11.04 Quiz Night Update

Quiz Night Updates

May I Slytherin lost in a hard fought match with Lo5ers and Team Whatever has moved on to the next round.  Wet, Wet, Wet, cancelled at the last minute and we couldn’t find a fair way to substitute another team.

Don’t forget…..all teams can still sign up to win the daily prize.

Re-seed/Shuffle

We thought it would be fair to recalculate the team averages with tonight’s results and add in bonus points for attendance and getting first, second or third place.  The top two teams remain the same, but we have some changes.

Here are the matchups for 18.04:

11.04 RESULTS

Past Results

These are the results from the past weeks we used to get the averages.  We are hoping they are the last four, but it is possible they’re not.  Luckily the attendance bonuses and winning bonuses make it so things wouldn’t change really.

Quiz Tournament

Quiz Night Tournament Time

Hey guys and gals!  We decided to switch things up a little bit.  We will end quiz for the season with our last Quiz Night being Monday, May 2.  If some of you remember, as tourists start to come they like to yell the answers to be funny, but it isn’t all that amusing.  Plus, all of you guys start traveling or working your summer jobs.  So four more quiz nights.

Here is the fun part.  Using the last month’s scores, I have ranked all of the teams.  Here are the basics how I got to the rankings:

• Minimum attendance of two times out of the last four.
• I averaged each team’s scores for those days they participated.
• If you played three weeks ago, the quiz was hard.  You got an extra 14% boost for that week if you played.  (Fun fact: the average team gets about 60% of the total points).
• You got an extra point added on for each day you played over the past month.
• Horse racing rules: win (3 points), place (2nd place – 2 points), show (3rd place – 1 point) was added to your average for every week you won, placed or showed.

So here are the rankings!

1. Pink Unicorns
2. Emporer’s Finest
3. Schmetterling
4. The Haters
5. Kapucini
6. E=MC Hammer
7. Wet, Wet, Wet
8. Lo5ers
9. May I Slytherin
10. Whatever

Tournament Rules

All the teams can play and sign up every week.  The tournament is for the pot.  That is five kuna from every participant for the next four quizzes.  To Je To will also add 500 kuna!

If any team gets all of the questions correct in any round, they will no longer get the pot.

If you miss a match, it counts as a forfeit.  Single elimination rules.

The winning team, even if they are not in the tournament can still win the other five kuna daily pot.  If you are no longer in the tournament you still can win.  One way to look at it is that there are two games: 1) the game where you are competing against all of the teams; 2) and the game where you are competing against one team to advance in the tournament.

Again, if you lose your tournament game you can still play the rest of the games and can still win the daily pot….you just can’t win the rollover pot plus 500 from TJT.

Tournament Bracket

CLICK ON PICTURE TO ENLARGE 

There you have it!  This week we have May I Slytherin vs. Lo5ers.  We also have Wet, Wet, Wet vs. Team Whatever.  Let the games begin!!!!!

Olympic Men’s Ice Hockey Predictions

Here goes my Olympic Men’s Ice Hockey predictions.  Shortly the tournament kicks off with Czech Republic versus Sweden.  While you can take a look at the rosters and make some good determinations based on skill sets, my experience watching European hockey up close over the past two years indicates yo me that there are some other items to consider.  Most importantly, the Olympic ice size is much larger than the surface used in the NHL.  The travel time will be rough on players living in North America.

The jet lag will be bad for all NHL players…for instance, I am not sure that Ovechkin has an advantage because he is Russian by birth as he spends most his time in the U.S. and Canada during the season.

Wayne Gretzky believes the hottest goaltender and the best skater give you the best chance for winning.  Goaltending is huge, so I will agree with him there.  However, I think the best ‘set of skaters’ is much more important than the having the best individual player.  Matchups are also a big deal and the groups are already set.  Based on the Group Round, lets take a look at my predictions.

Group Round

Group A

•  Russia
•  Slovakia
•  United States
•  Slovenia

Russia is playing at home and were good in the group round for the 2013 World Championships.  With home advantage and being more used to the bigger ice, I think they have the advantage to win the group over the U.S.

The U.S. could surprise Russia on February 15th.  I predict Russia will win, so the U.S. should take second in the group.  Slovakia is a bit of a threat, but it would be an upset if they beat the U.S. or Russia here.  Slovenia probably does not have much of a chance getting off of the bottom here.

1. Russia
2. United States
3. Slovakia
4. Slovenia

Group B

•  Finland
•  Canada
•  Norway
•  Austria

Finland or Canada could take this group, but the edge has to go to Finland based on goaltending and because they have fewer NHL players on their roster (yes I said fewer).  Most players in the KHL or SM-Liiga are more than good enough to play at the NHL level, but are just better on the open ice or not as physical as necessary for the NHL.  The Finnish side has several players playing in Russia and Finland currently, which also makse jet lag a non-issue.  Whoever is second place in this division should still score a lot of goals, so they will likely have the best second place team after the group stage–giving them direct entry into the quarterfinals.

Between Norway and Austria, I think it is a bit of a toss up.  Many of the Austrian players play together in the EBEL Austrian League, where the Norwegian players are a little more spread out.  I will give the third place edge to Austria just based on chemistry.

