It won't necessarily be pretty, but they'll be handing out the returning Canadiens the player of the month award tonight at the Bell Centre. If the team stays true to fan voting, then it could be close. I can't find the total ballots as I did last season (maybe the team is trying to conceal the fact that only 200 people vote a game), but based on fan stars, Price (on a so-so season for him) will continue the sweep.
The fans chose Price first star twice, second star once and third star twice over his 13 starts. Next best was Erik Cole who got three seconds and a third. The NHL version of events has Price with his two first, but a less generous one third to go with. Cole on the other hand got a first star nod from the experts and three seconds. By conventional scoring Cole wins media.
It's always hard to choose the best player over a bad month. The Habs this month turned 14 games into 11 points by going 4-7-3. This meant even with the serious bias of Canadiens fans, they still only awarded stars to 25 of a possible 42 recipients.
I think this month was poor enough that consideration should also be given to those players who played well in losing efforts as well as wins. Thus we look to other elements.
This should be painful: Lion of the Month.
Cole
Let's start with conventional stats. He scored 9 goals in 14 games. He assisted on 4 others. He scored those goals in 9 different games, so it's not like we're overvaluing the Ottawa game here.
In terms of goals created, we assessed that Cole created 6.00 goals on his own. This may not sound like much, but consider that means we think he is responsible for 1/6th of the offensive output for the whole team over a month. Noting that he could only ever be 1/6th of the team on at most goalscoring times, even if he played every minute. Exceptional, in other words. He's doing things on and off the puck to make his line a threat most of the time.
Cole was on the ice for 99 chances in December, including 29 of his own. Both clear highs for a forward on the team. Is it sustainable? Perhaps not the goal completion rate, but for the rest he's shown it's just part of the way he plays -- I'd say yes.
Price
If you look purely on the dome/no dome dichotomy Price did enough to win this nod. I wonder though, did he just do enough enough times, however?
We awarded him the player of the game 4 time in his 13 starts. In those games, Price had a 2-1-1 record with a 1.97 GAA and a 0.935 SV%. Good, but the best in the league post this as their average performance. The flip side were his other 9 games where he was 2-5-2 with a 3.19 GAA and an 0.897 SV%.
It's always hard to fault a goalie and often we give the benefit of the doubt to the player in the last line of defence who has been left to fend for himself. Witness 8 domes for that record in 9 games above. Yet, averages are informative because they help us to spot trends and importantly start to compare against other goalies or past performance.
A crude measure of shot quality is shot location. As you know, Olivier of En Attendant les Nordiques goes far to track this aspect with his scoring chance data. When we filter out missed shots we get high quality shots (or at least shots from high quality locations). This year, I have been doing this and finding that of the shots Price faces, about 42% are of this higher quality. Unfortunately I didn't do this last season, but going on the proportion of missed shots that make the scoring chance record this season (76%), this number is up from last season when he was facing about 36% shots from quality areas. All last season, he'd have been saving about 79% of these shots, identical to this December as it happens.
So, to be absolutely fair to Carey, the evidence is mounting that the Habs have been hanging out to dry.
Diaz
A bit of an honourable mention, perhaps. Diaz, 20-odd games into an NHL career has had a month of great growth actually.
Diaz claimed 6 domes from a possible 12, and tied for the most of any defenceman. We do recall that sometimes this was for not being totally awful, but that is on a par with Price, isn't it?
What specifically drew my eye to Diaz were a few little stats. +2 - Diaz has been rather stingy at ES, a team-leading 1.71. This may be due in part to Carey's heroism or luck when he's been on, but it still stands out. As does his ability to keep chances on net off target (misses or blocks) more than others.
He's also been a big cog on the still putrid (but improving PP). The Habs scored 9 PP goals in December on 55ish PPs. It's not a good percentage, but it's better than before. Diaz's increasing comfort at the point is part of that. It's a shame he can't score, but he does have 6.18 Pts/60 for December, a team high. While he was on, the team scored 9.27 goals per 60 minutes of time as well (or about double the team rate), which was also a team high. Obviously one can't do this conversion and take it seriously, but for fun, this goal rate might convert to a 27.8% efficiency rating (based on an avg PP length of 1:48, or 9 minutes over 5 PPs to score 1 goal).
