We began a couple of days ago with our “Inserting A Measure Of Sanity…” series. In “…Part Deaux…”, we continued by measuring all of the Pacific Division against the Baseline, Stanley Cup-winning team to determine what their actual needs were.

By way of an update on LAK and the Carter/Johnson trade, it is our opinion that trade did not meet the requirements of the Kings. Prior to the trade, they needed one “5″ Left Wing, one “4″ & one “3″ Right Wing and one “7″ – Defenseman. The unspoken truth was that they needed scoring. They traded away a 5.698 Defenseman (Johnson) and got a 5.487 performing Centerman in Carter. So unless Carter can personally improve to, say, a point-per-game player over the next 20 games from his current .64 PPG average, we say the trade failed to meet the requirements to improve the team.

That said, we must press onward. To keep you between the posts, here are our reminder notes again:

1. This is a snapshot in time for each team. By that I mean it is a comparison of the team’s statistics following their last game played as we begin the analysis. This means overall Baseline numbers will slide downward before the season is over. By example, Phil Kessel had a .70 goals per game (GPG) average at Game 24 this season and at Game 60 sports a .52 GPG. Statistics are worth less overall as more games are divided into them.
2. We are measuring the current teams’ Baseline snapshot against average, final season numbers for the six Stanley Cup winners. This is not a bad thing when you know No.1 above and find you have less on your roster than the winning Baseline calls for.

Below is the analysis of the Northwest Division teams in terms of overall Team and by-position Baseline comparison to determine what these teams need as the Trade Deadline swiftly approaches.

Vancouver Canucks

VAN Summary: VAN holds a .603 overall team advantage against the Stanley Cup-winning Baseline. That is a bit less of a lead than San Jose who was the strongest team in the Pacific. But the Canucks hold a 4:2 advantage in cumulative, by-position measurements just like the Sharks do. This also puts the Canuck team as a whole in decent shape to be a Stanley Cup contender. The LW average is above the Baseline with no apparent assistance needed at this position. Kesler as a “7” Centerman gives VAN a Baseline advantage on the high end, but they team could still use one “5” and a role-playing “3” at Center. (Within their Division, this would be a Jokinen or Stastny as a “5.” Threes would be a Backlund or Horcoff.) For true Right Wings, the Canucks’ are hurting. They need a “6”, a “5” and two “3’s” here. You are talking a Stempniak, Hemsky and Staubitz here. While Vancouver’s Defensemen rank higher than the Baseline, they still need an “8” and a “3” on the Blue Line. While you can argue Bieksa and Edler at “7’s” meet the upper end requirement, and Van will likely stand pat there, there should be no emotionless denial that a Dan Boyle-like player’s output would assist the team. Finally, VAN’s Goalie duo stands above the Baseline, so no movement here is needed. It should be noted, however, that as well as they perform, statistically they sport the lowest Goalie Baseline ranking in the Northwest Division. All in all, you will see VAN in the playoffs and should see them playing well. They should be content with letting the Red Wings or Rangers lift (or politely fail to touch) the President’s Trophy – winners of that hardware don’t usually raise The Cup anyhow.

Calgary Flames

CGY Summary: While they sit in second place in Northwest Division standings, CGY is below the overall team Baseline number by a –.242. The Flames are also 0-4-1 against cumulative, by-position measurements of advantage with the Baseline. And as you will see position by position, they look like a hasty needle-and-thread, patch work unit. They need to blow up this team and start from scratch. At the LW they are short one “6” and two “5” wingers.  (Inside the division, this would be the likes of Burrows or Heatley at “6” and Booth or Smyth at a “5”.) At Center they need a “6” (A Lapierre or Mueller). On the Right Wing, the Flames’ are only short two RW bodies in the “4” and “3” realm. (A Hansen, Hejduk or Staubitz would work here.) Calgary is hurting at the top end of the Defense position against Baseline, needing one each “8”, “7” and two “6” defenders. (A Beiksa, Quincey and Sutton are among the list of possibles to fill these shortages.) And Kiprusoff totes the note in CGY’s goal – neither of the other Goalies who have gotten into games have hit double digits while Kipper has 52 under his belt. You cannot fix this team at the Trade Deadline. This is a Trade Deadline and Free Agency, possibly over multiple seasons, project. While they may find their way into the playoffs by default, this is not a Stanley Cup winning team.

Colorado Avalanche

COL Summary: COL has a .373 overall team lead over the Stanley Cup-winning Baseline, the third highest in the Division. This team could make their way up the ladder and into the playoff picture, flirting with the 7^th through 9^th seed positions daily. They are short one “6” and one “4”at LW. (A Heatley at “6” and Raymond or Glenncross would fill the bill here.) Barring any injuries, they are good to go at Center. They are below Baseline at RW, needing one “3’s” at role player positions. (This is a Jackman or Staubitz.) The Avalanche could also use one high-end “8” and a “3” role player on the Blue Line. (A Bieksa and Hannan from the Northwest would do the trick.) In goal, COL is right on par with VAN in the division based on statistical analysis, so no change is needed here.

Minnesota Wild

MIN Summary: Collectively, Minnesota has a Stanley Cup-winning Baseline lead of .685. That is higher than SJS and the highest in the Northwest Division. What?!  The team that is stumbling at the 10^th, 11^th or 12^th position in the Western Conference? The key is the term “collectively” – they have played more players than any other team in the Division due to injuries. The constant carousel of players does not support good team chemistry, hurts scoring, and leads to those losses. To get into the playoffs, they need healthy, high-end players on the roster to close out the season and possible reach the playoffs. They are above the LW Baseline but could use two “5’s” and one “4” at LW. (We are talking a Booth or Winnick here.) They are below of the Baseline at the Center. They could stand pat with their four “5’s” who could rise above expectations on any given night. Or they could make a move for a “6”-type Pivot to fix this position against the Baseline. (This is the same need at pivot as CGY above.) MIN is below the Baseline at RW with a need for a “5” and a “4” here. (This means they need a Stempniak and Hejduk.) Minnesota needs one each high end “8” and “7” Defenseman to support their Blue Line. (All Northwest teams need an “8” like a Bieksa. A Quincey could cover the “7” nicely.) The Wild’s goaltending duo both come in at “6’s” unlike most other teams with a “6” and a “5/4” – no assistance is needed here.

Edmonton Oilers

EDM Summary: Edmonton has a Stanley Cup-winning Baseline lead of only .187, the second lowest in the Division and most likely to disappear as the season progresses. The Oilers start off short one “4”, role-playing LW. (Raymond or Glenncross work in this case.) One good upgrade of a “6” at Center could work up the middle to fix this shortcoming, just like with CGY. The Oilers are hurting at the RW position due in large part to only having two, true wingers on the roster. They need a “6”, one “4” and a “3” at RW to not have Left Wingers or Centers fill in. This puts them in about the same boat as VAN. Like everyone else in the Division, Edmonton needs one “8” Defenseman. As with Minnesota, Edmonton sports two “6’s” in goal at this time which requires no movement.

The Northwest Wrap Up

As a brief summary, no team in the Northwest needs a goaltender to meet the Baseline requirements per current statistical analysis. (CGY could spell Kiprusoff more, but that is a team call.) Every team needs a stud “8” Defenseman. Right Wingers are also a shortage across the board. Those three would be the major acquisitions that break which would have a positive impact on any Northwest team. Other than that, the explosion of Calgary at the Trade Deadline, on 1 June and beyond is coming, so do not be surprised when it does.

