Playoff Picks - Reaction

AKA - The one where I am an idiot.

After taking 24 hours to absorb the disappointment of myself and Durf's failure in our first round of predictions, I decided to take a look and see if the series I ended up being wrong about were ones where the statistics indicated the potential for very close series (the answer to this was not really).

Looking at our records in the 4 series that went to 7 games, I noticed that our combined record in those series was 1-7 (MD: 1-3, Durf: 0-4), which seems very unlucky. The moral of the story is - of course - that a seven game series is a bit of a crap-shoot. Had the two game 7 overtimes gone the other way, Durf would have had the best record of anyone.

I also noticed one more thing when reviewing. My pick for the Tampa/Pittsburgh series was not correct based on the statistics. Tampa was 20.5%PP and 83.8%PK (Total 104.3%), Pittsburgh 15.8%PP and 86.1%PK (Total 101.9%), meaning that my pick for that series was actually Tampa, and my record was 5-3.

This brings the standings to:

Matthew Barnaby: 7-1
Damien Cox: 6-2
Scott Cullen: 5-3
Mike Brophy/Mark Spector: 5-3

Pierre Lebrun: 5-3

MD: 5-3
Durf: 4-4

So in the end, my prediction abilities look slightly better, my basic math skills slightly worse, and I still have to try to sleep at night knowing I did worse than Damien Cox.

Enjoy the second round everyone.

Playoff Picks -- Round 2

Back here is our faceoff against various NHL “experts” in predicting the first round playoff matchups.

Who knows what kind of zany methodology the “experts” came up with – but it was probably a mish-mash of compete level, most active sticks, and proven playoff performers.

We kept it a little simpler and limited it to one stat of our choosing. I chose even strength fenwick. MD chose pp + pk percentage. We didn't choose wisely.

Here are the first round results:

Pierre Lebrun: 5-3

Matthew Barnaby: 7-1

Damien Cox: 6-2

Scott Cullen: 5-3

Mike Brophy/Mark Spector: 5-3

Durf: 4-4

MD: 4-4

The lesson as always…….. active sticks trump everything.

At the risk of embarrassing ourselves for a second time, here are our round 2 picks. Again, these are based only on who had the better pre-determined stat, nothing else.

Durf: Canucks, Sharks, Lightning, Flyers

MD: Canucks, Wings, Lightning, Flyers

And now, the experts:

Lebrun: Canucks, Wings, Caps, Flyers

Barnaby: Canucks, Sharks, Caps, Flyers

Cox: Canucks, Sharks, Caps, Bruins

Brophy/Spector: Canucks, Wings, Caps, Flyers

I searched for about 10 minutes for Cullen’s 2nd round picks but couldn’t find them. If anyone does, let me know and I’ll post them.

At Least He’s Not Doing Colour Alongside Mark Lee

After Patrice Bergeron takes a goaltender interference penalty to negate a Boston powerplay during the first period of Habs-Bruins game 6, Glenn Healy offers this gem:

“This is huge too because Boston now has to kill off this 5 on 3 without their best faceoff man.”

1 second of dead air.

2 seconds of dead air.

3 seconds of dead air.

Bob Cole, “but the Bruins won’t have to kill one off here as it’s 4 on 4.”

And CBC wonders why TSN has overtaken them when it comes to NHL coverage.

This Must Be How Bollywood Fans Felt After Slumdog Millionaire Won Best Picture

I don’t understand Scott Cullen’s work sometimes. His player rankings seem as arbitrary as Skate Canada. He’s pretty long winded which is only good if you’re trying to hit a word count or get click-throughs for the ad beside your column. He also tends to forget that visual highlight packs and/or boxscores are readily accessible thanks to the internet which is the only explanation I can think of for why someone would write something as redundant as this.

But I’m not here to criticize. I give credit where it’s due. Cullen has written about the volatility of shooting percentage before, something we fervently believe in and promote here. And today he did this, -- link, a fair and well-researched post-mortem on the Edmonton Oilers but more importantly, an analysis based on tangible things like shot differential while limiting the use of empty terms like big body presence and tenacity.

