Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Explaining Jeremy Lin's Early, Surprising Success

Revisiting (my) Pre-Season Targets

Photo

Last summer, I decided that the Kings needed to score 245 goals in order to make the playoffs:

Note to Self: predictions for 09/10
If the Kings manage 245 goals for and 230 goals against, they will make the playoffs. Last year: 207/234. So basically, play the system and add 38 more goals. How hard is that? Wait...how hard is that? In the entire history of the Kings, they have managed to hit both those marks in the same season (at least 245 goals for and no more than 230 goals against) twice. In 1974-75, which was their 105 point season. And in 2000-2001, the year in which they lost in the 2nd round to Colorado in 7 games after beating Detroit. In terms of that big a jump in goal production from one year to the next... They did it the first year after the lockout, but it's hard to know what that means. They did it in '99-00, which was the year they added Palffy and Smoke. They added about 50 goals in '88 somehow.

The Kings ended up with 241 goals-for and 219 goals-against. An improvement of 34 GF and 15 GA. I was targeting a goal differential of +15; they beat that with a +22.

Last summer, I made a little budget, assigning goal totals to each Kings scorer. The purpose, originally, was to show people (there were a lot of nay-sayers) that it was in fact feasible for the Kings to hit 250 with the roster they had. (I rounded up from 245, don't know why). Here's what I said needed to happen:

(First column is goals-scored the previous season. Second column is my target number for that player.)

Picture_16_medium

Now, here are the actual numbers for 2009-2010:

Star-divide

Picture_10_medium

I just learned something. Look, the total for actual goals-scored is 231. But the total on ESPN's site is 241. On a hunch, I counted the shoot-out wins. Sure enough, there were ten. So a shoot-out win counts as a team "goal for" despite counting as a goal for nobody in particular? Weird and stupid.

Here's the same chart, removing the players who weren't on my radar back in July. It gives you (or me, anyway) a better picture of what happened re my expectations of the team as it stood before the season started.

Picture_11_medium

I over-estimated that roster by forty goals. That seems like a lot. How did they make up the difference? Here are the off-the-radar guys:

Picture_15_medium

That makes a certain amount of sense. I expected 23 goals from Moller and Lewis, but they barely played.  The 16 goals from the forwards on the above chart makes up most of that. Now let's look at top-six forwards vs. bottom six. Here's just the top-six forwards:

Picture_12_medium

Bottom six:

Picture_13_medium

Defense:

Picture_14_medium

What does this tell me? Mainly that I over-estimated what the top two lines would do, but that was almost entirely corrected by the bottom six and defense output. And most of the top-six short-fall was Williams (who was hurt, but that's no consolation) and Frolov, who -- I don't know. Something happened there. Don't know what.

I targeted a goal differential of +15. As it turned out, five of the eight playoff teams in the West were +22 or better. Detroit (an anomaly due to injuries) finished +13. Avs, +11. Nashville, even. All the non-playoff teams had negative differentials, except STL, who was +2. Since Colorado, Nashville and Detroit cut it kind of close, maybe my target should have been around +20. Anyway, the Kings beat that.

Now I just have to figure out what to do about this weird shoot-out team goal-for that's credited to nobody. Do they get a goal-against, too? They must. But the goalie doesn't get a goal against. It doesn't affect their GAA or SV%. Yeah, that shoot-out sure is great...

Comment 5 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

So you were 95% right :-)

At least in terms of GF and GA. That’s pretty darn good for any kind of prognostication.

Turns out you were spot-on about Kopitar. Not bad, considering that it was kind of an open question how well he would rebound from last season.

I don’t recall Parse being on anyone’s radar last September as being a likely call-up, much less chip in 11 goals.

This comparison also points out the significance of Richardson’s season, because he was on everyone’s radar to at least be on the roster, but nothing was expected of him.

The thing that really jumps out at me as a result of all this is that one’s master plan in September never survives actual contact with the regular season (to paraphrase the old maxim about war) because things will happen and people will do stuff that you didn’t predict and couldn’t have predicted. A lot of the stuff that you didn’t get right was stuff that could not have been reasonably predicted (the severity of JW’s injury, Fro’s dramatic tail-off). That’s kind of why I mentioned leaving at least a little room under the cap for mid-season deals.

by DougX on May 1, 2010 12:47 PM PDT reply actions  

“So a shoot-out win counts as a team “goal for” despite counting as a goal for nobody in particular?"

The question remains: Is this an official stat (adding SO wins as a goal) or not? I mean, you’re saying ESPN did this, but that doesn’t make it official, right? NHL.com has Goals-For dead on at 231 so I imagine that is the official word. But it also has Goals-Against listed at 211, which happens to be a differential of exactly 20. Hmmm.

by wavesinair on May 1, 2010 1:08 PM PDT reply actions  

Leaves me thinking that scoring depth is more important than having a superstar, or putting all your money into just one line. Lotta talk about Kovalchuck, Marleau, etc., even Hossa last year, but I always think it is better to get two players that add up to the same number of goals and salary. More versatility for line combos, the whole injury thing where one guy goes down and suddenly you are short 40 goals, and the same idea with slumps; two players probably won’t get in a slump at the same time.
Marleau, 44 goals for 6.3 mill, Kovalchuck 41 goals for 7-10 million.
Saku Koivu and Kris Versteeg-42 goals for 6.3 million, more grit, versatility, less likely to simultaneously be injured or slumping.
I had a post of this proposed lineup-
Smyth-Kopi-Simmonds
Versteeg-Koivu-Schenn
Boogard-Handzus-Modin
Richardson-Stoll-Brown
Moller and Harrold
Scuderi-Doughty
Johnson-Greene
Hanhuis-Drewiske
That lineup, when each player is averaged over 82 games at last year’s goal totals per game, would give 246 goals.
Although I list 22 players and they cannot all play 82 games, the loss in total there is made up by Schenn having zero goal input into the 246. Moller got 4 in 34 games so he could total 10 in 82, Harrold 1 in 39 so he jumps all the way to 2 in 82. So, if Schenn gets 7-10 the 246 is still there.
My point is that I would rahter have lineup versatility and trade potential with manageable contracts, than get stuck with another 6.3 mill guy that might get hurt, might underperform, and would be extremely difficult to trade. As well, both Koivu and Versteeg are better defensively, while still getting the same number of goals.

by Player-X on May 2, 2010 7:02 AM PDT reply actions  

Projected Goals-total shown

Kopi-34
Doughty-16
Brown-24
Smyth-22 in 67= 27
Stoll-16 in 73= 18
Handzus-20
Simmonds-16
Johnson-8
Richardson-11
Modin-5 in 44= 9
Scuderi-0
Greene-2
Drewiske-1 in 42= 2
Moller-4 in 34- 10
Harrold-1 in 39= 2
Versteeg-20
Koivu-19 in 71- 22
Boogard-0
Hamhuis-5

by Player-X on May 2, 2010 7:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Is it time to stop lurking and jump into the conversation? YES!

Ran Game

Icon_crop_3_small Quisp

Redo It

Pumpernicholl_small Niesy