1. Finland
2. Canada
3. Austria
4. Norway

Group C

•  Czech Republic
•  Sweden
•   Switzerland
•  Latvia

Switzerland has been the surprise team lately and played extremely well in the 2013 World Championships.  However, they will not have the firepower to keep up with what Sweden has brought to Sochi.  They should still have the edge on the Czech Republic and Latvia though, placing the Swiss side in second place.  Czech Republic can get a shot at the second spot, but are not quite as good as Switzerland.  Latvia is the obvious bottom team here and might be the worse in the Olympics.

1. Sweden
2. Switzerland
3. Czech Republic
4. Latvia

Qualification Playoff

Based on my predictions, these are the matchups for the qualification playoffs:

United States (5D) vs. Latvia (12D)

This will be an easy match for the U.S. and they will move on to the next round.

Switzerland (6D) vs. Slovenia (11D)

Another easy match with Switzerland walking all over Slovenia.

Czech Republic (7D) vs. Norway (10D)

This could be a good match, but the Czech side should be able to grind out a win in a low scoring affair.

Slovakia (8D) vs. Austria (9D)

This will be an even match, but I think Austria actually has a chance here.  Whoever wins will lose in the next round to the tournament’s top seeded club, so I will take Austria on the mini-upset here….there has to be an upset, right?

Quarterfinals

Russia (1D) vs. Austria (9D)

Austria probably does not have much of a chance here.  Slovakia either.  Their medal chances end with a Russian victory.

Canada (4D) vs. United States (5D)

This will no doubt be a great matchup and is really too close to call.  The U.S. has better speed and goaltending and in the end I think that will be more important than having Crosby (best skater under the Gretzky rule).  The U.S. will take this one and send Canada reeling without a medal.

Sweden (3D) vs. Switzerland (6D)

A rematch of the 2013 Men’s World Championship will end with Sweden victorious again.  They are just too good for upstart Switzerland.

Finland (3D) vs. Czech Republic (7D)

The Czech Republic just simply does not have a championship side and Finland will come out of this victorious.

Semifinals

Russia (1D) vs. United States (5D)

A rematch of the semifinals from the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid and the 2013 World Championship quarterfinals.  Much less of a miracle needed this time.  Russia has home-ice advantage, but they do not have the intangibles to win championships.  They will fall again to the U.S. and will have a chance at third place.

Sweden (2D) vs. Finland (3D)

This will be the match of the tournament and should be great to watch.  For me, it is a coin flip, but edge to Finland for goaltending.

Finals

Finland vs. United States

The game will be close, but not super competitive I imagine.  Finland wins the gold and the American squad takes a silver after a hard run past Canada and Russia.

Sweden vs. Russia – Bronze Medal Game

Russia cannot be shutout in their own country, right?  Sweden can do it, but the Russian side will come out to play here.  Sweden goes from number one last year to number four and Russia celebrates third place in Sochi.

Hockey Simulator Provides another Fun Way to Look at Leagues

Working on the KHL and in the middle of the playoff race, I was interested in trying to predict the potential final tournament before the season is over.  Though most teams only have eight to ten games left, the long break because of Sochi means we will not know the results of a lot of leagues until March and beyond.

I considered trying to run the mathematical simulation on my own, but in my research I found a website that will do it for you…and for FREE.  You simply send them in some easy “code” the rules of your league and the game results and they will simulate the remainder of your season a million times. 

So, for the rest of the season I will be showing updates of the simulated KHL season and playoffs here.

Here is the link to the site for the KHL simulations.  If you play any sport in a league, this can work for you.  Or, use your favorite sports league and give it a try.  If you are a fan of major North American sports, there is a good chance it is already done.  First KHL simulation discussion is up over at EuroHockey.com.

“Za Dom Sportova” Chant – What Happened?

An Apology?  An Explanation?

In the 2^nd period of the Ak Bars game on Wednesday (12.11), a few fans began chanting “za dom”.  It appears the fans on the other side of the arena were chanting “sportova”, making the entire chant “za Dom Sportova” (I missed the “sportova” piece, but more on this later).  Dom Sportova is the name of the arena KHL Medvescak plays in, so the chant was “for Dom Sportova”.  This was in response to an announcement of games at the new Arena Zagreb, not the favorite venue of Medvescak fans.

During the 2^nd intermission, I put out several tweets condemning the “za dom” chants and calling for fans to shout those “idiots” out.  I also said Medvescak themselves should eject those fans if they really are preaching tolerance.  You can find them over at the Bears Hockey Blog Twitter page.

It was not until later in the game when some of the Bears Blog Twitter followers and the official Medvescak Twitter account made me aware that the full chant was “za Dom Sportova”.

A little background on “za dom”.  It was first used during a play in the 1600’s and translates to “for home” or “for homeland”.  When Croatia was a fascist state during World War II, “za dom” and “za dom – spremni!” (for homeland – ready) became salutes for the fascist army aligned with the Nazi Germans.  Much like the swastika (“swastika” literally translates as “it is good”) which was used as a non-fascist symbol prior to Nazi Germany incorporating it into its ethnic cleansing regime, the phrase “za dom” is now synonymous with fascist activities for most observers.