Next up is the Central Division…

I began yesterday with our “Inserting A Measure Of Sanity…” series, stating it would be published in two blogs. In Part I, I defined what the Baseline, Stanley Cup-winning team looked like in terms of a per-game statistical ranking for all players on those Cup teams. I then explained there are two ways to use the rankings.

One way was to compare leading teams against the Baseline and determine both what they need to meet the minimums and who is closer to the mark. I did this measuring NYR against DET and the Baseline.

The other way was to see what a team is lacking in order to determine what they might need at the Trade Deadline in actuality instead of what their gut and/or wallet was telling them. That discussion would be the subject of Part II of this series.

Where the lie comes in is the fact this is going to be a seven part series. Because of the time it takes to gather the stats and measure them against the Baseline for a by-position call on team needs, I have to work this blog and those that follow by Division. But I will work to ensure all are posted by Sunday night going into the Trade Deadline so you can scream at or cheer on your team appropriately.

You cannot read this blog without keeping in mind the following notes:

1. This is a snapshot in time for each team. By that I mean it is a comparison of the team’s statistics following their last game played when we begin the analysis. This means overall Baseline numbers will slink downward before the season is over. By example, Phil Kessel had a .70 goals per game (GPG) average at Game 24 this season and at Game 60 slid to a (respectable) .52 GPG. Statistics are worth less overall as more games divide them.
2. We are measuring the current teams’ Baseline snapshot against average, final season numbers for the six Stanley Cup winners. That makes analysis easy when you see less on your roster than the winning Baseline calls for.

That said, let’s look at the Pacific Division in terms of overall team and by-position Baseline comparisons to determine what, if anything, a team needs as the Trade Deadline swiftly approaches. Each team’s section will begin with a graph of the numbers. Where numbers show a green background, they are an advantage. Where differences are in bold, red font, it is a disadvantage for the team against the Baseline. If you do not care to follow the numbers, simply scroll down to the team’s summary at the end of their section.

San Jose Sharks

SJS Summary: SJS enjoys a .631 overall team advantage against the Stanley Cup-winning Baseline. That is a bit more than half again over the average difference from Baseline. The Sharks also hold a 4:2 advantage in cumulative, by-position measurements. This puts the team as a whole in decent shape to be a Stanley Cup contender. The LW average is above the Baseline and it looks like there is no need to shop for another left-side winger. At pivot, SJS falls below the Baseline and looks to need one each “5” Center. (This would be in the neighborhood of Gilbert Brule in PHX.) On the RW side, the Sharks’ cumulative falls below the Baseline in large part due to having only half of the RW’s on roster that the Baseline calls for. (If they were shooting for true RW’s, they would need a “4” and two “3’s”, or players in the neighborhood of a Palmieri, Smith-Pelly or Parros on the RW-rich ANA squad). San Jose’s Defensemen rank higher than the Baseline. (If anything, they could use one more “6” Defender such as a Klesla, Matt Green or a Robidas, but would pay a price for doing so.) And finally, SJS’ Goalies are both above the Baseline, even though numbers go down when a team is in a losing streak. Of all of the Pacific Division teams, San Jose is most likely to end the season at or above the Baseline.

Phoenix Coyotes

PHX Summary: PHX enjoys a .386 team advantage against the overall Baseline, placing them third in the Pacific pecking order against our marker. That advantage could very likely disappear with bad trades at The Deadline coupled with the continuation of the season to Game 82. The Coyotes are also an even 3:3 in cumulative, by-position measurements of advantage with the Baseline. If the team slips below the Baseline, team character would have to carry them through. As with SJS, the Coyotes are set at the LW position. They are also set up the middle where PHX holds an advantage at Center with their “8” (Hanzal). On the other wing, the Coyotes’ cumulative is above the Baseline but actually short two RW bodies in the “4” and “3” realm. (The same help for SJS would work here.) Phoenix is above the Defensemen overall Baseline. But they are short one each “7” and “6” defender, something their dearth of “5’s” could produce a proper trade proposal for under the right circumstances. (A Burns, Doughty or Robidas would be their target here for true value added in terms of capability.) And Smith and LaBarbera make PHX’s goalie tandem as good against the Baseline as SJS’.

While this blog was being prepared, PHX traded McElhinney and draft picks to CBJ for Vermette. As a Centerman, he throws in his 4.301 Baseline number to the overall team while McElhinney removes nothing since he had only played in two games. Since the team Baseline is an average of all team members’ marker, he drops the team from an overall 5.347 to a 5.323 and Centermen in particular from a 5.135 to a 5.016 for his $3.75M per season price tag. It sounds like a bad deal, especially when it looked like PHX did not need any C’s. The question would correctly be is Vermette trade bait, or will, say, Chipchura and a couple of “5” defensemen go for that “7” or “6” defender or a RW or two?

Los Angeles Kings

LAK Summary: LAK has a .340 overall team lead over the Stanley Cup-winning Baseline, the fourth highest in the Division. Many have said it and we will parrot: this team needs to score or they will not make the Playoffs, much less win The Cup. They are short one “5” at LW. (This is a Blake or Nystrom-type winger.) At Center, they are ahead of the Baseline. (This is particularly so at the “6” ranking where they could dangle Richards, Kopitar or Stoll to cover shortages.) They are below Baseline one “4” and one “3” at RW just like SJS and PHX. Los Angeles’s Defensemen rank below the Baseline. (One “7” Defender would do nicely here.) L.A. is ahead of the game in goal as with SJS and PHX above. Taking all of the above into consideration, if it was a dynamic Trade Deadline day, could the Kings dangle Richards to DAL for some combination of Nystrom, Ryder, Robidas and a draft pick? Stranger things have happened.

Dallas Stars

DAL Summary: Dallas has a Stanley Cup-winning Baseline lead of .555, the second highest in the Division. As a team, however, they need more consistent wins – heck, a seven or eight-game run would do wonders for the Stars. They are short one “5” at LW despite a higher Baseline number at this position that previous Cup winners. (This is a Blake or Clifford on the left side.) They are below of the Baseline at the Center position and could fix their woes with an upgrade in the “5” realm. (This would be a Langkow, Fraser or Koivu although Mike Richards would rock their world if the asking price was not too steep.) Two RW’s at a “6” and a “4” just like the three Pacific Division teams above would round out their roster nicely as well as fix their Baseline deficit in this slot. With all of the issues at this position in the Division, trade partners across Division and/or Conference lines would be a more likely candidate to rectify shortcomings. Dallas could use one “6” Defenseman although they rank above the Baseline. DAL sits in the best position of any Pacific Division team in net. With Raycroft joining Lehtonen as the franchise’s “6’s”, he could be put up on the block based on Bachman’s strong performance early in the year. It remains to be seen if DAL at The Deadline is a buyer under new management. They need to be at all positions forward of the goal, however, to even sniff the Playoffs this season.

Of all of the Pacific Division teams compared to the Baseline, only Dallas needs a Rick Nash with his 6.928 ranking at Right Wing. SJS, PHX and LAK could all use additional RW’s, but they could make do with something less than a Nash. It doesn’t mean they would not necessarily put him to work. Just that they have multiple issues to address and putting all their eggs in one Nash… (I will stop there) …does not necessarily allow them to answer their needs.

