Taking the Hockey Media to Task: Cox and Proteau

The world of journalism is rarely deficient when it comes to favourably quantifying ones argument. In different terms, writers spin and manipulate numbers to support their case in the same manner other professionals do. Lawyers, research scientists, doctors, salesmen all fudge a number or two every now and then. The simple explanation for this phenomena: because they can.

Which brings me to this piece by Damien Cox in the Toronto Star (and subsequently, Adam Proteau of THN):
“The most compelling stat to emerge from almost two full seasons of mandatory visor use in the AHL has been a more than 40 per cent drop in major stick penalties and a more than 15 per cent drop in stick minors. ”

Ohh?? The use of the word almost is very sneaky. In this case, almost equals ¾ of the season. To get around correctly assessing the figures he presented (shown below), Cox also sneakily denotes the 2007-08 stats as “(to date)” to further substantiate his otherwise weak data. Here is the raw data (courtesy of the AHL), but reproduced in Cox's column:

HIGH-STICKING MINORS
2005-06 (pre visor rule): 757
2006-07 (post visor rule): 632
2007-08 (to date): 553
HIGH-STICKING MAJORS
2005-06: 109
2006-07: 59
2007-08: 57
FIGHTING PENALTIES
2005-2006: 8.95 min./game
2006-2007: 8.22 min./game
2007-2008: 9.02 min./game

As was mentioned, the number from this season requires adjustment by a factor of 1.25, as 25% of the games are yet to be played. (They play an 80 game season in the AHL, and to date, most have played 60. 60/80= ¾, or 75%). In order to correctly assess these data, we'll project these stick infractions to seasons end.

Projected after 80 games (or a full AHL season):
High-sticking Minors: 691
Majors: 71.5
Fighting: 9.02 min/game (unchanged as it is already averaged on a per game basis)

Doesn't that change the landscape significantly? We'll start with high-sticking minors. When you correctly adjust the numbers for valid comparison, you see that the value lies almost exactly between that of the previous year (06-07) and the last year of voluntary visor usage (05-06). While three years is a CRAPPY data sample under any circumstance, it would seem that (contrary to the assesment of Cox and Proteau) the 06-07 season was the anomaly and that things are beginning to normalize.

Moving unto high-sticking majors, which are notably subject to judgment from the referee. Infact, Rule 61 of the NHL Rulebook surprisingly offers no direct characterization of a 'high-sticking major'. This in and of itself should alert one to the potential for inconsistencies in the data. Anything of this nature leaves itself vulnerable to a substantial degree of variability, as is demonstrated by the above figures. Consider how many refs will call a given high-sticking infraction a double-minor in lieu of a 5min major, or vice versa? Thus, the discretion awarded to the official limits any definitive statistical conclusions. That being said, much like the high-sticking minors addressed above, the adjusted figure for this seasons high-sticking majors (71.5) lies significantly above last seasons tally, and a mere 34% below that of the number provided for the pre-mandatory visor year(109 v. 71.5).

Fighting is up? Not really. It would appear to be leveling off (from last years dip) and returning to levels observed in the 05-06 season. Since fighting is up marginally over the previous season, but nearly equal to that two seasons prior, the numbers do not allow us to conclude that visors have ANY effect on the amount of fisticuffs -- a factor that Cox intentionally overlooked. Fighting is a multi-variable event that is dependent on a dozen or more factors unrelated to visors in any way. What is the score of the game? Are they rivals, or in a playoff hunt? Do the coaches dislike each other? Have the refs lost control of the game, or was their a dirty play that sparked a line brawl, or two? The intangibles that go into a fight kicking off far outweigh the fact that all players are wearing faceshields.

I suppose the moral of the story is best summarized from a quote via Leonard H. Courtney: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Whether you want to believe my numerical manipulation(s) or Cox/Proteau's is up to you, but my point about statistics has been well illustrated -- beware.

Weekly Wednesday All-NHL Podcast.