Lion of November: Erik Cole
Diaz wasn't really in the league of the other two, but that speaks volumes about the team as a whole, doesn't it?
I give the nod to Erik Cole. Price had a good month, but you'd always want to add the words "considering the circumstances" after that statement. Cole just had a good month, even an exceptional one. While team tightening and sways in luck will see this future battle likely go to Price as it did in November, one can't just ignore 9 important goals.
As I've aid, this month's battle was a huge disappointment. Diaz, the legitimate #3 is nowhere near vying for this honour. The two realistic contenders are the same two as November. One must start asking where the rest of the team is.
Cole has very good been individually, but his ability to lead or stir his teammates must come next. Desharnais is producing more than he should/would, but Cole has to be used to somehow now re-infect Plekanec, Pacioretty, Kostitsyn, Cammalleri, Eller, Darche, Moen and eventually Gionta to be something better than average at peak performance.
It's a lot to ask of the free agent Hab, but he'll be doing it for himself. That's because if he wants playoff hockey over this contract, the Habs current group with some fire look the better bet than his old mates in Carolina.
Showing posts with label best player. Show all posts
Showing posts with label best player. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Friday, June 26, 2009
Best Asset Available
Does Timmins read LIW?
You tell me. All I know is that he seems to have come up with a new term: "Best asset available" (audio)
Search "best asset available NHL" on google and see what you see. Perhaps Trev took a little gander at NHL draft theory and noticed good sense when he saw it.
All the more reason for me to get that 2nd round wish list out, eh?
Anyway, enough self-aggrandizing. I didn't invent the term, or the concept. Furthermore, I hope Timmins didn't get his ideas from this or any blog. If he's been skiving on the internet at this his busiest time (only busy time?) of the year would mean big trouble for the team.
Still, it'd be nice if he took Morin...
You tell me. All I know is that he seems to have come up with a new term: "Best asset available" (audio)
Search "best asset available NHL" on google and see what you see. Perhaps Trev took a little gander at NHL draft theory and noticed good sense when he saw it.
All the more reason for me to get that 2nd round wish list out, eh?
Anyway, enough self-aggrandizing. I didn't invent the term, or the concept. Furthermore, I hope Timmins didn't get his ideas from this or any blog. If he's been skiving on the internet at this his busiest time (only busy time?) of the year would mean big trouble for the team.
Still, it'd be nice if he took Morin...
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
NHL Draft Theory
The NHL draft is 10 days away now and the previews are coming thick and fast. I've been doing some analysis and will offer a preview of what I think the Canadiens should do very soon. To start with, though, I thought I would indulge a little abstract discussion on how I think a team's scouting department should target their efforts.
Generally speaking there are two ways that teams seem to approach a draft:
1) Address specific organizational needs
OR
2) Pick the best player available
Both are very good approaches with arguments for and against. I dissect each below.
Organizational needs
This method is the favourite of analysts. For one thing, it allows them to predict which teams will take which players. It's clearly also a very popular approach among teams.
What this tack has going for it is that when you get it right, your team can tick over as a self-contained machine. The NHL club will be stocked with players from minor league clubs which are all fed through the draft at each position. You'll always have 6 goalies, 20 odd defencemen and many more forwards in the system to keep it alimenting the major league team.
The problem with this approach is that it requires teams to draft things like defensive defencemen and third line wingers. Scouts already have enough trouble seeking out the one player that could be an offensive star one day, giving them extra briefs to fill all on the same day every year is a tough one.
Another problem is that it assumes organizational strength throughout, not only at judging new talent but also at judging the talent within. Call me crazy, but I don't think most organizations are rightly equipped to approach the draft in this way. Most teams have enough trouble picking a GM and a coach, to expect not only that but also excellent NHL level scouts, heads of amateur scouting and eyes on the local arenas is probably stretching reality.
To boot, you'll end up being called the Nashville Predators.
Best player
Those who fall under the Montreal umbrella will be accustomed to hearing the party line that is "Best player available" for a while now. Trevor Timmins in particular is a premier adherent to this school of thought.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with picking who you think is the best, but you would run the risk of overstocking at one position (say defence) while other positions (like goalie and right wing, for example) are perilously weak.
