It was supposed to be a celebration. The Red Wings win the Stanley Cup on their home ice. And as the seconds ticked away, the Cup loomed closer and closer.
Then Max Talbot banged in a rebound. Before either team knew it, the celebration had become a marathon.
With that goal, the Penguins tied the game at 3 apiece, sending the game to overtime.
It had been a back and forth game all night, with neither team taking a clear advantage. The Penguins got on the board first, with a Marian Hossa goal , then with another from Adam Hall. 2-0 after 20.
But the Wings rallied back, scoring three unanswered goals, one in the second and two in the third. It was their usual suspects: Datsyuk tied the game up, Brian Rafalski put them ahead. 3-2 for Detroit as the game entered it’s final minute.
Pittsburgh pulled their goalie, always a risky gamble. Two years ago, it backfired on the Edmonton Oilers in game seven – Carolina solidified their lead late and won, 3-1. This time, however, it worked: Max Talbot tied the game at 19:25.
In overtime, Penguins goalie Marc-Andre Fleury seemed to stand on his head. At least four times, he made gigantic saves that kept the Penguins season alive.
But he had been for the whole game, when he faced 34 shots through the first 60 minutes.
Overtime was something else, though. A microcosm of the game, albeit reversed, it started with Detroit keeping the pressure on Fleury. About halfway though, they led in shots, six to one. But as the period continued, Pittsburgh moved to the offensive, but with little success.
Perhaps their age betrayed them. They couldn’t find an open look, their two-on-ones were too slow, they couldn’t get through the formidable Detroit defence. Before long, the shots had nearly been doubled, 10 to two.
As the overtime wind down, the Penguins looked out of gas. With under three minutes to play, Detroit had a great chance. Franzen and Zetterberg crashed the net, forcing Fleury to make a sprawling save, lying down on his side.
A break, however, came the Penguins way: an interference call against Zetterberg on that scramble. But even then, they couldn’t capitalize – the penalty passed harmlessly and Detroit had another great scoring chance, a rush after a Jordan Staal turnover. That was it for the first overtime, though.
The second OT began with a bang – about five minutes in, the Red Wings took another penalty. Here the Penguins went on the offsenive, and got some of their best chances of the night. But – again – they didn’t score.
Later on, both sides found themselves with more chances. Ruutu had a great chance, but Osgood shut him out.
Given enough time, any two teams in the Finals will even themselves out. As the game neared the 90 minute mark, faceoffs were about even for both. The score had remained stagnant for the longest time all game. Tempers ran short, and both sides began to tire.
Instead of a constant rush, the Wings were making more and more odd-man rushes, like the one where Kris Draper leveled a backhand at Fleury (he made the save). Or the one where Datsyk couldn’t deke his man on a one-on-one.
Increasingly, the puck began to spend more time in Detroit’s end – experience goes a long way in the playoffs, but the younger team tires more slowly, I guess. But at the same time, action had slowed down considerably too.
But after a Detroit rush – the highlight of which was a shot that bounced high and nearly into the net – Pittsburgh took a penalty with just over two minutes left, their first in sudden death. Detroit kept the pressure on and played with a renewed intensity. But again, not enough.
Third overtime, now. One game becames two. And still, Detroit pressed the Penguins, keeping them in their own end.
Their aggressiveness would be their undoing, though. Another penalty, a four-minute double minor on Juri Hudler for high-sticking, 9:21 into the third overtime.
Three times the charm, for the Penguins. Petr Sykora netted his sixth of the playoffs from the right circle, not even a minute after that penalty.
The Penguins are still alive, and will go back home to the Mellon for game six. Do they have a chance? I doubt it.
The main thing – and perhaps the only thing – that kept them alive throughout this game was the stellar play of Fleury. He made key saves throughout nearly 50 minutes of sudden death overtime, not to mention the 60 minutes of regulation.
All in all, he made 55 saves in game five. Say that again, out loud – fifty five saves. Twenty four of those were in sudden death, where a Detroit goal would end their season.
That’s nearly double was Osgood faced, who didn’t have as much pressure on him. Pressure to keep his team alive, pressure from the Red Wings, who outshot the Penguins in every period last night.
That means that Fleury was on the ice for almost 110 minutes last night. Not standing, but sprawling, scrambling to keep the puck out.
It was a singular preformnce in goaltending last night, the perfect cap to one of the best matchups the Finals have had in a long time.