Anaheim Ducks

ANA Summary: Anaheim has a Stanley Cup-winning Baseline lead of only .067, the lowest in the Division and most likely to disappear as the season progresses. Despite his Washington miracle in ’07-’08, Coack Boudreau will not be able to resurrect this franchise from an early Tee Time this season. The Ducks start off short one “6” and one “5” at LW and greater than a .70 deficit against the Baseline. (Blake, Beleskey and Hagman are just not meeting the mail here.) One good upgrade of a “5” at Center might salve their issue at that position (along with more productivity from Getzlaf) as they sit almost one full point below the Baseline at this position. At Right Wing, the Ducks outpace the Baseline and are the only Pacific team without a strong need at this position. Anaheim could also use one “6” Defenseman just like everyone else in the Division. ANA is tied with LAK in their lead for the Goalie Baseline ranking. But while every other Pacific Division team has at least one “6” and a “5” in net, ANA has a “6” and a “4.” Despite the winning streak of late, expect ANA to finish last in the division and out of the Playoffs this season.

Coming next is the Northwest Division…

Here at On Goal Analysis (OGA), we agree. When we have spoken about the math before, we mentioned how many teams are in or out of contention come January. Not satisfied with just our standard answer, however, we have taken another look at that call and our math to drill down further into team status.

This is a two part blog. In Part I, we look at how to assess teams in terms of player statistics by position. We do so through the eye of the Stanley Cup Championship Team looking glass in order to determine a Baseline measurement that equals ultimate NHL success.

In Part II, we drill down a little further in order to determine who does and does not need to deal at the Trade Deadline or risk being labeled that GM Brian Burke’s quote speaks of above.

This blog is our Baseline study, definition of success and a comparison of NYR and DET against the Baseline to tell us how close to par the two possible champions are playing.

Using The Stats

We are not here to recreate ‘Moneyball.’ Our premise is somewhat simpler. We say there is a standard Baseline rating for players which a team needs on its roster to win the Stanley Cup. So we analyzed players for CAR, ANA, DET, PIT, CHI and BOS from their Stanley Cup years, both during the Regular Season and through the Playoffs (although the Regular Season is the focus of this blog).

Some could argue for more or less statistics to analyze, but what we have are uniformly measured across all players for Stanley Cup winning teams since the Lockout as a per-game Baseline ranking. Out of these measurements, we have a measurement that represents the average, Stanley Cup winning team. (We provide the statistics measured at the end of this article and, more importantly, HOW they were measured for transparency. Keep in mind here that overall, as the Baseline progresses through the season and a player plays more games, his stats are worth less. Think 12 goals divided by 10 games = 1.2 goals per game versus 12 divided by 20 = 0.6 here. IN other words, current measurements will drop unless a player does not participate in any more games during the regular season.)

The Baseline

The average, Post-Lockout Stanley Cup winning team produced the Baseline rankings below.

Forwards As A Whole

Numbers for all forwards who played five or more games for their Stanley Cup contender during the regular season are:

An average of 16.33 total forwards played

3 x “6’s”

4 x “5’s”

5 x “4’s”

4 x “3’s”

An average Hi Baseline of 7.627 (H. Zetterberg of DET in ‘07-‘08 was the highest with 8.187)

An Average Baseline of 5.014

An average Lo Baseline of 2.822 (T. Brent of ANA in ‘06-‘07 was the lowest with 2.393)

Left Wingers

For all Left Wings who played five or more games for their Stanley Cup contender during the regular season:

An average of 4.83 total Left Wingers played

1 x “6”

2 x “5’s”

2 x “4’s”

An average Hi Baseline of 7.331 (H. Zetterberg of DET in ‘07-‘08 was the highest with 8.187)

An Average Baseline of 5.424

An average Lo Baseline of 3.489 (D. Paille of BOS in ‘10-‘11 was the lowest with 3.472)

Centermen

For all Centers who played five or more games for their Stanley Cup contender during the regular season:

An average of 5.83 total Centers played

1 x “6”

1 x “5”

1 – to – 2 x “4’s”

2 x “3’s”

An average Hi Baseline of 6.690 (E. Malkin of PIT in ‘08-‘09 was the highest with 8.136)

An Average Baseline of 4.927

An average Lo Baseline of 3.453 (T. Brent of ANA in ‘06-‘07 was the lowest with 2.393)

Right Wingers

For all Right Wings who played five or more games for their Stanley Cup contender during the regular season:

An average of 5.67 total Right Wingers played

1 x “6”

1 x “5”

Either 2 x “4’s” and 1 x “3” or 1 x “4” and 2 x “3’s”

An average Hi Baseline of 6.363 (M. Hossa of CHI in ‘09-‘10 was the highest with 6.696)

An Average Baseline of 4.823

An average Lo Baseline of 3.188 (K. Aucoin of CAR in ‘05-‘06 was the lowest with 2.415)

Rick Nash, the subject of a lot of trade rumors at the moment, has a Baseline following his 19 February game against NYR of 6.928. While that is currently higher than Hossa of the ’09-’10 Blackhawks, the Baseline will likely go down some before season’s end. Still, he is an interesting subject of Part II of this blog.

Defensemen

For all Defensemen who played five or more games for their Stanley Cup contender during the regular season:

An average of 8.5 total Defensemen played

2 x “7’s”

2 x “6’s”

1 x “5”

2 x “4’s”

1 – to – 2 x “3’s”

An average Hi Baseline of 8.062 (There are several top Defensemen with a Baseline of “8” but Z. Chara of BOS in ‘10-‘11 was the highest with 9.078)

An Average Baseline of 5.595

An average Lo Baseline of 3.369 (A. Hutchinson of CAR in ‘05-‘06 was the lowest with 2.524)

Goalies

For all Goalies who played 10 or more games for their Stanley Cup contender during the regular season:

An average of 2.167 total Goalies

2 x “4’s”

An average Hi Baseline of 4.921 (T. Thomas of BOS in ‘10-‘11 was the highest with 5.53)

An Average Baseline of 4.522

An average Lo Baseline of 4.171 (D. Sabourin of PIT in ‘08-‘09 was the lowest with 3.672)

As you might have expected, the gap between top and ‘lesser’ goalies is small, indeed.

And Armed With A Baseline…

There are at least two ways to use the Baseline in analyzing your favorite team. In terms of the Trade Deadline and making a move, we will explore that in Part II. But here we analyze the top team in both the Eastern and Western Conferences and compare their current team stats to the Baseline as a potential predictor of Stanley Cup success with an eye turned toward what might still be needed to get there.

The New York Rangers

Currently leading the Eastern Conference standings and the number two finisher on the 19 February On Goal Analysis’ Playoff Point Predictor, how do they stack up against the Baseline?

As The AverageTeam: The Rangers have a solid 6.22 overall team Baseline which is more than one full Baseline point above BOS in ‘10-’11. Remember here that the Baseline model numbers will drop as per game statistics shrink when more games are played.

Forwards As A Whole: NYR is playing with a total of 13 forwards who have been on the ice for more than five games this season. That is 3.33 forwards less than the Baseline Cup winner.

