The Maple Leafs have now played 22 games, over one quarter of their way into the season, have sunk below the .500 mark in terms of success and have a new general manager, the long-time-coming Brian Burke. If I was optimistic (very guardedly) about the team after ten games (with 11 points), I am decidedly less so today, having accumulated only 9 additional points in the past 12 games.
In the next 10 minutes or so, the opening puck will drop for the Leafs on home ice, hosting the Flyers of Philadelphia. In the mean time I will unburden some observations about the past dozen games and conjecture on what the next month or so may bring.
As began in my last two posts, I have been keeping track of the team's success level on special teams. After ten games, the Leafs were averaging one power play goal for every 7:41 for power play time. That rate was slightly better than their level of time killing penalties. When their opponents were on the power play, the Leafs surrendered one goal every 7:57. Scoring power play goals more frequently than they surrendered them helped the Leafs put up 11 points in 10 games.
Over the next 10 games, from their 5-2 victory over the Rangers on November 1, through to their 5-4 overtime loss to the Blackhawks on November 22, the Leafs scored 10 power play goals in 74 minutes and 39 seconds. That's 7:28 between power play goals. Slightly better than their rate over the first ten games. Yet in this span the Leafs only gained eight more points on their seasonal ledger. Why? One key component was their abject failure when attempting to kill penalties. In that 10-game stretch, the Leafs were on the penalty kill for a grand total of 52 minutes and 3 seconds (52:03). They surrendered 12 goals. That works out to one power play goal against for every 4:20 of penalty killing time. That's nearly 42% worse than their success rate while on the power play.
My first assumption was that the loss of defenseman Mike Van Ryn to injury could be attributed. He was very solid for the Leafs in his first fourteen games. Yet digging into the numbers shows that it was the first four games of the stretch in question that hurt the Leafs penalty kill number the most - while Van Ryan was still there.
Game Power Play Goals Power Play Time Penalty Kill Penalty Kill Time
11/1 vs NYR 0 goals 9:43 0 goals allowed 3:43
11/2 @ Car 0 goals 4:00 3 goals allowed 8:41
11/4 vs Car 1 goal scored 5:31 1 goal allowed 2:41
11/6 @ Bos 0 goals 6:38 2 goals allowed 4:05
11/8 vs Mon 3 goals scored 11:20 2 goals allowed 7:50
11/11 @ Cal 1 goal scored 6:47 1 goal allowed 0:48
11/13 @ Edm 3 goals scored 5:31 1 goal allowed 7:36
11/15 @ Van 1 goal scored 12:58 1 goal allowed 7:00
11/17 vs Bos 0 goals 6:48 0 goals allowed 4:15
11/22 vs Chi 1 goal scored 5:23 1 goal allowed 5:24
Van Ryn was hurt during the Boston game. In the four games of this period where Van Ryn had a chance to exert his influence on events, the Leafs surrendered 6 power play goals. In the six subsequent games, they allowed 6. Small samples of course, but it is clear that his absence has not yet demonstrably hurt the Leafs' ability to kill penalties.
It remains to be seen how those rates change over time. Also, for the upcoming ten game stretch (including the two already played out) the Leafs have made a significant change, trading bit players Carlo Colaiacovo and Alex Steen to St. Louis for Lee Stempniak. As of right now, I am confident in proclaiming Stempniak to be the best player of the three involved, with the caveat that both Colaiacovo and Steen have good pedigrees and youth and may eventually pan out as being as good, if not better than Stempniak.
Two days after the trade, the Leafs made a significant move that may not be played out directly on the ice, but will have ever expanding ramifications regarding the lineup of available players. I am of course referring to the new general manager (and president) of the club - Brian Burke. He, too, has an outstanding hockey pedigree, having led the 2007 Anaheim Ducks to the Stanley Cup Championship as well as being notable for having sent his last seven teams to the playoffs (courtesy of www.nhl.com). So how do we judge his affect on the team? What I propose to do is begin tracking player transactions under his watch. I have taken a snapshot of the team that goes into tonight's matchup against the Flyers (he was anointed to his role today and no moves have yet occurred) and will log any changes as they occur over time - at least through the end of this season and as far forward as I can take it.