Recently, Australian-born Croatian National Football team player Josip Simunic led a crowd in Zagreb in a “za dom – spremni” chant after the team punched their ticket to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.  Simunic stated he was not involved in a racist or nationalist act.  I tend to believe him (others do too).  He was caught up in a moment and that moment had nothing to do with fascism, but helping take your country to the World Cup.

The result:  Fined 3,200 Euros for “spreading racial hatred”, though he was not actually being hateful.

In Latvia, KHL club Dinamo Riga performed a tribute to some of the traditions of Latvian culture during intermission.  One of the most important symbols of Latvian culture is the sun, but their interpretation of what the sun looks like is not always so literal.  So, some skaters paraded on the ice with a “sun” that just happened to look like a swastika.  Initially, the KHL said they respected their traditions and they realized it was not a swastika.

The result:  A reversal.  The KHL fined Dinamo Riga $30,300 (1 million rubles).  They learned that this was the symbol of an military battalion before it was used by Nazi Germany, and not a sun, but also not paying homage to the Nazi regime.  A no tolerance policy.

Points here:

1)       Your actions are not always judged by your intentions.

2)      Like it or not, what the international community think matters and can affect your team.

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie

First off, I run the Bears Hockey Blog site and Twitter accounts.  However, the bearshockeyblog.com consists of several other writers.  I should have never took to the Bears Blog Twitter account to discuss non-hockey issues.  So, to the other writers, I apologize.  Those views were my own.

On the other hand, in the heat of the moment, I felt there was no other way to get my thoughts out and to stop another possible “za dom” chant that evening.  I was trying to harness to power of social media and with that came my feelings at the moment after hearing a fascist chant.

I realize now that the chant with “sportova” added was a play on words, an attempt at humor, mocking the others recently chanting “za dom”.  Well, I should say now that I know “sportova” was being chanted as well I get that it was an attempt at humor.

If I would have heard “sportova” initially, would I have posted those several Twitter messages?

No.

I have a good sense of humor, so I think I would have realized the intention of the fans there.  I would have still thought it was a tasteless joke.  Honestly, I still think anything “za dom” related has no place in a chant or a salute.

But, I did call some people idiots for chanting “za dom”, but since no one was chanting “za dom” but “za Dom Sportova”, then I guess I did not actually call anyone an idiot, right?

It is a dumb argument.  Much like “za Dom Sportova” cannot be offensive to anyone because it was meant to be a joke.  Little known fact: just by adding “sportova” to any phrase gets rid of its negative meaning! (#sarcasm).

Maybe, just maybe, Bears’ fans and Croatians generally can just put this phrase to rest.  It is too volatile and has too much negative connotation to continue to bring up.  Also, why risk Medvescak receiving a fine.  If it happened to Simunic and Dinamo Riga, why could it not happen here because of Wednesday’s incident?  Instead, a local Croatian writer thought it would be smart to bring the situation to light in a recent article, supposedly denouncing my good intention.  I hope no one in the KHL office speaks Croatian…..

Here is a quote from the KHL after the Latvia fine: “”Use of any graphic forms showing Nazi signs and symbols, as well as similar images, are inadmissible for the KHL clubs and their fans.”  Hey FANS, although your chant is not in graphic form, you are jeopardizing the team.

Nevertheless, if you felt I called you an idiot and you were trying to be funny, I sincerely apologize.  This is a small problem that can be solved over a beer or two (on me).  Send me a Twitter message and we can meet during intermission.  @bourciertm.

Also, I apologize to the team’s PR staff for telling them to take action.  It was probably a bit too far.  Though, the club should consider action before this goes too far.

In the meantime, go Bears!

KHL Statistical Power Rankings Explanation

I developed a statistics-based power ranking that will be a weekly feature at EuroHockey.com.  The idea was to come up with a system similar to the BCS ranking for (American) College Football (but less complicated).  Here is the formula and then a part-by-part explanation.

Formula by Team

∑(goal differential per match x opponent points) = RAW

I guess I could write that more formally, but basically here is how it goes.  For each game, I determine the goal differential.  So, If a game is 3-2, then there is a goal differential of 1.  The winning team will get a 1 in the cell for that game.  The losing team will get a 0.

Next, the point differential is multiplied by the number of points the team has in the standings.  Say in the scenario above that each team has 15 points in the standings.  Then the one goal differential is multiplied by 15 and the winning team receives 15 points for that game.  The losing team has 15 multiplied by zero, so teams get no points for the loss.  The totals for all games played are added together for the RAW score.

This means a couple of things.  First, the losing team is not penalized for losing.  Second, the winning team does receive an incentive by beating a team by a larger point margin.  However, just running up the score and not playing defense will not help a team in these rankings, because it is not goals scored, but goal differential.

Overtime and shutout wins are considered indirectly by multiplying these totals by the point standings.  Beating an opponent by the biggest differential who has the highest point standings will give a team the most points for a game.  Beating a lesser opponent is less significant.