They sport 1 x “10” forward (Callahan), 3 x “7’s”, 2 x “6’s”, 2 x “5’s” and 5 x “4’s”. This gives them four forwards at or above a “7” (versus the Baseline 1.2 x “7’s”) and nobody below a “4”. If there is an overall criticism, it is the cobbled together Right Wing section with only two true righties and others filling in. (Can you hear Slats murmuring in his sleep, “…Trade… must trade… need Nash….”?)

Left Wingers: The Rangers are playing four Left Wings regularly this season, about one less than the average. Their four players are 1 x “6”, 1 x “5” and 2 x “4’s.” Prust is their leader here, and while he is two full Baseline points behind Zetterberg, he still falls within the average. Fedotenko is the tail gunner here, but still out paces Paille’s low.

Centermen: NYR has seven Centermen at Baselines of 2 x “7’s”, 1 x “6”, 1 x “5” and 3 x “4’s.” This is a cumulative “37” Baseline, which makes for both more Centermen than the average (to play Right Wing!) and no low-end Baseliners. Dubinsky and Boyle are very close and above average when compared to the Baseline numbers which makes for two very strong pivots on the Blueshirts’ squad.

Right Wingers: As alluded to earlier, NYR sports only two, true Right Wingers once you sort them on nhl.com’s stats page. This is below the average Baseline by 3.67, and you know players are playing at that position on game nights vice their listed position. That said, Callahan (at 10.241) and Gaborik (7.159) are likely the envy of many teams at this position. It’s the “5”, “4” and “3” grinders that are missing from this breakdown, not necessarily a Rick Nash.

Defensemen: The Rangers have an above-Baseline average of 10 Defensemen on the roster who have hit the ice for the team. These players fall in as 1 x “8”, 2 x “7’s”, 1 x “6”, 2 x “5’s”, 3 x “4’s” and Woywitka as the lone “3.” That puts them one ahead on the top end of the Baseline, even in the middle of the pack and above average at the bottom.

Goalies: With the Baseline set at 2 x “4’s” in net, Lundqvist and Biron more than meet the mail as a “6” and a “5” respectively.

Summary: So as a whole, the NYR team has a combined Baseline that is better than the previous record set by Stanley Cup teams. The Rangers are also individually above the Baseline in 10 rankings and below it in six for a cumulative +4 against the average. If they were going shopping, they would need one “5” at Left Wing and two-to-three more middle-to-lower ranking Right Wings to ensure they can fill out the roster for the stretch run. The Left Wing in this case could be a dump of a Center and their cap hit for a more reasonable, middle-ranking Leftie similar to Hagelin already on the roster. That could just as easily come as a call up from The Whale. The same could be said for the Right Wing position where a Rick Nash is just not needed unless injuries hit the top (only) two. Slats in this case, could stand pat and do selected call ups from Connecticut to fill in with missing role players and likely be just fine going into the Playoffs.

The Detroit Red Wings

Here they are, the harbinger of At-The-Joe losses. One of only two teams who has been in the playoffs every year since the Lockout and too many more times before that in a row for non-Red Wing fans to want to count. As the leading Western Conference team and potential Playoff Point Predictor winner, how do they stack up against the Baseline after games played on 19 February?

The Average Team: As a whole, their 5.427 team Baseline stands above the ‘10-’11 Bruins just like NYR, due in large part because they still have 22 games to play. (Remember here the comparison is a ‘snapshot in time’ where it is more important to measure NYR versus and DET and their comparison to the ‘10-’11 Bruins is just for reference to where they are going by season’s end.)

Forwards As A Whole: DET is playing 12 total forwards who stack up as 4 x “6’s”, 2 x “5’s”, 3 x “4’s”, 2 x “3’s” and 1 x “2.” This is still below the average Baseline by 4.33 bodies, an indicator as with the Rangers that team losses for injury have been relatively manageable. They have one more “6” than the norm, but they are short 2 x “5’s”, 3 x “4’s” and 1 x “3.” It is worth noting this year’s Zetterberg is off the record Baseline from ’07-’08 by two full points, and they are missing some of the lower-end, fourth-liners that gave them character on that Stanley Cup run.

Left Wingers: The Red Wings are right about on track at the Left Wing position with one each “6”, “5”, “4” and “3.” Their only shortage is 1 x “5” player from the average. In Winged Wheel terms, that is an Abdelkader, so a call up from the Griffins is a potential fix here.

Centermen: Here we have an issue. They have five against the average 5.83 Centermen of the Baseline. Their stable holds 1 x “6”, 2 x “4’s”, 1 x “3” and 1 x “2”. The extra “4” compensates for the “3” missing from the Baseline, but they need the absentee “5” to compliment or fill in for a Datsyuk as required. Using the Baseline as a GM’s cheater card, here is where something might need to happen as the Grand Rapids Griffins’ lead scoring Centerman is 32-year-old Jamie Johnson.

Right Wingers: Three Right Wingers have played more than 10 games for DET all season. They come in as 2 x “6’s” and 1 x “5.” The average number of Right Wings on the Baseline is 5.67, so the team could theoretically use three more, middle-ranking troops at this position. The thing to remember before jumping on the Nashwagon here, however, is the Red Wings’ Franzen is not called ‘The Mule’ for nothin’, as he has the highest playoff Baseline number of any player since the Lockout. They also tend to roll Franzen, Cleary and Bertuzzi ad infinitum, so may not be looking for anything to help out in this area.

Defensemen: DET’s D-men are led by Kronwall (yes, NOT Lidstrom based on the entire stats pack) as their lone “7” and continue with 3 x “6’s”, 2 x “5’s” and 1 x “4.” In anybody’s book, 1 x “7” and 3 x “6’s” are just about as good as two of each. The “5’s” and “4’s” are a wash as well, with the only measurable shortage being at the low end as defined by as many as 2 x “3’s.” Are the low end guys needed? Not really as call ups from the Griffins could fill in there if needed.

Goalies:

Howard, Conklin and MacDonald give the ‘Wings 2 x “6’s” and a “5” in goal. With Conklin going down (if he is not picked up on waivers) to Grand Rapids to get playing time, this stands as a hair better than NYR’s duo. This means a meeting of these two teams would come down to defense before the puck gets to the net.

Summary: Like NYR, DET has a combined Baseline currently superior to the previous, BOS record. Theirs is just not as high a Baseline as the Blueshirts. How do they compete with the Rangers? Raise their level of play when they meet up on Wednesday, 21 March (must see TV!). Just like you are used to seeing them do. The Red Wings are currently above the Baseline with five rankings and below it with 11 for a cumulative –6. Assuming call ups from the AHL would be made as necessary, DET could still use one or two middling forwards, similar to a Bertuzzi or a Filppula to reach the Baseline. Defense could use a Kindl-type player which anybody would reasonably assume is ‘down on the farm.’ And their goaltending is absolutely fine. So no Nash is needed in the Motor City either when the Baseline whispers to us who can win the Stanley Cup.

The Part I Wrap Up

Having produced a statistical Baseline ranking for players and their teams who have raised the Stanley Cup, we believe we know the potential components for a winner.  We demonstrated this in analysis of the top two teams in the Conferences and, with all other things being equal, it looks like NYR has the stronger horses than DET and could topple the Red Wings in a series.

