Best Managed Teams of the Last Decade
by The Falconer on Dec 7, 2009 7:00 AM EST
in Analysis
23 comments
Puck Daddy wrote a piece on the "10 Best GMs of the Last Decade" which is pretty good. I've enjoyed his retrospective series on big stories of the 2000s. My biggest complaint about the list is the omission of David Poile who is nothing short of amazing in terms of contending on a budget. Rather than just complain about Puck Daddy's list, I've decided to come up with a list of my own. I will rank all 30 organizations over the last decade (as opposed to individual GMs) to see which ones were the best managed in that time frame. I will use two criteria 1) salary efficiency and 2) post-season success.
Salary Efficiency Rankings
Every GM competes against every other GM to build a team that can accumulate enough points to qualify for the post-season. The very best organizations get the most for their money. Some organizations bludgeoned their way to the post-season by out-spending the rest of the NHL on a 2-to-1 basis pre-lockout. Other organizations were extremely careful with their money and still qualified for the post-season. I prefer to give credit to those organizations that received the biggest return on their payroll investment. So the first ingredient is regular season salary efficiency which is basically Total Points Accumulated 2000-2010 divided by Total Accumulated Payroll 2000-2010. (For the 2009-2010 season I used projected final point standings and projected final salary numbers from www.capgeek.com).
So which teams have gotten the most for their money? (See the chart below.) The Nashville Predators not only lead this list but have a huge margin over the #2 team. David Poile is simply a master at contending on a small budget (doing it again this year after a rough start). The top three organizations in Wins/Payroll are Predators, Wild and Senators. Most of these teams are clubs that had small payrolls over the last decade. At the bottom are the NY Rangers--which should come to no one's surprise to anyone who followed the team pre-lockout.
| Rank | TEAM | WIN:$$$ |
| 1 | NAS | 2.76 |
| 2 | MIN | 2.54 |
| 3 | OTT | 2.51 |
| 4 | BUF | 2.39 |
| 5 | VAN | 2.35 |
| 6 | SJS | 2.34 |
| 7 | NJD | 2.29 |
| 8 | CGY | 2.26 |
| 9 | EDM | 2.22 |
| 10 | PIT | 2.22 |
| 11 | ATL | 2.20 |
| 12 | TBL | 2.17 |
| 13 | PHO | 2.12 |
| 14 | CBJ | 2.11 |
| 15 | CAR | 2.06 |
| 16 | BOS | 2.05 |
| 17 | NYI | 2.01 |
| 18 | MON | 1.98 |
| 19 | WAS | 1.97 |
| 20 | FLA | 1.96 |
| 21 | DET | 1.96 |
| 22 | LAK | 1.93 |
| 23 | COL | 1.92 |
| 24 | CHI | 1.92 |
| 25 | DAL | 1.92 |
| 26 | ANA | 1.91 |
| 27 | PHI | 1.83 |
| 28 | STL | 1.79 |
| 29 | TOR | 1.79 |
| 30 | NYR | 1.54 |
Playoff Success Adjustment
Now salary efficiency is just part of the job of a NHL organization. Once you reach the post-season you want to win as many games as possible and putting together a team that wins in the spring also matters a great deal. How should you account for post-season wins? Clearly a post-season win is worth more than a regular season win, but how much more valuable? There is no perfect answer to this question, so I'm just going to copy what Nate Silver did over at Baseball Prospectus a few years ago and count post-season wins as double a regular season win (4 points instead of 2). It is crude perhaps but seems reasonable to me.
First let's look at which organizations racked up the most post-season wins. Cup Winners dominate the top of the list: Detroit Red Wings, New Jersey Devils. Colorado Avalanche, Anaheim Ducks, and Pittsburgh Penguins. At the bottom we see three teams which had zero post-season wins in the last decade: Atlanta Thrashers, Florida Panthers and Columbus Blue Jackets.