To me, it was like game six of the 1980 finals, when Bob Nystrom won the first of four Islander Cups with an overtime goal.
That was the start of their dynasty. Was this the start of the Penguins?
Showing posts with label pittsburgh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pittsburgh. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Who's more valuable to their team? A quick look at Hockey Sabermetrics
This morning I was wondering which player is more valuable to his team: The player whose point total is through the roof? The player who scores the most goals? Or is it the player who has the highest +/- rating?
And thanks to a book I just picked up, I might have the answer.
In a seminal – and, for some reason, out of print – book on hockey and hockey statistics called “The Klein and Reif hockey compendium”, the authors Klein and Reif use a fairly simple method to get a players “true” +/- rating.
The main problem with counting goals or points is that it just measures the offensive output of a player – it says nothing of his two-way play. Goals for are just as, if not less, important as goals against are.
So the stat of Plus/Minus should be good, right?
But it’s not – it’s a good indicator, like using OPS for baseball, but it means almost nothing. A good player on a bad team can have a plus/minus in the toilet – and a bad player on a good team can have a great +/-.
So this is where Team Adjusted +/- (TA+/-) comes into play – it takes all goals scored (and goals scored against) by the team and filters out power-play goals, giving you what the team’s plus minus is. The formula is fairly simple: Team even-strength/shorthanded goals (Goals for – PPG) minus the even-strength goals for (total allowed minus PPG allowed).
Then, to get a player average, you divide by five (five skaters per side, right?)
So what does this mean? It’s easy – it shows what the average player on that team would have for a plus/minus. This, in effect, allows you adjust any player’s +/- so you can compare them equally.
All you have to do is subtract the player’s +/- from the TA+/- to get their adjusted +/- (PA+/-).
And there you go – an equal way to compare hockey player’s +/- without worrying about their team’s overall quality.
So how does this mean anything to anybody?
Let’s say I wanted to solve the question I posed above – which kind of player is better to their team? Would it be the point leader (Sidney Crosby, with 83 points)? Would be the goal leader (Vincent Lecavalier, with 35 goals)? Or would be it the regular +/- leader (Nicklas Lindstrom, with a +36 rating)?
Let’s work with the numbers, then. Here are the goals for each team.
Conversely, here’s what their goals against look like - Remember, the numbers go Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit
Goals Allowed: 116 172 137
PP goals allowed:58 49 50
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Now, here’s each teams adjusted +/- rating:
Even Strength Goals: 119 117 129
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Adjusted Team +/- rating (AT+/-): +11 -6 +42
Now, remembering to divide by five, so we get a player average:
Raw AT+/-: +11 -6 +42
Average Adjusted Player +/- :+2.2 -1.2 8.4
So the average adjusted player +/- for Pittsburgh is 2, for Tampa Bay it's -1 and for Detroit it's +8.
So what does this mean? Simple: That’s the average +/- for any player on that team. We now can use that to adjust the raw +/- for any player. So, to go back to our original three players, we can just check their numbers by subtracting the average from their +/-:
So here, the numbers go: Sidney Crosby, Vincent Lecavalier and Nicklas Lindstrom
Regular +/-: +13 +6 +36
Average Adjusted Player: +/- +2 -1 +8
Player Adjusted +/-: +11 +7 +28
So, by looking at this – by seeing how much better a player is then his team’s average +/- and how important they are to the team - we can see three things: Crosby’s two-way play is a little overrated, Lecavalier’s two-way is a little underrated and Lindstrom, while playing on a team that inflates his +/- by a considerable margin, is still really good.
So there you go – Yes, Lindstrom is the most valuable of the three, since his two-way play (or perhaps just his defense skill) worth about 28 more points then the average player on Detroit.
Once again, thanks to the team of Klein and Reif for their formula here. It's a bit of a shame that they're not doing this anymore.
And thanks to a book I just picked up, I might have the answer.
In a seminal – and, for some reason, out of print – book on hockey and hockey statistics called “The Klein and Reif hockey compendium”, the authors Klein and Reif use a fairly simple method to get a players “true” +/- rating.
The main problem with counting goals or points is that it just measures the offensive output of a player – it says nothing of his two-way play. Goals for are just as, if not less, important as goals against are.
So the stat of Plus/Minus should be good, right?
But it’s not – it’s a good indicator, like using OPS for baseball, but it means almost nothing. A good player on a bad team can have a plus/minus in the toilet – and a bad player on a good team can have a great +/-.