He is inheriting a team that is exciting, if not very successful. In my terms,Burke will be deemed a success if he keeps the team exciting to watch, yet manages to improve their likelihood of winning. The ride won't be smooth, but the bumps can be thrilling. Let's enjoy the ride.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
A New Way to Measure Special Team Success in Hockey
I wrote about it last season, but was unable to act and track the figures. But the new season is reasonably underway, and the Maple Leafs have already played out their first 10 scheduled regular season games.
And I have been keeping tabs on them.
I should point out straight away that they are playing a much more exciting brand of hockey than was evident at any time last season. I still believe that this isn't a playoff team and that the franchise would be much better off if they don't make the playoffs this year, but I have enjoyed watching them and look forward to the 70 games we have left.
I am writing today about a new way to track a team's success on special teams. How effective are they at killing penalties? How successful are they on the power play? Hockey box score readers are accustomed to seeing a team's power play success measured along the lines of 1/5. Meaning the team in question had 5 power play opportunities and scored one goal. Such was the case yesterday for the Pittsburgh Penguins as they lost in Phoenix to the Coyotes, by a score of 4-1.
The Penguins first went on the man advantage at 8:19 of the 2nd period as Coyote defenceman David Hale was booked for interference. 11 seconds later, Miroslav Satan scored, knotting the game at 1-1.
Still in the 2nd, at the 14:51 mark, another Coyote, Zbynek Michalek was busted on a hooking charge. The coyotes managed to kill off the penalty in its two minute entirety. Phoenix killed off another 2 minute penalty given to their bench (too many men) starting at 4:37 of the third period.
And in an interesting turn of events, the Coyotes were shortly double booked, as Daniel Carcillo was called for boarding at 8:37, and then, 6 seconds later, at 8:43, Kurt Sauer was penalized two minutes for delay of game. By the time both men stepped out of the penalty box, Pittsburgh had failed to score for 1:54 with a two man advantage, in addition to the two 6-second intervals both before and after with a one man advantage.
And that's that. The newspaper says Pittsburgh went 1 for 5 on the power play. I see it a little bit differently. Hockey, unlike baseball, is played to the clock. Based on the clock, the Penguins power play unit managed 1 goal in 8:11. For these purposes, I count the time spent with a two man advantage as two separate power plays - as, if they had scored, only one Coyote would return to the ice and the Penguins would still have more time with a man up.
Now that I have established my idea, I want to move on to what I am measuring for the Leafs. I have measured their success (or lack thereof) both on the power play and while killing penalties. I would think that a good special teams unit would require less time to score power play goals than it would take their collective opposition to break their penalty killers down. I have tracked each of the first ten games and will continue to update this in ten game increments. I want to see if these ratios are stable, and if they do fluctuate, maybe we can pinpoint changes (perhaps different players seeing special teams time) or if this is fairly random.
One other benefit is that this measurement would allow for easier comparisons of special teams success throughout the league. Special teams are now boiled down into a zero-sum game; whenever one team is on the power play, another team is killing a penalty. A power play goal scored at the midway point of a minor penalty (after 1 minute) means the offensive team needed 60 seconds to score a power play goals and the defensive team was able to kill a penalty for one minute without giving up a goal.
After ten games, the Maple Leafs have scored 11 power play goals in 84 minutes and 33 seconds of power play time. That works out to 1 power play goal scored for every 7:41 of power play time.
In that same time frame, the Leafs surrendered 9 goals while on the penalty kill in a total of 71 minutes and 41 seconds. That works out to one power play goal allowed per 7:57 of penalty killing time.
The Maple Leafs special teams currently is clicking at +16 seconds. So they broke even, but at this time, it is unknown how that ranks compared to other teams. Time permitting, I will pick a focus group to compare them with.
And I have been keeping tabs on them.
I should point out straight away that they are playing a much more exciting brand of hockey than was evident at any time last season. I still believe that this isn't a playoff team and that the franchise would be much better off if they don't make the playoffs this year, but I have enjoyed watching them and look forward to the 70 games we have left.