The RAW score is adjusted by dividing the number of games played (GP), which gives the “Points Ranking”.

I hope this makes sense and you enjoy the KHL Statistical Power Rankings.  The first edition is here.

Grabovski Hypothesis – Regression Refined (defense)

Regression Refined (Offense)

1st Regression and Post

How does Corsi and Fenwick help in goal prevention?  Here is a first run!

Again, I parceled out blocked shots for (UBS), missed shots for (UMS) and shots against.

More items were statistically significant this time.  Obviously, the less shots you have on goal against you the less you are scored against.  Also, in the obvious column is a keeper’s save percentage–the higher the better.

Yet, running the regression with blocked shots, missed shots, blocked shots for and missed shots for…none of the Corsi and Fenwick stats matter for preventing goals.  The “tilt of the ice”, or possession, doesn’t appear to affect being scored on or scoring against your opponent.  Well…

There is actually a positive coefficient on blocked shots for.  So, if you are being worked by the other team, even if you are blocking shots, you have a better chance of being scored on.  But, it is small.  For every 153 shots a team blocks (on average) they will have one goal scored against them.  This doesn’t suggest a team shouldn’t block shots, but that they shouldn’t be in a position where they have to block shots.  However, this doesn’t seem to mean simple possession is the answer to preventing goals.

What does matter is offensive zone faceoff percentage…the first time we saw this stat.  So, the more you are taking faceoffs in your end, the more you are preventing the opponent from scoring.  This regression says NO?!?  How can that be?

The regression shows that on average, a 16% increase in offensive zone faceoffs leads to one goal against.  I don’t pretend to understand this, but that is what the stats say.

However, this was one of the big assumptions made about Grabovski.  That in Toronto he was getting a lot less offensive zone faceoffs than what he will get in Washington.  The increase in offensive zone faceoffs actually leads to more goals being scored against you.  So, for some reason, offensive zone faceoff percentage is not good for defense and it has no affect on offensive scoring.

Details

2007/08 through 2012/13

Estimate              Std. Error             t value                  Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)          1.476e+03           2.571e+01           57.412                   <2e-16 ***

SF                           -4.354e-03           2.880e-03            -1.512                    0.1325

SA                           7.691e-02            2.981e-03            25.800                   <2e-16 ***

BS                           -1.455e-03           4.021e-03            -0.362                    0.7180

MS                         -2.449e-03           5.711e-03            -0.429                    0.6687

UBS                        6.544e-03            3.118e-03            2.099                     0.0374 *

UMS                      2.008e-04            5.317e-03            0.038                     0.9699

Sh.                          3.206e-01            2.897e-01            1.107                     0.2700

Sv.                          -1.617e+01          2.812e-01            -57.492                 <2e-16 ***

OZFO.                   6.196e-01            2.492e-01            2.486                     0.0139 *

DZFO.                    6.359e-02            2.003e-01            0.317                     0.7513

east                       -7.814e-01           1.268e+00           -0.616                   0.5387

west                      -8.145e-01           1.349e+00           -0.604                   0.5468

yr13                       -4.903e+00          2.608e+00           -1.880                    0.0619 .

yr12                       -4.675e-01           1.071e+00           -0.437                    0.6630

yr11                       -7.005e-01           1.068e+00           -0.656                    0.5130

yr10                       -2.205e-01           9.284e-01            -0.237                    0.8126

yr9                          -1.085e-01           8.114e-01            -0.134                    0.8938

yr8                          NA                          NA                          NA                          NA

—

Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Grabovski Hypothesis – Regression Refined (offense)

1st Regression and Post

I received a good comment yesterday about whether ‘shots for’ being related to Fenwick and Corsi were messing with the regression.  So, I separated all of that out.

Corsi – Fenwick = Blocked shots (BS)

Fenwick – Shots for = Missed shots (MS)

I re-ran the regression with and without the lockout year from the 07-08 season…..

Results

Missed shots and blocked shots have no statistically significant affect on goals for.  That seems pretty obvious, right?  If a shot is blocked or missed the net, then why would it have an affect?  I think the idea with Fenwick and Corsi “tilting the ice”, or having a lot of possession, does not affect offense statistically according to this regression.  On offense, the only things that seem to matter significantly are shots that actually hit the goalie and shooting percentage.

Again, if a player can individually put more shots on goal or be more accurate than a person is replacing, he would benefit the team.  He could also assist his players by getting them the puck in certain positions to be more accurate or to get the puck on net.  However, it appears the possession portion as defined by Corsi and Fenwick are irrelevant on offense.

More on defense coming soon….

Details

With lockout season….

