Intro:
Many fans, journalists and even NHL General Managers still rely on statistics that have been around when your grandfather watched the NHL. Traditional stats like Goals-Assists-Points (aka "boxcar" stats) pre-date World World Two and more recent additions like Plus/Minus became official stats in the 1960s.
When the NHL began monitoring player ice time in the 1997-1998 season it opened the door to a whole new world of more refined data analysis. It is now possible to move beyond the "box car stats" and break apart the chaotic action on the ice and look for patterns. Every player receives his share of good and bad bounces, but in the long run a great NHL player like Nick Lidstrom will tend to cause more positive outcomes than negative outcomes.
One of the holy grails of analysis in baseball and hockey is understanding and predicting defense at the team and individual player level. If you are a NHL GM bidding for the services of Free Agent or weighing a trade offer it could be quite useful to see if advanced stats can give you some additional insight into the player. That is what I will attempt to do in this post on the UFA NHL Defensemen.
The Data:
This table below portray two basic patterns. 1) PLAYER USAGE: How much ice time did the coach give the player in comparison to other defensemen in the NHL; 2) PLAYER SCORING EFFICIENCY: How effective was that defensemen in terms of scoring points while on the ice in that situation.
All defensemen who played at least half a NHL season (41 GP) receive a percentile ranking. The large numbers indicate that they ranked near the very top of the NHL in that category, low numbers near the very bottom. A blank space means that they either failed to play 41 NHL Games or in the case of special teams, they failed to receive a minimum of half a minute of PP or SH ice time per game.
- EST% = Even Strength Time On Ice Percentile Ranking
- PPT% = Power Play Time On Ice Percentile Ranking
- EST% = Short Handed Time On Ice Percentile Ranking
- TT% = Total Combined Time On Ice Percentile Ranking
- Off/Def = Ratio of Offensive (PP) ice time to defensive (SH) Ice Time
- ESR% = Even Strength Scoring Rate Efficiency Percentile Ranking
- PPR% = Power Play Scoring Rate Efficiency Percentile Ranking
- TTR% = Total Combined Scoring Rate Efficiency Percentile Ranking
How Can I Use These Numbers?
The Off/Def ratio shows you whether coaches have used this defenseman in a primarly offensive or defensive role. The higher the number the more offensive the role and vice versa. If you're shopping for a defensive defenseman you probably want to start with players who have a low Off/Def ratio.
The ice time percentile ranking show precisely how this player has been used in the last two seasons. If you GM goes and signs Dmitri Kalinin (TT% rankings of 25% and 28%) and claims in the news conference that he just signed a "top four" guy--well you and I both know he's either a) ignorant of where Kalinin ranks among all NHL defenseman or b) trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the home fans. Another example, if your team is shopping for help on the PK and they sign a defense who gets very little PK ice time--you should be very afraid.
The scoring rate numbers also let you peer through the fog with a bit more clarity. The will show which defensemen generate comparatively more points at ES and PP. Some defensemen wrack up a ton of PP points simply because they receivd mounds of PP ice time--but in truth they are not all the efficient (Jay Bouwmeester for example). On the other hand there are D who are very efficient on the PP but you might not notice because their coaching staff doesn't give them all that many minutes (Johnny Oduya for example). Here's a very simple test, compare a defenseman's PPT% to his PPR% if the Rate percentile number is bigger, that player may explode with more PP points if given a larger role on the PP unit.
