Ow, that really hurts!

Injury stats update - end of season awards!

[Explanatory note: I tracked these injury stats on a monthly basis for most of the 2008/09 season - this is the last of these updates, covering the whole season.]

This is the final update for the 2008/09 regular season looking at which teams were hit hardest by injuries by trying to place a value on the games missed by players due to injury/illness.

The concept again - multiply each game missed by a player by his 2008/09 cap charge, then take the aggregate of these figures for each team and divide by 82. This indicator of value lost to a team by injury/illness is called CHIP (Cap Hit of Injured Players).

The table below shows:

• Total CHIP for each team over the 2008/09 regular season
• Movement in ranking since 28 February
• The player who has contributed most to the team's CHIP figure
• The number of players with a CHIP contribution of over $250,000 (think of it as being equivalent to a $1m player missing 20 games or a $4m player missing five games)
  

Overcoming Philadelphia's season-long stranglehold ("Hey! That's never a stranglehold - it's just the usual anti-Flyers officiating conspiracy!") on top spot, St. Louis sneak in with a late surge to be crowned The Most Injured Team in the NHL 2008/09.

The continued absences of the Blues' Kariya and Johnson and (eventual) recovery of Philly's Briere proved crucial down the stretch. This, perhaps, makes the Blues' success at fighting their way into a playoff spot even more remarkable.

At the other end, the Rangers' almost freakishly-good fortune in avoiding significant injury absences essentially lasted all year. Not even an injury to Sean Avery due to throttling by opponent/teammate/coach/ex-girlfriend to speak of. Also mildly interesting to note that four of the six teams with the lowest CHIP missed the playoffs.

The second table is the top 30 individual CHIP contributions:



A minor surprise in the race here - Marian Gaborik looked like a lock to win all season, but his tissue paper groin managed to hold up long enough to fit in a brief stretch of games right at the death. Hence, this award also makes it way to the Gateway City by a sliver as Paul Kariya bests both Gaborik and Joe "Snowblower" Sakic.

Notes/Disclaimers

• Figures include (and are arguably distorted by) some players on long-term IR, such as Mike Rathje. They do exclude a few minor-leaguers who seem to have been on the NHL club’s IR
• There's probably a few inaccuracies and inconsistencies in there - I did the best I could with the information out there
• The cap figure doesn't really correlate to the "worth" of a player in some cases, e.g. where rookie bonuses are included this year (Erik Johnson, Zach Bogosian), where players are seeing out an old (underpaid or rookie) contract (Paul Stastny, Henrik Zetterberg) or where players are horrendously overpaid (Scott Gomez, Wade Redden)
• I've stuck a full team-by-team listing of games missed and CHIP numbers by each player on the web HERE - knock yourself out...
• Injury/games info courtesy of tsn.ca
  
• Cap info courtesy of hockeybuzz.com

Shoot first...

...ask questions later?

My previous investigations into the numbers behind the history of the NHL shootout looked at the business end of the universally-popular tie-breaker - “clutch” attempts to either win it or keep it going.

This time around, my thoughts strayed to one of the strategic decisions made before stick touches puck: Shoot first or second?

By way of explanation, the home team has the option of shooting first or second - this has been the case every year of the NHL shootout except the first, 2005/06, when the road team always had to shoot first. I have seen arguments in favour of both strategies, for example:

• Shooting (and scoring) first puts all the pressure on the second shooter
• Shooting second means you are more likely to have the final shot to win
• Shooters are more likely to miss than score, so you should always shoot second, since missing the first shot puts you “behind”
  

Naturally, I wanted to see if the numbers supported any of these arguments.

Does scoring the first shot matter that much?
The none-too-surprising answer here is “yes”. On average, if the very first shooter scores, his team wins 72% of the time, compared to only 40% of the time if he misses. The chart (of course there's a chart) below shows the record of each team when scoring or missing the very first shot of the shootout (through 8 February):



Observations

• As you'd expect, records across the board are much better when scoring the first shot, with only a few exceptions. Most notably, Florida, Tampa Bay and Toronto have better records when missing the first shot – suggesting it would be better for them to miss the first shot on purpose...
• Florida, in particular, have done remarkably well to lose all three of the shootouts where they have scored the very first shot
• LA and Boston, on the other hand, have yet to lose when scoring the first shot
  

So, we should always go first then?
Not so fast...time for a quick lesson in conditional probability (e.g. if I start start talking about probability theory, then there is a 99.9% chance that nobody will read past this point).