I am writing today about a new way to track a team's success on special teams. How effective are they at killing penalties? How successful are they on the power play? Hockey box score readers are accustomed to seeing a team's power play success measured along the lines of 1/5. Meaning the team in question had 5 power play opportunities and scored one goal. Such was the case yesterday for the Pittsburgh Penguins as they lost in Phoenix to the Coyotes, by a score of 4-1.
The Penguins first went on the man advantage at 8:19 of the 2nd period as Coyote defenceman David Hale was booked for interference. 11 seconds later, Miroslav Satan scored, knotting the game at 1-1.
Still in the 2nd, at the 14:51 mark, another Coyote, Zbynek Michalek was busted on a hooking charge. The coyotes managed to kill off the penalty in its two minute entirety. Phoenix killed off another 2 minute penalty given to their bench (too many men) starting at 4:37 of the third period.
And in an interesting turn of events, the Coyotes were shortly double booked, as Daniel Carcillo was called for boarding at 8:37, and then, 6 seconds later, at 8:43, Kurt Sauer was penalized two minutes for delay of game. By the time both men stepped out of the penalty box, Pittsburgh had failed to score for 1:54 with a two man advantage, in addition to the two 6-second intervals both before and after with a one man advantage.
And that's that. The newspaper says Pittsburgh went 1 for 5 on the power play. I see it a little bit differently. Hockey, unlike baseball, is played to the clock. Based on the clock, the Penguins power play unit managed 1 goal in 8:11. For these purposes, I count the time spent with a two man advantage as two separate power plays - as, if they had scored, only one Coyote would return to the ice and the Penguins would still have more time with a man up.
Now that I have established my idea, I want to move on to what I am measuring for the Leafs. I have measured their success (or lack thereof) both on the power play and while killing penalties. I would think that a good special teams unit would require less time to score power play goals than it would take their collective opposition to break their penalty killers down. I have tracked each of the first ten games and will continue to update this in ten game increments. I want to see if these ratios are stable, and if they do fluctuate, maybe we can pinpoint changes (perhaps different players seeing special teams time) or if this is fairly random.
One other benefit is that this measurement would allow for easier comparisons of special teams success throughout the league. Special teams are now boiled down into a zero-sum game; whenever one team is on the power play, another team is killing a penalty. A power play goal scored at the midway point of a minor penalty (after 1 minute) means the offensive team needed 60 seconds to score a power play goals and the defensive team was able to kill a penalty for one minute without giving up a goal.
After ten games, the Maple Leafs have scored 11 power play goals in 84 minutes and 33 seconds of power play time. That works out to 1 power play goal scored for every 7:41 of power play time.
In that same time frame, the Leafs surrendered 9 goals while on the penalty kill in a total of 71 minutes and 41 seconds. That works out to one power play goal allowed per 7:57 of penalty killing time.
The Maple Leafs special teams currently is clicking at +16 seconds. So they broke even, but at this time, it is unknown how that ranks compared to other teams. Time permitting, I will pick a focus group to compare them with.
Friday, September 26, 2008
A Call to Arms (Starting the Hockey Statistical Revolution)
One of the challenges in creating breakthrough hockey analysis is the outdated state of hockey statistics. Even searching through www.thehockeynews.com or www.nhl.com's stats sections only gives us hockey card stats with little breakdown beyond splits for period, home/away, position, rookie.
A typical boxscore provides you with points info, ice time (maybe including special teams ice time), penalty minutes and shots, faceoffs and that's pretty much it.
A major part of any hockey prospectus project would have to be to come up with the questions that need answering - what we should be looking for to be able to prospect hockey success - what attributes lend themselves well to continued success or invoke flameout potential. We would need to find a way to divide success between the players and the coaches/system and the individual player/linemate.
I think one major element that can be tackled right away is in addressing the true cost of penalty minutes in hockey. In a manner even more blatant and transgressive than RBIs or saves in baseball, penalty minutes are still overly glorified as a measurement of "toughness", or "character" in hockey.