It does alleviate the problem, however, of having to know what you've got in the system. That taxing activity removed would give more time for actually assessing the new potential coming through. I do like the focus of this idea a lot.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but this system of choosing draft picks does require a good system to build equilibrium be in place. In my experience, a good NHL team has a balance of talent. It's very rare (and probably foolhardy to go against experience) to ice 6 great defenders a decent goalie and AHL forwards and expect much silverware. Similarly, 3 top centers with no defencemen doesn't work for most. That's to say, your GM better be darn good at trading away defensive prospects for forwards if your a head scout who constantly picks defensive stalwarts from Minnesota.
If your team's track record for trading up (or even sideways) in value and bringing in good players through free agency is poor, then you'd better be looking to the draft to fill some of the other positions as well.
Which system for the Canadiens?
Having looked at the alternatives, I'm not really turned on by either. I do feel the Canadiens have a good scouting network in place they certainly seem to turn up more late round steals than an average NHL club. That said, I wouldn't want to be limited to a team built from the draft - the club still does have it share of shocking picks and misses.
It's tempting to think that the best player approach is a worthy one, but I think these last few years have shown us a few things about Timmins' and Gainey's little theory. Drafting loads of defencemen is no good at all when the GM can't flip one in a trade - it just creates a log jam where perfectly good prospects are lost into the ether (or the KHL). It has to be said that losing Emelin and Valentenko when both Mathieu Aubin might be left as the top centre in Hamilton next season is criminal.
The lesson for me in all this is that defencemen are an asset, yes. But defensive projects are not, at least not in a trade. Most clubs trading away value are looking for value that will pay dividends in the relative short term - they don't want David Fischer until they see whether he's able to handle the jump to the NHL at age 25.
I think the Canadiens need a third way to approach this conundrum.
A third system
The third way is a bit different. Rather than selecting the best player, I think the Canadiens should be looking to select the best organizational asset with each pick they make.
Best asset
The first step is to be realistic about how the NHL is run. The draft is what it is, but it is not the only tool available to those building a Stanley Cup contending team. In order to fashion a team to win, a GM must also effectively use free agency, waivers and trades. In the context of all these other avenues of player acquisition, drafting recedes in importance. It is still vital, but in order to maximise your chances your overall, you need to understand what the draft is best for. Moreover, you need to understand what the draft can provide that unrestricted avenues like free agency and waivers cannot.
It's simple really, simple economics: supply and demand.
Recent history shows that the hardest things to get your hands on (from another team) are reliable scoring forwards and top-notch defencemen. Incidentally, these are also the two categories of player that will cost you the moon on July 1st - and due to taxes and other issues are probably out of Montreal's reach altogether in free agency. It follows that having these assets in the system for a possible trade will offer the best return should you want it.
By contrast, drafting and developing defensive or lower scoring forwards is something anyone can do. These players can be traded for with relative ease, signed on July 10th when the dust settles or even acquired through non-draft routes as undrafted players. In other words, one should not look at as a defensive forward or a future back-up goalie as a true organizational asset.
Swing for the fences
Another part of being realistic about the NHL is knowing that having 43 good prospects is not that much better than having 8. Trades are few and don't look to be rising, and teams with a raft of prospects often get shorted on trades because of the perception they are not giving up as much.
Knowing that you don't have to have seven draftees making it all the way to the NHL or the AHL or even the ECHL should be a relief. It's realistic. My question prior to each pick wouldn't be who has the best odds of being an NHL player, but rather who has the best odds (even if they're outside) of being the best offensive star or, if a defenceman, top defender.
A team shouldn't be using any pick, let a lone a top pick to select a player who's already called a defensive forward or defensive defenceman at the junior level. You can't criticise much in the draft, but you can criticise this.
Habs fans, how would you like to have Travis Zajac. He was picked 2 selections after Kyle Chipchura as a risky offensive prospect. He's already played 3 seasons on the New Jersey Devils and is a first/second liner with a 20-goal season by age 23. The Devils swung for the fence and the Canadiens have a forward that can play like their waiver wire pick-up Geln Metropolit (if they're lucky). Chipchura may one day have me eating my words, but Gainey could have traded Huet for him instead of that second round pick in a pinch if he liked him so much - it's just not hard to acquire the Chipchuras of this world. The Zajacs, well you tell me...
