Over the last few years, there has been a movement among statistics aficionados to use advanced statistical methods to measure the performance of hockey players. While I find these stats interesting -- and at least somewhat useful when viewed like any other stat (as one fragment of quantified evidence) -- I think it is always important to keep the bigger picture in mind.
For example, one of the big trends has been to use the number of shots and attempted shots by the competing teams to measure the effectiveness of particular players. But these stats fail to look at bigger picture here: The team that attempts/achieves more shots on goal is not necessarily the team than wins, and the players who have the biggest positive differential for their team when they are on the ice are not necessarily the most effective players.
Bruce McCurdy recently authored a tremendous
research-based blog on the Edmonton Journal site that shows just how frequently in today's NHL game that the team that outshoots its opponent is one that winds up losing the game.
According to McCurdy, during the 2010-11 NHL season, there were 1185 games in which there was an unequal shot distribution (45 games where there were equal shots). In those game, the team that was outshot won 627 times, the outshooting team just 558.
Meanwhile, during the 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs, the Boston Bruins were outshot in 16 of their 25 games (by a final tally of 798 to 851, an average of 2 shots per game). Boston went 12-4 in the playoff tilts in which they got outshot.
To me, what some of the advanced stats fail to consider is the style that a coach wants his team to employ and the willingness of particular players to embrace their assigned roles with the system. Despite being outshot regularly, the Bruins were a fine defensive team that also received outstanding goaltending. It's not so much the quantity of shots a team generates or gives up. It's the quality of the scoring chances that matter the most.
Even a goaltender's save percentage can be deceptive at times. A goalie can face 33 shots in a game and stops 31. Say 30 of the shots of them are routine perimeter shots, but the goalie lets a bad short-side goal and he later boxes a catchable shot into the slot and the rebound is put into the net. He finishes the night with a .939 save percentage. Let's also say the opposing team had 10 shot attempts blocked and missed the net another 12 times.
Meanwhile, the opposing goalie faces just 18 shots for the night. He goes longer periods of time without seeing a shot, and then suddenly gets tested severely. Let's say among the 18 shots are four point-blank chances, a handful of deflections or heavily screened shots and a couple of 2-on-1 rushes. The goalie comes up with most of them but still gets beaten three times, losing the game and finishing the night with an .833 save percentage. Suppose the team in front of him blocked 6 shots and the opposing team fired wide of the net 10 times.
Which team played better defense in this game? Obviously, it was the side that allowed fewer quality chances -- even though there was a huge shot disparity in the game. The shot totals were the least telling or important aspect of the game. As it also turned out, goaltending was a non-factor in the outcome.
Of course, there are also nights where the shots/attempted shots and goalie stats are accurately reflective of the game play and the final score. But my point here is that no hockey statistic -- no matter how complex the formula -- is a panacea.
Always keep the big picture in mind. For teams, the bottom line is whether they win or lose. For individual players, look at the team they play on, the system employed, the ice time they get, the role they are expected to perform and their salary cap hit relative to the job they do.
*****
In a semi-related discussion, I find it very telling that Nikolay Zherdev is still sitting without an NHL contract as of this morning. This is also a player who was on waivers at the trade deadline -- where he could have been had for peanuts by any NHL team looking for some scoring pop down the stretch and into the playoffs -- and went unclaimed.
Peter Laviolette did not have it in for Zherdev any more than his previous NHL coaches did. The player put himself in the doghouse in numerous ways that no statistical matrix will ever pick up but his coaches (and teammates) could easily observe.
There is a common belief that Zherdev's biggest issue is that he's a huge defensive liability. I never really saw that as his biggest problem.
Yes, there were there times where he left the defensive zone early or didn't hustle on the backcheck. But if the rest of his game was in order, the Flyers (and Rangers and Blue Jackets) would have lived with it. Zherdev can be adequate defensively when he wants to be. As far as physical play goes, Zherdev actually did throw some hits and could get a burr under his saddles at times. Some games he would, some games he wouldn't. There were also times he'd take some absolutely horrendous, selfish penalties because he didn't like it when he got checked cleanly (but the same can be said of Danny Briere).
No, what got Zherdev into the doghouse repeatedly was the fact that he often took shortcuts on the ice and failed to play a team game. A puck would go along the walls and he'd just watch it rather it going to get it. He'd overstay shifts and mess up the line rotations. At times, he'd try to carry the play himself and not make use of his linemates. He rarely rotated up high in the offensive zone to cover a point if a defenseman pinched.
Did Zherdev do these things all the time? No. As a matter of fact, when he'd finally return to the lineup after being scratched, he'd usually bust his tail for the first 1-3 games after he got back. Inevitably, though, his work ethic would tail off game by game until he was back on the scratch sheet again.
There were other reasons why Zherdev could not stay in his team's good graces. There is an unwritten rule that a scratched player should work twice as hard at practice to get back in the lineup -- come to the rink early, stay late for extra skating. Zherdev really didn't have much interest in doing that.
Unfortunately for Zherdev, he also has never helped his own cause by routinely isolating himself from teammates. It's not just a language barrier, either. That's just the player's personality, and it makes him seem like he couldn't care less about his teammates. H makes himself a stranger.
Bottom line: When you weight the talent of a 26-year-old player who certainly still has the ability to become a 35-goal scorer against his baggage, he's not the worth the trouble.
That's why Zherdev is no longer a Columbus Blue Jacket, New York Ranger or Philadelphia Flyer. Hell, even his KHL team in 2009-10 (Atlant Mytishchi) got annoyed by the way he'd sleepwalk through games at a time.
There may be other NHL teams and certainly will be other KHL teams who are willing to give Zherdev another shot in 2011-12. However, I'm not optimistic that the outcome will be any better. The player himself has to want to change his ways for the better -- and not just for a week or so.
Nikolay Zherdev can be an NHL star or he can be a latter-day Dmitri Kvartalnov (the former Boston Bruins first-round pick who scored 30 goals as an NHL rookie and was out of the league for good less than a year later). So far, he's chosen for himself to be the latter.
Philadelphia Flyers Blogger •NHL.com • 
Join the Discussion:
»