chances in spite of possession. Mike Yeo's system is not responsible for increased scoring chances.

"..being a "puck possession^(TM)" team has little to do with coaching style, and everything to do with how good your players are."

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yea, well look how bad your team is.

by DarrenV on Dec 29, 2011 10:56 AM MST reply actions 1 recs

Maybe I should root for the Wild. They’re just as bad as the Oilers, but they don’t trade their best players for peanuts and let injured players kill the team.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 29, 2011 11:00 AM MST up reply actions

We'll Let That Slip

Why do I NOT think you’ll ever cheer for the Wild, Derek? This is another great article btw. Puck possession is really what it’s all about and the Oilers seem to have the puck maybe 40% of the time, if that. It would really be a shame if RNH, Hall and Eberle adopt a losing attitude because management does what you say, trades the potential for peanuts and then play guys that are hurt weeks before they are ready. Happy New Year everyone!!

by Otiepitotie on Dec 29, 2011 11:21 AM MST up reply actions

Why do I NOT think you’ll ever cheer for the Wild, Derek?

Like the Avs and Stars before, I’ve got nothing against the Wild. I’m writing what is happening. If the Oilers had the Rangers on their schedule six times before the new year, I would’ve written about how bad they were to start the season and how they’ve come on like gangbusters since the addition of Carl Hagelin. How that sentence makes sense, I’m not sure.

As for the Oilers, re-read Ferrari’s quote.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 29, 2011 11:29 AM MST up reply actions

You’re in a Yeti-like zone today.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 29, 2011 2:15 PM MST up reply actions

I’m loving this battle between the blogs. Registered mostly just to say this, keep it up!

by julian.albrecht on Dec 29, 2011 12:07 PM MST reply actions

There’s no battle. I’m writing and analyzing what’s occurring, just as I did with the Avs and the Stars. Like we saw previously, some fans don’t like reality.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 29, 2011 2:13 PM MST up reply actions

Those results from the past three seasons really highlights the absurdity of this whole thing. The Wild have been a mediocre to poor team for years now. Even if you don’t believe in the validity of Corsi/Fenwick analysis, just look at the results and ask yourself ‘what is the difference between this years team and previous years?’

The answer is, not much. Havlat/Burns for Heatley/Setoguchi is a lateral move at best. They don’t have a bunch of young players on the cusp of becoming stars, so you’re left with the coach. People give coaches way too much credit for success and failure. A good coach could take a borderline playoff team and sneak them into the 7th or 8th playoff spot, but there’s no coach in the world that can take a thoroughly bad team and transform them into an elite team.

by melancholyculkin on Dec 29, 2011 12:54 PM MST reply actions

They don’t have a bunch of young players on the cusp of becoming stars

Mike Yeo disagrees:

“I don’t think people understand how good of a player Jared Spurgeon is, but this guy is our Shea Weber, our Nick Lidstrom, and we lose him to a guy that’s playing on their fourth line.”

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 29, 2011 2:15 PM MST up reply actions

Well, Bylsma made Pittsburgh much better, and New Jersey by all metrics improved with Lemaire last season, right? I don’t think being so quick to discredit coaching is dangerous.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Dec 30, 2011 12:53 AM MST via Android app up reply actions

"I don’t think people understand how good of a player Jared Spurgeon is, but this guy is our Shea Weber, our Nick Lidstrom, and we lose him to a guy that’s playing on their fourth line."

I have nothing to add, I just wanted to see that comment again to see how much sense it makes.

Random nonsense at @Baroque97

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)

by Baroque on Dec 29, 2011 2:30 PM MST reply actions 3 recs

I enjoyed how some Wild fans kept on about how Zona should spend time looking at how bad the Oilers were. Had they bothered to actually read anything instead of frothing at the mouth at some misconstrued slight, they’d have noticed the steady diet of doom that is the Oilers. Welcome to the club boys.

I suppose I would want to bury my head in the sand too, if this wasn’t the 5th year of suck for the Oil. No one wants to hear the sky is falling.