Not only that, but he promotes the website, www.behindthenet.ca, that stats guys like us find indispensible. See, all that balderdash of PDO, Fenwick, points per 60, and zonestarts can be found here and is a creation of Gabriel Desjardins who is 49 years old, obese, wears bifocals, lives only on a diet of cheetos, resides in his mother’s basement, and has never watched a hockey game before in his life. No really, he doesn’t even know what icing is he’s such a nerd.

When he’s not looking at a spreadsheet to try and figure out the formula for how many beach babes Drew Doughty drills per month*, Desjardins has a master’s degree from Cal Berkley in electrical engineering and is an analytics consultant in the professional sports industry – I presume in sports that are… you know… progressive in stat based analysis like baseball and soccer. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, among other publications.

*right now the working formula is his corsi number/Savardian spinorammas per 60 minutes * compete level – truculence quotient. It works out to 11.

Sorry for the deviation. Back to Cullen now.

All this that Cullen’s doing is a very good thing. We can logically deduce he has been exposed to the work of Desjardins and sees the merit in it. Which means finally…… FINALLY…. we perhaps have an ally in the mainstream media who can reach the masses when it comes to faulty narratives and the mind-numbing stupidity that usually comes from those like Don Cherry*.

*If you're going to click on any link from this post, click on the last one. Honestly, when is Don Cherry going to retire? Even he must get tired of his own schtick. Ron MacLean is a better man than I am for not taking that old man out behind the shed and shooting him.

Playoff Performers And Shooting Percentage

Every year, the playoffs create heroes and goats that build and shatter player reputations. Fans and media hold the highest regard for players who toil on middle lines during the regular season but suddenly become indispensable in the second season – both in goal scoring and compete level*. Think of John Druce, Fernando Pisani, and Max Talbot. Early candidates this year include Janick Hansen, Darren Helm, and Jason Chimera. It’s the same song and dance every year. All these guys are third line plugs until the playoffs. Then in one magical spring they became hockey gods. Both fans and media can’t bestow the ultimate compliments any player can receive fast enough – “big game player”, “playoff performer”, “clutch”.

*If I hear Pierre Maguire mention the phrase “compete level” one more time, I’m going to suffocate a small child. What does that even mean – that some players try much harder than others? Ignoring that quantifying someone’s “compete level” is impossible and based entirely on assumption, I’ll still take Alexei Kovalev over Mathieu Darche, thank you very much.

One thing we talk a little about on this blog is unsustainable percentages. Any player can look like Mike Bossy over a short amount of time* and shooting percentage is a great way to see whether or not their hot streak is an illusion or not. For example, the average NHL player shoots about 9%. Players with above average shots shoot a little higher – maybe 11-13% -- bad ones a little lower.

Over a five or ten game stretch, shooting percentages are very fickle. However, over the course of half a season or more, things start to even up and guys will tread towards their career average. In the end, it all boils down to basic common sense. What’s a bigger reflection of Fernando Pisani’s shooting ability, his 24 game playoff stretch where he shot 29% or his 450+ regular season games where he averages 12.5%?

Looking at it that way, it’s not shocking that each and every one of the examples from prior years – Pisani, Durce, and Talbot – couldn’t turn a 25-game hot streak into something sustainable. I mean, if Pisani has some kind of talent to score goals in big games, why did he revert right back to ho-hum mediocrity for the rest of his career? Guess playing in games to qualify for the playoffs aren’t important enough for these guys. I mean, if Jordan Eberle cared about every game like he cares about World Junior finals, the Oilers could have actually made the playoffs this year. Selfish prick.

*The media will often chalk up a goal scoring streak to confidence, playing loose, and having fun out there. If a player goes 20 games without scoring however, it’s because they’re gripping the stick too tightly, pressing too much, or whatever other nonsense someone can convince their copy editor to publish. God I love sports journalism.

On the flip side are the stars. Naturally, those who get you to the playoffs are the ones who are supposed to lead you through them. So when the likes of Joe Thornton delivers less than what is expected of him based on the regular season, the dreaded “can’t elevate his game in the playoffs,” axiom gets tossed around like a playboy at an army camp.

Last year, poor Alexander Semin was raked through the coals after Washington’s first round knockout at the hands of Montreal. Semin scored 40 goals during the regular season but couldn’t muster a single one against the Habs as the first seeded Capitals fell in seven games. Looking at his individual shot rates though, Semin was more effective player during the playoffs. In seven games against Montreal, Semin fired an unbelievable amount of shots – 44 on Canadien goaltenders. During his 40 goal regular season he averaged a little under 4 per game. But as bad luck would have it, he just couldn’t find the back of the net. Stuff happens*.

