...for a rate of 25.4%, up from last year's 22.9% (282/1230).
League-wide, 282 extra points were dumped into the standings in 2008-09 by contests tied after regulation, for 9.4 extra points per team. In a league where 16/30 teams make the playoffs, one can reasonably predict the cutoff for points necessary for qualification as simply 82+the average extra points per team. Last year, 91 was sufficient for Anaheim, but Florida got hosed despite having 93, losing the tiebreaker to The Team From Québec Who Shall Not Be Named.
At this year's 25.4% overtime rate (assuming it persists), we can expect about 312 extra points to end up in the standings by year's end, or 10.4 per team. This suggests that the playoff cutoff will be 92 or 93, with 95 being a virtual lock (somewhere, Andy Murray nods).
Achieving 95 points simply involves reaching +13 in the W/L columns regardless of how many OT points are earned. The Kings currently stand at +5 through 23 games, which projects to +18 (for a nice round 100 points overall). So on the one hand, we could say they only need to go +8 through the last 59 games to reach +13 and make it in, but much more satisfying is seeing that the current pace is more than enough for second season hockey to return to the Staples Center. Should Smyth's and Scuderi's absences knock the Kings off that pace for the second quarter of the season--let's say they only break even in the W/L columns and find themselves still at +5 around the end of the year--they would still be on pace to reach +12, which may very well be enough but is at least a couple points from safe.
We all know that the key to this is for Frolov to simply go to the net after a 30-second behind-the-net possession masterpiece that ends anticlimactically with a dish to the point, so that at least he can set up a screen for whatever frisbee Doughty or JMFJ launches toward the net.
Showing posts with label hockey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hockey. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Tweaks to make the NHL even better
The evolution of the NHL's rules since the lockout has undoubtedly improved game play in what is already the best professional sports league on the planet. Below, I will describe a few tweaks that could make the game even better. I'm going to skip the draft order, since I've covered that in the past.
Starting with scheduling, to keep with this string of posts, a mild realignment putting Vancouver in the Pacific and moving Dallas to Northwest (renamed to Mountain or something suitable) would make it more likely that an extra Canadian team would make the playoffs. The NHL is obviously a North American League, but there's no doubt that stronger Cana
dian franchises are good for the league as a whole. Consolidating the six Canadian teams into two divisions just serves to have them beat each other up all year; even as late as '92-'93, only the Patrick Division lacked a Canadian team. Then again, back then 16/21 teams made the playoffs, so maybe that's a topic for another day.
More urgent than realignment is scheduling. The league recognized the need to have every team play every other team at least once each season, which is fantastic. However, to make up the three extra interconference games necessary to fill out an 82-game schedule, bonus games were added arbitrarily. For example, this past season, LA played New Jersey, Washington, and Philadelphia twice. Nobody knows why, although I suppose getting to see Bruce Boudreau twice was fun for the former Monarchs, and with Dean Lombardi and Ron Hextall in the front office, an extra trip to Philly is nothing to complain about. So, as it stands, teams play 6 games against 4 division rivals (24); 4 games against 10 conference opponents (40), and 15+3 (18) games against teams from the opposite conference. This is pretty good, but those three interconference bonus matchups should be against teams who finished in the same place the previous season, a move facilitated by there being an even number of teams in each division (at least until Jim Basille gets the expansion Hamilton Blackberries skating). While we're only talking about three games, there could still be a mild compression effect.
The league is already considering an 84-game schedule that allows each team to visit every city every year: 6 games against division rivals (24), 3 games against 10 conference foes (30), and 2 games against interconference teams (30). The extra home game in the intraconference games can rotate annually but track by division—i.e., Pacific teams would visit Northwest teams twice but host them only once; Northwest visits Central twice but hosts only once; Central visits Pacific twice but hosts only once. Rock paper scissors, flips to srossics repap kcor every other year.
Should the league find a way to expand to 32 teams, I would hope that the league would consider restoring the classic division names and realigning to 4 divisions of 8 teams each. In this scenario, the 4x7 division (28)/3x8 conference (24)/2x16 interconference (32) plan for an 84-game schedule would be best. It would be critical following expansion for each market and arena to get a visit from every team every year, even if the travel costs eat away at the margins. Furthermore, rivalries are born in the playoffs, not redundant regular season division matchups.
OK, on to game play.
Eliminating the two-line pass has helped counter the neutral-zone trap that had, along with extensive clutching and grabbing, crippled game flow. The problem with the NZT is that it works: New Jersey won three Stanley Cups between 1995 and 2003 while playing a borderline unwatchable brand of hockey. Martin Brodeur is a genius, but, there are only so many 2-1 games dominated by possession changes in the neutral zone that a fan can watch before those hours are better spent elsewhere.