Yet, any watching of a typical hockey game with even a modicum sport-savvy, will point out that there are good penalties and bad (stupid) penalties. There are teams that are efficient in killing penalties and there are teams that are not.
To address the issue, I have been calling for a re-measurement of team success/failure on special teams. Currently, a team would get a grade represented fractionally as a measurement of special teams quality (i.e. the Red Wings were 2/5 on the power play and 4/4 on the penalty kill). The problem with looking at special teams in this manner is it makes each opportunity equal.
Let's simplify this experiment. If each power play opportunity the Wings had in this one game were a maximum of two minutes, that gave them 10 total minutes to score a goal with the man advantage. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume that in their failed opportunities, they played the full 2 minutes a man up.In one of the opportunities where they scored, the goal came 25 seconds into the power play. In the second goal, the goal came 1:45 into the penalty.
Knowing this, we can see that the Wings had 5 power play opportunities, but they were only playing with a man advantage for a total of 8:10, during which they scored 2 goals.
Going back to our 2/5 success rate, we can know say they scored 2 goals in 8:10, or 1 goal for every 4:05 with the man advantage. Over one game, that might not tell us that much, but over the course of a season, we can start to see how well different teams truly are on the power play or on the penalty kill. And we can do all of this without counting new things that aren't already readily available in a game box score.
I have other ideas of things that should be measured to give us a better understanding of player contributions to team success, but, unfortunately, I am unaware of the statistics for these things being currently kept - not that they would impossible to keep, but that extra manpower would be required to log this information - things like pass %, turnover +/- (how many forced, how many committed), shooting % based on shot type, player success over coaching changes and much, much more.
Hockey has the potential to be a much richer game, but we must first enrich our perspective on the minutiae of the game to reach that potential.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Building an Organization
Between a series of articles over on www.hardballtimes.com by Paul Nyman (Beyond Moneyball), the recent amateur drafts of both baseball and hockey, and last week's canning of half of the Blue Jays major league coaching staff, I have been giving alot of thought towards what goes into successful professional sports organization building.
And maybe some of my conclusions help point to reasons as to why our two Toronto franchises in the aforementioned sports have not been very successful during their current, and recent past managerial structures.
Some of my current lines of thought include:
Talent over mechanics. If a guy can hit - let him hit. If he can pitch, then pitch away. Mechanics are individualistic and should not be tampered with unless results are not happening. That seems to have been what was happening with the Jays hitters for most of the season. The whole don't swing at the first pitch axiom - why the hell not? If it's a hittable pitch, be aggressive and try to nail it. The axiom is useful for young players who are getting themselves out, but not helpful for talented hitters. Take away aggression and you take away instinct. Take away instinct, and you are taking away skill. Bad choice.
Organizational coaches should be focused on teaching hitting/throwing skills to kids who have talent but can't get results. The rest of their task is to monitor the top ones to ensure they retain consistency. The more consistent a young player becomes, the better he will retain his skills against more advanced competition.
With pitchers, that should also hold true for the avoidance of injuries. More consistency, more muscle memory, less sudden stresses and strains.
How does this affect JP Ricciardi and the Blue Jays directive heads? As this is the third time he has fired his managers mid-season, he is creating a massive disruption in the consistency and fluidity of the organization. The disruption may have positive effects at the top level (see our last two games) but may hurt the organization in the long run.
That, and his big mouth - the Dunn debacle is not the first time he has shot off his mouth to his own detriment. I have not been in town for his whole reign, but I do remember a number of baseless whines about payroll. The Yanks and The Red Sox win alot because they have great leadership, not because they have great wallets.
And maybe some of my conclusions help point to reasons as to why our two Toronto franchises in the aforementioned sports have not been very successful during their current, and recent past managerial structures.
Some of my current lines of thought include:
Talent over mechanics. If a guy can hit - let him hit. If he can pitch, then pitch away. Mechanics are individualistic and should not be tampered with unless results are not happening. That seems to have been what was happening with the Jays hitters for most of the season. The whole don't swing at the first pitch axiom - why the hell not? If it's a hittable pitch, be aggressive and try to nail it. The axiom is useful for young players who are getting themselves out, but not helpful for talented hitters. Take away aggression and you take away instinct. Take away instinct, and you are taking away skill. Bad choice.