| Rank | TEAM | Playoff Wins |
| 1 | DET | 72 |
| 2 | NJD | 64 |
| 3 | COL | 54 |
| 4 | ANA | 49 |
| 5 | PIT | 46 |
| 6 | SJS | 44 |
| 7 | PHI | 44 |
| 8 | OTT | 43 |
| 9 | CAR | 39 |
| 10 | DAL | 39 |
| 11 | TOR | 32 |
| 12 | BUF | 28 |
| 13 | TBL | 24 |
| 14 | VAN | 23 |
| 15 | CGY | 23 |
| 16 | STL | 23 |
| 17 | EDM | 20 |
| 18 | MON | 17 |
| 19 | BOS | 16 |
| 20 | WAS | 15 |
| 21 | CHI | 14 |
| 22 | NYR | 14 |
| 23 | MIN | 11 |
| 24 | LAK | 10 |
| 25 | NSH | 6 |
| 26 | NYI | 6 |
| 27 | PHO | 2 |
| 28 | ATL | 0 |
| 29 | CBJ | 0 |
| 30 | FLA | 0 |
Now let's see what happens when we include playoffs wins (worth four points, x2 a season win) into our salary efficiency formula. This should provide a bonus to teams with a strong post-season and a penalty for those who were unable to contend on a budget.
The new top 10 includes cup champs Devils, Penguins and Detroit and a few teams that reached the finals (Senators and Flames). But it also includes teams there were extremely well managed in the regular season but came up short in the playoffs like the Predators, Sharks, Sabres, Wild and Canucks. Personally, I think this is a pretty accurate list of well managed organizations over the last decade. It also suggests to me that the Ottawa Senators and the Nashville Predators organizations have probably been under-rated because of their lack of post-season wins.
Who sits at the bottom? Teams that spend a lot of money and fail to win in both the regular season or post-season. In light of the cash expended the Rangers, Leafs, Blackhawks, Leafs, Capitals don't have much to show for it. Then there are the plain old terrible teams like the Blue Jackets and Panthers, Islanders. This part also passes the smell test for me. Some of these teams received a lot of attention because they threw money at problems while more efficient teams flew under the radar. Thrasher fans might wonder why Atlanta doesn't fall into the bottom 10 with 0 playoff wins? The answer is incredibly small payrolls back when Time/Warner/AOL owned the team--the Thrashers actually got some decent "bang-for-the-buck" when they were only spending $18-22 million on payroll before the lockout.
| Rank | TEAM | adj. WIN:$$$ |
| 1 | OTT | 2.99 |
| 2 | NJD | 2.91 |
| 3 | NSH | 2.84 |
| 4 | SJS | 2.79 |
| 5 | PIT | 2.75 |
| 6 | BUF | 2.70 |
| 7 | MIN | 2.68 |
| 8 | VAN | 2.60 |
| 9 | DET | 2.52 |
| 10 | CGY | 2.52 |
| 11 | CAR | 2.49 |
| 12 | TBL | 2.45 |
| 13 | EDM | 2.45 |
| 14 | COL | 2.40 |
| 15 | ANA | 2.38 |
| 16 | DAL | 2.25 |
| 17 | PHI | 2.21 |
| 18 | BOS | 2.20 |
| 19 | ATL | 2.20 |
| 20 | MON | 2.16 |
| 21 | PHO | 2.14 |
| 22 | WAS | 2.12 |
| 23 | CBJ | 2.11 |
| 24 | TOR | 2.07 |
| 25 | NYI | 2.07 |
| 26 | CHI | 2.07 |
| 27 | LAK | 2.03 |
| 28 | STL | 2.00 |
| 29 | FLA | 1.96 |
| 30 | NYR | 1.65 |
Perhaps I should have made playoff wins worth even more. If they are valued at 3 times a regular season win (worth 6 points each) Carolina sneaks into the top 10 and Calgary falls out. The Devils move up into a tie with Ottawa, and the Thrashers slip down into the bottom third of the rankings (21st) while the Leafs climb into the middle third. Not a huge change but a few modest shifts result.
Conclusion
This organizational ranking is far from perfect. I have tried to anchor this evaluation in more objective data analysis rather than simply give my own personal impression.
3 recs |
23 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Overall I like the way you put this together because it’s semi-difficult in some ways. I would say, however, that more weight should be given to play-off success. That is the end-all-be-all measurement for most teams (and fans). Additionally, if teams achieve more post-season success, that should lead to more revenue which then translates into an ability to increase payroll.
In theory I would say the one other factor that should be involved in evaluating a GM (or organization) is profitability of the franchises but since that is data we will never know, it becomes moot.