So this is where Team Adjusted +/- (TA+/-) comes into play – it takes all goals scored (and goals scored against) by the team and filters out power-play goals, giving you what the team’s plus minus is. The formula is fairly simple: Team even-strength/shorthanded goals (Goals for – PPG) minus the even-strength goals for (total allowed minus PPG allowed).
Then, to get a player average, you divide by five (five skaters per side, right?)
So what does this mean? It’s easy – it shows what the average player on that team would have for a plus/minus. This, in effect, allows you adjust any player’s +/- so you can compare them equally.
All you have to do is subtract the player’s +/- from the TA+/- to get their adjusted +/- (PA+/-).
And there you go – an equal way to compare hockey player’s +/- without worrying about their team’s overall quality.
So how does this mean anything to anybody?
Let’s say I wanted to solve the question I posed above – which kind of player is better to their team? Would it be the point leader (Sidney Crosby, with 83 points)? Would be the goal leader (Vincent Lecavalier, with 35 goals)? Or would be it the regular +/- leader (Nicklas Lindstrom, with a +36 rating)?
Let’s work with the numbers, then. Here are the goals for each team.
Conversely, here’s what their goals against look like - Remember, the numbers go Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit
Goals Allowed: 116 172 137
PP goals allowed:58 49 50
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Now, here’s each teams adjusted +/- rating:
Even Strength Goals: 119 117 129
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Adjusted Team +/- rating (AT+/-): +11 -6 +42
Now, remembering to divide by five, so we get a player average:
Raw AT+/-: +11 -6 +42
Average Adjusted Player +/- :+2.2 -1.2 8.4
So the average adjusted player +/- for Pittsburgh is 2, for Tampa Bay it's -1 and for Detroit it's +8.
So what does this mean? Simple: That’s the average +/- for any player on that team. We now can use that to adjust the raw +/- for any player. So, to go back to our original three players, we can just check their numbers by subtracting the average from their +/-:
So here, the numbers go: Sidney Crosby, Vincent Lecavalier and Nicklas Lindstrom
Regular +/-: +13 +6 +36
Average Adjusted Player: +/- +2 -1 +8
Player Adjusted +/-: +11 +7 +28
So, by looking at this – by seeing how much better a player is then his team’s average +/- and how important they are to the team - we can see three things: Crosby’s two-way play is a little overrated, Lecavalier’s two-way is a little underrated and Lindstrom, while playing on a team that inflates his +/- by a considerable margin, is still really good.
So there you go – Yes, Lindstrom is the most valuable of the three, since his two-way play (or perhaps just his defense skill) worth about 28 more points then the average player on Detroit.
Once again, thanks to the team of Klein and Reif for their formula here. It's a bit of a shame that they're not doing this anymore.
Monday, October 23, 2006
After the Heidi game
CBS, you’re making me very angry.
Why? Well, for those of us who try and watch football games – and only have one CBS feed – watching NFL games can become a real pain. Due to what I imagine was rule that only some madman would think up, you cannot watch overtime games – unless you are in the local market.
And that stinks.
This isn’t the first time I’ve fallen prey to this rule. Last year, when I was watching the Giants play the Vikings in some regular season game the same thing happened – due to that very rule, FOX had to cut away to some other game and I was left waiting for The FOX Game Break (brought to you by McDonald’s) to see who won (As I recall, I’m pretty sure that the Giants won on a field goal).
See, after the Heidi game (When CBS infamously cut away from a Raiders/Jets game to show the movie Heidi – and viewers missed a huge comeback by the Raiders), I thought stuff like this wasn’t supposed to happen. But it does – it’s stipulated in the TV contracts for the NFL. Technically, CBS was supposed to say they were sorry and cut to the next game.
And that’d have been fine – if there was a game to cut to. Unlike the viewers who have DirecTV, my CBS feed (WIVB Buffalo) only had one game today so I got to see … Er, Shannon Sharpe, Dan Marino, James Brown and Boomer Esiason watching the Steelers game, with the occasional clip of game play. Of course they didn’t show the game-winning field goal or any of the overtime (I got to see the first attempted field goal towards the end of regulation, but missed the other two).
So this has got me thinking – what’s the point of a rule like this? Yes, I understand the rule as it stands toward Doubleheaders, but why couldn’t CBS show the game in its entirety for stations that only have one game? How different is it then having bonus coverage, like last week when I got to see the end for a total of four different games? What market are we violating? The Bills game had already ended – so there goes the home market theory. There was no other game to cut to – there goes the contractual obligations.