We also alluded to Rick Nash. What is interesting is both analyzed teams have had the flair for dealing at The Deadline, with New York displaying a greater likelihood to do so. The Wings could fit him in under the Cap this year and on into the future, but the Rangers would have him as a rental this year and have to offload talent in the off season to keep him. Handicappers would say DET is better suited to take him, but still not as likely. As a bottom line, however, neither of these two, top teams could really profit by his addition to their squad and may pay more to get him than he would bring in.

Who else is in the Nashstakes and could actually use his services to fill a true need versus a gambling want? That is the subject of Part II coming up soon…

Afternotes: The Stats, And Nothing But The Stats, Mam

Here are what and how we measured them. Statistics were drawn from nhl.com’s statistical page using both the ‘Summary’ and ‘Real Time Stats’ pages for each team’s Forwards, and the standard Goalie summary page.

Forwards and Defensemen

Games Played % (The percentage of the total games a player played in.)

Goals

Assists

+ / –  (While many people do not like this statistical category, it is in the stats pack. It’s impact is not as large in our Baseline as you might imagine, however. For example, using Erik Cole’s +19 in ’05-’06, a + / –  of 0 drops his Baseline from 8.17 to 7.853. This is because we are measuring a per game contribution.)

Penalty Minutes (PIMs)

Power Play (PP) Points

Shorthanded (SH) Points

Game Winning (GW) Points

Overtime (OT) Points

Shots on Goal

Enhanced Shots (EShots) (The Shooting Percentage multiplied by .01 to ensure our skaters’ numbers were not grossly skewed.)

Time On The Ice (TOI) Percentage (Measured against both the total clock minutes in a game and the player with the average, largest percentage of minutes played per game – we needed a compatible number we could add to the total column here and ‘25:07’ does not compute well.)

Shifts Per Game

FOs (The Faceoff Percentage multiplied by .01 just as with “Shots” above.)

Hits

Blocked Shots

Total (All categories listed above divided by the total number of Games Played to give us an average, per-game Baseline score for forwards and defensemen.)

Goalies

Winning Percentage (The number of wins divided by total number of games played – goalies have several large numbers in stats categories that need to be lowered to produce a more manageable Baseline number.)

Shots Against Percentage (A bit complicated, but total shots against, divided by both the number of games played and then the number ‘10’ for a more manageable Baseline number.)

Goals Against Average (GAA) Percentage (Because goalies should get more credit for a lower GAA than simple addition provides, this is the GAA divided by the number of games played and multiplied by “-1” so the overall number is subtracted from total goalie stats. A lower GAA subtracts less from the total and therefor rewards a goalie for letting in less rubber.)

Save Percentage

Shutouts (This is the number of Shutouts divided by the number of games played for a per game Shutout average.)

TOI (As a percentage of the total TOI for all team goalies.)

Games Played (Note here if a goalie played less than 10 games in the regular season or 12.2% of the year, their stats do not figure into team averages. Likewise, if they played less than 12.2% of the team’s total playoff games, those stats were not averaged in. This is to keep wildly skewed goalie stats from entering the total equation.)

• Send Nash to the New York Rangers for Brandon Dubinsky, Wojtek Wolski, a prospect (preferably D-man Tim Erixon) and the Rangers’ 2012 1st round pick.
• Trade The Jeff Carter Experiment, along with goalie Curtis Sanford and the Blue Jackets’ 2012 2nd round pick, to Vancouver for Ryan Kesler and Cory Schneider.  Columbus needs to build from the crease out, and sadly, Steve Mason isn’t the answer.  Schneider is ready to be a starter in the NHL.
• Deal Sammy Pahlsson for whatever you can get (a draft pick or two).
• Ditto for Antoine Vermette.
• If you can’t find any takers for Steve Mason, waive him.  Still no takers for his $2.9mil cap hit?  He spends next season in Springfield, where he will (hopefully) find his mojo.
• In the offseason, let the following Free Agents walk:  Kristian Huselius, Radek Martinek, Brett Lebda, Aaron Johnson.
• Last, but certainly not least, hire the best head coach available.  Randy Carlyle comes to mind.

In addition to making the aforementioned changes, prepare to play the kids next season, letting them grow into their roles.  Give Derek Dorsett the “C” – he’s earned it.  If Scott Howson can pull off the above moves, the 2012-2013 Columbus Blue Jackets should look something like this:

R.J. Umberger – Ryan Kesler – Ryan Johansen

Brandon Dubinsky – Derick Brassard – Cam Atkinson

Wojtek Wolski – Vinny Prospal – Derek Dorsett

Mark Letestu- Derek MacKenzie- Jared Boll

John Moore – Fedor Tyutin

James Wisniewski – Marc Methot

Nikita Nikitin – Tim Erixon

Cory Schneider

Mark Dekanich

If – and that’s a HUGE “if” – Scott Howson can ice a lineup somewhere in the neighborhood of that (with Nail Yakupov growing his game for another year in the CHL), the future of the Blue Jackets could be bright, indeed.

]]> http://ongoalanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/if-i-were-scott-howson/feed/ 9 ogasbigtex http://ongoalanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/enhancing-scoring-battle-space/ http://ongoalanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/enhancing-scoring-battle-space/#comments Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:08:15 +0000 The Colonel http://ongoalanalysis.wordpress.com/?p=307 Continue reading »]]> “…At the most fundamental level, battle space is the three-dimensional area in which the (team) can (maneuver against an opponent) and influence them with effective (shots on goal)….”

Using the above definition from U.S. Army Field Manual 17-15, Tank Platoon in a modified, hockey definition, you can ‘see’ hockey as players, coaches and management do in terms of movement through the 200 foot kinetic surface in order to position your team for successful shots on goal. When the now-annual NHL Research and Development Camp comes this summer, here at On Goal Analysis we would like to make a recommendation to adjust the neutral zone and red line in order to enhance maneuver area in the hockey battle space and potentially increase goal scoring.

Background Information

The Sam Gagne eight point night last Friday had us watching the DET @ EDM game Saturday night in particular. We were curious to see if the Gretzky-Messier-Coffey era had returned. And in one particular respect, it had. EDM won 5 – 4 in a SO. Of their four regulation goals, three came from a set-up pass that originated behind the red line, just like when Wayne used to set up shop behind the net. That got us thinking…

You have got to love NHL GameCenter Live. Especially the day after games have been played to look back at highlights. We do, and in this case, we studied all of the goals scored this past weekend, 4 – 5 February. Here are some interesting stats:

16 Total games played / 1.3% of the entire regular season.

91 Total goals scored / 5.69 goals per game.

49 of 91 Goals / 53.85% of all goals were scored in The Box (an area between the top of faceoff dots and inward to the net).

19 of 91 Goals scored / 20.88% of all goal scoring plays originated on a feed or shot from a player behind the red line.

There were also 106 Total Power Plays / 6.625 PP per game of varying length.

What’s It All Mean?

We have a theory. If there was more room behind the goal, hockey battle space – in terms of the area used to set up scoring plays – is increased and therefore may lead to more goals scored. Certainly more area in which to work could easily add the one-to-two seconds to better aim feeds onto The Box where most scoring comes from. Especially on the Power Play when the attacker has 20% more battle space within which to attack the net with the penalized opponent off of the ice. We cannot test this theory, however, without the NHL’s Research and Development Camp doing the work.

