Broad Street Hockey: FanPosts

Breaking News: The Avs to Pass on Seth Jones

2013-06-19T03:55:31Z

http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche/ci_23489308/avalanche-pass-seth-jones-take-forward-joe-sakic

If the Avalanche keeps the top pick in the June 30 NHL draft, it won't take the formerly presumptive candidate, defenseman Seth Jones.

After a week of internal meetings, Avalanche brass came to a conclusion: Jones won't be their pick. Instead, it could be any one of three forwards: Nathan MacKinnon, Jonathan Drouin or Alexander Barkov.

"If we do pick first, we're leaning more toward one of those three forwards," Avalanche executive vice president of hockey operations Joe Sakic told The Denver Post.

The passing over of Jones no doubt will come as a shock to many Avs fans and NHL watchers. Jones, 18, is still ranked as the top-rated prospect available in next Sunday's draft on the lists of some scouting services. The Avs have seemingly glaring needs at defense and a surplus of centers — the position at which MacKinnon and Barkov play, while Drouin is a winger.

But Sakic reiterated the organization's belief that the three forwards represent the best players available in the draft.

"We feel those three forwards are just too good to pass up," Sakic said.

MacKinnon, a center with Halifax of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, would figure to be the most likely choice on paper. He led the Mooseheads to the Memorial Cup earlier this month over Jones' Portland Winterhawks, recording a hat trick in each game against Jones' team in the tournament.

But Barkov is a possible sleeper at No. 1. The 17-year-old, 6-foot-3, 205-pound center holds dual citizenship in Finland and Russia, and is the youngest player ever to play for Finland in a World Championship competition, at 16 last year.

The Avs could look toward the free-agent or trade market to address issues on defense, instead of taking Jones. The team has some decent room under the salary cap, and many NHL teams are looking to shed salary to comply with the league's new $64.3 million benchmark, down from $70.2 million.

http://www.denverpost.com/avalanche/ci_23489308/avalanche-pass-seth-jones-take-forward-joe-sakic

If the Avalanche keeps the top pick in the June 30 NHL draft, it won't take the formerly presumptive candidate, defenseman Seth Jones.

After a week of internal meetings, Avalanche brass came to a conclusion: Jones won't be their pick. Instead, it could be any one of three forwards: Nathan MacKinnon, Jonathan Drouin or Alexander Barkov.

"If we do pick first, we're leaning more toward one of those three forwards," Avalanche executive vice president of hockey operations Joe Sakic told The Denver Post.

The passing over of Jones no doubt will come as a shock to many Avs fans and NHL watchers. Jones, 18, is still ranked as the top-rated prospect available in next Sunday's draft on the lists of some scouting services. The Avs have seemingly glaring needs at defense and a surplus of centers — the position at which MacKinnon and Barkov play, while Drouin is a winger.

But Sakic reiterated the organization's belief that the three forwards represent the best players available in the draft.

"We feel those three forwards are just too good to pass up," Sakic said.

MacKinnon, a center with Halifax of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, would figure to be the most likely choice on paper. He led the Mooseheads to the Memorial Cup earlier this month over Jones' Portland Winterhawks, recording a hat trick in each game against Jones' team in the tournament.

But Barkov is a possible sleeper at No. 1. The 17-year-old, 6-foot-3, 205-pound center holds dual citizenship in Finland and Russia, and is the youngest player ever to play for Finland in a World Championship competition, at 16 last year.

The Avs could look toward the free-agent or trade market to address issues on defense, instead of taking Jones. The team has some decent room under the salary cap, and many NHL teams are looking to shed salary to comply with the league's new $64.3 million benchmark, down from $70.2 million.

Thoughts on Mark Streit and Where Flyers Go From Here

2013-06-18T16:21:20Z

Four years, 21 million dollars; that's what it took General Manager Paul Holmgren to ink Mark Streit and make him a Flyer. The Flyers have already commenced their off-season over-haul of their blue-line, and the first move is an expensive one to say the least. Streit will have big expectations this season (and the three others that follow) to live up to his contract.

At first glance the deal is ridiculous. A 35-year old blue-liner who has not been anything exceptional over the past couple of season banking a deal with 5.25 per season over the next four seasons. But in reality, the deal isn't as bad as it originally appears. First off, bringing in Streit makes the Flyers a better team right off the hop next season. He moves the puck extremely well, is a veteran who can play big minutes and is a power play specialist. What is also relatively unknown is the fact that he has only been in the league seven years, so there is not as much wear and tear on him as most 35 year old defenders in the league.

Did the Flyers' overpay? Yes. There is no question about it, but market value must also be taken into consideration. Streit could have gotten a deal like this else where, so the Flyers knew they had to pay up big to keep the former all-star from testing the open market. Obviously a four year deal with 4.5 per year or a two year deal worth 5.25 per year would have been more ideal for an already cap-strapped Flyers team, but we have to remember it's a business, and the move undoubtedly makes the Flyers more of a contender short-term.

So with Streit now inked, what does this mean going forward. First off, we can expect Andrej Meszaros and Danny Briere gone. Briere will be the victim of an amnesty buy-out, while Mez will probably be shipped out for a pick to a squad looking to reach the cap-floor. Right there the Flyers would clear 10.5 million off the cap. Then come Ilya Bryzgalov, who's status still seems to be up in the air. A decision on Bryz will likely come once the Flyers access the situation after most deals are made.

One player who may be shopped is Braydon Coburn. He carries a 4.5 million cap hit over the next three seasons, and is coming off one of his worst campaigns as a Flyer. He would also bring a lot back in a deal to club that is seeking defensive help. He is still young, is a top-three defensemen and has a fairly low cap-hit.

So if the Flyers hypothetically ship out Mez, Coburn and Briere, what would Holmgren do to replace them. The Flyers would have Kimmo Timonen, Luke Schenn, Nicklas Grossmann, Bruno Gervais and Streit all locked up on defense next season. Expect the Flyers to re-up Erik Gustafsson as well for next season. That leaves the Flyers with four top-five guys and a six and seven defensemen in Gervais and Gus. Who could plug in to round out the top-six? It could be a drafted defenseman like Zadorov, Ristolainen or Nurse. It could be a free-agent signing like Ryan Whitney or Andrew Ference? Or will the Flyers make a dynamic splash and make a trade for Alex Pietrangelo, Kevin Shattenkirk or Keith Yandle? The Flyers certainly have the pieces to acquire any one of the three (maybe not the Pietrangelo, but certainly the other two) with some of the players on their roster. The question is would Holmgren be willing to ship out Sean Couturier off in a deal. The Flyers could land Yandle for Coots and Coburn swap, but is it worth it?

Only time will tell what Paul Holmgren has up his sleeve, but one thing is for sure: This is just the beginning of Philadelphia's off-season.

Siver linings with Streit

2013-06-18T04:51:56Z

Now that everyone is furious with this horrible Mark Streit signing, it’s my job to settle everyone down. Or at least attempt to.

I want to start off by pointing out that we got the best possible player on the market to fix the biggest hole we had in our lineup: a puck moving defensemen. The two key things to take away from that last sentence are: quality addition for 2013-14, no subtractions. Are there better defenders on the trade market? Of course. Could we acquire them without giving up assets? Nope.

The first of three positives I want to point out is the fact that Mark Streit is a young 35 if there ever was one. He’s only played in 491 career NHL games. He played overseas before he came to the NHL, but the league he was in only had a 44 game schedule and was nowhere near the grind of the NHL (he played in the “Swiss-A League”). In addition to the fact he’s played less than 500 NHL regular season games, he’s only played 18 career post-season games.

Positive number two has to deal with the fact that Streit is a very good puck-mover. Check out this table:

(Also note the lack of games played Streit has compared to the much younger names on the list)

Rk	Active Player	Games	PPG
1	Gonchar	1177	0.658
2	Green	433	0.64
3	D. Boyle	879	0.597
4	Streit	491	0.587
9	Weber	528	0.551
11	Timonen	1015	0.528
15	Kieth	607	0.509
18	Suter	590	0.458
25	Bouwmeester	764	0.402

He’s got the fourth highest points per game for active defenders, behind only Gonchar, Green, and Boyle. And it’s not as if he’s hit his true decline yet. Streit had .56 PPG last year and was right around the same place the year before.

Now that we know Mark Streit is an elite point producer in today’s game, I wanted to see how he compared to other players who put up similar PPG numbers---and then see how those players faired in the end of their careers. Streit has a .587 PPG. I compiled data for all defenders who had similar career PPG numbers (.62-.525, skewed to have more players of lesser PPG numbers to lower the total expectation for Streit) and had at roughly a half point per game in their 35 AND 36 year old season (Streit just played his 35 year old season).

The results were honestly, shocking, and in a good way. Only a select handful of defensemen were able to be point producers in their 35 and 36 year-old seasons. Check out this table below:

			Career PPG%	35P	35G	35 PPG	36P	36G	36 PPG	37P	37G	37 PPG	38P	38G	38 PPG	39P	39G	39 PPG
S. Niedermayer	6.04	194	0.586	48	80	0.60	48	80	0.60
D. Boyle	5.11	190	0.597	48	81	0.59	20	46	0.43
C. Pronger	6.06	220	0.598	55	82	0.67	25	50	0.50	12	13	0.92
R. Blake	6.04	225	0.612	46	74	0.62	51	81	0.63	34	72	0.47	31	71	0.44	45	73	0.62
B. Rafalsky	5.10	194	0.618	59	78	0.76	42	78	0.54	48	63	0.76
M. Schneider	5.11	192	0.576	46	78	0.59	59	72	0.82	52	68	0.76	39	65	0.60	32	67	0.48
C. Chelios	6.0	192	0.574	42	81	0.52	36	75	0.48	34	81	0.42	3	24	0.13	39	79	0.49
K. Timonen	5.10	194	0.528	37	82	0.45	43	76	0.57	29	45	0.64

The table is pretty simple. It’s each individuals yearly stats displayed horizontally. The number is the season, meaning “35” is the player’s 35th year old season. Eight players had 35 year-old seasons like Mark Streit in which they lit up the stat sheet and they wanted to play at least one more year. From there the results vary, but as you can see, 6 of the 8 played a third year, 3 of those 6 played a fourth year, and those three who played a fourth year also played a fifth year. As for the breakdown? But look at the names on that list! Its a who's who of hall of famers.

Season	P/G	Points*82
35	0.6	49.2
36	0.581	47.642
37	0.611	50.102
38	0.456	37.392
39	0.53	43.46

y=-2.1578x + 52.012 , r^2= .42906

With elite puck-moving defenders, the drop off starts around the 38-year-old season, which would be Mark Streit’s third of four year. The good news is that the drop-off in points isn’t that great, and that there is a bounce back in the 39th year, which could help prove the 38th year to be more of a blip in the road than anything else, it does have the smallest sample size (it also has to do with Chris Chelios's 24 game, 3 point injury plagued season).

Another interesting thing is that five of the eight guys are roughly the same size as Streit is. The smaller, compact frame could help these defenders age like a fine wine. Lastly, I’d want to point out that with the exception of Pronger, each of these guys left the game on their own terms---meaning they retired when they still had skill to their games. Niedermayer’s last year he had 48 points in 80 games, Rafalsky had 48 in 63, and a few others played into their forties. Mark Streit will not be the same player when he is 39 as he was when he was 36, but assuming he stays healthy he should be able to maintain 40+ points per year, albeit playing sheltered competition.

The main argument to this deal will be that it’s not the player, it’s the contract. Understandable, but we should get pretty decent value for the first two years, and by the last two years, the cap will have gone up which dilutes the percent of the cap it takes up. Don’t get me wrong there is downside to this move, but it’s a high risk, high reward play. For the short term, he’s one of the best available defenders and we didn’t have to give anything to get him. I’m not saying this was the perfect move at the right price, but I am saying the Flyers will be a better hockey team this year for it.

As for how it impacts the defense this year, it solidifies our top-4. I'd imagine the pair of Timonen and Luke Schenn will stick together which puts Streit with Coburn, which is a huge upgrade over Bruno Gervais. Gustafsson and Grossman should have the third pair to lose with Gervais, Meszaros, Brandon Manning and Oliver Lauridsen battling for the seventh spot. Considering Coburn and Grossman have modified no trade clauses, that leaves Meszaros as the front runner to get traded. I wouldn't be surprised if the Flyers moved two of those three guys to clear cap and make room for Manning or Lauridsen. If I'm in charge I'm shopping Matt Read with Andrej Meszaros. They carry roughly five million dollars against the cap (6.5ish salary) and are both in their contract years. Read will get a raise and Mez will take a pay cut or be let go. I'd also be shopping Grossman, I don't see his purpose at 3.6 million with his injury history (and his lack of ability to drive play).