So why cut away? Didn’t we learn anything from the Heidi incident? Didn’t we learn anything from the days that the CBC would cut to news at 11pm, regardless of overtime? Didn’t we learn that people, such as myself, like to watch the whole game?
I suppose not. See you at the game-break-quick-score-update-highlight.
Why? Well, for those of us who try and watch football games – and only have one CBS feed – watching NFL games can become a real pain. Due to what I imagine was rule that only some madman would think up, you cannot watch overtime games – unless you are in the local market.
And that stinks.
This isn’t the first time I’ve fallen prey to this rule. Last year, when I was watching the Giants play the Vikings in some regular season game the same thing happened – due to that very rule, FOX had to cut away to some other game and I was left waiting for The FOX Game Break (brought to you by McDonald’s) to see who won (As I recall, I’m pretty sure that the Giants won on a field goal).
See, after the Heidi game (When CBS infamously cut away from a Raiders/Jets game to show the movie Heidi – and viewers missed a huge comeback by the Raiders), I thought stuff like this wasn’t supposed to happen. But it does – it’s stipulated in the TV contracts for the NFL. Technically, CBS was supposed to say they were sorry and cut to the next game.
And that’d have been fine – if there was a game to cut to. Unlike the viewers who have DirecTV, my CBS feed (WIVB Buffalo) only had one game today so I got to see … Er, Shannon Sharpe, Dan Marino, James Brown and Boomer Esiason watching the Steelers game, with the occasional clip of game play. Of course they didn’t show the game-winning field goal or any of the overtime (I got to see the first attempted field goal towards the end of regulation, but missed the other two).
So this has got me thinking – what’s the point of a rule like this? Yes, I understand the rule as it stands toward Doubleheaders, but why couldn’t CBS show the game in its entirety for stations that only have one game? How different is it then having bonus coverage, like last week when I got to see the end for a total of four different games? What market are we violating? The Bills game had already ended – so there goes the home market theory. There was no other game to cut to – there goes the contractual obligations.
So why cut away? Didn’t we learn anything from the Heidi incident? Didn’t we learn anything from the days that the CBC would cut to news at 11pm, regardless of overtime? Didn’t we learn that people, such as myself, like to watch the whole game?
I suppose not. See you at the game-break-quick-score-update-highlight.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Guess who's after the Penguins?
Q: What do Mark Cuban, Dan Marino, the city of Winnipeg and the Isle of Capri have in common?
A: They're all after the Pittsburgh Penguins
For a team that's at the bottom of the league, both in standings and revenue, that's a lot of potential buyers - and that's just the ones who have stated it openly (Frank D'Angelo, for example, have been suprisingly quiet - but nobody would be surprised if tried to buy the team).
So, then... Who will end up with the team? Mario Lemieux has said that he will not sell to anybody who will move the team out of Pittsburgh, but at the same time, the Penguins don't have a new arena on the horizon and are among the least profitable teams in the league - would you blame anyone for wanting to move them?
Either way, I've taken the load to myself and crunched some non-existent numbers to bring you chances that each person/ownership group/city/etc will end up with the Penguins:
Mark Cuban - One would assume that Mark Cuban would like to move the Pens to Texas (Houston, perhaps) where there is better potential for profit. One also assumes that Cuban would prefer to have more control then any other owner would like to have - and that Cuban's odds on charging onto the ice are about 50/50 for any fight at all. But that's not what will happen: At heart, Mark is still a Pittsburgh homer and he wants to keep the team in the P-town and since his running of the Mavericks is a day-to-day thing, I would be surprised if he attends more then a handful of Pens games. Either way, he and his investment group have more then enough assets to keep the team afloat in the short term. I'll say 66%, 75% if he temps Mario with a cashier's check.
Winnipeg, Manitoba - They have the history, a new arena (the MTS Centre) and a devoted fanbase. Plus, under the new CBA Agreements (Salary Cap, Revenue Sharing) they would be able to compete with larger cities again. The one thing they don't have is, er, an ownership group. Other then the GM of the Moose once making an off-hand comment about giving Mario a call, nobody from Winnipeg has proposed moving the team there. So it's about 27% (and that's me being unconditionally generous) until someone steps up.
Quebec City, Quebec - No stadium, no ownership, not much of a fanbase in the first place (even back in the 1980s they had trouble selling tickets) means no chance at all; barely even 0%.