Many do not like proposals that offer the notion we should increase the size of the ice surface to compensate for the increased size of players since the rule book was written. They simultaneously argue they do not like the NHL playing on the Olympic-sized arena and it doesn’t make the best business sense because seats would have to be taken out of the buildings to make that happen.

Keeping the rink within the 200′ size, we instead offer the recommendation to shorten the neutral zone five feet on both sides of the red line and bring the faceoff circles, net and red line five feet closer to center on both sides of the rink. This shrinks the distance from goal-to-goal a total of 5% while adding a relative increase of  more than 30% of the space behind each net from which to make plays like The Great One used to and EDM is still doing today into The Box.

Second And Third Orders Of Effect

There are potential positives and negatives that immediately come up when contemplating this. Here are some from us:

Positives:

P1. Potential for more goals scored due to less distance/time from goal to goal.

P2. More regular use of the behind-the-net/red line attack angle increases the goalie’s burden to follow the puck and may increase scoring without adjusting pad size downward, increasing net size, and other such alterations.

P3. Due to increased distance to cover, there is a potential for less goalie movement to stop pucks behind their net, thus keeping the puck more in play by skaters.

P4. Due to the relative increase in space, will there be more stickhandling versus rimming the puck around the boards once the blue line is crossed? In our view: stickhandling is an active measure that presses the attack; individual positioning/repositioning is a passive measure that can support both defense and the attack; and dumping the puck is a neutral measure which can often times work against an attacking team’s efforts. Actively creating room to stickhandle in order to set up scoring chances is a winner. Napolean had it right: “…L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace….”

Negatives:

N1. Due to a 20% decrease in neutral zone size, might there be more trapping going on? Is trapping easier in the smaller space? These questions need to be answered by executing the game with the adjusted neutral zone size.

N2. Those who hate change will complain.

Summary

We humbly suggest for the next Research and Development Camp that the NHL look to decrease the neutral zone five feet on both sides of the red line, move the goals and faceoff dots five feet closer to the center red line, and add the additional five feet of ice surface behind both red lines in order to determine how these adjustments would influence an increase in goal scoring.

How would you play the extra five feet?

The hypothesis would seem to point to an answer that teams play better after the break based on the extra rest all but a few of the players received during the break period. With that as our going-in theory, we measured post-Lockout performance of teams in terms of average points per game (PPG) for both the two weeks before and the two weeks after the four ASGBs played prior to this season’s. Measuring overall, by conference, playoff teams and Stanley Cup finalists, below is what we found, led by the numbers.

The NHL As A Whole

There have been five ASGBs since the Lockout. Since we do not have the data for the two weeks after the break for this year, we analyzed teams for the 2007. 2008, 2009 and 2011 seasons. (There was no All Star game in 2006 or 2010 as the Olympics replaced that game.)

The Average PPG for the two weeks prior to the ASGB is 1.099.

The Average PPG for the two weeks after the ASGB is 1.098.

The Average Difference is, you guessed it, -0.001, a relative wash.

And the trend is for 57 teams to improve, 57 teams to take a step backwards and 6 teams had no change between the before and after periods. You might stop here and say the ASGB has no effect upon teams, then.

Conference Analyses

There is a variance between before and after the ASGB, difference between before and after and trends between the two conferences.

Back East, here are the four figures:

PPG Average Before the ASGB 1.094

PPG Average After the ASGB 1.070

PPG Average Difference -0.024

PPG Trend is 23 improve, 33 decline, and 4 remaining unchanged. There are also four Eastern Conference teams (BUF, NYI, PIT and TOR) with a positive PPG trend following the ASGB with one, TOR, who has had a positive trend all four times. MTL and TBL, both of whom need to pick up their game measurably, have declined in PPG after the ASGB all four seasons of this study.

So as a whole, the Eastern Conference is below the NHL average all the way around and tends to win less following the ASGB.

Figures out West are:

PPG Average Before the ASGB 1.111

PPG Average After the ASGB 1.146

PPG Average Difference 0.035

The PPG Trend is 34 improve, 24 decline, and 2 remained unchanged.

For this analysis, the Western Conference out-performs the NHL average and tends to win more after the ASGB than before it when compared to Eastern Conference averages. There are nine Western Conference teams (ANA, CHI, DAL, LAK, MIN, NSH, PHX, STL and VAN) holding a positive PPG trend following the ASGB with ANA and MIN earning the perfect positive trend for all four, previous ASGB seasons. Only CGY has declined in PPG after the ASGB all four seasons out West.

Playoff Teams

We would be remiss if we did not put some analytical thought to the averages for teams that do and do not make the playoffs in ASGB seasons. So here we go:

The Hi PPG Average before the ASGB is 1.750

The Lo PPG Average before the ASGB is 0.167

The Average PPG before the ASGB is 1.206

The Hi PPG average after the ASGB is 2.0

The Lo PPG average after the ASGB is 0.0

The Average PPG after the ASGB is 1.207

The Average PPG difference is 0.001, or relatively unchanged between the two periods. This gives credence to the theory Playoff teams are relatively consistent winners throughout the season.

But what about the two Stanley Cup Finalists each year?

The Hi PPG average before the ASGB is 1.714

The Lo PPG average before the ASGB is 0.857

Average PPG before the ASGB is 1.178

The Hi PPG average after the ASGB is 1.286

The Lo PPG average after the ASGB is 1.167

Average PPG after the ASGB is 1.242

Average PPG difference is 0.064. The conclusion drawn here between mere Playoff makers and finalists is a rather simple one: Stanley Cup Finalist teams tend to out-perform the average going-to-the-Playoffs team in the two weeks following the ASGB. It may not be a ‘Moneyball’ moment, but can stand as an indicator as we travel two more weeks down the road.

Conclusions

The overall NHL Average PPG does not provide an indicator as to whether or not the NHL as a whole plays better after the ASGB than before it.

The Western Conference is the stronger conference in terms of PPG both before and after the ASGB, but more so after the five-day halt. More teams in the Western Conference should increase their PPG over the next two weeks.

And finally, Playoff teams may have a maximum (2.000) or minimum (0.000) PPG in the next two weeks, but none of those teams are likely one of the two Stanley Cup Finalists. You are instead looking for teams that win between 1-in-2 and 3-in-4 games in the next 14 days as your indicator.

Below find flying mile distances from team arena to team arena. The web page reference is Sport Map World (http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/ice-hockey/north-america/nhl/) which will also give you distance in kilometers and driving distance on the map.

Our graphics below are air miles between arenas. Here are some notes:

1. Teams are organized in the Conference organization under the December Realignment plan.

2. Under each vertical column, teams listed in green are the closest and red are the farthest away.

3. Teams in italics are within driving distance. (This is ANA-LAK and NJD-NYI-NYR.)

4. Totals distances in each conference are at the bottom of vertical columns in gray.

5. Blocks in green with white lettering indicate the shortest distance between two arenas. Blocks in red with white lettering indicate the longest distance between two arenas.

6. The ‘Adj’ line is a line adjusted for 100 miles in and around of driving to and from airports, hotels and facilities.

Did you hear that NHL and NHLPA? Hockey is not the NFL and NBA.

That said this blog serves to debunk some of the excuse for the NHLPA not consenting to Realignment. First will be the words, some data in explanations and a win-loss call on points stated.