Organizational coaches should be focused on teaching hitting/throwing skills to kids who have talent but can't get results. The rest of their task is to monitor the top ones to ensure they retain consistency. The more consistent a young player becomes, the better he will retain his skills against more advanced competition.
With pitchers, that should also hold true for the avoidance of injuries. More consistency, more muscle memory, less sudden stresses and strains.
How does this affect JP Ricciardi and the Blue Jays directive heads? As this is the third time he has fired his managers mid-season, he is creating a massive disruption in the consistency and fluidity of the organization. The disruption may have positive effects at the top level (see our last two games) but may hurt the organization in the long run.
That, and his big mouth - the Dunn debacle is not the first time he has shot off his mouth to his own detriment. I have not been in town for his whole reign, but I do remember a number of baseless whines about payroll. The Yanks and The Red Sox win alot because they have great leadership, not because they have great wallets.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Neutral Pitcher
I'm a big fan of Shaun Marcum - well, I'm a big fan of most of the Blue Jays pitchers, but this is about Shaun Marcum.
It has seemed to me, and this was backed up by his game tonight against the Rays, that Marcum is quite hit-shy. Opponents have a hard time getting base hits off of him. It's not that he always strikes out the side, but that the ball is not hit hard, or hit right to the fielders.
Looking at the numbers, that is supported. Including tonight, Marcum has pitched 294 Major League innings, allowing only 270 hits. Less than a hit per inning. His opponent's average (not including tonight) is a composite .246. Tonight he came one out away from a one-hit shutout. He ended up with 4 hits allowed in 8,2/3IP.
Amateur scouting tells me that he throws a lot strikes, but the numbers say that his BB/9 rate has only just beat the ML average. His K/9 rate is also just a bit better than ML average.
According to fangraphs.com, his flyball and groundball rates are quite similar, not deviating too much in either direction. In fact, his years favoring one type of hit were always balanced by years going the other way.
Baseball Prospectus says he has good command, his fastball tops out in the high 80's but with great sink and that he has three other average pitchers.
In summary, Shaun Marcum is a neutral pitcher. Does Shaun Marcum have a greater understanding of what it takes to pitch (not throw, pitch)? I think he does. He is the 4th starter for the Jays and possibly the best fourth starter in baseball. Barring injuries, I think he can pitch effectively for a long time. PECOTA, take note - avoiding basehits can be a repeatable skill.
The great challenge for an amateur statistician is in deciphering the details that are not recorded in the stats. Such as Pitching brains, and ability to execute.
It has seemed to me, and this was backed up by his game tonight against the Rays, that Marcum is quite hit-shy. Opponents have a hard time getting base hits off of him. It's not that he always strikes out the side, but that the ball is not hit hard, or hit right to the fielders.
Looking at the numbers, that is supported. Including tonight, Marcum has pitched 294 Major League innings, allowing only 270 hits. Less than a hit per inning. His opponent's average (not including tonight) is a composite .246. Tonight he came one out away from a one-hit shutout. He ended up with 4 hits allowed in 8,2/3IP.
Amateur scouting tells me that he throws a lot strikes, but the numbers say that his BB/9 rate has only just beat the ML average. His K/9 rate is also just a bit better than ML average.
According to fangraphs.com, his flyball and groundball rates are quite similar, not deviating too much in either direction. In fact, his years favoring one type of hit were always balanced by years going the other way.
Baseball Prospectus says he has good command, his fastball tops out in the high 80's but with great sink and that he has three other average pitchers.
In summary, Shaun Marcum is a neutral pitcher. Does Shaun Marcum have a greater understanding of what it takes to pitch (not throw, pitch)? I think he does. He is the 4th starter for the Jays and possibly the best fourth starter in baseball. Barring injuries, I think he can pitch effectively for a long time. PECOTA, take note - avoiding basehits can be a repeatable skill.