The trapezoid restricting goalies playing the puck is a mixed bag: freeing up the corners allows teams with less skilled forwards to focus on gaining the zone through dump-and-chase and relying on their forecheck to establish an offensive cycle. However, goalies skilled at making the long outlet stretch passes are not as likely to be able to take advantage of the elimination of the two-line pass rule. The fact that teams on the penalty kill are allowed to clear without being whistled for icing is a little strange, actually; they suddenly have a tactical advantage allowing a full-length dump for a line change. However, I'm too much of a purist to deny home fans the chance to cheer their PK units for quality clears that frustrate the opposition. The legality of goalies contacting the puck outside the trapezoid is logically related to icing, and should be connected as follows...
Proposal: allow a goalie to play the puck outside the trapezoid and behind the goal line if a) his team is on the power play, thus reducing the time killed by a clear and marginally increasing the number of scoring chances each power play opportunity should yield; b) if the opposing team has just iced the puck, such that a team could choose to touch up for an offensive zone draw with the offenders prevented from changing skaters OR keep momentum going with a stretch pass that might prevent the opponents from changing lines anyway.
Automatic offensive zone faceoffs following penalties are terrific for improving the chances that the attacking team will get their power play set up early and often. However, minor penalties that are interrupted by an intermission between periods unfairly dilute that advantage.
Proposal: if a period starts with one team on the power play, drop the first puck in the attacking zone. Center ice faceoffs look great on TV but most broadcasts miss them anyway while they're talking about...nothing in particular.
Requiring a full zone clear on a delayed penalty rather than a possession change or freeze has been covered by PuckDaddy, but I'm in favor of it.
When a puck is shot or deflected out of play in the offensive zone, the faceoff stays in if it was last touched by the defenders or the crossbar/post. Great. Why not keep the faceoff in the zone following any shot, regardless of who touched it last? There is absolutely no circumstance in which an attacking team would deliberately shoot the puck out of play; keeping the possession alive is paramount. If the man doing the dirty work in front of the net is taking crosschecks from a defenseman just so that he can set up a screen and get a deflection, and he gets a little too high or opens the blade up a little too much and puts the puck into the protective net, why should the faceoff come out of the zone? The defending team is already perfectly happy to accept the freeze and change lines; their gaining further advantage with the faceoff coming outside is unnecessarily punitive.
Proposal: faceoff stays in the zone following any shot attempt that results in a puck out of play. Reward shooting.
Whistles are bad. Visors are ubiquitous. Knocking the puck out of the air with a high stick is...what, a safety rule? But...there's already a penalty for high-sticking, right? So...if...I...use...enough...ellipses...
Proposal: don't add whistles and freeze play for something that is pretty much irrelevant. If someone fouls another player with a high stick while trying to play a puck out of the air, he's an idiot. Maybe it's not worth it to risk an eye to save a few whistles, but, it's a silly violation punished with a defensive zone faceoff.
Here's a fun one. Everyone loves penalty shots awarded during a game (shootouts are another story). Why not award the minor penalty if the penalty shot fails? If a player without great shootout moves gets a breakaway, why wouldn't a defender just take him down? Sure, it's a penalty shot, but it's one awarded to a player with average skill going up against a goalie with plenty of preparation. The PS fails, play continues, no power play. Not really much of an advantage to the offensive team. Success rates for penalty shots hover around 31%; for power plays, roughly 20%. Giving the minor after a missed penalty shot would bring the expected value of that PS/PP combo up to 0.5 from 0.3, and unless the league can come up with
some way to make penalty shots more frequent, that increase would be a good thing. Along those lines, there's a difference between penalties taken during possession and positional battles and penalties that directly impede scoring chances...
Proposal: award a penalty shot for any penalty that directly prevents a shot on goal within a specified area on the ice (rectangle between the offensive zone faceoff dots and the goal line, or a trapezoid defined by the goal crease and faceoff dots), regardless of clear path to the net. Following any failed penalty shot, award the minor penalty that would have been called anyway. This will not only increase scoring, but also make it easier for referees to decide whether to call a minor or a penalty shot.
This post is getting longer than I'd originally intended so I'll sign off with a couple requests of the online and print media responsible for publishing box scores: try organizing the individual players according to the line combos that started the game. Even if they get changed up over the course of a game, it's a valuable aid for fans...at least those of us who can't be bothered to deconvolve the combos and pairings from the plus/minus and time on ice stats.