Stats
| Player | Year | EST% | PPT% | SHT% | TT% | Off/Def | ESR% | PPR% | TTR% |
| Pardy | 2009 | 15% | 7% | 8% | 0.96 | 49% | 33% | ||
| Aucoin | 2008 | 36% | 83% | 25% | 61% | 1.16 | 69% | 67% | 85% |
| Aucoin | 2009 | 33% | 87% | 69% | 72% | 1.07 | 83% | 20% | 70% |
| Semenov | 2008 | 1.01 | |||||||
| Semenov | 2009 | 5% | 7% | 4% | 0.95 | 54% | 45% | ||
| Alberts | 2008 | 0.89 | |||||||
| Alberts | 2009 | 9% | 50% | 13% | 0.85 | 43% | 29% | ||
| Bell | 2008 | 1.06 | |||||||
| Bell | 2009 | 27% | 59% | 28% | 1.20 | 15% | 87% | 81% | |
| Hedican | 2008 | 67% | 5% | 30% | 46% | 0.92 | 77% | 12% | 52% |
| Hedican | 2009 | 26% | 10% | 11% | 18% | 0.98 | 4% | 37% | 11% |
| Chelios | 2008 | 8% | 91% | 21% | 0.78 | 71% | 37% | ||
| Chelios | 2009 | 0.87 | |||||||
| Murphy | 2008 | 2% | 80% | 10% | 1.36 | 40% | 68% | 91% | |
| Murphy | 2009 | 1.24 | |||||||
| Tjarnqvist | 2009 | 0.94 | |||||||
| Sydor | 2008 | 23% | 36% | 17% | 28% | 1.05 | 30% | 13% | 34% |
| Sydor | 2009 | 30% | 23% | 30% | 33% | 0.98 | 39% | 13% | 34% |
| Gauthier | 2009 | 4% | 59% | 6% | 0.82 | 3% | 1% | ||
| Seidenberg | 2008 | 29% | 46% | 27% | 41% | 1.04 | 57% | 61% | 69% |
| Seidenberg | 2009 | 66% | 52% | 55% | 73% | 1.01 | 79% | 55% | 71% |
| Morris | 2008 | 63% | 31% | 75% | 72% | 0.94 | 25% | 93% | 54% |
| Morris | 2009 | 57% | 37% | 35% | 57% | 1.01 | 32% | 16% | 43% |
| Kalinin | 2008 | 22% | 29% | 13% | 25% | 1.05 | 21% | 24% | 35% |
| Kalinin | 2009 | 31% | 14% | 25% | 28% | 0.97 | 61% | 21% | 46% |
| Kuba | 2008 | 92% | 69% | 72% | 92% | 1.02 | 73% | 35% | 68% |
| Kuba | 2009 | 49% | 92% | 53% | 83% | 1.11 | 51% | 81% | 85% |
| Bouillon | 2008 | 30% | 55% | 26% | 0.85 | 20% | 10% | ||
| Bouillon | 2009 | 21% | 34% | 18% | 0.89 | 31% | 28% | ||
| Beauchemin | 2008 | 96% | 54% | 93% | 95% | 0.94 | 28% | 23% | 35% |
| Beauchemin | 2009 | 0.89 | |||||||
| De Vries | 2008 | 55% | 56% | 42% | 0.86 | 61% | 38% | ||
| De Vries | 2009 | 8% | 32% | 8% | 0.88 | 4% | 3% | ||
| Zanon | 2008 | 24% | 94% | 36% | 0.78 | 6% | 4% | ||
| Zanon | 2009 | 64% | 94% | 56% | 0.82 | 11% | 7% | ||
| Gill | 2008 | 47% | 97% | 52% | 0.78 | 93% | 58% | ||
| Gill | 2009 | 30% | 77% | 30% | 0.82 | 38% | 21% | ||
| Cullimore | 2008 | 48% | 45% | 31% | 0.87 | 65% | 41% | ||
| Cullimore | 2009 | 32% | 30% | 23% | 0.89 | 20% | 20% | ||
| Bouwmeester | 2008 | 99% | 67% | 93% | 99% | 0.98 | 74% | 50% | 67% |
| Bouwmeester | 2009 | 98% | 87% | 84% | 99% | 1.04 | 67% | 54% | 71% |
| McKee | 2008 | 36% | 61% | 30% | 0.84 | 36% | 22% | ||
| McKee | 2009 | 16% | 80% | 26% | 0.81 | 11% | 8% | ||
| Woywitka | 2008 | 0.97 | |||||||
| Woywitka | 2009 | 42% | 42% | 36% | 1.13 | 26% | 44% | 57% | |
| Oduya | 2008 | 49% | 26% | 18% | 43% | 1.04 | 81% | 56% | 74% |
| Oduya | 2009 | 70% | 11% | 65% | 56% | 0.90 | 81% | 67% | 62% |
| Boychuk | 2008 | 1.13 | |||||||
| Boychuk | 2009 | 1.02 | |||||||
| Leopold | 2008 | 20% | 17% | 3% | 14% | 1.05 | 93% | 28% | 75% |
| Leopold | 2009 | 35% | 35% | 18% | 36% | 1.06 | 75% | 8% | 59% |
| Skrastins | 2008 | 53% | 54% | 37% | 0.86 | 8% | 5% | ||
| Skrastins | 2009 | 72% | 78% | 53% | 0.85 | 54% | 32% | ||