Estimate              Std. Error             t value Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)          -98.299082          25.991111            -3.782    0.000218 ***

SF                           0.076925              0.002881              26.704  < 2e-16 ***

SA                           0.003641              0.002532              1.438     0.152307

BS                           0.002288              0.004109              0.557     0.578428

MS                         -0.003707             0.005360              -0.692    0.490186

Sh.                          16.144123            0.307568              52.490  < 2e-16 ***

Sv.                          -0.283125             0.290146              -0.976    0.330600

OZFO.                   0.111255              0.262291              0.424     0.672000

DZFO.                    -0.340800             0.209741              -1.625    0.106112

east                       1.269434              1.335174              0.951     0.343124

west                      1.531076              1.402439              1.092     0.276556

yr13                       0.659509              2.735007              0.241     0.809751

yr12                       -0.013865             1.072697              -0.013    0.989703

yr11                       -0.152273             1.074736              -0.142    0.887503

yr10                       0.352642              0.957111              0.368     0.713017

yr9                          -0.045403             0.849630              -0.053    0.957448

yr8                          NA                          NA                          NA          NA

—

Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Without lockout season….

Estimate              Std. Error             t value                  Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)          -1.464e+02          1.207e+01           -12.135                 <2e-16 ***

SF                           7.962e-02            1.167e-03            68.241                   <2e-16 ***

SA                          -6.315e-04           1.086e-03            -0.582                    0.562

BS                           2.436e-03            1.658e-03            1.470                     0.144

MS                         -2.519e-03           2.191e-03            -1.150                    0.252

Sh.                          1.827e+01           1.409e-01            129.625                 <2e-16 ***

Sv.                          7.535e-02            1.303e-01            0.578                     0.564

OZFO.                   -9.744e-02           1.195e-01            -0.815                    0.416

DZFO.                    -7.999e-02           9.176e-02            -0.872                    0.385

east                       -1.961e-01           5.760e-01            -0.340                    0.734

west                      -8.845e-02           6.023e-01            -0.147                    0.883

yr13                       NA                          NA                          NA                          NA

yr12                       3.841e-01            4.270e-01            0.900                     0.370

yr11                       3.014e-01            4.280e-01            0.704                     0.482

yr10                       4.671e-01            3.778e-01            1.236                     0.219

yr9                          9.021e-02            3.310e-01            0.273                     0.786

yr8                          NA                          NA                          NA                          NA

Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

More on Grabovski – Do advanced stats say anything about a team scoring goals?

An initial disclaimer:

This piece is for discussion.  Statistical operations can be tricky and there can be a number of ways to do things.  I am not claiming to be right or wrong on anything, yet.  If you have some advice, please provide comment.

Round 2

So, after my article on the Caps picking up Grabovski and me not thinking it was as big of a deal as others were making it, the response was brutal.  I take some credit for that by putting out an unpolished piece.  In the end, I stand by my argument that the idea Grabovski would go from a career 45-50 point scorer to a 60-70 point guy was hyperbole.

Some people discussed how his Corsi and Fenwick ratings, and that Washington had a lot more offensive zone faceoffs than Toronto (which should lead to more chances), would make him an improvement over Ribeiro.  I basically argued that despite the improved advanced stats, it seemed crazy that any one person’s numbers would jump that high; thus, the Caps roster is at a net loss without Ribeiro, add Grabo.

To that end, I wanted to examine this further.  Here is my idea:  the better Corsi, Fenwick and offensive zone faceoffs a team has, under the “Grabovski hypothesis”, should lead to more team goals (he manes his teammates better argument).  If this is true, we should be able to perform a linear regression and see how a variety of statistics effect the number of goals a team scores (goals for).  In other words, I wanted to see what happens when we regress a team’s “goals for” for a season (y-variable) on a set of variables, including those mentioned above (X-set).

Thus, I went to stats.hockeyanalysis.com and grabbed team stats for all teams from the 2007-2008 seasons through the last season.  I added all of HA’s data (see legend below) and added some dummy variable, which is common when analyzing panel data.

Legend

TOI = Time on ice
GF = Goals For
GA = Goals Against
GF60 = Goals For per 60 minutes of ice time
GA60 = Goals Against per 60 minutes of ice time
GF% = Goals For percentage = 100* GF / (GF + GA)
SF = Shots For
SA = Shots Against
SF60 = Shots For per 60 minutes of ice time
SA60 = Shots Against per 60 minutes of ice time
SF% = Shots For percentage = 100* SF / (SF + SA)
FF = Fenwick For
FA = Fenwick Against
CF = Corsi For
CA = Corsi Against
Sh% = Shooting Percentage
Sv% = Save Percentage
OZFO% = Percentage of face offs that took place in the offensive zone
DZFO% = Percentage of face offs that took place in the defensive zone

Items in red are in the data table, but were not used in the regression so there weren’t correlation issues between the x-variables.

Dummy Variables

east – Eastern Conference (0=No, 1=yes)

west – Western Conference (0=No, 1=yes)

yr** – year dummy for the year the data was taken (0 = not year **, 1 = year**) – one dummy variable for each of the six years

Results

Looking from the 2007-2008 season through the 2012-2013 season, the regression results only showed statistically significant results (at the 0.05 level) for shooting percentage and shots for (see “regressions results with lockout year” below).

I thought maybe the lockout-shortened season last year might have messed with things a bit, so I removed it and ran it again.  The only thing statistically significant again is shooting percentage and shots for.  Fenwick-for and Corsi-for are statistically significant at the 0.1 level, which is usually not accepted.  Let’s say we do accept the stats at this level.  A team would gain 1.7 goals per season for every additional 1,000 Corsi-for, or 1,000 shots directed at the net, or an one goal per season for every 333 additional Fenwick-for or 333 shots directed at the net (excluding blocked shots).