RIP Peter Zezel 1965-2009.
Starting with scheduling, to keep with this string of posts, a mild realignment putting Vancouver in the Pacific and moving Dallas to Northwest (renamed to Mountain or something suitable) would make it more likely that an extra Canadian team would make the playoffs. The NHL is obviously a North American League, but there's no doubt that stronger Cana
dian franchises are good for the league as a whole. Consolidating the six Canadian teams into two divisions just serves to have them beat each other up all year; even as late as '92-'93, only the Patrick Division lacked a Canadian team. Then again, back then 16/21 teams made the playoffs, so maybe that's a topic for another day.More urgent than realignment is scheduling. The league recognized the need to have every team play every other team at least once each season, which is fantastic. However, to make up the three extra interconference games necessary to fill out an 82-game schedule, bonus games were added arbitrarily. For example, this past season, LA played New Jersey, Washington, and Philadelphia twice. Nobody knows why, although I suppose getting to see Bruce Boudreau twice was fun for the former Monarchs, and with Dean Lombardi and Ron Hextall in the front office, an extra trip to Philly is nothing to complain about. So, as it stands, teams play 6 games against 4 division rivals (24); 4 games against 10 conference opponents (40), and 15+3 (18) games against teams from the opposite conference. This is pretty good, but those three interconference bonus matchups should be against teams who finished in the same place the previous season, a move facilitated by there being an even number of teams in each division (at least until Jim Basille gets the expansion Hamilton Blackberries skating). While we're only talking about three games, there could still be a mild compression effect.
The league is already considering an 84-game schedule that allows each team to visit every city every year: 6 games against division rivals (24), 3 games against 10 conference foes (30), and 2 games against interconference teams (30). The extra home game in the intraconference games can rotate annually but track by division—i.e., Pacific teams would visit Northwest teams twice but host them only once; Northwest visits Central twice but hosts only once; Central visits Pacific twice but hosts only once. Rock paper scissors, flips to srossics repap kcor every other year.
Should the league find a way to expand to 32 teams, I would hope that the league would consider restoring the classic division names and realigning to 4 divisions of 8 teams each. In this scenario, the 4x7 division (28)/3x8 conference (24)/2x16 interconference (32) plan for an 84-game schedule would be best. It would be critical following expansion for each market and arena to get a visit from every team every year, even if the travel costs eat away at the margins. Furthermore, rivalries are born in the playoffs, not redundant regular season division matchups.
OK, on to game play.
Eliminating the two-line pass has helped counter the neutral-zone trap that had, along with extensive clutching and grabbing, crippled game flow. The problem with the NZT is that it works: New Jersey won three Stanley Cups between 1995 and 2003 while playing a borderline unwatchable brand of hockey. Martin Brodeur is a genius, but, there are only so many 2-1 games dominated by possession changes in the neutral zone that a fan can watch before those hours are better spent elsewhere.
The trapezoid restricting goalies playing the puck is a mixed bag: freeing up the corners allows teams with less skilled forwards to focus on gaining the zone through dump-and-chase and relying on their forecheck to establish an offensive cycle. However, goalies skilled at making the long outlet stretch passes are not as likely to be able to take advantage of the elimination of the two-line pass rule. The fact that teams on the penalty kill are allowed to clear without being whistled for icing is a little strange, actually; they suddenly have a tactical advantage allowing a full-length dump for a line change. However, I'm too much of a purist to deny home fans the chance to cheer their PK units for quality clears that frustrate the opposition. The legality of goalies contacting the puck outside the trapezoid is logically related to icing, and should be connected as follows...
Proposal: allow a goalie to play the puck outside the trapezoid and behind the goal line if a) his team is on the power play, thus reducing the time killed by a clear and marginally increasing the number of scoring chances each power play opportunity should yield; b) if the opposing team has just iced the puck, such that a team could choose to touch up for an offensive zone draw with the offenders prevented from changing skaters OR keep momentum going with a stretch pass that might prevent the opponents from changing lines anyway.
Automatic offensive zone faceoffs following penalties are terrific for improving the chances that the attacking team will get their power play set up early and often. However, minor penalties that are interrupted by an intermission between periods unfairly dilute that advantage.
Proposal: if a period starts with one team on the power play, drop the first puck in the attacking zone. Center ice faceoffs look great on TV but most broadcasts miss them anyway while they're talking about...nothing in particular.
Requiring a full zone clear on a delayed penalty rather than a possession change or freeze has been covered by PuckDaddy, but I'm in favor of it.