This weeks Wednesday Podcast in association with The Hockey Herald takes a look at rumors surrounding Brian Burke and the Toronto Maple Leafs GM job followed by an explanation of why the NHL needs more player blogs. The podcast closes with the influence Brian Murray has on the Ottawa Senators down the stretch, and lastly a debate on which conference is superior: East or West? Enjoy and Thanks for listening. - Derek.

Why are the Maple Leafs still starting Vesa Toskala?

In the midst of a post-deadline mix-up that saw the Toronto Maple Leafs trade away three role players in an attempt to build for the future there seems to be a conflict of interest between the suits in the suites and boys behind the bench.

Prior to the aforementioned moves the Maple Leafs telegraphed their intentions to wipe the slate clean by replacing defunct John Ferguson Jr. with current interim GM Cliff Fletcher. This signaled the well overdue rebuilding process had initiated itself, and while the most significant trade deadline maneuvers were those that couldn't happen, Toronto punctuated its commitment towards short-term loss for long-term gain by picking up four future draft picks.

Their path to ascendancy is slowly being etched out from below the layers of incompetence, but is there some resistance remaining? It would seem so -- irrespective of the parallel commitment made by management, media and the fans -- given the contentious conduct of the coaching staff over the past two weeks. The agreement to rebuild was broadcast loud and clear, unfortunately for Toronto fans it appears to have been lost in translation when passed down to the coaching staff. What else would account for Paul Maurice's decision to continuously overwork starting goaltender Vesa Toskala in lieu of falling in line with his superiors?

Paul Maurice is not a stupid man. He recognizes the state of limbo which his employment lies. His leadership has been questioned and his methodology flawed based on his failure to maximize the below-average talent on his current roster. This all but punches his ticket to the unemployment line, if and when, his team fails to make the playoffs for the third season in succession.

"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."

Just like the famous feline from Lewis Carrolls' Alice's Adventures in Wonderland the last sentence of the above paragraph magically presents itself to answer the question that has puzzled many Leaf fans; the same question lends itself to the title of this piece: why is Toskala still starting in goal? Because it is the only way to save Paul Maurice's job – and potentially – his career.

Toskala is overworked having long eclipsed career highs in starts, minutes played and shots against, while defending the goal of a team that needs to win at least 75% of its remaining contests in order to realize their playoff intentions. Notably, of those remaining contests 16-of-17 are against teams with a superior record, making the task measurably more difficult and unlikely.

So in light of this seemingly incurable illness that has precipitously sunk the Leafs into the basement of the Eastern conference, Coach Paul Maurice has diagnosed more Vesa Toskala to benefit himself and his future as a head coach in the NHL, at the expense of the organization in Toronto. The sooner Maurice and the Maple Leafs correctly assess their potential the better, as it will open a window for Raycroft to start and potentially boost his trade value (while concomitantly improving their draft lottery status).

Maurice can argue that his distribution of playing time amongst his goaltenders is done merely out of necessity. However, it is through this very decision that his firing is thus equally necessitated. The rebuilding process is already slow and painful enough, and I begrudgingly urge Trader Cliff to hasten the process by dismissing Maurice and abolishing the deleterious conflict of interest that currently exists.

The Hockey Herald Podcast #3

For your listening pleasure I present to you the best post-deadline podcast availible. This podcast contains a look at NHL Insiders and how they operate, plus a more detailed breakdown of the Top 10 Moves of the NHL Trade Deadline. Enjoy!



Thanks for listening. Cheers, Derek.

Top 10 Moves of the NHL Trade Deadline

If you woke up this morning thinking that it might be a quiet one, you aren't the only hockey fan who's nighttime sediment is complete shock. As much as we expected a few big names to move, I'm not alone feeling a bit overwhelmed with the magnitude of todays trade-dealine player transactions. I will take a more in-depth look on these topics and others in my podcast tomorrow, but for now here is a summary of the Top 10 trades made on deadline day.

10. Hal Gill – he is worth two picks? Questionable value aside, the Penguins are now a lot bigger on the blue line, something that will go a long way in wearing down teams with an aggressive forecheck or a down-low puck possession game.
Winner: Toronto by a sliver. They need young bodies, so acquiring two picks for an average blue-liner with no place on the current Leafs roster was a win for Cliff Fletcher.