The NHLPA Statement In Part

“…In order to evaluate the effect on travel of the proposed new structure, we requested a draft or sample 2012-13 schedule, showing travel per team.  We were advised it was not possible for the League to do that. We also suggested reaching an agreement on scheduling conditions to somewhat alleviate Player travel concerns… but the League did not want to enter into such a dialogue.  The travel estimation data we received from the League indicates that many of the current Pacific and Central teams… could see their travel become even more difficult….”

Going point-by-point makes this argument interesting.

1. A requested, draft schedule was not provided by the League to the NHLPA. We laymen out here do not know if the League can gin up a draft schedule between the announcement of Realignment on 5 December and the 6 January deadline for NHLPA ratification of the process. But since we are talking just a draft, you can see two of them that were done in a matter of days, not weeks, on the OGA Blog “The 2012-13 NHL Realignment Schedule…” by one of our contributors. NHLPA 1-0, the League 0-1.

2. Discussions on an agreement on scheduling conditions were not entered into by the League with the NHLPA. Why not? I would assume since the two organizations are partners, once the Board of Governors had agreed by a huge margin to the change and media accounts indicate huge support from the NHL’s Center of Gravity, that, while somewhat behind the popularity 8 Ball, the next step would have to be discussion with between the League and NHLPA. Did they refuse to discuss it, or was it simply not discussed to the satisfaction of the NHLPA? We fans out here do not know, so let’s call this one a pre-Lockout tie. NHLPA 1-0-1, The League 0-1-1.

3. And increased travel for the old Pacific (Conference A) and Central (Conference B) teams? Yes, Conference A would travel more, to include coast-to-coast hops for VAN, SJS, ANA and LAK. Travel under this system is going to increase for all. But estimates show that Conference B would also have a more strenuous schedule? Actually, if you do the worst-case math where every game away is a one-game road trip, Conference B is the best one to be in if fatigue is measured in straight-line air miles. Here is the worse-case, average, total miles per team in terms of air miles between arenas:

Conference A – 114,541

Conference B – 35,550.1

Conference C – 38,732.9

Conference D – 37,101.5

Here are the total, worse-case scenario numbers:

What? Those numbers are HUGELY disadvantageous to Conference A! Is 3.22 times more travel than Conference B fair at all? If you use the actual estimate for 2011-12 (see On the Forecheck’s work at http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2011/6/23/2240779/nhl-travel-miles-by-team-super-schedule), the worst mileage incurred is 55,591 for Los Angeles. San Jose was worst in 2010-11 with 56,254. So Conference A teams are supposed to suffer twice the travel burden?

No. In actuality, a draft schedule does not come out to be close to the worse-case scenario. Again, you may not agree with the methodology of playing lots of pairs and triples on the road as in the blog mentioned above, but as a draft scenario, it is illustrative. Looking at Conference A teams who have the most road miles to log, the highest total was for Vancouver at 67,162.8 air miles with the schedule as written. That’s a 19.39% increase in travel from the San Jose max in 2011-12. The per-team average for Conference A is 60,007 miles, or about 52.45% of the all-one-game-road-trips worst case scenario. Again, this is days, not weeks of analysis. (Due in part to such great references as Sport Map World at http://www.sportmapworld.com/map/ice-hockey/north-america/nhl/.) Could the League have provided this to the NHLPA? Or maybe an even better question is could or did the NHLPA, do the estimating themselves? Since the League could have, and the NHLPA should have, this is a loss for both sides in my book. NHLPA 1-1-1, the League 0-2-1.

Bill Daly’s Statement In Part

“…We have now spent the better part of four weeks attempting to satisfy the NHLPA’s purported concerns with the Plan with no success. Because we have already been forced to delay, and as a result are already late in beginning the process of preparing next season’s schedule, we have no choice but to abandon our intention to implement the Realignment Plan and modified Playoff Format for next season….”

I also heard The Deputy Commissioner being interviewed on XM Homeice the day after the decision was made. To the question about a request for draft schedules, he said there were several letters that went back and forth between the League and the NHLPA reference scheduling. When the NHLPA said they would even take a draft schedule irrespective of building (arena) availability, Mr. Daly said, ‘…We don’t have that….’

We did indeed passed the League’s deadline for beginning the scheduling process which would allow them to engage in the normal procedure required to produce a schedule all buildings and their tenant teams could live with. While not questioning the Deputy Commissioner’s statement, the operative word here is ‘normal.’ The NHLPA was not asking for a normally-processed, draft schedule and conceded to one that apparently, would simply make their arguments about increased travel miles incurred. To say the League doesn’t have that is to suggest when the Board of Governor’s met in December, they were neither presented with the estimates nor had done the work on their own and were therefore only voting ‘Yes’ on Realignment with their gut.

I don’t buy that. That is not what professionals in business do, or they do not run successful businesses.

Lastly, if the NHLPA wanted air miles estimates as a measure of fatigue, are air miles between arenas a good measure? Yes and no is our answer – you know if you travel long distances by air that fatigue is created by poor travel execution more than the mileage covered. So use the mileage estimate, but take it with a pinch of salt because reality is usually something else.

For not providing the estimates to the NHLPA that they should have had on hand and for the NHLPA not using their own estimates one of our bloggers can determine on his own, this one is a loss for both teams. Score: NHLPA 1-2-1, the League 0-3-1.

Fans? We are 0-1 right now and hopefully will not be 0-2 as CBA negotiations begin because this does not bode well for us.

Summation

I am not an alarmist who believes all is going to hell-in-a-handcart because the Realignment issue was not satisfactorily solved. But on the points raised above, neither side is batting better than .375 in our book. And that puts we fans and our love of the game in jeopardy.

Hockey fans are the Realignment and impending CBA negotiations Center Of Gravity. We will be the media Ping-Pong ball between the NHLPA and the League to solve the Realignment and CBA questions over the next several months as decisions are made and blame between parties is cast. In some respects, it is the character of the game on the ice, how it is run behind the scenes and how we see it from the stands. So we do not mind jumping back and forth over the net.

But only a little. We love the game and do not want it to suffer like the NHL and NBA or the momentum gained since 2005 will be lost.

Come on NHLPA and NHL – show some compete, not hustle, out there.

Rather than debate the reasons why or why not, I thought I would say a thing or two about creating the two examples of the schedule that I posted.

THING 1: It took several hours over a couple of days to come up with a deconflicted schedule as graphically exemplified in our blog “The 2012-13 Realignment Schedule…” That said:

1. It took hours over a couple of days to get the teams correct until we broke down the League into geographic pairs of clubs and then used a simple grid to determine who plays whom when without accidentally double booking anybody.

2. It was then still missing specific blackout dates that arenas would have provided through their tenant hockey teams. Solving that dilemma would have been the next step after breaking things down into the game pairs and triples as published except we took the easy way out for League management. We said deconflicting what specific, three days of the week games would be played were the responsibility of the teams and the League would only weigh in if clubs couldn’t do it of their own accord. This gave a lot of flexibility to teams themselves with an unspoken understanding that given great responsibility, you do the responsible thing. So theoretically, there would be little if any adjudication by the League to settle scheduling issues. In the military, we call this decentralized control and it works well when everyone is a professional and exceptionally well when your life depends upon it.