Grabovski

If I did this correctly, then only those old-fashioned statistics of shots on goal and shooting percentage matter how many times a team scores.  Offensive zone faceoff percentage does not matter.  Corsi and Fenwick are not statistically significant.  Even so, Grabovski and his improvement on other players would have to add 1,000 shots directed at the net to gain an additional 1.7 goals per season (or 333 shots not including blocks).

This does not say whether or not Grabovski will be better or worse than Ribeiro.  But, as it stands, Grabovski’s addition to the team based on the advanced stats do not have a statistically significant affect.  What will matter?  If he can get people the puck to score at a high percentage or put a lot more pucks on net, unblocked.  We know he is not an assist guy, so I think it can be deduced that he will not likely raise the shooting percentage for others (give them good chances).  Ribeiro on the other hand is a distributor based on his higher assist numbers throughout his career.

With the regression, as it is, I think my argument stands….the Washington Capitals roster is worse minus Ribeiro, plus Grabovski.  The boys still have to play this out on the ice….

All files and R script are available upon request.

Details

Regression results with lockout year.

Estimate              Std. Error             t value Pr(>|t|)   

(Intercept)          -9.013e+01          2.739e+01           -3.290    0.00123 **

SF                           7.776e-02            7.542e-03            10.310  < 2e-16 ***

SA                           9.466e-03            7.945e-03            1.191     0.23526

FF                           -4.715e-03           8.897e-03            -0.530    0.59690

FA                           -3.381e-03           7.771e-03            -0.435    0.66408

CF                           2.919e-03            4.285e-03            0.681     0.49663

CA                          -7.803e-04           3.323e-03            -0.235    0.81466

Sh.                         1.614e+01           3.087e-01            52.269  < 2e-16 ***

Sv.                          -3.527e-01           2.997e-01            -1.177    0.24093

OZFO.                   7.607e-02            2.656e-01            0.286     0.77492

DZFO.                    -3.457e-01           2.135e-01            -1.619    0.10732

east                       1.101e+00           1.352e+00           0.815     0.41634

west                      1.385e+00           1.438e+00           0.964     0.33663

yr13                       6.808e-01            2.779e+00           0.245     0.80681

yr12                       1.468e-01            1.141e+00           0.129     0.89776

yr11                       1.178e-02            1.138e+00           0.010     0.99176

yr10                       4.663e-01            9.894e-01            0.471     0.63808

yr9                          1.853e-02            8.647e-01            0.021     0.98293

yr8                          NA                          NA                          NA          NA

—

Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Regression results without lockout season.

Estimate              Std. Error             t value Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)          -1.444e+02          1.295e+01           -11.152   <2e-16 ***

SF                           8.331e-02            3.073e-03            27.110   <2e-16 ***

SA                          -2.951e-03           3.277e-03            -0.900   0.3696

FF                          -6.418e-03           3.604e-03            -1.781   0.0773 .

FA                           3.601e-03            3.134e-03            1.149   0.2525

CF                           2.929e-03            1.721e-03            1.702   0.0911 .

CA                          -1.713e-03           1.354e-03            -1.266   0.2078

Sh.                          1.826e+01           1.418e-01            128.81   <2e-16 ***

Sv.                          6.188e-02            1.359e-01            0.455     0.6497

OZFO.                   -1.117e-01           1.214e-01            -0.920   0.3592

DZFO.                    -6.648e-02           9.268e-02            -0.717   0.4744

east                       -2.084e-01           5.782e-01            -0.360   0.7191

west                      -2.127e-01           6.114e-01            -0.348   0.7285

yr13                       NA                          NA                          NA          NA

yr12                       5.828e-01            4.596e-01            1.268  0.2071

yr11                       4.903e-01            4.583e-01            1.070  0.2866

yr10                       5.869e-01            3.926e-01            1.495  0.1373

yr9                          1.635e-01            3.373e-01            0.485  0.6286

yr8                          NA                          NA                          NA       NA

A Response to Peter Hassett and RMNB

It appears my article has gotten a lot of looks today.  A little has been discussed about the substance of my article, but mostly about a couple of small mistakes that in no way take away from the conclusion of my article.  The Russian Machine Never Breaks‘ Peter Hassett took the time to breakdown why my article is incorrect.  I feel that I should give a response to what has been the most intelligible critique of the article.

Here goes (responses in bold):

1. “Caps Back to Early Playoff Exit Status with Grabovski Signing”
   A fine piece of trolling in the title. The Capitals surely have a reputation for getting bounced from the post-season early, and Caps fans have dealt with bombast like this ever since Tony Kornheiser coined “choking dogs” back in 1987 (or whenever). But I’m not sure that’s a) an actual meaningful status , or b) something the Caps ever lost considering they’ve lost in the first or second round every year since 2008.

Without a doubt people read articles based on the title.  Is it trolling?  You decide.  Mostly local Caps media have lauded this move.  It does make the roster better.  Does it get them to contender status?  I don’t believe so.  The title hopefully catches your eye and then you can read on whether you believe it or not.