When a puck is shot or deflected out of play in the offensive zone, the faceoff stays in if it was last touched by the defenders or the crossbar/post. Great. Why not keep the faceoff in the zone following any shot, regardless of who touched it last? There is absolutely no circumstance in which an attacking team would deliberately shoot the puck out of play; keeping the possession alive is paramount. If the man doing the dirty work in front of the net is taking crosschecks from a defenseman just so that he can set up a screen and get a deflection, and he gets a little too high or opens the blade up a little too much and puts the puck into the protective net, why should the faceoff come out of the zone? The defending team is already perfectly happy to accept the freeze and change lines; their gaining further advantage with the faceoff coming outside is unnecessarily punitive.
Proposal: faceoff stays in the zone following any shot attempt that results in a puck out of play. Reward shooting.
Whistles are bad. Visors are ubiquitous. Knocking the puck out of the air with a high stick is...what, a safety rule? But...there's already a penalty for high-sticking, right? So...if...I...use...enough...ellipses...
Proposal: don't add whistles and freeze play for something that is pretty much irrelevant. If someone fouls another player with a high stick while trying to play a puck out of the air, he's an idiot. Maybe it's not worth it to risk an eye to save a few whistles, but, it's a silly violation punished with a defensive zone faceoff.
Here's a fun one. Everyone loves penalty shots awarded during a game (shootouts are another story). Why not award the minor penalty if the penalty shot fails? If a player without great shootout moves gets a breakaway, why wouldn't a defender just take him down? Sure, it's a penalty shot, but it's one awarded to a player with average skill going up against a goalie with plenty of preparation. The PS fails, play continues, no power play. Not really much of an advantage to the offensive team. Success rates for penalty shots hover around 31%; for power plays, roughly 20%. Giving the minor after a missed penalty shot would bring the expected value of that PS/PP combo up to 0.5 from 0.3, and unless the league can come up with
some way to make penalty shots more frequent, that increase would be a good thing. Along those lines, there's a difference between penalties taken during possession and positional battles and penalties that directly impede scoring chances...Proposal: award a penalty shot for any penalty that directly prevents a shot on goal within a specified area on the ice (rectangle between the offensive zone faceoff dots and the goal line, or a trapezoid defined by the goal crease and faceoff dots), regardless of clear path to the net. Following any failed penalty shot, award the minor penalty that would have been called anyway. This will not only increase scoring, but also make it easier for referees to decide whether to call a minor or a penalty shot.
This post is getting longer than I'd originally intended so I'll sign off with a couple requests of the online and print media responsible for publishing box scores: try organizing the individual players according to the line combos that started the game. Even if they get changed up over the course of a game, it's a valuable aid for fans...at least those of us who can't be bothered to deconvolve the combos and pairings from the plus/minus and time on ice stats.
RIP Peter Zezel 1965-2009.
Monday, April 7, 2008
NHL Draft Lottery
The goal of injecting parity into professional sports leagues that use drafts is fundamentally at odds with competitive integrity in the current season. Lotteries have been implemented to prevent a bottom-dweller from "tanking" to secure a #1 pick when their hopes of a playoff berth are minimal, but by the NHL trade deadline, the buyers and sellers are generally well-characterized, and there is great anticipation ahead of the flurry of moves that sends aging-but-still-competent veterans on floundering squads back into the playoff mix for what could be their last run. The sellers accumulate draft picks and minor league prospects as vital assets in the future ascent from the depths of their respective conferences; the buyers part with those bargaining chips in order to put themselves over the top and win the Cup.
The new NHL CBA's algorithm for determining draft position in spots 15-30 is brilliant, taking into account eventual playoff finish--i.e., the Stanley Cup finalists, regardless of regular season record, are picking 29th and 30th in the upcoming first round. Parity ensues, as the rich cannot get much richer with only a late-rounder in hand, that is, if they hadn't already shipped that first-rounder to a seller for that gritty third line winger or that stay-at-home D-man.
The lottery, giving the team with the worst point total top odds at securing the top pick (~48.2%), inherently encourages the seller/buyer split as sellers know that they are in a no-lose situation: they pick up picks, they skate prospects to get them vital experience, and they don't expect to make the playoffs anyway so there's no organizational need to accumulate points. However, this market structure puts general managers and their current coaches and players inherently at odds: coaches and players, who are likely auditioning for jobs, are going to go to the rink each day to win and climb out of the cellar, while each extra point or pair of points post-deadline makes a GM wince as the expected value of his draft assets declines with no immediate upside of a possible playoff slot.