I hate when GMs get pounded by media types for having pitiful teams when they face significant salary constraints that are beyond their control, particularly when that pounding tends to focus south of the Mason-Dixon line. GMs in the non-traditional markets have multiple constraints to begin with – lack of the populated rabid fan-base of a Montreal or Toronto and the perceptions of free agents who often might prefer a more traditional market to a non-traditional one. Throw in financial constraints on top of that mix and it’s a recipe for potential disaster at least.
Nashville has done a remarkable job given their budget constraints, but my opinion has always been that their inability to afford premier players is what has stonewalled their ability to move beyond the first round of the play-offs. They lack a game-changer on their roster. The Thrashers have been stymied in the other direction. We’ve had multiple variations of more than one game-changer on the roster – Kovy, Heater, Savard, Hossa. Unfortunately, with financial constraints, retaining those types of players AND having the depth needed to make an overall competitive team has been a struggle. Even this year, we are benefiting from the fact that some of our most talented players are also very cheap – either because they are on ELCs like Bogo or Kane or we lucked into being able to have guys like Pevs and Max in at steep discounts.
Me likely.
Regrding points for playoff wins, did you consider a sliding scale? More points as you move up rounds? Perhaps 1.5, 2, 3, and 4? Depeding on your data source, this may be difficult, but let’s face it: a win in the finals is worth more than a win in the first round.
Well done, though.
by timmyf on Dec 7, 2009 8:19 AM EST via mobile reply actions
That should say “me likey.” Stupid iPhone autocorrect…
by timmyf on Dec 7, 2009 8:19 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I did think about consider weight playoff wins by round, but it starts to get pretty messy quickly. It also begins to make the playoffs more important than the regular season. I fundamentally believe that the playoffs are much more unpredictable (i.e. luck) in the post-season than in the regular season. Since I’m trying to measure management skill I don’t want “luck” to loom large in the analysis.
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
Can’t one argue that the playoffs ARE more important that the regular season? With regards to all measurables isn’t the end game post season performance?
I appreciate the “luck” element but we’ve seen franchises (Devils, Wings, Pens, Canes to an extent) continually rise above over a 10 year span. Sure, you’ll have the 8th seed punking the Presidents Trophy winner from time to time but I rather think over a decade this luck element gets smoothed down significantly.
Playoffs
Playoffs probably are more important to fans. But if you are a GM the 82 regular season games generate 90% of your team revenue. Putting a competitive regular season product is a minimum threshold for playoff success—therefore I think it should be weighted more heavily.
Luck matters even for the Red Wings. A key injury, a bad call, a flucky deflection can put ANY team out in a 7 game series. Now if you’re Detroit and you qualify for the post-season 10 times in 10 years, you greatly increase your odds of having some positive luck in that span. Furthermore, if you’re Detroit and you have home ice advantage in round one of the playoffs you further improve your odds of winning one or more cups in that span.
But luck certainly matters in the 2008 SC Finals Pittsburgh was more banged up and lost. In the 2009 SC Finals Detroit was the banged up team and lost in 7 games. I’m not saying it was all about luck—but when two teams that are close in talent play each other, then non-talent factors like blown calls, injuries and random bounces of the puck actually matter more…and I don’t know of any GM who can game plan luck…so I put more weight on the regular season where random noise is gets washed out by the larger sample size.
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
by The Falconer on Dec 7, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m curious what would happen if the formula was Points^2 / Salary. Because if you spend shitloads of money like NYR but still win like, say, the Yankees, you should still be rewarded, right? I’m no statistician, but I wanted to toss out a couple pennies.
Yeah, but you could argue that there’s not a lot of managing talent involved in the Yankees (World Series title or not) since they’re mostly just outbidding everyone else for the top talent. I think the point of this post was to measure efficiency, in which case the Rangers and Leafs are appropriately ranked.
Right, and they still would be if you squared points. But I think it’s a little too weighted towards not spending money. There’s no way we should be that high.
by fatschoonerrat on Dec 7, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
I think the point of this post was to measure efficiency, in which case the Rangers and Leafs are appropriately ranked.
I think the point of this post was to show that the Rangers are awful and unholy in every way, in which case the Rangers are appropriately ranked.
/Islanders fan
More seriously: Nice work, Falconer. I was only mildly surprised to see the Islanders in the middle of the first grouping, given their multiple playoff appearances (with zilch to show for it, of course). Another painful reminder of how Milbury constantly mismanaged his assets to correct his previous mismanagement.