The Wild really do seem to be a different team without Koivu. I shudder to think what they’d look like the rest of the season without him. I suppose kinda like the Oil would without Gilbert.

"When you find yourself rooting for mediocrity – you might be an Oilers fan." - Neal Livingston

by proxy on Dec 29, 2011 10:50 PM MST via mobile reply actions 1 recs

Gilbert is better than Koivu.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 30, 2011 11:14 PM MST up reply actions

Your conclusions seem a bit ambitious, based as they are on one study of one team over a paltry 77 games. You are not, in fact, “writing about what’s occurrng.” You are writing about things as you would like them to be, as they fit the narrative you favor. When you have scoring chance and fenwick data for all 30 teams over a few hundred games, then we can start talking about firm conclusions.

I specifically note that the Wild have outperformed their fenwick numbers in their final standings. Why?

Patron saint of quality footwear.

by fat_daddyo on Dec 30, 2011 7:14 AM MST reply actions

they are on one study of one team over a paltry 77 games

Huh? There’s three-and-a-half seasons of data in here. So almost 300 games.

When you have scoring chance and fenwick data for all 30 teams over a few hundred games, then we can start talking about firm conclusions.

There is Fenwick data available for all thirty teams going back to the 2007-2008 season so…

I specifically note that the Wild have outperformed their fenwick numbers in their final standings. Why?

There’s a number of possibilities. The major one being that Fenwick is not supposed to be the measure of a teams ability. It is simply, in the minds of many, the best measure that we currently have.

by melancholyculkin on Dec 30, 2011 11:47 AM MST up reply actions

I think you misunderstood him.

I think he’d agree that the 30 teams x 4.5 years of data says that by this point in the season we have a pretty good measure of a team’s ability to control shot differential, and that 3.5 years of Wild stats suggest that they aren’t good at controlling shot differential.

I think his concern was specifically with the conclusion that shot differential equals scoring chance differential, which is based on only 77 games of a single team. I think he was suggesting that this matches the statguy narrative and so we have accepted it easily, but should be hesitant to proclaim it fact until we have a large, multi-team comparison completed.

If you remove that assumption, then you’re left with the observation on the one hand that the scoring chance project shows the Wild doing pretty poorly in scoring chances this year, and on the other hand that the Wild’s place in the standings has consistently been better than their Fenwick.

This leaves open the possibility that maybe the Wild have a system that allows more shots and more shots from within the scoring chance D but fewer shots from the real premium shooting locations, or something along those lines. However, it could more simply be explained with above-average goaltenders.

@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey

by Eric T. on Dec 30, 2011 2:55 PM MST up reply actions

Actually, I guess if you remove the assumption about shot differential equaling scoring chance differential, you could argue that the Wild might have been better than their Fenwick in scoring chances in past years, and that this year’s low scoring-chances-when-close total might be a small-sample-size anomaly (assuming that there haven’t been a ton of scoring chances when close so far this year).

@BSH_EricT
Writer at Broad Street Hockey

by Eric T. on Dec 30, 2011 3:17 PM MST up reply actions

I don’t know if Minnesota is the absolute worst team, but to merely break even at even strength they have to shoot in the neighborhood of 50% better than their opponents. So if opponents shoot 7%, they need to shoot around 10%. That’s a very tall order. I think the only teams that have done that recently are Boston, Vancouver, and Washington.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Dec 30, 2011 8:35 PM MST via Android app up reply actions

I specifically note that the Wild have outperformed their fenwick numbers in their final standings. Why?

Something in the 4% Goaltending, 6% power play, 4% penalty kill or luck.

Your conclusions seem a bit ambitious,

No.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on Dec 30, 2011 11:28 PM MST up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Oilers Schedule

Last 5 Games

@ Vancouver Nucks Misconduct	Sat 04/07	L 0 - 3
Anaheim Anaheim Calling	Thu 04/05	OT - L 2 - 3
@ Los Angeles Jewels From The Crown	Mon 04/02	L 0 - 2
@ Anaheim Anaheim Calling	Sun 04/01	W 2 - 1
Los Angeles Jewels From The Crown	Fri 03/30	L 1 - 4