May 25 2012 09:34AM
I'm going to admit my bias: I don't like experts. I mean "experts," really, the people who posit themselves as the go-to person for hockey advice. There are a lot of intelligent and/or informed people out there who can provide equally apt insight into the game and its machinations (and sometimes, its psyche), but I guess it makes for some pretty milquetoast TV to just poll them all the time when you want to make a statement.
May 24 2012 04:38PM
The rookie scoring race this year saw the three Calder Trophy finalists all finish within a single point of each other. Gabriel Landeskog of the Colorado Avalanche and the Edmonton Oilers’ Ryan Nugent-Hopkins both recorded 52 points, while New Jersey Devil Adam Henrique scored 51. The only other player even close to those three was Philadelphia Flyers rookie Matt Read, with 47.
Yet another look shows that the gap between those four and a player like Carl Hagelin or Sean Couturier has been exaggerated by circumstance and opportunity.
May 23 2012 08:54PM
On Wednesday I looked at the fall of Matt Stajan and came to the conclusion that his rapid decline was in part due to a bubble bursting (he wasn't that good to begin with, and the boxcars caught up with his ability) and in part due to the vagueries of player performance variance and in part due to falling out of favor with his head coach.
Today I want to look like what a quality season that is either at his contract level (or not far from it) would look like and what it'd take for him to get there.
May 23 2012 06:53AM
Matt Stajan is the poster boy for due diligence. Not because he was an excellent reward for it, but because he's an excellent example of not doing due diligence.
In the years since the now infamous Dion Phaneuf trade, it's become widely reported that Darryl Sutter did not shop Phaneuf. He made two or three offers around the league, found a deal that was "good enough", and made it. He limited his options and and took whatever he could get. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not due diligence.
May 22 2012 05:05PM
(--NOTE-- This piece was written by Rob Pettapiece of The CIS Blog , known also for his work on players who claim to be in the the best shape of their lives and he is also the man behind the significant discovery that Canadian teenagers age . Visit his more general sports blog here . Primarily a baseball guy, I often joke with Rob that he knew about Corsi and advanced hockey stats before he knew anything about hockey.)
We know that players with more offensive zone starts tend to have better offensive numbers. But are those players given these OZone starts because they are better offensively, or do they merely appear better offensively because they are given these zone starts? In other words, we know there's a correlation, but where is the causation, if any?
The Canucks' justification for trading Cody Hodgson suggests that you can inflate a player's statistics if you give him more offensive zone time, so at least one team (and many of its fans) believe that it's the zone starts that make the player, to some extent. But how can we figure out just how much a zone start is worth to a player's offensive numbers?