| Klee | 2008 | 78% | 52% | 53% | 0.88 | 18% | 16% | ||
| Klee | 2009 | 11% | 31% | 11% | 0.89 | 43% | 26% | ||
| Huskins | 2008 | 28% | 16% | 15% | 0.95 | 87% | 63% | ||
| Huskins | 2009 | 0.91 | |||||||
| Foster | 2008 | 13% | 48% | 2% | 16% | 1.14 | 60% | 80% | 81% |
| Foster | 2009 | 1.08 | |||||||
| Bergeron | 2008 | 9% | 79% | 26% | 1.28 | 11% | 76% | 80% | |
| Bergeron | 2009 | 10% | 64% | 23% | 1.23 | 73% | 74% | 91% | |
| Malik | 2008 | 62% | 53% | 45% | 0.87 | 77% | 48% | ||
| Malik | 2009 | 39% | 10% | 60% | 40% | 0.89 | 13% | 0% | 6% |
| Skoula | 2008 | 81% | 59% | 56% | 0.88 | 22% | 15% | ||
| Skoula | 2009 | 69% | 58% | 45% | 0.88 | 35% | 26% | ||
| Schneider | 2008 | 69% | 84% | 12% | 75% | 1.18 | 95% | 64% | 94% |
| Schneider | 2009 | 51% | 74% | 10% | 58% | 1.15 | 47% | 71% | 82% |
| Walker | 2008 | 17% | 30% | 14% | 0.88 | 3% | 2% | ||
| Walker | 2009 | 22% | 41% | 20% | 0.87 | 61% | 44% | ||
| Ohlund | 2008 | 84% | 66% | 53% | 87% | 1.04 | 73% | 63% | 77% |
| Ohlund | 2009 | 60% | 44% | 56% | 66% | 0.99 | 45% | 29% | 52% |
| Komisarek | 2008 | 82% | 77% | 64% | 0.85 | 60% | 39% | ||
| Komisarek | 2009 | 68% | 83% | 54% | 0.84 | 16% | 15% | ||
| Oystrick | 2009 | 20% | 3% | 8% | 12% | 0.98 | 66% | 62% | 55% |
| Boynton | 2008 | 28% | 43% | 22% | 0.87 | 41% | 28% | ||
| Boynton | 2009 | 13% | 25% | 19% | 19% | 1.01 | 93% | 15% | 69% |
| Schultz | 2008 | 70% | 78% | 54% | 0.84 | 49% | 30% | ||
| Schultz | 2009 | 71% | 81% | 52% | 0.84 | 7% | 8% | ||
| Tollefsen | 2008 | 1% | 26% | 1% | 0.85 | 10% | 12% | ||
| Tollefsen | 2009 | 0.95 | |||||||
| Vaananen | 2009 | 31% | 71% | 31% | 0.83 | 55% | 40% | ||
| Brisebois | 2008 | 21% | 46% | 20% | 1.15 | 14% | 72% | 62% | |
| Brisebois | 2009 | 7% | 51% | 13% | 1.20 | 69% | 29% | 66% | |
| Mara | 2008 | 21% | 40% | 24% | 30% | 1.04 | 66% | 40% | 64% |
| Mara | 2009 | 23% | 49% | 33% | 38% | 1.04 | 18% | 49% | 56% |
| Boucher | 2008 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Boucher | 2009 | 43% | 38% | 34% | 46% | 1.02 | 22% | 18% | 31% |
| Scuderi | 2008 | 43% | 74% | 39% | 0.83 | 6% | 5% | ||
| Scuderi | 2009 | 36% | 93% | 41% | 0.80 | 60% | 29% | ||
| Niedermayer | 2008 | 64% | 76% | 83% | 88% | 1.02 | 48% | 94% | 84% |
| Niedermayer | 2009 | 94% | 83% | 99% | 98% | 0.97 | 77% | 93% | 92% |
| O'Donnell | 2008 | 16% | 87% | 24% | 0.79 | 8% | 11% | ||
| O'Donnell | 2009 | 53% | 96% | 52% | 0.81 | 20% | 11% | ||
| Zubov | 2008 | 85% | 94% | 65% | 96% | 1.10 | 96% | 81% | 97% |
| Zubov | 2009 | 1.17 | |||||||
| Hnidy | 2008 | 9% | 10% | 6% | 0.93 | 17% | 20% | ||
| Hnidy | 2009 | 16% | 2% | 11% | 11% | 0.96 | 52% | 14% | 36% |
| Eminger | 2008 | 0.98 | |||||||
| Eminger | 2009 | 65% | 32% | 51% | 67% | 0.98 | 44% | 79% | 63% |
| Montador | 2008 | 1% | 22% | 1% | 1.11 | 98% | 69% | 94% | |
| Montador | 2009 | 14% | 13% | 20% | 15% | 0.98 | 90% | 5% | 62% |
| Numminen | 2008 | 0.98 | |||||||
| Numminen | 2009 | 23% | 29% | 16% | 26% | 1.04 | 69% | 52% | 64% |
| Koistinen | 2008 | 12% | 70% | 19% | 1.26 | 40% | 70% | 82% | |
| Koistinen | 2009 | 1.23 |
.
Loading comments...