Now that everyone is furious with this horrible Mark Streit signing, it’s my job to settle everyone down. Or at least attempt to.

Positive number two has to deal with the fact that Streit is a very good puck-mover. Check out this table:

(Also note the lack of games played Streit has compared to the much younger names on the list)

Rk	Active Player	Games	PPG
1	Gonchar	1177	0.658
2	Green	433	0.64
3	D. Boyle	879	0.597
4	Streit	491	0.587
9	Weber	528	0.551
11	Timonen	1015	0.528
15	Kieth	607	0.509
18	Suter	590	0.458
25	Bouwmeester	764	0.402

The results were honestly, shocking, and in a good way. Only a select handful of defensemen were able to be point producers in their 35 and 36 year-old seasons. Check out this table below:

			Career PPG%	35P	35G	35 PPG	36P	36G	36 PPG	37P	37G	37 PPG	38P	38G	38 PPG	39P	39G	39 PPG
S. Niedermayer	6.04	194	0.586	48	80	0.60	48	80	0.60
D. Boyle	5.11	190	0.597	48	81	0.59	20	46	0.43
C. Pronger	6.06	220	0.598	55	82	0.67	25	50	0.50	12	13	0.92
R. Blake	6.04	225	0.612	46	74	0.62	51	81	0.63	34	72	0.47	31	71	0.44	45	73	0.62
B. Rafalsky	5.10	194	0.618	59	78	0.76	42	78	0.54	48	63	0.76
M. Schneider	5.11	192	0.576	46	78	0.59	59	72	0.82	52	68	0.76	39	65	0.60	32	67	0.48
C. Chelios	6.0	192	0.574	42	81	0.52	36	75	0.48	34	81	0.42	3	24	0.13	39	79	0.49
K. Timonen	5.10	194	0.528	37	82	0.45	43	76	0.57	29	45	0.64

Season	P/G	Points*82
35	0.6	49.2
36	0.581	47.642
37	0.611	50.102
38	0.456	37.392
39	0.53	43.46

y=-2.1578x + 52.012 , r^2= .42906

Can everybody just relax?

2013-06-17T22:22:06Z

It seems that everybody's initial reaction to the Streit signing is panic and I am here to tell you to relax.

The reported money and years is 4 years for a total of 21 million or 5.25 per year. That might seem high at face value, but lets remember, that Kimmo is signed for 6 mill at the age of 38. Sergei Gonchar got a 2 year 10 million deal at the age of 39.

The following season his cap hit really wont be problem because there was nobody better on the open market and you cant rely on signing other teams RFAs, but everybody seems to think we will have problems signing our young stars next off season.

The following is all looking at the 14-15 season because after that it begins to become to messy and so much can happen (but in general it looks better in the future because as it stands right now it seems the cap will begin to grow after the 14-15 season)

If we look over at Capgeek.com, we can see that the Flyers got around 18.5 mill in salary cap space for the year 14-15 before taken into account buyouts and Streit's new contract. If we amnesty Briere and Bryz and add in Streit's 5.25 we get a total cap space of around 25.5 million.

Here is the problem that most people are looking at, they see that we need to extend Giroux, Schenn, Couturier, Read and some minor players.

The first albatross is Giroux, I think it is safe to assume he will get north of 8 million, how north is hard to predict, but lets go with 8.5 million. That leaves us with 17 million. The next is guessing what Schenn and Couturier will be worth, but my guess is somewhere between 3.5 and 4 million, so lets just put em both at 3.75? That leaves us with 9.5 million to sign Read, 1 forward, 3 dmen and 2 goalies.

The 1 forward is most likely one between Tye McGinn, Akesson etc, so he should be fairly cheap. The 3 dmen hopefully include Gus+2 other prospects and the 2 goalies will most likely be Steve Mason+some scrap. Im estimating that the one forward+the 3 dmen will cost around 3.5 mill total if it is draft picks. Steve Mason+backup will properly cost around 4.5 million for a total of 8 million amongst those 6 players.

This leaves us only 1.5 mill to sign Read and that is not doable, but everybody knows that we already before the Streit signing would have a hard time signing Read because of the 3 other major RFAs. Also remember all this is with Pronger on the books, so during the season we would actually be able to sign a player to a 5.5 contract if we need it.

The WORST part of this deal is not that we wont be able to sign Read because we most likely wouldnt anyway, but rather the age of Streit and the fear that he might go down with freak injury like Pronger..

It seems that everybody's initial reaction to the Streit signing is panic and I am here to tell you to relax.

Here is the problem that most people are looking at, they see that we need to extend Giroux, Schenn, Couturier, Read and some minor players.

Bobrovsky's Numbers

2013-06-17T16:44:50Z

Note - Average GA and Average SV% is the average of each individual game's GA or SV%. This gives us an idea of how consistent a goaltender is, when compared against his true GA or SV%. The closer the two numbers are, the more consistently he performed.

Year	Half	Starts	Relief	Pulled	Wins	Losses	OT Losses	Minutes	GA	True GAA	Average GAA	True SV%	SV% Average	SO
2012-2013	Full	37	1	2	21	11	6	2219	74	2.00	2.71	0.932	0.919	4
2012-2013	2nd	19	0	1	13	5	1	1111	35	1.89	2.85	0.937	0.921	3
2012-2013	1st	18	1	1	8	6	5	1108	39	2.11	2.57	0.927	0.917	1
2011-2012	Full	25	4	2	14	10	2	1550	78	3.02	3.34	0.899	0.896	0
2011-2012	2nd	13	1	1	6	7	1	777	45	3.47	4.03	0.884	0.876	0
2011-2012	1st	12	3	1	8	3	1	776	33	2.55	2.74	0.914	0.913	0
2010-2011	Full	52	2	6	28	13	8	3017	130	2.59	3.10	0.915	0.898	0
2010-2011	2nd	26	1	4	12	7	5	1485	65	2.63	3.34	0.913	0.889	0
2010-2011	1st	26	1	2	16	6	3	1534	65	2.54	2.87	0.917	0.908	0

Year	Half	Starts	Relief	Pulled	Wins	Losses	OT Losses	Minutes	GA	True GAA	Average GAA	True SV%	SV% Average	SO
2012-2013	Full	37	1	2	21	11	6	2219	74	2.00	2.71	0.932	0.919	4
2012-2013	2nd	19	0	1	13	5	1	1111	35	1.89	2.85	0.937	0.921	3
2012-2013	1st	18	1	1	8	6	5	1108	39	2.11	2.57	0.927	0.917	1
2011-2012	Full	25	4	2	14	10	2	1550	78	3.02	3.34	0.899	0.896	0
2011-2012	2nd	13	1	1	6	7	1	777	45	3.47	4.03	0.884	0.876	0
2011-2012	1st	12	3	1	8	3	1	776	33	2.55	2.74	0.914	0.913	0
2010-2011	Full	52	2	6	28	13	8	3017	130	2.59	3.10	0.915	0.898	0
2010-2011	2nd	26	1	4	12	7	5	1485	65	2.63	3.34	0.913	0.889	0
2010-2011	1st	26	1	2	16	6	3	1534	65	2.54	2.87	0.917	0.908	0

How many wins did Bryz cost the Flyers?

2013-06-16T12:06:34Z

Basic method:

Retrieved the even strength, shorthanded and powerplay save % statistics for the top 60 goaltenders listed on NHL.com by save%. Bryz was listed as 60th on that list.
Calculated average even strength, shorthanded and powerplay save %s based on the aggregate shots against and saves made. Those values were 0.924, 0.866 and 0.920 respectively. Aggregate average is 0.915. For simplicity and to stop me from needing to go through each game individually, I just used the aggregate average.
Went through the Flyers games and retrieved all games in which the Flyers lost and Bryz was below average or the Flyers won and Bryz was above average. Obviously if they lost and Bryz was above average than Bryz being average would have resulted in a loss anyway, and the same deal if they won and Bryz was below average. Those games are listed as 'not eligible'.
Calculated how many goals would have been scored Bryz been an average goaltender, and compared this to the margin of those games. The margin excluded empty net goals.
This obviously can't include intangibles like momentum killing goals etc.
Also obviously exclude games in which Bryz didn't start.

The rationale behind this exercise was that we often use save% to judge Bryz, but in a short season especially a few bad starts can skew that pretty badly. To take an extreme example, losing a game 100-0 where the opponent had 100 shots would kill your save% but only cost you two points on the standings. I came in with no real preconceptions but thought it would be interesting.

	DEC	GA	SA	SV%	EN GA	Eligible	GA(average)	Difference in GA	Margin	Excluding EN goals	New result
APR 25 '13 NYI @ PHI	W	1	22	0.955	0	Y	2	1	1	1	OT
APR 18 '13 NJD @ PHI	L	2	30	0.933	1	N	3	not eligible	-3	-2	No change
APR 15 '13 PHI @ MTL	W	3	28	0.893	0	N	2	not eligible	4	4	No change
APR 11 '13 OTT @ PHI	L	2	33	0.939	1	N	3	not eligible	-2	-1	No change
APR 6 '13 PHI @ WPG	L	4	16	0.75	0	Y	1	-3	-3	-3	OT
APR 4 '13 PHI @ TOR	W	3	28	0.893	0	N	2	not eligible	2	2	No change
APR 3 '13 MTL @ PHI	W	3	17	0.824	0	N	1	not eligible	2	2	No change
MAR 31 '13 WSH @ PHI	W	4	29	0.862	0	N	2	not eligible	1	1	No change
MAR 30 '13 BOS @ PHI	W	1	34	0.971	0	Y	3	2	2	2	OT
MAR 28 '13 NYI @ PHI	O	3	36	0.917	0	Y	3	0	0	0	No change
MAR 26 '13 NYR @ PHI	L	5	31	0.839	0	Y	3	-2	-3	-3	No change
MAR 24 '13 PHI @ PIT	O	2	35	0.943	0	N	3	not eligible	-1	-1	No change
MAR 18 '13 PHI @ TBL	L	3	26	0.885	1	Y	2	-1	-2	-1	OT
MAR 15 '13 NJD @ PHI	W	1	28	0.964	0	Y	2	1	0	0	L
MAR 13 '13 PHI @ NJD	L	5	32	0.844	0	Y	3	-2	-3	-3	No change
MAR 10 '13 BUF @ PHI	W	2	20	0.9	0	N	2	not eligible	1	1	No change
MAR 9 '13 PHI @ BOS	L	3	28	0.893	0	Y	2	-1	-3	-3	No change
MAR 7 '13 PIT @ PHI	L	4	16	0.75	0	Y	1	-3	-1	-1	W
MAR 5 '13 PHI @ NYR	L	4	20	0.8	0	Y	2	-2	-2	-2	OT
MAR 2 '13 OTT @ PHI	W	1	34	0.971	0	Y	3	2	1	1	L
FEB 27 '13 WSH @ PHI	W	1	24	0.958	0	Y	2	1	3	3	No change
FEB 25 '13 TOR @ PHI	L	3	21	0.857	1	Y	2	-1	-2	-1	OT
FEB 23 '13 WPG @ PHI	W	3	37	0.919	0	Y	3	0	2	2	No change
FEB 21 '13 FLA @ PHI	L	4	15	0.733	0	Y	1	-3	-3	-3	OT
FEB 20 '13 PHI @ PIT	W	5	32	0.844	0	N	3	not eligible	1	1	No change
FEB 18 '13 PHI @ NYI	W	0	19	1	0	Y	2	2	7	7	No change
FEB 15 '13 PHI @ NJD	L	4	18	0.778	1	Y	2	-2	-2	-1	W
FEB 12 '13 PHI @ WPG	W	2	26	0.923	0	Y	2	0	1	1	No change
FEB 11 '13 PHI @ TOR	L	4	14	0.714	0	Y	1	-3	-3	-3	OT
FEB 9 '13 CAR @ PHI	W	3	33	0.909	0	N	3	not eligible	1	1	No change
FEB 7 '13 FLA @ PHI	O	2	24	0.917	0	Y	2	0	0	0	No change
FEB 5 '13 TBL @ PHI	W	1	22	0.955	0	Y	2	1	1	1	OT
FEB 2 '13 CAR @ PHI	W	3	42	0.929	0	Y	4	1	2	2	No change
FEB 1 '13 PHI @ WSH	L	3	26	0.885	0	Y	2	-1	-1	-1	OT
JAN 29 '13 PHI @ NYR	L	2	28	0.929	0	N	2	not eligible	-1	-1	No change
JAN 26 '13 PHI @ FLA	W	1	31	0.968	0	Y	3	2	6	6	No change
JAN 24 '13 NYR @ PHI	W	1	19	0.947	0	Y	2	1	1	1	OT
JAN 22 '13 PHI @ NJD	L	3	26	0.885	0	Y	2	-1	-3	-3	No change
JAN 20 '13 PHI @ BUF	L	4	40	0.9	1	Y	3	-1	-3	-2	No change
JAN 19 '13 PIT @ PHI	L	2	26	0.923	1	N	2	not eligible	-2	-1	No change

So that's a dump of all the information. You can take a look to check my work as I'm doing this in a rush.