1. “Time to separate the facts from the hyperbole.”
   An author flatly proclaiming to be The Arbiter of Truth is never a good sign.

It does set me up for some heavy critique….though Arbiter of Truth is ironically a bit of hyperbole.  Especially after hammering my title…..

1. “First, the Capitals cannot re-sign Mike Ribeiro at a decent price and he heads off to Nashville.”
   Ahh yes, the desert paradise of Nashville. The Jewel of Arizona. The Southwest’s own Music City. Powder City, AZ. Athens of the Southwest. America’s least sustainable city. Tennessee’s urban heart. (Ribeiro signed with Phoenix.)

Was a simple mixup with Hendricks and I glossed over it on proofread.  As I stated elsewhere, Riberio could be on the moon.  Doesn’t take away from the main point of the article?

1. “The Capitals problem was never scoring goals.”
   The Caps were shut out eleven times in 2010-11. Their goals per game fell from 3.27 in 2008-09 to 2.67 in 2010-11. I write recaps of about 75 Caps games a year; don’t tell me scoring goals was never a problem.

They were still middle of the pack, but it is difficult to say it was a “problem”.  It was not as good as other teams.  Defense has been a longer, persistent problem and Grabovski won’t help much here.  Last year, scoring was not a problem….in the context of Ribeiro vs. Grabo, which is the point here.

1. “It is a stretch if Schultz and Hendricks roles will be adequately replaced.”
   I love Matt Hendricks, but replacing a fourth line grinder is about as tough as finding  a spare $800K in Uncle Ted’s wallet. Schultz was scratched for almost half of last season, so I’d consider him replaced since the beginning of April.

They are using farm guys as call ups to fill these spots.  Maybe they will be okay here.  Kind of a minor point…that’s why it was such a small piece of the article.  Just pointing out the Caps lost more than Ribeiro and didn’t sign anyone of equivalence.

1. “Washington did re-sign defensemen Karl Alzner and Tomas Kundratek, which made the offseason not a complete coup for free agents.”
   And thank goodness. If the Caps not did not re-sign Karl Alzner (which they did on July 10), I’d be picketing outside the McPhee house, and I would not be alone there. Though I doubt the extent to which the market was clamoring for Kundratek.

Seems like we agree, if Azner wasn’t re-signed, it would have been a free agent exodus.

1. “But again, the problem in Washington is defense and nothing was done to shake up the old guard.”
   I actually agree with this point. I feel dirty.

1. “The Capitals just have a hard time with the salary cap and likely for other reasons (which could be discussed at length) attracting big time free agents.”
   The whispering campaign continues: Surely, with its comfortable suburbs, cosmopolitan city center, the team’s focus on offense, and a player-centric coach in Adam Oates, DC is a toxic anathema to free agents. No. At this point, innuendo about the Caps locker room is more damning for the speaker than the subject. When you read a line like that, you know to doubt everything surrounding it.

I don’t think the Caps locker room is cancer-ridden.  Not my insinuation.  Who are the big free agents that come to DC though?  Ribeiro and Grabovski?  DC just doesn’t have the allure, for whatever reason you want to plug in, as other NHL teams.  Players at times take less and go elsewhere.  Maybe because other teams seem a lot closer to the Cup than DC?  I don’t know, but they’re not flocking here like they do to other teams.

1. “. . . His Corsi-in and Corsi-out and other advanced stats show that he will make his teammates better.”
   I think the writer means Corsi On and Corsi Off– measurements of how the ice “tilts” when a player is on or off the ice based on shot attempts. You’d think with eight years experience as a statistician, Mr. Bourcier would be bothered to look up the names of the stats. Or at least copy them accurately from the source articles (which include RMNB! Yay! Thanks for the link!).

It was -on and -off.  A mistake.  It was corrected earlier.  Using Corsi wasn’t to highlight any advanced stats, but to illustrate how a basic look at Grabovski’s numbers and tenure in Toronto are not a clear cut win for the Caps.  Toss in some locker room issues in Montreal and Toronto and off-ice issues elsewhere, there is a lot of prima facie evidence that more is being made of this signing than what it really will happen on ice.  Statisticians like yourself are using more exotic/advanced metrics to show how he could be a great addition.  Truth is, he is a career lower point scorer than Riberio with no proven playoff experience.  Will his efficiency shine through and he ends up a 70 point scorer as some are predicting?  Maybe.  Will he bite another player?  Maybe.  He has done one of these in his career….

1. “Oh, and puck possession—Grabovski really can possess that puck.”
   The writer says this right after the line about Corsi, which makes me wonder if he understands that Corsi is already a measurement for possession or that we’ve been talking about shot attempts this whole time.

It was written after, because it wasn’t meant to be the same thing.  Puck possession was another thing mentioned where he was better than Ribeiro and how he would better the Caps because of this.  

1. “Here is what we know about Grabovski in facts.”
   I like the use of italics here, as if all the shot-attempt statistics before were somehow counterfactual. As if any statistics except the ones shown on an NBC Sports chyron are myth. But that’d be a curious opinion for a fellow with an nigh-PhD in economics and nearly a decade in statistics experience.