And Washington: Interesting. I tend to forget how much they spent in the Jagr era.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
Falconer,
Excellent post. It gives me much food for thought. I’m now curious to see how these rankings change if only the post-Lockout, salary cap years are considered – in other words: Now that the “playing field” has been made level, which GM’s have truly mastered the art/science of Capology?
On the other hand, I’m afraid my Rangers will still finish last.
I've linked here from Raw Charge, great post
But there are other factors with team management… Ultimately, though, you’ve hit what is needed: success with what you have to work with. Teams can draft well or manage the cap well but if you’re not going anywhere in the post season (or if a healthy roster only has to manage tee-times in April), it’s all moot.
Good job on this.
To strive, to seek, to find, and to forever keep it Raw. Raw Charge.
Drafting.
One thing that isn’t included is the fact that for example Detroit drafts lower than say, Nashville. Nor is it included that inherently rookies will be cheaper than veterans.
I agree that it is not perfect. Trying to throw in an adjustment for draft position would have made it even more messy. But I would point out that Nashville rarely picks in the Top 10 of the Draft where most of the “can’t miss” potential superstars are found. My study also doesn’t adjust for guys like Datsyuk and Zetterberg signing for below market prices to give Detroit a home town discount. Detroit has benefited from an aura of winning that was created in the pre-cap period. To his credit, Ken Holland has leveraged his franchises history, resources into a winner in the post-cap period. Kudos to Holland for winning in both circumstances.
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
Missing too much...
How can you not include the draft in this equation?? Player development is a huge factor in managing your team. I’m going to go with a team that I know best, the Wings. They haven’t had a early pick in the draft in I don’t even remember how long (Kronwall?). They have year after year been able ot find talent later in the draft that has been able to make a impact for them.
The other thing to consider is their ability to keep guys in the AHL for a number of years and bring them up them up as regulars who can contribute for a much lower cost. Look at guys like Ericsson, Helm, Abdelkader and Howard. These guys have spent a ton of time with the Griffins and now they are regulars making peanuts. On many other teams you would have these guys plugged in much sooner and when their entry level contract expires they are making 2 or 3 million dollars.
See reply to post above. If I include the draft, shouldn’t I also include the aura of an Original Six team? After all players will sign for less money to play for an historic franchise. This is a real monetary value that allows a clever GM to get more for his money? Quantifying those advantages is rather problematic.
Anyone who thinks Detroit is going to find a Datsyuk and a Zetterberg in the late rounds on a regular basis is just crazy. Detroit was more than a little lucky with both of those players. If they had any clue they would be this good would they have waited that long to draft them? No, that would have been foolhardy. Even the Red Wings under-estimated their NHL potential. Again, I don’t believe that “good fortune” should be counted as a management attribute.
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
by far
the most comprehensive blog in the SB nation(at least the NHL side). I am in love with this place.
We Can All Agree The Rangers Just Suck
And I’m a fan.
Is it possible to factor out Lundqvist too? They’ll be so much worse.
Great Article.
"Jaromir Jagr.... it's a POWER PLAY GOAL!"
- Sam Rosen
The Wall Street Journal has picked up a bit on this tip….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703442904574594111666810246.html
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
82 | 54 | 15 | 13 | 121 |
|
Atlanta
|
82 | 35 | 34 | 13 | 83 |
|
Carolina
|
82 | 35 | 37 | 10 | 80 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
82 | 34 | 36 | 12 | 80 |
|
Florida
|
82 | 32 | 37 | 13 | 77 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
Thrashers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
Columbus
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
Carolina
|
Sat 09/25 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Nashville
|
Mon 09/27 | 8:00 PM EDT |
|
Nashville
|
Wed 09/29 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Carolina
|
Fri 10/01 | 1:30 PM EDT |
Last 5 Games
|
Pittsburgh
|
Sat 04/10 | W 1 - 0 |
|
@
Washington
|
Fri 04/09 | L 2 - 5 |
|
New Jersey
|
Tue 04/06 | L 0 - 3 |
|
@
Pittsburgh
|
Sat 04/03 | OT - L 3 - 4 |
|
@
Washington
|
Thu 04/01 | L 1 - 2 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