Essentially what I got to was that by replacing Bryz with league average, 4 wins became ties, 2 wins became losses, 7 losses became ties and 2 losses became wins. Hopefully I tallied that right. It's not surprising that there are more ties, as if you were to equalize all team's save percentages to an average you'd get a lot less variation in scores. This is essentially telling us how often a particularly good or particularly poor performance influenced results.

So the only difference I found between Bryz and a league average goaltender was that 3 of our losses would have become tie games. If we went 2-1 in those games, we would have 5 more total points for the season. Obviously the salary we pay Bryz is excessive for the goaltending we're getting, but we can conclude that a) Bryz didn't cost us the playoffs and b) replacing Bryz with an average goaltender wouldn't get us into the playoffs.

Basic method:

Retrieved the even strength, shorthanded and powerplay save % statistics for the top 60 goaltenders listed on NHL.com by save%. Bryz was listed as 60th on that list.
Calculated average even strength, shorthanded and powerplay save %s based on the aggregate shots against and saves made. Those values were 0.924, 0.866 and 0.920 respectively. Aggregate average is 0.915. For simplicity and to stop me from needing to go through each game individually, I just used the aggregate average.
Went through the Flyers games and retrieved all games in which the Flyers lost and Bryz was below average or the Flyers won and Bryz was above average. Obviously if they lost and Bryz was above average than Bryz being average would have resulted in a loss anyway, and the same deal if they won and Bryz was below average. Those games are listed as 'not eligible'.
Calculated how many goals would have been scored Bryz been an average goaltender, and compared this to the margin of those games. The margin excluded empty net goals.
This obviously can't include intangibles like momentum killing goals etc.
Also obviously exclude games in which Bryz didn't start.

	DEC	GA	SA	SV%	EN GA	Eligible	GA(average)	Difference in GA	Margin	Excluding EN goals	New result
APR 25 '13 NYI @ PHI	W	1	22	0.955	0	Y	2	1	1	1	OT
APR 18 '13 NJD @ PHI	L	2	30	0.933	1	N	3	not eligible	-3	-2	No change
APR 15 '13 PHI @ MTL	W	3	28	0.893	0	N	2	not eligible	4	4	No change
APR 11 '13 OTT @ PHI	L	2	33	0.939	1	N	3	not eligible	-2	-1	No change
APR 6 '13 PHI @ WPG	L	4	16	0.75	0	Y	1	-3	-3	-3	OT
APR 4 '13 PHI @ TOR	W	3	28	0.893	0	N	2	not eligible	2	2	No change
APR 3 '13 MTL @ PHI	W	3	17	0.824	0	N	1	not eligible	2	2	No change
MAR 31 '13 WSH @ PHI	W	4	29	0.862	0	N	2	not eligible	1	1	No change
MAR 30 '13 BOS @ PHI	W	1	34	0.971	0	Y	3	2	2	2	OT
MAR 28 '13 NYI @ PHI	O	3	36	0.917	0	Y	3	0	0	0	No change
MAR 26 '13 NYR @ PHI	L	5	31	0.839	0	Y	3	-2	-3	-3	No change
MAR 24 '13 PHI @ PIT	O	2	35	0.943	0	N	3	not eligible	-1	-1	No change
MAR 18 '13 PHI @ TBL	L	3	26	0.885	1	Y	2	-1	-2	-1	OT
MAR 15 '13 NJD @ PHI	W	1	28	0.964	0	Y	2	1	0	0	L
MAR 13 '13 PHI @ NJD	L	5	32	0.844	0	Y	3	-2	-3	-3	No change
MAR 10 '13 BUF @ PHI	W	2	20	0.9	0	N	2	not eligible	1	1	No change
MAR 9 '13 PHI @ BOS	L	3	28	0.893	0	Y	2	-1	-3	-3	No change
MAR 7 '13 PIT @ PHI	L	4	16	0.75	0	Y	1	-3	-1	-1	W
MAR 5 '13 PHI @ NYR	L	4	20	0.8	0	Y	2	-2	-2	-2	OT
MAR 2 '13 OTT @ PHI	W	1	34	0.971	0	Y	3	2	1	1	L
FEB 27 '13 WSH @ PHI	W	1	24	0.958	0	Y	2	1	3	3	No change
FEB 25 '13 TOR @ PHI	L	3	21	0.857	1	Y	2	-1	-2	-1	OT
FEB 23 '13 WPG @ PHI	W	3	37	0.919	0	Y	3	0	2	2	No change
FEB 21 '13 FLA @ PHI	L	4	15	0.733	0	Y	1	-3	-3	-3	OT
FEB 20 '13 PHI @ PIT	W	5	32	0.844	0	N	3	not eligible	1	1	No change
FEB 18 '13 PHI @ NYI	W	0	19	1	0	Y	2	2	7	7	No change
FEB 15 '13 PHI @ NJD	L	4	18	0.778	1	Y	2	-2	-2	-1	W
FEB 12 '13 PHI @ WPG	W	2	26	0.923	0	Y	2	0	1	1	No change
FEB 11 '13 PHI @ TOR	L	4	14	0.714	0	Y	1	-3	-3	-3	OT
FEB 9 '13 CAR @ PHI	W	3	33	0.909	0	N	3	not eligible	1	1	No change
FEB 7 '13 FLA @ PHI	O	2	24	0.917	0	Y	2	0	0	0	No change
FEB 5 '13 TBL @ PHI	W	1	22	0.955	0	Y	2	1	1	1	OT
FEB 2 '13 CAR @ PHI	W	3	42	0.929	0	Y	4	1	2	2	No change
FEB 1 '13 PHI @ WSH	L	3	26	0.885	0	Y	2	-1	-1	-1	OT
JAN 29 '13 PHI @ NYR	L	2	28	0.929	0	N	2	not eligible	-1	-1	No change
JAN 26 '13 PHI @ FLA	W	1	31	0.968	0	Y	3	2	6	6	No change
JAN 24 '13 NYR @ PHI	W	1	19	0.947	0	Y	2	1	1	1	OT
JAN 22 '13 PHI @ NJD	L	3	26	0.885	0	Y	2	-1	-3	-3	No change
JAN 20 '13 PHI @ BUF	L	4	40	0.9	1	Y	3	-1	-3	-2	No change
JAN 19 '13 PIT @ PHI	L	2	26	0.923	1	N	2	not eligible	-2	-1	No change

So that's a dump of all the information. You can take a look to check my work as I'm doing this in a rush.

Defining the performance of NHL lines: Defensemen (part 4)

2013-06-15T05:00:47Z

So in Part 1, I looked tried to define 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line forwards and separate them based on performance.

In part 2, I used that information to compare the average 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners to the Flyers forwards.

In part 3, I am going to define 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pair defensemen based on performance.

I explained the process in part 1, but I'll go over again what I did for D-man. Again, big props to Tyler Dellow for giving me this idea and overall having a awesome site.

I took every defensemen from the 2007-2008 season to the 2011-2012 season and sorted them by time on ice per game (highest to lowest). I then separated the defensemen from 5 seasons (note that defensemen are represented by individual seasons, thus a D-man who played all 5 years show up 5 different times in the data) by games played. Thus, the first pair defensemen played roughly the same amount of games as the third pair of D-man. This is of course why there are far more third line d-man in the below chart, since third pair d-man often rotate in and out of the lineup.

Remember this is all even strength data.

Defensive pair	players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Max minutes per game	Min minutes per game	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	GA/60	Rel GF/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st pair	352	71.74147727	17.48838593	21.49	16.47	0.68761384	0.691795348	0.715717521	0.448747114	8.39795733	0.916580519	1000.560092	2.502115948	2.445598587	0.154972491	0.087696219	0.056517361	0.067276271	49.08908723
2nd pair	418	60.50956938	15.62084332	16.47	14.61	-0.963722073	-0.809065039	0.402220131	0.201651636	8.323145421	0.917916874	1001.148328	2.413527844	2.403049431	0.019958403	-0.015137789	0.010478413	0.035096192	49.51587898
3rd pair	742	34.02830189	12.71675314	14.61	0.75	-1.567546742	-1.337033594	-0.351731758	-0.387606206	7.838371554	0.919147322	997.5310377	2.213804245	2.343676275	-0.277210131	-0.105208568	-0.129872031	-0.172001563	51.7430893

Quick notes on some of the columns. Each column is how the average 1st pair, 2nd pair, and 3rd pair D-man performed. All stats are weighted by minutes played, thus a player who played 10 games will not affect the averages as much as someone who played 70 games. Rel GF/60 and Rel GA/60 are the weighted averages of the players On ice GF (GA)/60 minus Off ice GF (GA)/60 (basically similar to Rel Corsi). For Rel GA/60 , a negative number is a good thing. This means you are letting up less goals while on the ice then the team is when that player is off the ice. A positive number is bad.

We see some pretty obvious trends. 1st pair d-men play more games, more minutes, play tougher competition (Rel Corsi QoC), drive possession forward more (rel Corsi), and have better Goal differential numbers than 2nd and 3rd pair defensemen.

So this data tells us what an average 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pair defensemen should look like (statistically).

This next chart breaks up each of my 3 groups into three smaller groups by Rel Corsi. Again, I tried to make the games played equal in each group. Thus, now we have a way of determining at what level a player is performing versus other 1st liners, 2nd liners, 3rd liners, or 4th liners.

Defensive pair		players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	GA/60	Rel GF/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st pair	1	115	73.3826087	17.68304657	8.429150471	6.217541377	0.611658744	0.290742993	8.503792175	0.914946432	999.984354	2.693878322	2.425696704	0.428138127	0.103061475	0.268181618	0.325076652	51.58772029
1st pair	2	121	69.80991736	17.50151178	0.795163001	0.845449839	0.699993129	0.475354498	8.474577684	0.916350382	1001.096159	2.51672013	2.450971274	0.161357518	0.066628071	0.065748857	0.094729446	49.29758871
1st pair	3	116	72.12931034	17.27879885	-7.413193895	-5.169014674	0.839206568	0.584631288	8.210364396	0.918502558	1000.606202	2.289244556	2.460647384	-0.13351883	0.093379909	-0.171402828	-0.226898738	46.29678463

2nd pair	1	138	61.02173913	15.66942525	6.761671205	4.757114474	0.217235005	0.038209389	8.345848698	0.914759723	998.2182096	2.552742004	2.4026877	0.250820874	0.006176033	0.150054304	0.244644842	52.15612386
2nd pair	2	133	63.54887218	15.57248462	-0.868147939	-0.997679749	0.316305312	0.093411316	8.348373995	0.918849046	1002.332786	2.402851146	2.375499397	-0.035912929	-0.024769878	0.027351749	-0.011143052	49.68160091
2nd pair	3	147	57.27891156	15.6207981	-8.809725302	-6.204489098	0.673777751	0.473937784	8.275122636	0.92015141	1002.902636	2.284547856	2.430981534	-0.155740031	-0.026881708	-0.146433678	-0.128858323	46.70126329

3rd pair	1	285	29.55087719	12.82657801	7.118500577	3.83672941	-0.45498925	-0.379337321	7.814065686	0.917178553	995.3192098	2.335560957	2.287794431	-0.088407675	-0.217207887	0.047766526	0.128800212	54.17927397
3rd pair	2	187	44.8342246	12.70327648	-2.016533121	-0.235248009	-0.356305946	-0.476787564	7.815025296	0.920669555	998.8198084	2.198221724	2.250613989	-0.328690616	-0.166590155	-0.052392266	-0.16210046	51.84147617
3rd pair	3	287	29.41811847	12.62058392	-9.924641072	-9.768633556	-0.242477927	-0.306850746	7.886347716	0.919621749	998.485226	2.105943011	2.493346431	-0.417161276	0.069687717	-0.38740342	-0.486848993	49.17495992

So now we not only can determine what pair a defensemen is (in terms of minutes played), but we can now compare his performance to other guys who play similar minutes.