The great challenge for an amateur statistician is in deciphering the details that are not recorded in the stats. Such as Pitching brains, and ability to execute.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
How Many Habs Fans in Toronto and Scouting Pitchers
As much as playoff hockey can be truly exciting, I am a baseball fan at heart. With the exception of the half hour between 9:00 and 9:30pm (The Office), I was watching the Jays and Rays this evening.
I'll give the Jays this - they sure know how to run the bases this year. After last year's complete baserunning incompetence, that says something. The Jays also aren't too bad at preventing baserunning - much improved, at the least.
So there I was, on the 20th floor, watching the Jays in the process of dropping another game when a surge of exuberant voices rises up from the streets. The people have spoken. In a single voice. I checked on the First Game of the 2nd Round matchup between the Canadiens and the Flyers. As I suspected, the Habs had just scored. In fact, they had tied the game at 3 with under 30 seconds to go in the 3rd period. Kudos to Kovalev, I say.
Before I go watch the overtime, some comments on some of tonight's pitchers.
Dustin McGowan - I've read that he has no-hit stuff. For the first two innings tonight, I saw it. A Blow-it-by-them fastball and a hard curve gave him five strike outs in two innings. Then he lost his command and his control soon followed. He was lifted after loading the bags in the fifth, without recording an out. As of this writing, he is in line for the loss.
Andy Sonnanstine - the Rays starter on the night. Pitched a 3 hit shutout (the Yanks?) very recently. A young guy I hadn't heard much about until last year when he debuted with numbers that didn't quite say much about his ability, other then a very low walk rate. Watching him, I was baffled. He's lean. He has a drop and drive, mechanics seemed to use a lot of parts, not sure if he can repeat them for too long. Stay tuned.
Jesse Carlson - Absolutely love the slider spitting southpaw. I was sorry to see the Jays have to return Randy Wells to the Cubs, but Carlson has me captivated. Not much heat, but what movement on that pitch. I saw him pitch two extra innings against the Rangers last week and went back and checked his pitching via Pitchfx on mlb.com. I'll have to re-find the numbers to show how he dominated the Rangers (not the best hitting team, but anyway) using practically only the slider.
And as I wrote this, the Habs won in OT to take Game 1. How long are the intermissions between the 3rd and OT in the playoffs? 15 minutes? 17 minutes? Less?
I'll give the Jays this - they sure know how to run the bases this year. After last year's complete baserunning incompetence, that says something. The Jays also aren't too bad at preventing baserunning - much improved, at the least.
So there I was, on the 20th floor, watching the Jays in the process of dropping another game when a surge of exuberant voices rises up from the streets. The people have spoken. In a single voice. I checked on the First Game of the 2nd Round matchup between the Canadiens and the Flyers. As I suspected, the Habs had just scored. In fact, they had tied the game at 3 with under 30 seconds to go in the 3rd period. Kudos to Kovalev, I say.
Before I go watch the overtime, some comments on some of tonight's pitchers.
Dustin McGowan - I've read that he has no-hit stuff. For the first two innings tonight, I saw it. A Blow-it-by-them fastball and a hard curve gave him five strike outs in two innings. Then he lost his command and his control soon followed. He was lifted after loading the bags in the fifth, without recording an out. As of this writing, he is in line for the loss.
Andy Sonnanstine - the Rays starter on the night. Pitched a 3 hit shutout (the Yanks?) very recently. A young guy I hadn't heard much about until last year when he debuted with numbers that didn't quite say much about his ability, other then a very low walk rate. Watching him, I was baffled. He's lean. He has a drop and drive, mechanics seemed to use a lot of parts, not sure if he can repeat them for too long. Stay tuned.
Jesse Carlson - Absolutely love the slider spitting southpaw. I was sorry to see the Jays have to return Randy Wells to the Cubs, but Carlson has me captivated. Not much heat, but what movement on that pitch. I saw him pitch two extra innings against the Rangers last week and went back and checked his pitching via Pitchfx on mlb.com. I'll have to re-find the numbers to show how he dominated the Rangers (not the best hitting team, but anyway) using practically only the slider.