*This year, Semin has shook off all the anti-clutch that plagued him and scored the overtime winner in game one against the Rangers. Not counting those games against Montreal last year, he’s a 12% shooter in the playoffs.

This year I fear Marian Gaborik is headed for the same fate as Semin. Pierre Maguire has already started the whispers. That Marian Gaborik has to get going. That in his last 10 playoff games he hasn’t scored. That he’s got to find a way to be effective in the playoffs. That he needs to elevate his game because he’s not good enough for the Rangers right now. Yadda yadda yadda.

Enough Pierre, you nerdy oompa-loompa. Gaborik will be fine. He might not score this series but it’s not because he can’t find a way to elevate his game in the playoffs. He somehow found a way to lead Minnesota to the conference final in 2003 and scored 9 goals in 18 games then (on 18% shooting). He hasn’t forgotten how to score. Sometimes, the percentages just aren’t your friends. If you wait around long enough though, they’ll turn and make you look like Fernando Pisani.

Speaking of ol’ Pies, Chicago could use some of that playoff shooting magic to dig themselves out of their hole right about now. I guess the games still don’t matter enough for him to raise his compete level yet. Give it time. I'm sure it'll come.

Playoff Picks -- Round 1

For stats guys like us at the Importance of Being Truculent, the playoffs are especially irksome times. It is the playoffs when the games become magnified and the intangible qualities that we hate so much here – experience, youthful enthusiasm, heart, clutch goaltending, and big game players – become an even bigger crutch for the media.

With all that in mind, we decided to start a little challenge amongst ourselves. While TSN dissects the first round matchups from every angle and considers the intricacies of each and every team, we are going to pick each playoff matchup based on one stat.

Pierre Maguire might think the Capitals will win because of desire, big body presences, and gumption. I will pick the Capitals solely because their even strength fenwick number is superior to that of the New York Rangers.* And while Damien Cox picks the Bruins because they’re tougher and play with more emotion than the Canadiens, MD is picking the Habs because their powerplay % + penalty kill % is better than Beantown’s.

*A million apologies to my old man for picking against his Broadway Blueshirts. I’m rooting for them. I really am.

I want to say off the top that this little exercise will prove next to nothing. However, I hope people will see that the next time Pierre Lebrun picks the Canucks because they are built for the playoffs, a veteran group, and elevate their games in big moments, he probably just means they’re better and should cite a superior shot differential without going into a million different meaningless and empty reasons.

Nothing else is really needed. Playoff savvy has nothing to do with winning Stanley cups. Talent does.

On to the picks:

Expert Picks

Pierre Lebrun: Caps, Sabres, Bruins, Penguins, Canucks, Sharks, Red Wings, Ducks.

Matthew Barnaby: Caps, Sabres, Bruins, Lightning, Canucks, Sharks, Red Wings, Predators.

Damien Cox: Caps, Sabres, Bruins, Lightning, Canucks, Sharks, Red Wings, Ducks.

Scott Cullen: Caps, Sabres, Bruins, Penguins, Canucks, Sharks, Red Wings, Ducks.

Mike Brophy/Mark Spector: Rangers, Flyers, Bruins, Lightning, Canucks, Sharks, Coyotes, Predators.

Our Picks

Durf: Caps, Sabres, Habs, Penguins, Blackhawks*, Sharks, Red Wings, Predators.

MD: Caps, Sabres, Habs, Penguins, Canucks, Sharks, Red Wings, Ducks.

*I was wrong about something. All year I was touting the Canucks as my Stanley Cup pick which tortured me because I loathed them. But after looking into the numbers, they’re a terrific team, but not head and shoulders above everyone. Their shot rates are good but not better than Chicago’s and barely better than Detroit’s. Plus, their numbers are inflated somewhat by playing in the league’s worst division. l think there’s a very reasonable chance Chicago knocks them out in round one and it won’t be because Bobby Lou is a choker or the Hawks had more experience like the media would tell you.

So there we have it. I’ll update this at the start of every round and it will be a running competition of interest for us for the next two months.