This concludes part 3. In part 4 I will use the above charts to look at the the Flyers defensemen.

So in Part 1, I looked tried to define 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line forwards and separate them based on performance.

In part 2, I used that information to compare the average 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners to the Flyers forwards.

In part 3, I am going to define 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pair defensemen based on performance.

I explained the process in part 1, but I'll go over again what I did for D-man. Again, big props to Tyler Dellow for giving me this idea and overall having a awesome site.

Remember this is all even strength data.

Defensive pair	players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Max minutes per game	Min minutes per game	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	GA/60	Rel GF/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st pair	352	71.74147727	17.48838593	21.49	16.47	0.68761384	0.691795348	0.715717521	0.448747114	8.39795733	0.916580519	1000.560092	2.502115948	2.445598587	0.154972491	0.087696219	0.056517361	0.067276271	49.08908723
2nd pair	418	60.50956938	15.62084332	16.47	14.61	-0.963722073	-0.809065039	0.402220131	0.201651636	8.323145421	0.917916874	1001.148328	2.413527844	2.403049431	0.019958403	-0.015137789	0.010478413	0.035096192	49.51587898
3rd pair	742	34.02830189	12.71675314	14.61	0.75	-1.567546742	-1.337033594	-0.351731758	-0.387606206	7.838371554	0.919147322	997.5310377	2.213804245	2.343676275	-0.277210131	-0.105208568	-0.129872031	-0.172001563	51.7430893

So this data tells us what an average 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pair defensemen should look like (statistically).

Defensive pair		players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	GA/60	Rel GF/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st pair	1	115	73.3826087	17.68304657	8.429150471	6.217541377	0.611658744	0.290742993	8.503792175	0.914946432	999.984354	2.693878322	2.425696704	0.428138127	0.103061475	0.268181618	0.325076652	51.58772029
1st pair	2	121	69.80991736	17.50151178	0.795163001	0.845449839	0.699993129	0.475354498	8.474577684	0.916350382	1001.096159	2.51672013	2.450971274	0.161357518	0.066628071	0.065748857	0.094729446	49.29758871
1st pair	3	116	72.12931034	17.27879885	-7.413193895	-5.169014674	0.839206568	0.584631288	8.210364396	0.918502558	1000.606202	2.289244556	2.460647384	-0.13351883	0.093379909	-0.171402828	-0.226898738	46.29678463

2nd pair	1	138	61.02173913	15.66942525	6.761671205	4.757114474	0.217235005	0.038209389	8.345848698	0.914759723	998.2182096	2.552742004	2.4026877	0.250820874	0.006176033	0.150054304	0.244644842	52.15612386
2nd pair	2	133	63.54887218	15.57248462	-0.868147939	-0.997679749	0.316305312	0.093411316	8.348373995	0.918849046	1002.332786	2.402851146	2.375499397	-0.035912929	-0.024769878	0.027351749	-0.011143052	49.68160091
2nd pair	3	147	57.27891156	15.6207981	-8.809725302	-6.204489098	0.673777751	0.473937784	8.275122636	0.92015141	1002.902636	2.284547856	2.430981534	-0.155740031	-0.026881708	-0.146433678	-0.128858323	46.70126329

3rd pair	1	285	29.55087719	12.82657801	7.118500577	3.83672941	-0.45498925	-0.379337321	7.814065686	0.917178553	995.3192098	2.335560957	2.287794431	-0.088407675	-0.217207887	0.047766526	0.128800212	54.17927397
3rd pair	2	187	44.8342246	12.70327648	-2.016533121	-0.235248009	-0.356305946	-0.476787564	7.815025296	0.920669555	998.8198084	2.198221724	2.250613989	-0.328690616	-0.166590155	-0.052392266	-0.16210046	51.84147617
3rd pair	3	287	29.41811847	12.62058392	-9.924641072	-9.768633556	-0.242477927	-0.306850746	7.886347716	0.919621749	998.485226	2.105943011	2.493346431	-0.417161276	0.069687717	-0.38740342	-0.486848993	49.17495992

So now we not only can determine what pair a defensemen is (in terms of minutes played), but we can now compare his performance to other guys who play similar minutes.

This concludes part 3. In part 4 I will use the above charts to look at the the Flyers defensemen.

Mock Draft, Part 1: Picks 1-11

2013-06-15T02:57:59Z

If you’re looking for a typical mock draft with a list of names and only a sentence or two on the reasoning behind the pick, this is not your mock draft. This mock draft is attempting to familiarize you with the current 2013 draft class and will also give you an idea of what each team is thinking when they make their selection. This is the first post of a few more to come, all based on this years draft from a Flyers perspective. This draft is already being talked about as the strongest draft in ten years, since the famous 2003 draft that produced the likes of Richards, Carter, Parise, Perry, and many more. The thing that sets the 2013 draft apart is the depth. This draft will be very hard to predict from 15-45 because there are so many guys who project to be legitimate impact players.

Without further ado, the first pick in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft belongs to the Colorado Avalanche...

1. Colorado: Seth Jones, D, WHL- Seth Jones is the best defensive prospect in a while. The prototypical 6-4, very skilled, extremely mobile, extremely physical, ---and most importantly---extremely intelligent two way defender is a near lock to be taken at #1. If there was any doubt as to who was going to be selected #1 before the lottery, it was erased when the Avalanche got awarded the pick as Jones is from Denver. Colorado has a lot of holes, but a prospect like this doesn’t come around every year and the heavy majority of the NHL scouting world thinks that Jones will go #1.

2. Florida: Nathan MacKinnon, C, QMJHL- Florida is another team with a lot of holes, and the best forward in the draft seems like another good fit. Florida could go with MacKinnon’s junior teammate Jonathan Drouin here, as some would argue that Drouin has better offensive skills than MacKinnon. I don’t see Florida going anywhere but the 6-0, 182lb. Nathan MacKinnon due to his truly elite skating, his hard-nosed two-way play, and the fact that MacKinnon is a center. True #1 two-way centers are hard to find and there are only a handful of them in the NHL right now. MacKinnon has high end skills to go along with the skating that gives him the potential of being a perennial 70 point guy.

3. Tampa Bay: Jonathan Drouin, LW, QMJHL- Drouin’s teammate may be a slightly better overall prospect, but it doesn’t mean that Drouin isn’t the real deal. It was Drouin who got the call to play on the Canadian U-20 World Junior Championship top line, not MacKinnon. Although MacKinnon had a better Memorial Cup, points-wise, it was Drouin who won the CHL player of the year award. Drouin could come in to Tampa and be the heir to Marty St. Louis, as they play a similar game. Both players are smaller (Drouin is 5-11, 176lbs.) and are incredibly skilled. Drouin’s puck skills are by far the best in this heralded class and you could argue that his hockey sense is tops as well. He may not have elite skating like MacKinnon, he is still a high end skater. The only knock on Drouin is he does not project to be a physical player, however his skating and IQ are more than enough to compensate.

4. Nashville: Alexander Barkov, C, SM-Liiga (Top pro league in his native Finland)- After the big three, there’s another tier of three. The thing that separates Barkov from the other two is his elite hockey sense. Barkov’s skating may be slightly below average, he parlays his tremendous hockey IQ with great puck skills, finishing ability, and physicality. The 6-2, 205lb. could be the first true number one center in Nashville’s history as he lit up the top men’s league in Finland for 48 points in 53 games, playing twenty minutes per game as a 17 year old. Coming off a trade deadline that saw the Predators trade top-6 winger Marty Erat to the Capitols who were trying to make a playoff push for blue-chip left winger Fillip Forsberg. I mention this because if they didn’t make that trade to acquire the former first pick, I’d be inclined to predict Nashville taking Russian winger Valeri Nichushkin. However, with a potential top line winger in the pipeline and a loaded young blue line, Nashville seems as if it could finally have its future top center in Barkov.

5. Carolina: Valeri Nichushkin, RW, KHL- The Caines have five forwards locked up until 2016: Staal, Staal, Semin, Skinner, and Ruutu. They need top six help immediately and if Valeri falls to five, I expect him to be snatched up by Carolina. The 6-3.5, 200lb. power forward has already made it clear enough that he wants to be in the NHL next year, and will expect to be there. He’s a great fit to fill out Carolina’s top six this year and should provide value for many years to come. Valeri’s skating ability is at an extremely high level, especially for a big guy, and he’s got high end skills across the board, including physicality. While his IQ is only above average, he’s still able to take over games with his size and speed combination. The guy that comes to mind when reading about Nichushkin’s skill set is Rick Nash.

6. Calgary: Elias Lindholm, C, SEL (Top Swedish pro league)- This pick has a lot to do with draft philosophy: team need vs. best player available. In the case of the Calgary Flames, considering their first rounder last year was considered to be a “long term project”, I think they’ll again choose the player they think has the highest upside. Considering three of their last six first rounder’s weren’t North American (Backlund, Baertschi, Erixon) its not as if they’re not familiar with the overseas prospects. I mentioned team need earlier because the Flames don’t have one defender, according to Hockey’s Future, who projects to be a top-4 defender; they have eight forwards with a top-6 potential grade. Considering the Flames are a long time away from winning, they will have plenty of time to add defenders to their prospect group, but this kind of talent is too good to pass up. Lindholm draws an easy comparison to Peter Forsberg with his high end skating, puck skills and IQ; they both are Swedish as well. Lindholm also brings great physicality to his game as he’s not afraid to throw his 6-0, 192lb. frame around. His 30 points in 48 games vs. men as an 18 year old shows the kind of offensive potential this kid possesses.

7. Edmonton: Sean Monahan, C, OHL- The scouting community has this pick all over the board. I’ve seen defenders, wingers, and forwards alike assigned to the Oilers over the past month or so. Looking at the roster of the Oilers, there seems to be one glaring hole: a two-way center. Eberle, Gagner, Hall, Yakupov, and Paajarvi are a very good group of young, skilled forwards. Nugent-Hopkins should continue to develop the franchises #1 center, but they don’t really have anything behind him as far as youth goes. While the Oilers aren’t loaded on the back end, they do have some quality youth. Justin Shultz was dominant in his rookie year last year and guys like Oscar Klefbom and David Musil (recent high picks) are waiting for a crack at the roster. Where there is a big three and then a next three, Sean Monahan falls into his own tier as the seventh best player in this draft. He’s not projected to be a true #1, but he should be a great #2 center. He captained his junior team this year, something none of the former #1 picks have done, and could bring great leadership to a team that lacks it among its young core. He’ll also bring a big 6-2, 193lb. frame with good skating ability and he isnt’ afraid to throw around that weight although he’s not a physically imposing player. His above average puck skills and high end shot; combine those skills with a high end two way thinker and you have a very good prospect.

After the top seven guys are off the board, this draft could really go all different kinds of ways. Most teams are selecting the best player they have on the board due to the fact that players picked outside of the top five rarely get immediate NHL playing time, and there’s no real way of knowing the way teams rate specific players. As far as my rankings go I have three defenders in my next tier: Rasmus Ristolainen (6’3” Finnish TWD), Darnell Nurse (6’4” DFD from the OHL), Ryan Pulock (6’1” OFD from the WHL), and some will argue Nikita Zadorov (6’5” DFD from the OHL by way of Russia) fits in this tier as well. The elite forward talent is gone as well and we are left with three kids out of the OHL who all fit the mold of a solid second line, two way center: Hunter Shinkaruk (5’10.5”), Max Domi (5’9”), and Bo Horvat (6’0”). Part 1 of this mock draft is only up to the Flyers pick and I would be shocked if anyone not named thus far is gone before the Flyers pick.