And THING 2: Having said all of the above, I say throw making the schedule for next year under an approved format to well-trained, cohesive military staffs using the miltiary decision making process to solve the issue. Why? Because after you give them all of the constraints (arena availability; intent on maximum and minimum numbers of games at home, on the road, consecutively played, etc.; teams playing in Europe; and the like), they will use a combination of automated and manual means to solve the problem. They might not come up for air until they have a solution. But a solution they will have, in a timely manner, with at least two-to-three courses of action for the League and NHLPA to choose from.

I do not presume to know all of the constraints under which the NHL scheduling team operates. But I say it matters not. The men and women in black, brown, green and tan could figure it out even a month from now.

We fans should be happy as well considering we now have the ability to see every team in our local barn during the course of the season. The at-least-home-and-away pair against everyone in the League answers our clarion call. Regionally, that will happen more than once, something good for TV viewership and players in general as shorter hops make for more rest and recuperation.

And the organization into two eight team divisions and two seven team divisions allows for future expansion as it becomes reality.

Here at On Goal Analysis, we looked at what the 2012-13 schedule might look like. And as we did, we applied some ideas we have had for a while that seem to fit into this realignment plan very well. We tell you what this means in relatively quick order by discussing schedule notes and providing two graphical courses of action for the entire 2012 season.

Overall Pairs and Triples Notes

Here are quick notes on how our ideal season would play out:

1. Our primary goal is to see Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, Kane, Stamkos and the other stars/favorites whenever they come into our building. So an emphasis needs to be given to rest and recuperation (R&R) time for players. In light of this fact, no team ever plays more than three games in one week (Monday through Sunday) and no more than four consecutive games on the road or at home in a stretch.
2. The secondary goal is to organize play in home-and-away pairs (whenever possible) and three-game mini-series (triples) to both underscore the importance of winning Division (/Conference) games and always provide a playoff-like atmosphere for fans. Think here a ‘Hated Red Wings’ week for Blackhawk fans or a semaine de bataille between Montreal and Boston.
3. Training camp and pre-season are earlier than normal running from 27 AUG to 7 SEP. To aid in player R&R, however, no team can schedule more than five exhibition games.
4. It takes 29 Weeks to play out the regular season from 10 SEP – 31 MAR. That’s right – our regular season is complete at the end of March when there is still snow on the ground in many northern climes. This includes shorter weeks with two-day Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks and a long weekend for the All Star Game.
5. The Playoffs’ four rounds run from 1 APR to 30 MAY as follows:

RND 1 – 1 to 14 APRIL

RND 2 – 16 to 29 APRIL

RND 3 – 1 to 14 MAY

RND 4 – 17 to 30 MAY

Thus, the playoffs end with most American school years. Too early to start the season? Then execute training camp/pre-season 10 – 21 SEP, the regular season 24 SEP – 13 APR and the playoffs from 14 APR – 13 JUN similar to how the season already runs.

We prefer the earlier schedule, going head-to-head against American football. Brazen and bold for the fastest sport without a combustible engine on the face of the earth, will continue to win over more fans.

6. The eight-team Division breakdown:

a. If you are reading this and are not yet sold on the whole idea, one important thing to glean from this blog is how to break down play for the eight-team divisions with the requirement to play some teams six times and others five over the course of the season. Sound confusing? We say it is this simple:

The eight team divisions break down nicely into two groups of four teams, all within one or two time zones (hours) of each other. They also break down further into pairs of regional teams that equal short travel hops out, between and then back home for games. Within the geographical region (‘Geo 1’, ‘Geo 2’, etc.) in which teams are assigned, all opponents are played six times each in two series of triples. Teams in the opposite ‘Geo’ in the division are played in one home-and-away pair and one triple. (The two, seven-team divisions do not have this scheduling issue.)

b. How can we call the schedule now in the two examples below? We haven’t even talked arena availability yet. This is the best part for teams. Except for the fact teams must play HOME (‘v’) or AWAY(‘a’) as scheduled and no more than two games may be played back-to-back on consecutive nights, the actual schedule for the week is thrown to the two teams in question to determine which days of that week they actually play. The League intervenes where teams cannot come to a mutual agreement. (We fully note this may potentially create a lot of Friday/Saturday and/or Saturday/Sunday pairs of games. But if that is what sells tickets, no worries, eh?)

7. To make the schedule work, during the course of the season all teams receive about 1.5 weeks of time with no games played. While it breaks game-playing rhythm, it nonetheless assists in player R&R requirements.

Let’s now turn to a look at the 2012-13 NHL Season in two courses of action (COA’s) for execution.

The 2012-13 NHL Schedule – COA 1

Here is how the regular season plays out in COA 1:

In effect this is a three-part season. Past I consists of intra-‘Conference’ pairs and/or triples taking place from the season opener through Thanksgiving in Week 11 of our preferred, longer season.

Part Two is Weeks 12 – 22 including Christmas and All Star Game weekend.

And the season closes out in Part Three over Weeks 23 – 29 as intra-‘Conference’ pairs and/or triples again.

This comes off the starting blocks emphasizing how important play is within the Division / ‘Conference’ with what are four-point games for all practical purposes.

In the middle part of the season and through the holidays, fans are treated to the home-and-away pairs against every other team in the ‘other Conference.’ This is when the West sees Crosby, Ovechkin and Stamkos and the East sees Kane and Toews (amongst others).

And the season closes with intra-divisional pairs and/or triples, leaving fans with a playoff-like experience even though their team may not be going on to the post-season. And there is also no doubt which teams should go on to the post-season.

What about scheduling issues? How do the Blackhawks handle the annual Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus shutdown next 14 – 25 NOV for example? (It can be) Easy – they work with the Circus to give them 19 and 20 NOV in exchange for games 26 and 27 November in the United Center. They then play their home games versus CGY and EDM on 19 and 20 NOV respectively, at EDM somewhere between 23 and 25 NOV, and then back home versus NYI and NYR between 28 and 30 NOV and at NYI 1 or 2 DEC. While there is a business cost involved there, it is a way to get it done and maintain the NHL’s intent.

The 2012-13 NHL Schedule – COA 2

This COA is our favorite, although standing as only a slight modification of COA 1. This modification breaks the League’s schedule down into four parts. Part One consists of half of the out-of Division /’Conference’ games in Weeks 1 through 6. This allows for teams to get their playing chemistry together before hitting a stretch of ‘four point games’ against divisional foes.

Part Two is through the holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years’) in Weeks 7 – 17. This is a special treat as it wraps up round one of intra-Divisional/’Conference’ pairs/triples in arguably the most important games on the docket.

Part Three is the last half of the out-of-Division/’Conference’ package of games in Weeks 18 through 22. It culminates with All Star Game weekend.

And Part Four closes out the regular season with round two of intra-Divisional/’Conference’ pairs/triples in Weeks 23 through 29. Again, we have weeks of a playoff-like atmosphere in every NHL city.

In this COA, the Blackhawks’ Circus dilemma is now with WPG, MIN and STL, but the process for solving it is the same as in COA 1. Teams need to negotiate with other arena tenants and the NHL needs only make the teams negotiate actual game days within the prescribed week and adjudicate when necessary.

Summary

So here at OGA, we ask the NHL to take the realignment plan one step further in the 2012-13 schedule and give us home-and-away pairs and three-game mini-series in no more than three games per week in order to give us the star players on the ice when they come to our barn and enhance the emotion of series as they play out.

What is your ideal season?