If your drafting is any good, and ours is, swinging for the fences should come off once in a while. And who knows, maybe we can replicate our Markov pick with a Datsyuk and Zetterberg of our own.
Trade picks if the math adds up
There will come times when someone comes knocking for that pick. At those times, I can only advise listening.
The Tanguay trade was a classic example of an opportunity well taken. No matter how you sliced it, the likelihood of getting a player as good as Tanguay (a scoring star – one of those rare assets) in either the first or second round of the NHL draft was slim to none. Gainey missed a chance at an organizational asset, but added an actual asset. Also, the addition of Tanguay bumped people down in the organization. Corey Locke, for example was now expendable and used in a trade for something of use to the team.
Trading picks like this is to be encouraged in my third approach, so long as the opportunity cost calculation is sound. a 25th pick for Tanguay (even for one year) is a win. Had that pick been a 10th overall, the choice gets murkier. 5th overall and it's a loser.
In sum
Don't pick the player with the best chance of being an NHLer, pick the one with a chance at being a star Don't even bother picking the types of players you can easily pick up by other means (i.e., OK goalies, defensive defencemen and bottom line forwards) Trade the pick if the organization gets a better asset mix from the swap
This is the strategy I can only hope the Canadiens look to in the future. I hope that this year will be the first of many home run swinging affairs and to that 18th pick – whether we use it to choose an amateur or to bring in a pro.
Generally speaking there are two ways that teams seem to approach a draft:
1) Address specific organizational needs
OR
2) Pick the best player available
Both are very good approaches with arguments for and against. I dissect each below.
Organizational needs
This method is the favourite of analysts. For one thing, it allows them to predict which teams will take which players. It's clearly also a very popular approach among teams.
What this tack has going for it is that when you get it right, your team can tick over as a self-contained machine. The NHL club will be stocked with players from minor league clubs which are all fed through the draft at each position. You'll always have 6 goalies, 20 odd defencemen and many more forwards in the system to keep it alimenting the major league team.
The problem with this approach is that it requires teams to draft things like defensive defencemen and third line wingers. Scouts already have enough trouble seeking out the one player that could be an offensive star one day, giving them extra briefs to fill all on the same day every year is a tough one.
Another problem is that it assumes organizational strength throughout, not only at judging new talent but also at judging the talent within. Call me crazy, but I don't think most organizations are rightly equipped to approach the draft in this way. Most teams have enough trouble picking a GM and a coach, to expect not only that but also excellent NHL level scouts, heads of amateur scouting and eyes on the local arenas is probably stretching reality.
To boot, you'll end up being called the Nashville Predators.
Best player
Those who fall under the Montreal umbrella will be accustomed to hearing the party line that is "Best player available" for a while now. Trevor Timmins in particular is a premier adherent to this school of thought.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with picking who you think is the best, but you would run the risk of overstocking at one position (say defence) while other positions (like goalie and right wing, for example) are perilously weak.
It does alleviate the problem, however, of having to know what you've got in the system. That taxing activity removed would give more time for actually assessing the new potential coming through. I do like the focus of this idea a lot.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but this system of choosing draft picks does require a good system to build equilibrium be in place. In my experience, a good NHL team has a balance of talent. It's very rare (and probably foolhardy to go against experience) to ice 6 great defenders a decent goalie and AHL forwards and expect much silverware. Similarly, 3 top centers with no defencemen doesn't work for most. That's to say, your GM better be darn good at trading away defensive prospects for forwards if your a head scout who constantly picks defensive stalwarts from Minnesota.
If your team's track record for trading up (or even sideways) in value and bringing in good players through free agency is poor, then you'd better be looking to the draft to fill some of the other positions as well.
Which system for the Canadiens?
Having looked at the alternatives, I'm not really turned on by either. I do feel the Canadiens have a good scouting network in place they certainly seem to turn up more late round steals than an average NHL club. That said, I wouldn't want to be limited to a team built from the draft - the club still does have it share of shocking picks and misses.