8. Buffalo: With Vanek only signed for one more year and likely to be traded at the deadline if Buffalo isn’t likely to make the playoffs, Buffalo is looking at a full rebuild. The Ville Leino deal was horrible and he will likely be bought out before next season as well. There isn’t a lot going on in the top-6 as far as the future is concerned other than Cody Hodgeson (pending RFA) and Mikail Grigorenko (last year’s first round pick). On the back end, the Sabres have Tyler Myers and Christain Ehrhoff signed for the foreseeable future, but don’t have any promising top-4 youth established in the NHL yet. They have some quality prospects on defense, but nothing that projects to be a true first pair guy. If Buffalo is going to take a forward I think they’ll go Shinkaruk. Hunter’s smaller frame is overcome by his great skating, high end offensive skills and his two way, high end hockey sense. He’s also an above average physical player as he battles hard on the boards. The comparison I think of when I read his scouting reports is Zach Parise. I would not be surprised at all if they went with a defender, and Rasmus Ristolainen is my pick for second best defender behind Seth Jones. Rasmus played the tough minutes as an 18 year old in Finland’s top professional league and is the most NHL ready defensive prospect other than Jones (although Risto could probably use another year of development). He’s an above average skater, with great puck skills. Scouts debate whether he’s got a true mean streak, although no one is calling him soft as he isn’t afraid to throw around his 207 pounds. His best asset is his high end thinking, which is the most important area for a defender.

9. New Jersey: The Devils have managed to turn their roster over, losing key players to free agency year after year, and still maintain their competitiveness. They’re most likely going to have to do so again this year as most analysts have David Clarkson and Patrick Elias signing elsewhere this offseason, as they are UFAs. The blue line is held together with a core of Volchenkov, Tallinder, Salvador, and former top-5 pick Adam Larsson. Larsson is yet to show the top-pair upside he showed as a prospect, but that doesn’t mean the Devils are thin on defensive prospects. Jon Merril and Damon Severson were both recent 2nd round picks that seem likely to be headed to the NHL in the near future, and Hockey’s Future has four more defensive prospects rated as second-pair potential or higher. The Devils may have 6 defenders rated a “7.0” or higher, they only have three forwards rated that high. If Clarkson and Elias leave, especially, the Devils look to be very thin offensively for years to come without much scoring punch other than Lokitonov, Kovalchuk, and Henrique going forward. With Zajac aging and Zubris a pending UFA, the Devils could really use another young center to compliment Adam Henrique. If Hunter Shinkaruk is still available at this slot, the Devils front office would be licking their chops at picking a player who’s compared to their beloved Zach Parise. If Shinkaruk isn’t there, two London Knights seem to be the next best two options. London’s top two centers this year were Max Domi (son of Tie) and Bo Horvat. Max has a little bit of his father’s agitating tendencies, but he’s truly a playmaker at heart. He racked up 87 points this season, helping lead the Knights to an OHL championship. He’s a high end skater with high end offensive abilities. Some would argue his puck skills are better than Drouin’s. Max may be small in height (5’9”) but he’s a thick 194 pounds and has a very good physical game. Horvat may have not put up the offensive numbers that Domi did, but Horvat was the one playing other team’s top players. Horvat’s skating and skills may be a tad below Domi’s, they’re still above average. Horvat has the physical edge over Domi as Bo’s a solid 6’0”, 200lbs. While Domi is a high end thinker, most of that thinking comes in the offensive zone as a play maker, opposed to Horvat who’s the more cerebral defensive player. Horvat’s still a point producer with 60 points in 67 games. New Jersey’s conservative style seems to be a better fit with the safer Bo Horvat pick, as he has a much higher floor than Domi.

10. Dallas: Here’s another team that doesn’t have any blaring weaknesses as far as individual positions go, so there’s not a lot as far as hinting where they’re going to go. Jamie Benn, Loui Eriksson and Erik Cole are the three wingers leading the way for Dallas in the near future, but there aren’t any quality centers on the roster. Radek Faksa was the teams first round pick last year and is still few years away, but that doesn’t mean they wont go with a center. One of Domi or Horvat should still be on the board, if not both of them---either would be a good fit in big D. Robidas, Gonchar, and Goligosky don’t scream “youth”, but they are capable defenders for now. In the pipeline they do have Joe Morrow, who was a former Penguin first rounder that Dallas received in the Brandon Morrow trade, who should be a top-4 guy in a few years in addition to 6’7” Jamie Oleksiak who was Dallas’ 1st rounder last year. If Ristolainen is on the board still, he has to be in consideration for this tenth overall pick as well. The other guy who could possibly go here is Darnell Nurse. Nurse stands at 6’4” weighing 185lbs. and projects as a shutdown guy with an outside chance of developing some offensive ability. He’s a great skater, especially for his size. He’s got above average puck skills, but lacks the cannon you’d expect from a 6’4” top-flight blue line prospect. While he shoots very hard, he struggles with his accuracy. He’s a high-end thinker and has that elite physicality you love in a shut down guy.

11. Philadelphia: I want Rasmus Ristolainen very badly. Not badly enough to trade up for him, but I do think he’s the second best guy after Jones. If he’s not there, I prefer Ryan Pulock to Darnell Nurse. Pulock is only 6’1” but is built very well, weighing 209 pounds. He was the captain of his junior team this year, although he did have a wrist injury that cost him the second half of his season, including all of the top prospect game. There are scouts all over the board on Pulock’s skating and I think it is slightly above average. He’s a great puck mover and projects to be a power-play quarterback on a top NHL unit sooner rather than later. He’s had his shot clocked at 101 MPH at a skills competition, giving him a unique skill at such a young age. He’s a very physical player for being only 6’1” as he routinely lays big time hits. He’s not the best defensive defender right now, but he’s by no means a liability. He is prone to some breakdowns but Metzler calls him “fairly reliable defensively.” I doubt that Pulock will be gone by 11, and I think he’s a safe bet to be a top-4 defender with PP1 quarterback capabilities. If, by chance, Pulock, Risto, and Nurse are gone, that means that Hunter Shinkaruk, Sean Monahan or Elias Lindholm will still be on the board, which would make trading that pick very attractive. If we could move down a few spots and pick up a 2nd or third round pick in the process, I would have to give that serious thought as this draft is so deep. With that said, I’m going to be sitting on my couch come June 30th hoping that every time Bettman makes an announcement he doesn’t say the name “Rasmus” until the 11th pick in the draft!

The next part of this series will hopefully come out shortly. I would really like to get all the way to our 3rd selection at 71st overall. I’m not sure how I’m going to break it down, please suggest any ideas you have. I hope you enjoyed the early first round mock!

**Note: My notes are compiled from various free websites: hockeyprospectus.com, lastwordonsports.com, thenextones.com, thehockeyguys.com, dobberhockey.com, capgeek.com, hockeysfuture.com, hockeydb.com, eliteprospects.com.

Without further ado, the first pick in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft belongs to the Colorado Avalanche...

Defining the performance of NHL lines: Flyers Forwards (Part 3)

2013-06-14T19:15:13Z

In Part 1, I looked tried to define 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line players and separate them based on performance.

In part 2, I used that information to compare the average 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners to the Flyers forwards.

In Part 3, I am going to dive deeper into the Forward data.

One surprising thing I found in Part 2 of this series was that Voracek doesn't seem to be getting enough even strength minutes.

Let's look at the Flyers forwards by TOI and see who's getting too much TOI, who needs more TOI next season, and who's just about right.

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	CLAUDEGIROUX	PHI	RW	48	15.09	9.8	0.99	0.262	1.184	9.23	887	979	2.9	0.88	3.48	1.02	2.02	2.46	-0.58	-0.14	47.3
2012-2013 Season	MATTREAD	PHI	RW	42	13.6	0.7	-7.46	0.51	1.837	9.89	912	1011	2.73	0.52	2.63	-0.19	2.21	2.82	0.1	0.71	47
2012-2013 Season	JAKUBVORACEK	PHI	RW	48	13.09	17.5	6.97	0.405	1.495	10.33	857	960	3.25	1.31	3.82	1.43	1.94	2.39	-0.57	-0.12	49.6
2012-2013 Season	DANIELBRIERE	PHI	RW	34	12.7	-1.8	-5.7	-0.015	0.719	6.97	892	961	1.95	-0.71	3.48	0.82	2.66	2.66	-1.53	-1.53	51.2
2012-2013 Season	BRAYDENSCHENN	PHI	C	47	12.65	2.9	-4.04	0.523	1.535	8.24	894	977	2.32	-0.01	3.13	0.38	2.33	2.75	-0.81	-0.39	52.8
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTHARTNELL	PHI	RW	32	12.57	17.4	4.47	0.45	1.946	6.03	911	971	1.79	-0.44	2.39	-0.49	2.23	2.88	-0.6	0.05	49.8
2012-2013 Season	JASONAKESON	PHI	RW	1	12.38	20.7	-4.85	2.635	10.913	25	1000	1250	9.69	9.69	0	-1.7	0	1.7	9.69	11.39	50
2012-2013 Season	WAYNESIMMONDS	PHI	RW	45	12.2	1.4	-4.15	0.226	1.448	7.3	914	987	2.19	-0.18	2.73	-0.18	2.37	2.91	-0.54	0	49.7
2012-2013 Season	SIMONGAGNE	PHI	LW	38	11.91	-3	-3.18	0.356	1.948	8.18	908	990	2.39	0.29	2.65	-0.07	2.1	2.72	-0.26	0.36	52.6
2012-2013 Season	MAXIMETALBOT	PHI	C	35	11.6	-10.8	-11.23	1.333	1.544	8.7	917	1004	2.36	0.47	2.36	-0.52	1.89	2.88	0	0.99	35.2
2012-2013 Season	SEANCOUTURIER	PHI	C	46	11.39	2.1	-4.24	0.952	1.936	7.26	887	960	2.06	-0.31	3.09	0.5	2.37	2.59	-1.03	-0.81	32.1
2012-2013 Season	TYEMCGINN	PHI	LW	18	11.02	15.2	13.61	0.101	0.237	6.86	908	977	2.12	-0.23	2.12	-1.46	2.35	3.58	0	1.23	50.4
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTLAUGHTON	PHI	C	5	10.99	-15.7	-15.28	-0.593	-0.825	0	1000	1000	0	-2.28	0	-1.14	2.28	1.14	0	-1.14	29.6
2012-2013 Season	MIKEKNUBLE	PHI	RW	28	10.9	-1.6	-7.08	0.496	0.627	7.52	898	973	1.97	-0.7	2.75	-0.57	2.67	3.32	-0.78	-0.13	43.5
2012-2013 Season	RUSLANFEDOTENKO	PHI	LW	47	9.48	-13.8	-16.29	0.232	0.699	11.36	929	1043	2.69	0.49	2.02	-1.01	2.2	3.03	0.67	1.5	35.7
2012-2013 Season	ERICWELLWOOD	PHI	C	4	8.83	-8.5	-6.8	-0.336	0.125	0	1000	1000	0	-1.32	0	-1.32	1.32	1.32	0	0	52.6
2012-2013 Season	ADAMHALL	PHI	LW	37	8.39	-14	-19.33	0.105	1.132	6.96	946	1016	1.55	-1.45	1.55	-1.53	3	3.08	0	0.08	16.1
2012-2013 Season	ZACRINALDO	PHI	LW	32	8.32	-17.3	-18.7	-0.236	0.36	5.88	892	950	1.13	-1.27	2.93	-0.01	2.4	2.94	-1.8	-1.26	39.3
2012-2013 Season	JODYSHELLEY	PHI	LW	1	7.97	-31	-7.53	-0.833	2.479	-	1000	-	0	-1.47	0	0	1.47	0	0	-1.47	60
2012-2013 Season	HARRYZOLNIERCZYKK	PHI	LW	7	7.32	-35.9	-29.28	-0.922	-1.864	5	967	1017	1.17	-2.57	1.17	-0.81	3.74	1.98	0	-1.76	52.4

Obviously Voracek needs more ice time. With 22 goals and 46 points, Voracek's production was the best of any Flyers forward. He was an elite driver of possession (Rel Corsi of 17.5). Compare that to Giroux (Rel Corsi of 9.8 playing against easier competition).