Isle of Capri - One of the more serious bidders, the Isle of Capri (which is not, as you may think, the island that sells pants to Raphael Nadal, but is actually a casino) has not only make repeated offers to buy the team, but to also build a new arena - if the city also allows them to put in slot machines. Will the NHL allow gambling in it's arenas? Thus far, Gary Bettman has been quiet - but I would suspect that after the recent "Operation Slap Shot" by the New Jersey Police Department scandal, the NHL will not be especially keen on the Isle getting full ownership. I'm going to say that if the city of Pittsburgh goes ahead with the Slots, then there's a 75% chance. If they don't, it's not even 0%.
So, then, who will end up with the "Team with the brightest future in hockey"?
Two words: Isiah Thomas.
When he blows his chance with the Knicks (you know this will happen) he'll be looking for the first thing that comes across - and when he hears that the Pens are for sale, he'll immediately enact this three step plan:
- Trade Sidney Crosby and a first round pick for Vincent Lecavalier, Sean Burke and Martin St. Louis
- trade a second round pick and Mark-Andre Fleury for Jean-Sabastien Aubin and the rights to Anson Carter
- Sign free agents Alexandre Daigle, Luke Richardson and Eric Lindros
A: They're all after the Pittsburgh Penguins
For a team that's at the bottom of the league, both in standings and revenue, that's a lot of potential buyers - and that's just the ones who have stated it openly (Frank D'Angelo, for example, have been suprisingly quiet - but nobody would be surprised if tried to buy the team).
So, then... Who will end up with the team? Mario Lemieux has said that he will not sell to anybody who will move the team out of Pittsburgh, but at the same time, the Penguins don't have a new arena on the horizon and are among the least profitable teams in the league - would you blame anyone for wanting to move them?
Either way, I've taken the load to myself and crunched some non-existent numbers to bring you chances that each person/ownership group/city/etc will end up with the Penguins:
Mark Cuban - One would assume that Mark Cuban would like to move the Pens to Texas (Houston, perhaps) where there is better potential for profit. One also assumes that Cuban would prefer to have more control then any other owner would like to have - and that Cuban's odds on charging onto the ice are about 50/50 for any fight at all. But that's not what will happen: At heart, Mark is still a Pittsburgh homer and he wants to keep the team in the P-town and since his running of the Mavericks is a day-to-day thing, I would be surprised if he attends more then a handful of Pens games. Either way, he and his investment group have more then enough assets to keep the team afloat in the short term. I'll say 66%, 75% if he temps Mario with a cashier's check.
Winnipeg, Manitoba - They have the history, a new arena (the MTS Centre) and a devoted fanbase. Plus, under the new CBA Agreements (Salary Cap, Revenue Sharing) they would be able to compete with larger cities again. The one thing they don't have is, er, an ownership group. Other then the GM of the Moose once making an off-hand comment about giving Mario a call, nobody from Winnipeg has proposed moving the team there. So it's about 27% (and that's me being unconditionally generous) until someone steps up.
Quebec City, Quebec - No stadium, no ownership, not much of a fanbase in the first place (even back in the 1980s they had trouble selling tickets) means no chance at all; barely even 0%.
Isle of Capri - One of the more serious bidders, the Isle of Capri (which is not, as you may think, the island that sells pants to Raphael Nadal, but is actually a casino) has not only make repeated offers to buy the team, but to also build a new arena - if the city also allows them to put in slot machines. Will the NHL allow gambling in it's arenas? Thus far, Gary Bettman has been quiet - but I would suspect that after the recent "Operation Slap Shot" by the New Jersey Police Department scandal, the NHL will not be especially keen on the Isle getting full ownership. I'm going to say that if the city of Pittsburgh goes ahead with the Slots, then there's a 75% chance. If they don't, it's not even 0%.
So, then, who will end up with the "Team with the brightest future in hockey"?
Two words: Isiah Thomas.
When he blows his chance with the Knicks (you know this will happen) he'll be looking for the first thing that comes across - and when he hears that the Pens are for sale, he'll immediately enact this three step plan:
- Trade Sidney Crosby and a first round pick for Vincent Lecavalier, Sean Burke and Martin St. Louis
- trade a second round pick and Mark-Andre Fleury for Jean-Sabastien Aubin and the rights to Anson Carter
- Sign free agents Alexandre Daigle, Luke Richardson and Eric Lindros
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)