9. Vinnie Prospal – not a blockbuster by any standards, but a good acquisition for a struggling Flyers team who were able to add an offensive contributor without losing any significant roster players.
Winner: Flyers. They gave up a defenseman in need of a few years maturation and a conditional pick to help replace a host of valuable missing pieces up front. Philly is praying this shake up leads to wins – and so is GM Paul Holmgren.

8. Stuart – vital addition to the Red Wings banged up blue line. He'll help the cause in a roll more suited to his skill level on a wining team like Detroit, where he won't be relied upon in the same overreaching capacity asked of him in LA.
Winner: LA. I know the Kings are awful, but a healthy Detroit roster places Stuart around 4-5 on the defensive depth chart making 2nd and 4th rounders a hefty sum for the Wings.

7. Federov – good character veteran to a young team with enhanced playoff aspirations. Gets paid a bundle, but will help if placed in the right frame of mind.
Winner: Washington. Their management made a huge commitment to the organization by making all these moves, notably bringing in a guy like Fedorov with 163 career playoff points.

6. Foote – I'm not convinced his impact will blow us out of the water. A solid defensive addition to a club with a bundle of returning players (from injuries and acquisitions alike). Their new identity will be proliferated through the new faces and hopefully trickles down unto the younger talent.
Winner: Push. His pending contract likely forced the hand of Columbus GM Scott Howson, but ultimately the Blue Jackets fans feel this the most as they secure their title of the only NHL franchise without a playoff birth.

5. Forsberg – gave up nothing to get him. Nice play Colorado. Whether or not he'll offer a significant contribution, not as likely as you might think, I fear.
Winner: The Avalanche, even if he plays at 80%.

4. Campbell – Over-achiever or real deal? His puck movement will provide the necessary help to boost the weak San Jose Sharks powerplay.
Winner: Yet another big name bounces from Buffalo, but they seemingly get good value in return. I give this one to the Sharks by a slim margin -- but much like Hossa -- this is contract-dependent and can only be judged accurately in a years time.

3. Huet – an odd move for Montreal on the surface. However a good move all things considered. Bob Gainey is willing to roll the dice on Price, who notably took over the AHL playoffs last year en route to a championship in under very similar conditions.
Winner: Washington wins short term, but Montreal knows that. They took an hit to get a solid draft pick. So much for Montreals' dreams of winning it all this year.

2. Richards – They gave up less than Pittsburgh (for Hossa) to get a player with a proven playoff record (Conn Smyth winner, 1 Cup ring) and a comparable contractual situation
Winner: Dallas steals a superstar. All things considered this was a great hockey deal that works in the favour of the Stars having Richards locked up for seasons to come.

1. Hossa – he commanded a Kings ransom. This will be the most highly scrutinized trade of the bunch this season and for good reason. Alarm bells ring anytime an organization gets rattled to this degree and their young core might react apprehensively. With solid goaltending this years Penguins squad might be able to ride their three offensive superstars (Malkin, Crosby and, Hossa) to a Stanley Cup appearance.
Winner: As much as I like Hossa on the ice, the Penguins overbid in this auction and face losing Hossa at years end. This deal can only be evaluated once Hossa's signature is placed on his forthcoming contract, but I'd be thrilled if I was GM Don Waddell of the Atlanta Thrashers.

What a ride it was today. Best sure to check out the all-NHL podcast tomorrow. Thanks for reading, Derek.

The Sundin Aftermath: He stays, who wins??

It looks like John Ferguson Jr. has risen from the grave and stabbed the hearts of Leaf fans yet again. By giving captain Mats Sundin transcendental ability to veto any and all trade offers the former general manager handed the new one a shroud knot that proved too securely fastened. Yes, Mats will remain a Maple Leaf and thus divide the fans of the blue and white into one of two camps:
1. Mats is a selfish jerk. The Leafs are destined for innumerable seasons in the dumpster.
2. Mats has earned the right to choose and I admire a captain who goes down with his ship, regardless of how bad my team will be next season.