Danny Briere recieved too many even strength minutes in my opinion, but since he is going to be bought out this summer I don't feel the need to cover Briere too much. Based on his performance he was overplayed, and unless a top 6 forward is brought in to replace Briere next season the Flyers coaches will have to distribute Briere's minutes to some of the better Flyers forwards.

Matt Read's ice time was a bit surprising. With 13.6 minutes per game at even strength, he finished second among Flyers forwards. While Read is a solid player, he isn't first line material. Finishing only with a Rel Corsi of .7, Read's ice time should in my opinion be dropped to second line levels. With less ice time, Read's performance may improve (since Read will be better rested), and better players like Voracek will receive those minutes (which will benefit the Flyers).

Brayden Schenn is definitely someone I could imagine getting a slight increase in avg ice time. I found that Schenn was playing well last year given his young age of 21. Facing average 2nd line competition, Schenn's Rel Corsi of 2.9 is impressive for the youngster. While I don't believe he should be receiving first line minutes yet, a little bit more ice time per game would not hurt.

Scott hartnell is definitely someone who I hope is put back on the first line for next year. His Rel Corsi puts him in an elite category among forwards, and his WOWY numbers point towards him playing well with Voracek and Giroux. I've already discussed in part 2 how we should expect a bounce back year from Hartnell.

Being an older player, I'd prefer to decrease the minutes given to Gagne next season. Gagne's performance has (predictably) slowed as he has aged, and decreasing his TOI slightly will both benefit Gagne and give more minutes to a player who can do more in those minutes.

Tye McGinn played decent minutes with the Flyers in 18 games. I hope he recieves the same amount of TOI per game next season. He played very well driving possession forward during his time in the NHL, and hopefully he can continue to play well in a more extended stay next season.

I am a big fan of Sean Couturier. I noted in my last post that aside from Talbot, Couturier played the toughest minutes for Flyers forwards. With a 32.1% O-zone start % and a .952 Rel Corsi QoC, Coots managed to still put up a positive Rel Corsi. It is these tough defensive minutes that is stalling the offensive development of Couturier. Giving Couturier more offensive minutes would definitely allow us to see how good Couturier could be. However, the Flyers are so deep at the center position (giroux, Schenn, Couturier) with young talented players that it is tough to not play Couturier in a shut down center role (given how good he is in that role).

I definitely hope the Flyers can be creative in finding Couturier offensive minutes next season, as Couturier is one of the most important players on the Flyers roster.

An interesting thing I noticed in the zone start data was that Flyers don't go the Canuck route and give their top players a ton of O-zone starts. While Talbot and Couturier received the lion-share of the D-zone starts as a third line, the top line of Giroux and Voracek are actually below the 50% mark for O-zone start%

In general I am a fan of how the Canucks give favorable zone starts to their top offensive players. I'd love to see Giroux and Voracek given more O-zone starts, but I don't think that is Laviolette's philosophy, so it probably won't happen.

Now, Let's take a quick look at the Powerplay and Penalty kill for the Flyers. The Flyers ranked 4th in NHL in Powerplay Goals per 60 minutes and and were 5th best in Penalty Kill goals against per 60 min.

Special teams was one of bright spots for the Flyers last season.

Here are the Flyers forwards Power play stats from Stats.hockeyanalysis.com

Player Name	Team	TOI	G	A	FirstA	Points	Shots	iFenwick	iCorsi	ShPct	G/60	A/60	FirstA/60	Points/60	Shots/60	iFenwick/60	iCorsi/60	IGP	IAP	IPP
GIROUX, CLAUDE	Philadelphia	168:16:00	5	14	7	19	31	47	67	16.13	1.783	4.992	2.496	6.78	11.05	16.759	23.891	18.5	51.9	70.4
VORACEK, JAKUB	Philadelphia	166:14:00	8	7	4	15	52	68	90	15.38	2.888	2.527	1.444	5.41	18.77	24.544	32.484	32	28	60
SIMMONDS, WAYNE	Philadelphia	140:03:00	5	9	4	14	27	35	40	18.52	2.142	3.856	1.714	6	11.57	14.995	17.137	23.8	42.9	66.7
SCHENN, BRAYDEN	Philadelphia	113:53:00	2	8	6	10	18	27	36	11.11	1.054	4.215	3.161	5.27	9.48	14.225	18.967	15.4	61.5	76.9
BRIERE, DANIEL	Philadelphia	91:36:00	3	3	0	6	23	26	32	13.04	1.965	1.965	0	3.93	15.07	17.031	20.961	27.3	27.3	54.5
HARTNELL, SCOTT	Philadelphia	91:32:00	3	1	1	4	18	28	30	16.67	1.966	0.655	0.655	2.62	11.8	18.354	19.665	21.4	7.1	28.6
READ, MATT	Philadelphia	77:50:00	1	1	1	2	3	3	5	33.33	0.771	0.771	0.771	1.54	2.31	2.313	3.854	12.5	12.5	25
COUTURIER, SEAN	Philadelphia	67:47:00	0	4	2	4	6	8	11	0	0	3.541	1.77	3.54	5.31	7.081	9.737	0	80	80
GAGNE, SIMON	Philadelphia	59:52:00	2	2	0	4	10	13	17	20	2.005	2.005	0	4.01	10.02	13.029	17.038	40	40	80

The last three columns show the percent of goals while that player was on the ice that the player scored, assisted or had a point on.

Voracek lead the way with 8 goals, while Giroux lead the way with 19 points. However, that included 7 second assists, which we know (at least at even strength) are more luck than skill.

Couturier received only 67 minutes and 47 seconds of PP ice time. That needs to go up. He is too talented a player to not receive some more offensive minutes.

Brayden Schenn pitched 6 first assists, and his low goal total doesn't scare me considering his low SH% of 11.11%. I expect that to rise at least a little next year.

Here are the Flyers forwards who played 50 minutes or more on the Penalty kill

Player Name	Team	TOI
FEDOTENKO, RUSLAN	Philadelphia	122:14:00
COUTURIER, SEAN	Philadelphia	108:05:00
TALBOT, MAXIME	Philadelphia	108:03:00
READ, MATT	Philadelphia	85:08:00
GIROUX, CLAUDE	Philadelphia	78:18:00
HALL, ADAM	Philadelphia	70:33:00

No suprise that Talbot, Couturier, and Fedotenko spent the most time on the Penalty kill.

So this wraps up the Flyers forwards. In part 4, I will introduce the defensemen part of this series.

In Part 1, I looked tried to define 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line players and separate them based on performance.

In part 2, I used that information to compare the average 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners to the Flyers forwards.

In Part 3, I am going to dive deeper into the Forward data.

One surprising thing I found in Part 2 of this series was that Voracek doesn't seem to be getting enough even strength minutes.

Let's look at the Flyers forwards by TOI and see who's getting too much TOI, who needs more TOI next season, and who's just about right.

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	CLAUDEGIROUX	PHI	RW	48	15.09	9.8	0.99	0.262	1.184	9.23	887	979	2.9	0.88	3.48	1.02	2.02	2.46	-0.58	-0.14	47.3
2012-2013 Season	MATTREAD	PHI	RW	42	13.6	0.7	-7.46	0.51	1.837	9.89	912	1011	2.73	0.52	2.63	-0.19	2.21	2.82	0.1	0.71	47
2012-2013 Season	JAKUBVORACEK	PHI	RW	48	13.09	17.5	6.97	0.405	1.495	10.33	857	960	3.25	1.31	3.82	1.43	1.94	2.39	-0.57	-0.12	49.6
2012-2013 Season	DANIELBRIERE	PHI	RW	34	12.7	-1.8	-5.7	-0.015	0.719	6.97	892	961	1.95	-0.71	3.48	0.82	2.66	2.66	-1.53	-1.53	51.2
2012-2013 Season	BRAYDENSCHENN	PHI	C	47	12.65	2.9	-4.04	0.523	1.535	8.24	894	977	2.32	-0.01	3.13	0.38	2.33	2.75	-0.81	-0.39	52.8
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTHARTNELL	PHI	RW	32	12.57	17.4	4.47	0.45	1.946	6.03	911	971	1.79	-0.44	2.39	-0.49	2.23	2.88	-0.6	0.05	49.8
2012-2013 Season	JASONAKESON	PHI	RW	1	12.38	20.7	-4.85	2.635	10.913	25	1000	1250	9.69	9.69	0	-1.7	0	1.7	9.69	11.39	50
2012-2013 Season	WAYNESIMMONDS	PHI	RW	45	12.2	1.4	-4.15	0.226	1.448	7.3	914	987	2.19	-0.18	2.73	-0.18	2.37	2.91	-0.54	0	49.7
2012-2013 Season	SIMONGAGNE	PHI	LW	38	11.91	-3	-3.18	0.356	1.948	8.18	908	990	2.39	0.29	2.65	-0.07	2.1	2.72	-0.26	0.36	52.6
2012-2013 Season	MAXIMETALBOT	PHI	C	35	11.6	-10.8	-11.23	1.333	1.544	8.7	917	1004	2.36	0.47	2.36	-0.52	1.89	2.88	0	0.99	35.2
2012-2013 Season	SEANCOUTURIER	PHI	C	46	11.39	2.1	-4.24	0.952	1.936	7.26	887	960	2.06	-0.31	3.09	0.5	2.37	2.59	-1.03	-0.81	32.1
2012-2013 Season	TYEMCGINN	PHI	LW	18	11.02	15.2	13.61	0.101	0.237	6.86	908	977	2.12	-0.23	2.12	-1.46	2.35	3.58	0	1.23	50.4
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTLAUGHTON	PHI	C	5	10.99	-15.7	-15.28	-0.593	-0.825	0	1000	1000	0	-2.28	0	-1.14	2.28	1.14	0	-1.14	29.6
2012-2013 Season	MIKEKNUBLE	PHI	RW	28	10.9	-1.6	-7.08	0.496	0.627	7.52	898	973	1.97	-0.7	2.75	-0.57	2.67	3.32	-0.78	-0.13	43.5
2012-2013 Season	RUSLANFEDOTENKO	PHI	LW	47	9.48	-13.8	-16.29	0.232	0.699	11.36	929	1043	2.69	0.49	2.02	-1.01	2.2	3.03	0.67	1.5	35.7
2012-2013 Season	ERICWELLWOOD	PHI	C	4	8.83	-8.5	-6.8	-0.336	0.125	0	1000	1000	0	-1.32	0	-1.32	1.32	1.32	0	0	52.6
2012-2013 Season	ADAMHALL	PHI	LW	37	8.39	-14	-19.33	0.105	1.132	6.96	946	1016	1.55	-1.45	1.55	-1.53	3	3.08	0	0.08	16.1
2012-2013 Season	ZACRINALDO	PHI	LW	32	8.32	-17.3	-18.7	-0.236	0.36	5.88	892	950	1.13	-1.27	2.93	-0.01	2.4	2.94	-1.8	-1.26	39.3
2012-2013 Season	JODYSHELLEY	PHI	LW	1	7.97	-31	-7.53	-0.833	2.479	-	1000	-	0	-1.47	0	0	1.47	0	0	-1.47	60
2012-2013 Season	HARRYZOLNIERCZYKK	PHI	LW	7	7.32	-35.9	-29.28	-0.922	-1.864	5	967	1017	1.17	-2.57	1.17	-0.81	3.74	1.98	0	-1.76	52.4

I definitely hope the Flyers can be creative in finding Couturier offensive minutes next season, as Couturier is one of the most important players on the Flyers roster.

Special teams was one of bright spots for the Flyers last season.