Grabovski is a 45-50 point scorer a season.  10 to 20 points more a season because of greater puck possession, better efficiency, more faceoffs in the offensive zone?  Another .25 points per game?  Advanced stats show he is better in some areas than Ribeiro.  I agree with those measures.  But, how can you disagree that Ribeiro is a better career scorer and has a better playoff record?  It is not that the other things are mythological, but 10% more faceoffs in the offensive zone leading to one player getting that many more points a year?!?

I guess that is my problem.  I have read that Grabovski could score 10 to 20 more points a year under Oates.  Then I see these advanced stats.  But where is the tying these advanced stats to more points?  We should be able to come up with a range of points with these advanced stats.  I didn’t take the time to do it, but I would be interested in seeing it.  I also am not the one claiming a 45-50 point career scorer is going to put up 20-25 more points than usual.  I would be interested in seeing the data connecting the percentage increases to higher production for this one guy.

1. “Could it be argued Toronto was better when Grabovski was playing less?”
   Sure, you could argue that. But you’d lose that argument. By a lot. Toronto Maple Leafs blog Pension Plan Puppets basically killed a small pixelated forest on this topic (also, also, also,also).

It is maybe oversimplified, but Toronto made the playoffs for the first time since Grabovski was there when he was relegated to 15 minutes a game in a more defensive role.  Toronto obviously found it favorable to buy this guy out.  Montreal didn’t deal with him for long either.

1. “In the last playoff year, Grabovski put up two assists in their seven game series.”
   Mike Ribeiro had just one goal and one assist in his seven-games playoff series. So what? A seven-game sample during which Grabovski was used exclusively as a defensive player is not convincing evidence of anything. As a measure of either player in the long run, it’s nearly worthless.

If he had more playoff experience, like Ribeiro, we could see what is a trend or if he is a playoff choke artist.  

1. “They picked up a guy way down the list from who they were really going after and someone no one else really wanted.”
   Grabovski was the object of a bidding war (with 7-12 teams in the running depending on whom you ask) throughout the offseason– a war won by Washington based on the coach’s appeal. Yes, Grabovski was bought out by Toronto (“the opposite of smart” according to Steve Dangle), but he was far from unwanted.

While I think most of your arguments are sound, this is the poorest.  Grabovski was in a bidding war and got only $3m a year and a one-year contract?  People wanted his services, for sure…but they weren’t willing to pay more than $3m for it.  He sat for a long-time and no one scooped him up.  If he was so wanted, he would have gone sooner, for more money and a longer deal.  They were out of good options.  Some credit, they didn’t get desperate and overpay.

1. “At times Grabovski has score more goals than Riberio, but he has little, unproductive playoff experience and he is now on a team that needs a lot of playoff help.”
   The best predictor of playoff success is regular-season success– John Druce in 1990 excepted. Actually, Druce is a pretty good example of how tiny samples of playoff performance don’t tell you much about the player overall.

Might be the best predictor, but doesn’t mean it is cause and effect.  Maybe Grabovski can do better, maybe he can’t.  Truth is no one knows.  For a team that can’t get over the playoff hump, a guy with no playoff experience, on a losing team his entire career and only 2 assists in limited playoff action….it is a huge question mark.  Grabovski is far from a sure thing that will get the Caps to the next round or make them a contender.  He has a lot of question marks.

1. “Two years in a row, Laich is getting demoted for two one-year contract guys that are basically patching holes in the roster.”
   Laich played nine games last season. He was not demoted, he was injured. And further, I’d argue that getting an assignment as a defensive forward with lots of special teams work is not a demotion; it’s playing a crucial role. Laich’s boxcar stats will suffer, but he’ll be helping his team win games. Knowing Brooks’ attitude and reputation as a team player, I bet he’ll be cool with that. He’s already got that steady paycheck after all.

Many have said this and I agree he plays a crucial role.  At the end of the day, would he rather be 2C?  Does it suck to keep thinking you are the next 2C and then they replace you?  I don’t know what Laich’s goals are, but if he wants the limelight or a bigger contract near the end of his term in DC, this has to be painful.  It seems the team doesn’t have the confidence in him playing 2C…maybe a shot to the ego.  I don’t know, just food for thought.

1. “At the end of the day, even with the Grabovski signing, the Caps offseason has been a net loss.”
   Except when measured by, ya know, measurements.

Ribeiro is a better career scorer with better career playoff numbers, who was scooped off the market quickly because there is no doubt to his talent and leadership.  Grabovski sat there until now and we need advanced stats to show how he could be better.  They also have two-way contracts and farm guys replacing guys who were role players, but with valuable NHL experience.  Easier holes to fill, but not yet proven filled.  In my mind, based on really basic measurements, Caps are still net loss for the offseason.

1. “Defense is their main issue.”
   And the broken clock has now been correct twice today.

Looks like cute sayings, like my title, are an author’s best options ;).

P.S.  I hope the poor numeration isn’t hammered on too hard.  I realize they are all ones.  I didn’t care about this mistake.