The probability of the team shooting first winning can be seen as the sum of the following:

• Probability of scoring x Probability of winning having scored
• Probability of missing x Probability of winning having missed
  

The league average for scoring the very first shot is 32% (for all shots, it is slightly higher at 33%). The really intelligent among you will be able to work out that the league average for missing the very first shot is, therefore, 68%. So, we have the four numbers we need to plug into the sum above:

Probability of team shooting first winning = (0.32 x 0.72) + (0.68 x 0.4) = 0.50

So, this suggests (at a league-wide) level at least, that there is an equal chance of winning or losing if you shoot first. Meaning either everybody is wrong, everybody is right or it doesn't matter. The following chart shows the overall record of each team when shooting first and second (through 8 February):



Observations

• Rather freakishly, the overall league record is exactly even at 282-282 when shooting first as at today's date
• Naturally, there is quite a bit of variation around the 50% mark when looking at individual teams' records
• Teams that seem to do significantly better shooting first (with a decent sample size) include Atlanta, Calgary, Colorado and Ottawa (although they stink either way)
• The reverse is true for Anaheim, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Jose
• Phoenix are unbeaten (unbeatable?) when shooting first, but have only ever done so twice
  

Looking at the premise that scoring or missing puts more or less pressure on the second shooter (the first opposing shooter), the numbers similarly don't support such an argument. The second shooter scores 38% of the time when the first shooter scores and 37% of the time when the first shooter misses. (I can't think of an obvious reason why the scoring percentage is higher for the second shooter than the first – or any other shooter in the first six – though.)

Do teams have any tendencies?
Yes – whether due to any historical success, superstition or something else. The chart below shows teams' records when choosing to shoot either first or second (i.e. records of the home team since 2006/07 – through 8 February):



Observations

• Firstly, having the choice in itself does not seem to support either strategy – winning percentages are still very similar (and home teams' records are slightly below .500 since 2006/07)
• Most teams have a fairly clear policy to shoot first – indeed, seven teams have never opted to shoot second
• Conversely, only a handful of teams select to shoot second more often – New Jersey and Phoenix the only teams to do so every time (nothing in their overall records really supports this choice though)
  

Player records
Obviously, having a particularly good first shooter or good shootout goalie may justifiably lead to a tendency that the league-wide averages don't support. I'll leave any detailed player/team analysis for another decade, but FYI, the final two charts below list the best individual records when taking or facing the very first shot (minimum five attempts - through 8 February):

GMs - always somebody else to blame?

To accompany a quite excellent blog on coaching longevity I stumbled upon recently (LINK), I thought I'd take a similar look at how the NHL GM fraternity has fared.

Contrary to my initial suspicions, a similarly high proportion of GMs have also only been in place for fewer than three seasons. It is clear from the top end of the list below, however, that GMs tend to stick around a lot longer than the average coach.

I'd suggest this is understandable, since a change in GM usually signifies a wider shift in the direction of a franchise and wouldn't normally be used as a short-term fix to shake up a team's performance.

What is quite interesting is that several GMs have gone through three or more different coaches during their tenure. The list below shows the number of coaches (as at 26 November 2008) each GM has been responsible for _appointing_ (i.e. excluding any incumbent when the GM was hired) - this includes any interim coaches that lasted more than a few games.



This brings to mind a quote from a famous football manager in England (Brian Clough, for any native readers):

"If a chairman sacks the manager he initially appointed, he should go as well."

(In North American terms, "If a GM fires the coach...")

So, there is certainly an argument that Messrs Waddell and Sather are lucky to still be in their jobs, given the relative lack of success they have presided over. Also seems unlikely that Dale Tallon would be given the opportunity to appoint a fourth coach with the heightened level of expectation in Chicago these days.

Post-script (2 February 2009)
Jim Rutherford has since hired a new coach (at the same time an old coach), as has Bryan Murray (now dangerously straying into Waddell/Sather territory). As widely expected, Brian Burke has also taken over from Cliff Fletcher in Toronto.

It would not be a surprise to see the GMs in Pittsburgh, Vancouver and Edmonton make their first coaching appointments at some point in 2009. Overall, though, the GMs still look to be much more secure in their posts than their coaching colleagues.

Post-post-script (27 May 2009)
Six more coaching departures (in Minnesota, Edmonton, Manhattan, Pittsburgh, Montreal and Calgary), only accompanied by a GM change in one (Minnesota), although Francois Giguere is also out in Colorado - with his coach seemingly a lame duck.

NHL Coach - a thankless role?

"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm." - Vince Lombardi

It's fair to say that nobody is attracted to coaching in the NHL (or any other pro sports) for the job security. As of today (24 November 2008), 19 out of the 30 head coaches in the league started their current job since the end of the 2005/06 season and 10 of those have only a quarter of a season under their belts (if you exclude Tony Granato's first incarnation as main man behind the Avs bench).

While there is certainly some pressure on a handful of these men already (hello, Mr Keenan), looking towards the 11 long(er)-serving coaches shows that only three have not taken their team as far as a Conference Final.



Barry Trotz is widely accepted to have done a good job in Nashville, particularly with ever-weakening resources over the last few years, and it seems unlikely that Gretzky would ever be fired before he chooses to walk away. Hence, my spotlight shines on Tom Renney.