Here are the Flyers forwards Power play stats from Stats.hockeyanalysis.com

Player Name	Team	TOI	G	A	FirstA	Points	Shots	iFenwick	iCorsi	ShPct	G/60	A/60	FirstA/60	Points/60	Shots/60	iFenwick/60	iCorsi/60	IGP	IAP	IPP
GIROUX, CLAUDE	Philadelphia	168:16:00	5	14	7	19	31	47	67	16.13	1.783	4.992	2.496	6.78	11.05	16.759	23.891	18.5	51.9	70.4
VORACEK, JAKUB	Philadelphia	166:14:00	8	7	4	15	52	68	90	15.38	2.888	2.527	1.444	5.41	18.77	24.544	32.484	32	28	60
SIMMONDS, WAYNE	Philadelphia	140:03:00	5	9	4	14	27	35	40	18.52	2.142	3.856	1.714	6	11.57	14.995	17.137	23.8	42.9	66.7
SCHENN, BRAYDEN	Philadelphia	113:53:00	2	8	6	10	18	27	36	11.11	1.054	4.215	3.161	5.27	9.48	14.225	18.967	15.4	61.5	76.9
BRIERE, DANIEL	Philadelphia	91:36:00	3	3	0	6	23	26	32	13.04	1.965	1.965	0	3.93	15.07	17.031	20.961	27.3	27.3	54.5
HARTNELL, SCOTT	Philadelphia	91:32:00	3	1	1	4	18	28	30	16.67	1.966	0.655	0.655	2.62	11.8	18.354	19.665	21.4	7.1	28.6
READ, MATT	Philadelphia	77:50:00	1	1	1	2	3	3	5	33.33	0.771	0.771	0.771	1.54	2.31	2.313	3.854	12.5	12.5	25
COUTURIER, SEAN	Philadelphia	67:47:00	0	4	2	4	6	8	11	0	0	3.541	1.77	3.54	5.31	7.081	9.737	0	80	80
GAGNE, SIMON	Philadelphia	59:52:00	2	2	0	4	10	13	17	20	2.005	2.005	0	4.01	10.02	13.029	17.038	40	40	80

The last three columns show the percent of goals while that player was on the ice that the player scored, assisted or had a point on.

Voracek lead the way with 8 goals, while Giroux lead the way with 19 points. However, that included 7 second assists, which we know (at least at even strength) are more luck than skill.

Couturier received only 67 minutes and 47 seconds of PP ice time. That needs to go up. He is too talented a player to not receive some more offensive minutes.

Brayden Schenn pitched 6 first assists, and his low goal total doesn't scare me considering his low SH% of 11.11%. I expect that to rise at least a little next year.

Here are the Flyers forwards who played 50 minutes or more on the Penalty kill

Player Name	Team	TOI
FEDOTENKO, RUSLAN	Philadelphia	122:14:00
COUTURIER, SEAN	Philadelphia	108:05:00
TALBOT, MAXIME	Philadelphia	108:03:00
READ, MATT	Philadelphia	85:08:00
GIROUX, CLAUDE	Philadelphia	78:18:00
HALL, ADAM	Philadelphia	70:33:00

No suprise that Talbot, Couturier, and Fedotenko spent the most time on the Penalty kill.

So this wraps up the Flyers forwards. In part 4, I will introduce the defensemen part of this series.

Say no to Streit, say yes to Josi

2013-06-12T19:56:18Z

(Side note: I wrote this fanpost last week when the first article on Streit appeared on BSH, but waited to post it. Ironically, on monday (june 10), when I wanted to post it, the Preds announced the extension to Josi. So I had to change the last paragraph from ‚offersheet him, haha’ to ‚trade someone for him’...and murphy’s law continues: today, the streit trade rights is published...)

As a long time Flyers fan from Switzerland, I feel the need to post this article. I have been enjoying reading BSH articles and especially comments for years (and I get impressed up to this day by the knowledge of some guys on here), and I never had the urge to post or comment myself. That is until I kept hearing the talks about Streit playing for Philly...

I have seen Streit play since back in Switzerland, his strengths are known. Streit would be a good addition on the power play and would bring some offensive input to the game. But Streit also comes with a hefty pricetag and an age that is not helping the Flyers. In addition to him being subpar in the own zone, and generally being on decline, I am convinced he can’t help us. We need a younger, faster, more responsible, stronger defender.

Roman Josi is also from Switzerland. He is the younger, faster, more responsible version of Mark Streit. He has more upside, and even if he is similar in size, Josi plays a lot bigger than Streit. He can direct a power play, drive play on 5 vs 5, rack up a lot of minutes. (No, not just because he plays alongside Weber.) Josi, 23 years old, showed his potential at the world championship where he won the MVP Award (10 Games, 4G 5A). Even if it’s ‚just’ the world championship, consider that there still was a lot of great players there (Giroux, Stamkos, etc...). Josi was the main reason the Swiss made it to the finals.

Cap
Josi’s cap hit would be a lot more comfortable than what we would have to pay for an aging (and slightly overrated) Streit.

Age / Upside
Streit is a worse version of Kimmo, with similar amount of years left (if he’s lucky maybe 3-4...). Josi is 23 and could turn into a anchor for years to come. I think he will be hitting his prime in.... i’d say about 3-4 years...just when all are forwards should be.

What he brings
Streit brings defensive weaknesses, an old body and inflated stats. Josi brings a responsible game with strong offensive puckmoving ability. Streit is in decline while Josi has a lot of upside. Both can quarterback a power play about equal.

Josi goes for 2.5/3.0/4.0/4.25/ Mio/yr over the next four years. Damnit Predators. From the timing concerning our other players, to our needs, to the caphit, it would all make sense. How to get him? I guess we’d have to give up some Offense...but looking at their offense, they might at least listen to Homer...maybe Rosehill?

Bottom line: Say yes to Josi! And if not, say at least no to Streit!

And keep Bryz for another year. And buy out Brière. And try to trade Meszaros for a beer.

Cap
Josi’s cap hit would be a lot more comfortable than what we would have to pay for an aging (and slightly overrated) Streit.

Age / Upside
Streit is a worse version of Kimmo, with similar amount of years left (if he’s lucky maybe 3-4...). Josi is 23 and could turn into a anchor for years to come. I think he will be hitting his prime in.... i’d say about 3-4 years...just when all are forwards should be.

What he brings
Streit brings defensive weaknesses, an old body and inflated stats. Josi brings a responsible game with strong offensive puckmoving ability. Streit is in decline while Josi has a lot of upside. Both can quarterback a power play about equal.

Bottom line: Say yes to Josi! And if not, say at least no to Streit!

And keep Bryz for another year. And buy out Brière. And try to trade Meszaros for a beer.

Streit is a Flyer

2013-06-12T17:34:52Z

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=673683

The Flyers shipped Shane Harper and a fourth round pick in the 2014 NHL Draft to the New York Islanders for Mark Streit.

Streit, 35, is a pending unrestricted free agent, but the Flyers now own his rights and will have an opportunity to sign him to a new deal before he hits the free agent market July 5 and could sign with any of the 29 other teams in the NHL. He made $4.1 million last season as a member of the Islanders.

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=673683 The Flyers shipped Shane Harper and a fourth round pick in the 2014 NHL Draft to the New York Islanders for Mark Streit. Streit, 35, is a pending unrestricted free agent, but the Flyers now own his rights and will have an opportunity to sign him to a new deal before he hits the free agent market July 5 and could sign with any of the 29 other teams in the NHL. He made $4.1 million last season as a member of the Islanders.

Puck Possession

2013-06-12T04:17:31Z

Just curious about how to find out puck possession time for individual players. possibly in each zone, or collectively. I tried looking around behindthenet but I got lost. I admit I'm not a stats nerd, but I know there are a few of you great people out there. ie Eric T among others. just curious how our guys stack up to others in the league. witnessed a debate about puck possession being a big factor to scoring/winning. I imagine it is but yeah. this is probably enough words for now so I appreciate your help/comments. thanks!

What's up with Andrej Meszaros?

2013-06-12T01:41:17Z

There has been a lot of talk about how the Flyers are going to reshape the defense. One player who most people want out is Andrej Meszaros, and this article is aimed at asking why? Why do we want to get rid of a guy who is in the prime of his career (27 years old) while his value is at an all time low? He has a four million dollar cap hit with one year left on his deal, and if that’s not bad enough his actual salary is $5.5 million.

The simple answer to why we want to move him for nothing is that he is now injury prone. After playing 81+ games in five of his first six NHL seasons, Andrej has missed 57 of the last 130. Here’s a little timeline of his injury struggles (dates via Rotoworld):

May 2011- Offseason wrist surgery

8/26/11- Fully recovered from surgery, missed no time

3/4/12- Out indefinitely; lower body injury

3/19/12- Back surgery; out 6-8 weeks

5/8/12- Returns for Game 5 vs. NJD (the final game of the year)

8/7/12- Torn achilles training in Slovakia

1/20/13- Returns to play in season opener without missing a game

1/25/13- Left shoulder injury, out for a month

3/9/13- Returns from injury

3/27/13- Re-injures shoulder, gets surgery, out for year

Current- Homer expects him to be ready for the start of camp.

Wrist, back, achilles, shoulder. He does have a legitimate injury history, but he seems to be legitimately healthy for the first time in nearly two full years. His back hasn’t acted up since he got the surgery in March of 2012. His achiles was fine all of last season once he returned, and he’ll have plenty of time to rest and recover from this shoulder surgery. While he should be “healthy” come September, he’ll still carry the injury prone label. What kind of player should we expect if he does manage to stay on the ice?

Here’s the behindthenet.ca data (along with the traditional stats on the right):

Year	GP	TOI	C	T	G+A1	OZS%	Crel	PPTOI	PPG+A1	G	A
2012-13	11	14.31	-0.479	-0.435	0.38	42.50%	-26.2	2.04	2.68**	0	2
2011-12	62	16.04	-0.04	-0.545	.9*	52%	-1.7	1.38	1.4	*7	18
2010-11	81	15.93	0.089	-0.53	.65**	44.50%	2.2	2.43	1.52**	*8	24

= Led team

**= Second on team

***= In 2011-12 Meszaros’ .3 G/60 was the 11th in the league among defenders who played 60 games

An 11 game sample size, especially considering that those 11 games are sandwiched around an achiles injury and two shoulder surgeries, isn’t nearly enough sample size to conclude anything. The Flyers brought in Mez after they lost to the Blackhawks in the Cup because our third pair was horrible. Mez was a great fit as our fifth defender behind Pronger/Timonen/Carle/Coburn and had a couple of excellent years in that role. Since his rookie year, every time he’s played 60 games he’s had at least seven goals. To put that in perspective, Kimmo Timonen hasn’t had 7 goals in a season since his first year as a Flyer. Meszaros is a legitimate NHL offensive defenseman, capable of running a second unit on a lot of NHL teams (including ours).

Not only does he put points up on the board, he’s a pretty good possession player as well. Here is a table I created using information from stats.hockeyanalysis.com:

2012-13	Mins	W/	w/out	Diff
Gervais	28	33.3	46.6	-13.3
Foster	18	47.4	47.1	0.3
Coburn	12	52.2	48.3	3.9
L. Schenn	9.5	51.7	49	2.7

2011-12
Illja	153	50.2	47.8	2.4
Gustafsson	97	55.4	46.9	8.5
Carle	96	47.2	52	-4.8
Coburn	50	60.5	51.3	9.2
Grossman	39	44.9	25.1	19.8
Timonen	33	61.1	55.9	5.2

2010-11
O'Donnell	402	49.2	40.1	9.1
Carle	203	57.5	51.7	5.8
Timonen	42	54.2	51.7	2.5
Coburn	17.5	52.9	50.8	2.1

The defender Mez spent the most time with this year was Bruno Gervais, although Meszaros spent more time with six different defenders the prior year. In breaking down this table we find that Andrej Meszaros brought the CF% up for all of his partners over the past three years except two: Bruno Gervais this year and Matt Carle last year.

He brought the play of Sean O’Donnell (40.1% without Mez) up by 9.1%, and he also improved Matt Carle’s game (51.7% without Mez to 57.5% with Mez). Last year, he gave Lilja a 2.4% boost and Erik Gustafsson an 8.5% boost. All you have to do is look at the table to realize that Mez has done a very solid job with nearly everyone he’s been paired with.

Looking forward to next year, there are a few people it would make sense to pair Meszaros with. The sample size isn’t really there, but Meszaros has had success with Coburn three years in a row. Coburn usually plays vs. opponent’s top players, while Mez hasn’t received that kind of deployment before, so their pairing, while it could work, seems unlikely. If the Flyers bring in a “top-4 guy” to round out a current top three of Coburn, Timonen, and Schenn; Meszaros and Gustafsson should be the front runners to make up the bottom pair. Not only would Mez and Gus be the 5th and 6th best defenders on the roster, they also had success in 2011-12 together. If Gus wins the 4th defender role and plays with either Coburn or Luke Schenn, Meszaros seems to be a good fit with either Oliver Laudirdsen or Brandon Manning on the third pair.