But, wait! We needn't be shortsighted and hasty to judge Mats, particularly without considering the outcome of his decision, rather than the decision itself. Its not like whatever Cliff Fletcher could have received in return for Mats Sundin would have turned them around fast enough to sneak into the playoffs. Even if this miraculous feat occurred it would be ill conceived -- they need to be bad for a good pick, so keeping the current good-enough-for-14th-place nucleus together is paradoxically advantageous -- it's just the nature of the cycle in sports where you have to be bad to be good.


There is yet another simple scenario whereby Mats can atone (assuming one demands atonement, as per above) for this trade deadline decision. When he sits down to re-negotiate his contract prior to next season, he will be given the opportunity to demonstrated where his allegiances lie. Assume he agrees to a sizable pay cut; so sizable that the Leafs now have $4-5 million extra dollars in which they can do as they please. Surely having Mats in addition to $4-5mil extra under the cap would perk up a few Leaf fans on this otherwise gloomy day?

As for the other party in this negotiation, signing Mats for pennies on the dollar is the only scenario in which we'd judge Cliff Fletchers' brief reign as a success. Notwithstanding the fact that JFJ left him with an organization in the contractual Clink, Fletcher has yet to improve the Toronto Maple Leafs, precisely what he was hired to do.

Unfortunately for Cliff, it could get much worse before it gets better. What if Mats retires? Imagine the ire of the Leafs Nation in the event Mats hangs them up at the end of this season abruptly erasing the optimistic picture painted above? Cliff Fletcher would instantly be transformed from The Silver Fox to The Horses Ass. His legacy being forever tarnished in the process (once again, thanks in part to JFJ and MLSE).

Since Toronto will be talking about this for the remainder of the year -- and sadly -- for many seasons to come, I thought it necessary to enlighten my readers with the above considerations. Please go forth, and spread the reason and rationality you've gleamed from this piece throughout the streets and airwaves of Southern Ontario and save us from the clamoring fools who think Mats, JFJ, Cliff and the MLSE board should leap from the CN Tower for their injustices upon hockey fans.

Counting Down the Sundin Saga: Make or Break for Mats. (w/ Chart)

It is with a substantial degree of reservation that I throw my hat into a ring whose floor is completely saturated with those of others also speculating on the future of Mats Sundin and the Toronto Maple Leafs. Fortunately for myself and my valued readership, I am much smarter than most of my colleagues, hence the necessity of my commentary on this burning issue.

That being said, I always strive to differentiate myself from the pack. Here, via a chart , is a slightly innovative way to dissect the current speculation regarding Mats Sundin and a variety of NHL clubs. Besides, doesn't reading a chart make you feel smarter and more efficient regardless? Well it should, so check this out:



Looks far more concise when framed in that manner, doesn't it? It also leaves plenty of room for explanation as well.

Please note that players named are listed as BEST-case, and under no circumstances will these players be easily acquired. It is Cliff Fletchers' job to suss out deals of this magnitude, thus we are required to consider the names mentioned.

Secondly, it is very obvious that draft picks often shape these deals. They are therefore impossible to speculate on since they are commonly used by GM's to find a common ground in the negotiation(s). Speculating on where the picks will fall is determined once the players are settled, and since we are not privy to this knowledge I didn't waste time analyzing potential draft picks. Furthermore, it is my belief that Cliff is looking for young players who currently offer NHL-level talent in addition to star potential moving forward, with draft picks being a very close secondary priority.

Lastly, the comments in the “Would Cliff Pull the Trigger?” column are terse for the purposes of space. Each one has been expanded on in great detail in several of my previous podcasts and articles that can be found here and here.

Those with a keen arithmetic sense will also note the likelihood percentages sum to 100. Yes, I think there is 0% chance Mats will stay a Toronto Maple Leaf. Surprised?

Comments and thoughts are more than welcome. Thanks for reading – Derek.