It's tempting to think that the best player approach is a worthy one, but I think these last few years have shown us a few things about Timmins' and Gainey's little theory. Drafting loads of defencemen is no good at all when the GM can't flip one in a trade - it just creates a log jam where perfectly good prospects are lost into the ether (or the KHL). It has to be said that losing Emelin and Valentenko when both Mathieu Aubin might be left as the top centre in Hamilton next season is criminal.
The lesson for me in all this is that defencemen are an asset, yes. But defensive projects are not, at least not in a trade. Most clubs trading away value are looking for value that will pay dividends in the relative short term - they don't want David Fischer until they see whether he's able to handle the jump to the NHL at age 25.
I think the Canadiens need a third way to approach this conundrum.
A third system
The third way is a bit different. Rather than selecting the best player, I think the Canadiens should be looking to select the best organizational asset with each pick they make.
Best asset
The first step is to be realistic about how the NHL is run. The draft is what it is, but it is not the only tool available to those building a Stanley Cup contending team. In order to fashion a team to win, a GM must also effectively use free agency, waivers and trades. In the context of all these other avenues of player acquisition, drafting recedes in importance. It is still vital, but in order to maximise your chances your overall, you need to understand what the draft is best for. Moreover, you need to understand what the draft can provide that unrestricted avenues like free agency and waivers cannot.
It's simple really, simple economics: supply and demand.
Recent history shows that the hardest things to get your hands on (from another team) are reliable scoring forwards and top-notch defencemen. Incidentally, these are also the two categories of player that will cost you the moon on July 1st - and due to taxes and other issues are probably out of Montreal's reach altogether in free agency. It follows that having these assets in the system for a possible trade will offer the best return should you want it.
By contrast, drafting and developing defensive or lower scoring forwards is something anyone can do. These players can be traded for with relative ease, signed on July 10th when the dust settles or even acquired through non-draft routes as undrafted players. In other words, one should not look at as a defensive forward or a future back-up goalie as a true organizational asset.
Swing for the fences
Another part of being realistic about the NHL is knowing that having 43 good prospects is not that much better than having 8. Trades are few and don't look to be rising, and teams with a raft of prospects often get shorted on trades because of the perception they are not giving up as much.
Knowing that you don't have to have seven draftees making it all the way to the NHL or the AHL or even the ECHL should be a relief. It's realistic. My question prior to each pick wouldn't be who has the best odds of being an NHL player, but rather who has the best odds (even if they're outside) of being the best offensive star or, if a defenceman, top defender.
A team shouldn't be using any pick, let a lone a top pick to select a player who's already called a defensive forward or defensive defenceman at the junior level. You can't criticise much in the draft, but you can criticise this.
Habs fans, how would you like to have Travis Zajac. He was picked 2 selections after Kyle Chipchura as a risky offensive prospect. He's already played 3 seasons on the New Jersey Devils and is a first/second liner with a 20-goal season by age 23. The Devils swung for the fence and the Canadiens have a forward that can play like their waiver wire pick-up Geln Metropolit (if they're lucky). Chipchura may one day have me eating my words, but Gainey could have traded Huet for him instead of that second round pick in a pinch if he liked him so much - it's just not hard to acquire the Chipchuras of this world. The Zajacs, well you tell me...
If your drafting is any good, and ours is, swinging for the fences should come off once in a while. And who knows, maybe we can replicate our Markov pick with a Datsyuk and Zetterberg of our own.
Trade picks if the math adds up
There will come times when someone comes knocking for that pick. At those times, I can only advise listening.
The Tanguay trade was a classic example of an opportunity well taken. No matter how you sliced it, the likelihood of getting a player as good as Tanguay (a scoring star – one of those rare assets) in either the first or second round of the NHL draft was slim to none. Gainey missed a chance at an organizational asset, but added an actual asset. Also, the addition of Tanguay bumped people down in the organization. Corey Locke, for example was now expendable and used in a trade for something of use to the team.
Trading picks like this is to be encouraged in my third approach, so long as the opportunity cost calculation is sound. a 25th pick for Tanguay (even for one year) is a win. Had that pick been a 10th overall, the choice gets murkier. 5th overall and it's a loser.
In sum
- Don't worry about organizational needs – worry about the players available
This is the strategy I can only hope the Canadiens look to in the future. I hope that this year will be the first of many home run swinging affairs and to that 18th pick – whether we use it to choose an amateur or to bring in a pro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)