The teams that find themselves in the black hole of not making the playoffs but not having a top-10 pick are the big losers, despite likely displaying the most honorable behavior in the spirit of competition. These borderline playoff teams may have acted as buyers before the deadline; they may have been unwilling to send away their unrestricted-free-agent-to-be leaders as potential rentals; their top guys may have no-trade clauses; their seasons might be a disappointment due to injuries rather than poor assembly. Whatever the situation, the coaches and players go to the rink each day skating to win, and the GM in the black hole has endorsed that stance by not weakening the current roster in favor of futures.
The Hockey News recently pasted a "Hey, L.A. STAY BAD!" headline on the cover of an issue describing this year's top prospects. This mentality makes for great column inches and blog fodder but is contrary to all that is good about this beautiful sport. Go for the playoffs and fail? Black hole. Decide early that you're out of the running and dump your assets? Enjoy the reward of a lottery pick.
Here's an easy way to flip this disconnect on its derrière: Give all the non-playoff teams a chance at #1, but give the one with the BEST record top probability of having the lucky combination. Immediately, "tanking" is obsolete in perception and practice. By using the trade deadline to strengthen your squad (or just stand pat), you're setting yourself up to either earn a playoff berth or earn your way into a higher chance of drafting first. Never again would we see LA and TB going into the last day with the majority of both teams' fan bases secretly hoping for a hard-fought 7-5 regulation loss--good enough to be entertaining, but not jeopardizing that lottery position. To maintain the draft's contribution to parity, later rounds can go by points total as usual.
The fallout from such a switch would be a strategic shift in how GMs value picks as trade bait. First-rounders would likely become more difficult to pry out of buyers on the playoff bubble, who would at least have a high chance at a first pick if their drive for the post-season were to fall just short. Division leaders (anywhere but the Southeast, sorry 'Canes) confident that they'll be skating in mid-April would still be willing to part with a 1st for the missing link, but potential sellers would have to very carefully weigh the value of that extra low pick against potentially lowering the expected value of their own 1st-rounder by weakening the current squad.
Would a selling team's GM wants to be in a position of finishing last and then picking 14th and 15th in the 1st round because he sold his captain to a team that squeaked into the playoffs on the last day only to lose in the first round, when simply making no moves at the deadline would have been more likely to yield a top-5 pick if the team had remained in a playoff drive? To answer this question, would a GM ever trade a top-5 pick for two picks in the teens? The only situation where you'd likely get a yes is if that GM had just won a Cup and the upcoming draft were a weak one--and then you're asking, however did that GM find himself with a top-5 pick anyway?
If you're in LA or Tampa right now, this plan sounds horrible, as you've just suffered through a rough season and would be looking at having no shot at a Stamkos or Doughty--unless of course you had acquired some other team's pick through some other transaction and at least had assets with which you could try to move up (good work DL!).
Read any losing team's fan board and you'll be subjected to the same debate ad nauseum: Tank! Our season's over anyway! vs. Win! Our guys have to learn to win! Every instance of this debate is boring. But not quite as boring as the deluge of speculations, rumors, and proposals leading up to the trade deadline. Sure, the hockey blogosphere would crumble if the system were set up so that EVERY team was a buyer at the deadline and there was very little chance of meaningful moves being made since a GM would be loathe to weaken his current squad (unless of course he has already mortgaged his future by sacrificing draft picks to the defending champion through idiotic, market-busting offer sheets).
I, for one, never want to hear a February interview in which a player is asked about trade rumors and whether he'll waive his NTC and whether he thinks his squad has a chance at the playoffs and whether he believes he's in the team's future plans. These interviews are a disgrace. Yes, hearing your name in trade rumors is a distraction. Yes, you are loyal to your organization and want to get out there and skate with your current teammates and make a push for the playoffs with those guys. Yes, you signed here to make a run for the Cup, not be an asset that a GM could trade away for a pick at the deadline. Stop insulting our star veteran players with these questions. They're out there to get a job done. It's time the league rewarded that behavior, and aligned coaches and their GMs explicitly by setting the system up to reward the teams that maintain their competitive drive through 82 games rather than 64.
What's the best story going into this playoff season? Washington. Had they come up a point short of Carolina, despite being far and away the most entertaining team of the last six weeks, they'd be looking at a pick in the low teens. Meanwhile, warm winter denizens TB and LA are looking at accessing the cream of the '08 draft crop AND already have all of their tee times reserved for May-August. With the lottery probability order flipped, the battles in the bottom tier of the league would be just as intense as those among playoff locks jockeying for position and home-ice advantage.
Discuss!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