Given this lead-in, you might think I was going to advocate Renney's firing. Not true. I recognise and also get frustrated by a lot of the things he is criticised for (such as line-tinkering, letting the team sleepwalk through too many non-divisional games and, above all, the continually awful powerplay), but I still struggle to understand the level of dissatisfaction that appears to emerge every time the Rangers hit any sort of skid. Maybe it is just the infamous NYC fan attitude that means the critics always shout louder than anyone else?

I'll be clear - every coach does have a shelf life and sooner or later Renney will have to lead the team past the second round of the playoffs, but the negativity now (and over much of the last two years) puzzles me. Through the glorious Muckler/Low/Trottier years, I was crying out for a coach who could just bring some basic organisation and defensive structure to the team - actually making the playoffs being a complete pipe dream at that point. So I don't see the last few years being any sort of failure. I also don't see the team yet being at the point where it should be seen as an automatic Cup contender this year.

[As if to prove I'm not totally soft, I'd be delighted for Sather to be replaced yesterday...]

Post-script (2 February 2009)
A couple of changes since I first wrote this - Laviolette and Hartsburg out in Carolina and Ottawa respectively. I'm not sure whether Paul Maurice's return makes the average tenure of the coaches in the league higher or lower.

Also fair to say that Mike Keenan seems to have ridden out the early-season pressure in Calgary, with finger-pointing being more evident in Vancouver and Pittsburgh now. My negativity over the Rangers' performance has also increased since the first two months of the season.

Post-post-script (27 May 2009)
Nothing ages faster than an article on coaching, eh? Several more have gone - including some of the long-servers - namely, Lemaire, MacTavish, Renney, Therrien, Carbonneau and Keenan, with Granato seemingly on the brink (again).

A guide to booing

Top 10 reasons the crowd might be booing at the game you were at (I'm sure there are many more - additions are welcome...):

1. One of your highly-paid D-men has compounded his work on your team's anaemic PP by coughing up the puck twice leading to SHGs for your local rivals
2. This man is on the puck:
   
3. Or this man is on the puck:
   
4. The PA announcer mentions something including the words "NHL Commissioner" - even if followed by the words "will present the Stanley Cup"
5. You are in Pittsburgh and a player who won 2 Cups, 5 scoring titles and an MVP while in the city dares to return with another team
6. Your team is hosting a political publicity st... er, I mean a "No. 1 Hockey Mom" promotion:
   
   
7. A fan wearing the road team's jersey is shown on the video screen during a TV timeout
8. A fan misses the net during the puck shooting contest in the period break
9. It's not actually booing, but your team has one or more players with a (nick)name that sounds like booing. For example, the Rangers team of 2007/08 was stacked in this area:
   Fedor Tyutin ("TOOOOOTS!")
   Chris Drury ("DROOOOOO!")
   Petr Prucha ("PROOOOCH!")
   Brandon Dubinsky ("DOOOOBIE!")
   Fredrik Sjostrom ("SHOOOOO!")
   Marek Malik ("BOOOOOO!")
   Any PP unit ("SHOOOOT!")
10. Fans in Minnesota are showing appreciation for another strong game by their #8:
    
    "I was saying Boo-urns"

Draft Schmaft

Rangers trade Jessiman to Predators

UPDATE: Larry Brooks stole my column! Misfortune Rules Blueshirts Drafts

As today marks the end of the Huge Specimen Era in New York (more accurately, Hartford), I wonder if any other organisation can match the Rangers' futility (and some bad luck) with first round picks between '94 and '04?

• 04 - Montoya (bust so far - not impossible for him to make it, but it won't be in New York) / Korpikoski (could be a full-time NHLer soon)
• 03 - Jessiman (bust - likewise)
• 02 - no pick
• 01 - Blackburn (retired already)
• 00 - no pick
• 99 - Brendl/Lundmark (double bust!)
• 98 - Malhotra (solid player, but not much more - Rangers mishandled him as a kid)
• 97 - Cherneski (who?) [OK - I forgot he busted his knee, also retired]
• 96 - Brown (so good, I've seen him play in the UK)
• 95 - no pick
• 94 - Cloutier (not a disaster - I hear he is spoken highly of in Vancouver and LA though)
  

Obviously the draft is a bit of a crapshoot and hindsight is 20/20 (plus the Rangers' later round picks and recent record is better in comparison), but a sample of players that were taken after (but close to) those above is painful to look at:

• 04 - Wolski, Meszaros, Green
• 03 - Brown, Seabrook, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Kesler, Richards, Perry (strong draft!)
• 01 - Hamhuis, Hemsky
• 99 - Jackman, Boynton, Havlat
• 98 - Tanguay, Regehr, Gagne, Gomez (if you can't draft 'em, buy 'em)
• 97 - Hannan, Morrow
• 96 - Briere
• 94 - Theodore, Elias
  

Most of these players established themselves with the team that drafted them (Briere being the main exception).

(Info courtesy of hockey-reference.com)