And as I wrote this, the Habs won in OT to take Game 1. How long are the intermissions between the 3rd and OT in the playoffs? 15 minutes? 17 minutes? Less?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Montreal vs. Boston
Looking back, I can see that I did not watch as much hockey this past regular season as I thought I would have, but I was able to follow a few interesting trends that I once discussed on my original blog (www.rwagman.blogspot.com) such as shooting percentage being a good indicator of future performance and the better likelihood of continued health from previously healthy players as opposed to future health of the historically injury-prone.
Watching bits of both the Boston-Montreal Game 7 and the Washington-Philadelphia Game 6 have reminded of what is meant by the intensity of the playoffs. It is easy to forget how in the regular season coaches have to plan for an 82 game season and cannot always go full-out when their eyes are on the big picture. The playoffs have no tomorrow. The big picture is right in front of our eyes. And the hockey has no let-up. Maximum intensity, 60 minutes or more. I am looking forward to tomorrow's Game 7's.
Something else that came to my attention while hovering over the CBC game. One of the announcers made a point of mentioning that last season's playoffs saw only one Game 7 (the whole playoffs!) and 2006's postseason featured three of them. And here we were, watching Game 7 of the Habs and Bruins, knowing that we could watch the Flamers and the Sharks go the distance tomorrow night and furthermore, if the caps could defeat the Flyers in Game 6 tonight, they would go seven as well. (They did and we will).
The I thought about last October`s baseball playoffs. Only one series (Red Sox vs. Indians) went the distance. A bunch of sweeps and one over the minimums. And the wheels slowly began turning. Is there a significant difference in the frequency of Game 7`s in baseball and hockey?
If there does seem to be a significance, does it then also extend to basketball?
Finally, if the numbers show any interest, how can we interpret that?
So I have a project. I will go back 20 seasons in both baseball and hockey and find the frequency of Game 7`s (and sweeps, and one over the minimum`s as well). And I will share what I find and we can discuss what it all means.
If it takes me longer than a few days, I will bridge the gap with a discussion on Frank Thomas, past and future (not much of a present, is there?)
Enjoy the game!
Watching bits of both the Boston-Montreal Game 7 and the Washington-Philadelphia Game 6 have reminded of what is meant by the intensity of the playoffs. It is easy to forget how in the regular season coaches have to plan for an 82 game season and cannot always go full-out when their eyes are on the big picture. The playoffs have no tomorrow. The big picture is right in front of our eyes. And the hockey has no let-up. Maximum intensity, 60 minutes or more. I am looking forward to tomorrow's Game 7's.
Something else that came to my attention while hovering over the CBC game. One of the announcers made a point of mentioning that last season's playoffs saw only one Game 7 (the whole playoffs!) and 2006's postseason featured three of them. And here we were, watching Game 7 of the Habs and Bruins, knowing that we could watch the Flamers and the Sharks go the distance tomorrow night and furthermore, if the caps could defeat the Flyers in Game 6 tonight, they would go seven as well. (They did and we will).
The I thought about last October`s baseball playoffs. Only one series (Red Sox vs. Indians) went the distance. A bunch of sweeps and one over the minimums. And the wheels slowly began turning. Is there a significant difference in the frequency of Game 7`s in baseball and hockey?
If there does seem to be a significance, does it then also extend to basketball?
Finally, if the numbers show any interest, how can we interpret that?
So I have a project. I will go back 20 seasons in both baseball and hockey and find the frequency of Game 7`s (and sweeps, and one over the minimum`s as well). And I will share what I find and we can discuss what it all means.
If it takes me longer than a few days, I will bridge the gap with a discussion on Frank Thomas, past and future (not much of a present, is there?)
Enjoy the game!
Of Sticks and Bats
I love baseball. I also have fostered an avid appreciated of hockey.
I believe that to love something is to strive to know it better.
Here, we learn. We discuss baseball and we discuss hockey.
Soon, we'll really get down to business. Until then, enjoy the game.
I believe that to love something is to strive to know it better.
Here, we learn. We discuss baseball and we discuss hockey.
Soon, we'll really get down to business. Until then, enjoy the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