The downside to keeping Mez is very small. His one year deal is will be done next July, so there is no long term obligation. If he does get hurt, we can LTIR him to get his cap space back and he wouldn’t cost us anything but a roster spot. The upside is we get the 2010-11 Andrej Meszaros who won the Flyers best defender award. He’s fully healthy, playing for a contract and he has literally no trade value. Andrej Meszaros may not fill his top-4 potential, but in a semi-sheltered role (50+ OZS% vs. 3rd and 4th liners) he’s shown the ability to play very well with a bad partners (Sean O’Donnell and Andres Lilja could barely skate). Why not keep him in that role and let a kid play that 6th defender position instead of signing another 37 year old that can’t skate?

I’m not saying Mez should be untouchable, but I wouldn’t trade him strait up for a low round draft pick.

May 2011- Offseason wrist surgery

8/26/11- Fully recovered from surgery, missed no time

3/4/12- Out indefinitely; lower body injury

3/19/12- Back surgery; out 6-8 weeks

5/8/12- Returns for Game 5 vs. NJD (the final game of the year)

8/7/12- Torn achilles training in Slovakia

1/20/13- Returns to play in season opener without missing a game

1/25/13- Left shoulder injury, out for a month

3/9/13- Returns from injury

3/27/13- Re-injures shoulder, gets surgery, out for year

Current- Homer expects him to be ready for the start of camp.

Here’s the behindthenet.ca data (along with the traditional stats on the right):

Year	GP	TOI	C	T	G+A1	OZS%	Crel	PPTOI	PPG+A1	G	A
2012-13	11	14.31	-0.479	-0.435	0.38	42.50%	-26.2	2.04	2.68**	0	2
2011-12	62	16.04	-0.04	-0.545	.9*	52%	-1.7	1.38	1.4	*7	18
2010-11	81	15.93	0.089	-0.53	.65**	44.50%	2.2	2.43	1.52**	*8	24

= Led team

**= Second on team

***= In 2011-12 Meszaros’ .3 G/60 was the 11th in the league among defenders who played 60 games

Not only does he put points up on the board, he’s a pretty good possession player as well. Here is a table I created using information from stats.hockeyanalysis.com:

2012-13	Mins	W/	w/out	Diff
Gervais	28	33.3	46.6	-13.3
Foster	18	47.4	47.1	0.3
Coburn	12	52.2	48.3	3.9
L. Schenn	9.5	51.7	49	2.7

2011-12
Illja	153	50.2	47.8	2.4
Gustafsson	97	55.4	46.9	8.5
Carle	96	47.2	52	-4.8
Coburn	50	60.5	51.3	9.2
Grossman	39	44.9	25.1	19.8
Timonen	33	61.1	55.9	5.2

2010-11
O'Donnell	402	49.2	40.1	9.1
Carle	203	57.5	51.7	5.8
Timonen	42	54.2	51.7	2.5
Coburn	17.5	52.9	50.8	2.1

I’m not saying Mez should be untouchable, but I wouldn’t trade him strait up for a low round draft pick.

the value of blocking shots

2013-06-11T19:03:20Z

So I have been looking at some data on blocked shots, specifically team blocked shots percentage (blocked shots for / Corsi against).

We all know that using raw totals for blocked shots is useless, since it actually correlates very slightly with losing (since a blocked shot means the other team has the puck. Other people around the hockey world have also been taking a look at blocked shots.

So I decided to take a look at some data from 2007-2008 season to the 2011-2012 season at the team level. I compared blocked shot percentage for (the rate at which a team blocks Corsi events against) to several advanced metrics, such as Corsi and Fenwick.

	CF60	FF60	CA60	FA60	CT60	FT60	Fenwick Shooting percentage against
R^2	0.02044	0.000036	0.20648	0.01186	0.19203	0.00739	0.01382

So I compared blocked shot percentage for (a defensive stat) to Corsi and Fenwick for per 60 minutes (offensive stats), Corsi and Fenwick against per 60 min, Corsi and Fenwick total per 60 min, and Fenwick shooting percentage against.

Corsi for and Fenwick for are offensive stats. I didn't expect a very high R^2 for those two, since there is a lot that happens in between a blocked shot on defense and getting a shot attempt on offense, but I compared them just for kicks. As expected, blocked shots at a higher rate has no affect on your offensive stats.

The next few columns is where I become interested. Blocked shot percentage is explaining some of the variance in the Corsi columns. Now I know that a .2 R^2 is not great, but I'd say it's definitely a decent number for this comparison and at least gives us a hint that there is some connection between Corsi and blocked shot percentage.

What we are seeing is that teams that block shots at a higher rate tend to also give up more Corsi events against. When I first saw this my immediate reaction was that the data was telling us that teams get better at blocking shots when they have more opportunities (i.e. a bad team that gives up more Corsi per game will be better at blocking shots). But if that were the case we would see the same thing in our Fenwick stats. However, we don't.

Basically, a team's ability to block shots at a higher rate is not affecting how many shots actually get past the defenders and either hit the goalie or go wide of the net. So while shot blocking at a higher rate isn't a bad thing, it also doesn't seem to be a good thing. Given that teams that block shots at a higher percentage don't give up less shots and less missed shots, shot blocking at a higher rate isn't actually accomplishing anything.

But a second question I had (spurred on by Cam Charron's article and Twitter conversations) was whether blocking shots was a net negative since it created another screen for the goalie to look around. However, the data isn't showing any connection between Blocked shot percentage for and Fenwick shooting percentage against (goals / Fenwick).

I take from this that the damage done by screening your goalie by trying to block a shot is most likely washed out by the benefit of forcing shots to go wide by attempting to block them.

Everything I have looked at so far is pointing towards shot blocking be a semi-irrelevant skill. Now some have suggested that shot blocking is only valuable when blocking non-point shots, since those shots are more likely to go in. I don't have the data to figure that out, but it would be an interesting study.

So I have been looking at some data on blocked shots, specifically team blocked shots percentage (blocked shots for / Corsi against).

	CF60	FF60	CA60	FA60	CT60	FT60	Fenwick Shooting percentage against
R^2	0.02044	0.000036	0.20648	0.01186	0.19203	0.00739	0.01382

I take from this that the damage done by screening your goalie by trying to block a shot is most likely washed out by the benefit of forcing shots to go wide by attempting to block them.

Defining the performance of NHL lines: looking at Flyers Forwards (part 2)

2013-06-10T03:35:02Z

So in Part 1, I looked tried to define 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line players and separate them based on performance.

In part 2, I will use that information to compare the average 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners to the Flyers forwards.

First, lets re-paste the two tables for reference.

Forward Lines	players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Max minutes	Min minutes	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	Rel GF/60	GA/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good thing)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st	510	71.34705882	14.42380273	17.8	13.47	5.767022163	4.293413632	0.535742239	0.313444026	9.373055228	0.911114939	1004.845491	2.936672512	0.753002461	2.611887141	0.313913379	0.324785371	0.439089082	52.65371134
2nd	543	67.01657459	12.83452982	13.47	12.19	1.930067594	1.396441857	0.5134547	0.294733197	8.41610905	0.915702069	999.8631592	2.52384902	0.154145804	2.467837711	0.093307059	0.056011309	0.060838745	49.90640494
3rd	687	52.92430859	11.3541115	12.19	10.36	-1.195302872	-1.123923901	0.311433374	0.131443054	7.749786884	0.918505992	996.0038608	2.215858792	-0.241978539	2.354658814	-0.087945411	-0.138800023	-0.154033128	48.87820797
4th	1145	31.79475983	8.468449938	10.36	1.92	-6.285112749	-5.223100963	-0.31251398	-0.398100197	6.571980541	0.922047785	987.7675905	1.716349126	-0.843968026	2.213212638	-0.248258453	-0.496863513	-0.595709573	49.52742407

Forward Lines	Group	players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	Rel GF/60	GA/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good thing)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st line	1	123	73.64227642	14.55834732	14.00552116	11.51982783	0.403332262	0.148170037	9.440397686	0.912236781	1006.640757	3.167676895	1.023903526	2.450149394	0.201800504	0.717527501	0.822103021	54.39302672
1st line	2	127	71.88976378	14.39018401	8.123255645	5.380580914	0.513694515	0.36709378	9.352200657	0.91046849	1003.990497	2.957474206	0.799516978	2.588018272	0.226354391	0.369455935	0.573162587	52.80560894
1st line	3	125	72.856	14.3735017	3.735361432	2.710360712	0.558863804	0.298087236	9.328432954	0.910216771	1003.5011	2.872127529	0.656458504	2.669070954	0.395476273	0.203056574	0.260982231	52.52868956
1st line	4	135	67.34814815	14.37390453	-2.879793406	-2.505685353	0.66835565	0.441659488	9.370763799	0.911532463	1005.240101	2.747316232	0.529590002	2.741806908	0.433369584	0.005509324	0.096220418	50.8711845
											0
2nd line	1	148	61.63513514	12.94308485	11.20425194	8.194405005	0.390037355	0.120941038	8.422856946	0.914096683	998.3252528	2.69898012	0.387298743	2.400166279	-0.010852511	0.298813841	0.398151255	52.5307806
2nd line	2	125	72.904	12.8349369	4.610891792	2.691226245	0.473334758	0.381075736	8.593504619	0.912829011	998.7640575	2.592575303	0.268759882	2.521271788	0.170111455	0.071303515	0.098648427	50.48778765
2nd line	3	128	71	12.76299736	-0.269179047	0.550710842	0.524155335	0.269548043	8.50356674	0.915212667	1000.248334	2.54090607	0.14672876	2.506765231	0.125122927	0.034140839	0.021605833	50.15368975
2nd line	4	142	63.85211268	12.79660527	-8.01112173	-5.980831955	0.668789008	0.409717649	8.14298285	0.92072121	1002.151039	2.259305219	-0.191232384	2.443917708	0.090066891	-0.184612489	-0.281299275	46.40259795
											0
3rd line	1	187	48.7540107	11.44255347	8.976978849	6.256481189	0.249561611	0.068897873	7.885147059	0.917239067	996.0905381	2.452412613	0.083732331	2.282170086	-0.256793956	0.170242527	0.340526286	51.70301264
3rd line	2	155	58.67096774	11.38535738	1.387519621	1.115945524	0.241085034	0.100136812	7.929812884	0.917628879	996.9270074	2.323195134	-0.114182337	2.375929172	-0.059924965	-0.052734038	-0.054257371	50.69426721
3rd line	3	161	56.29192547	11.25171135	-4.063266132	-2.968953631	0.3289061	0.116968862	7.700721975	0.919896293	996.9035126	2.139363404	-0.336484557	2.331176515	-0.104496018	-0.19181311	-0.231988539	48.21687828
3rd line	4	184	49.375	11.33623335	-11.2560518	-9.024753315	0.427528115	0.240601736	7.480271868	0.919294497	994.0972155	1.94407828	-0.606805086	2.429952205	0.071304719	-0.485873924	-0.678109805	44.84594056
											0
4th line	1	351	25.87179487	8.932099989	4.978200805	3.821162662	-0.36135277	-0.400073262	6.565789328	0.919269507	984.9273998	1.910681967	-0.593944598	2.161445106	-0.324213114	-0.250763139	-0.269731484	52.52545935
4th line	2	216	42.06018519	8.6983082	-3.731591958	-3.5089156	-0.332940751	-0.40108995	6.683010259	0.924401854	991.2319568	1.779709565	-0.765781895	2.110747692	-0.362399777	-0.331038127	-0.403382118	49.86808879
4th line	3	230	39.60434783	8.449231529	-9.525694633	-8.430940689	-0.282488663	-0.346340444	6.711778693	0.922482591	989.6003781	1.683903069	-0.863225852	2.249102016	-0.224568738	-0.565198947	-0.638657113	48.38293581
4th line	4	348	26.23563218	7.79773713	-18.44883266	-13.96233976	-0.266656191	-0.448488867	6.304662352	0.922130098	985.1767218	1.4596871	-1.194793413	2.347129661	-0.060635182	-0.887442561	-1.134158232	46.97080685

So now let's go through some of the Flyers forwards and see how they compare to the rest of the league. Quick reminder, these are even strength stats only. Also, because of the shortened season, the games played obviously will not match with the charts (which take averages from 82 game seasons).

Note: After each chart there will be two categories: Line and group. Line references which major group the player falls in based on minutes played (first chart). Group references what sub group the player falls in based on Relative Corsi (second chart)

We'll go alphabetically:

Adam Hall

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	ADAMHALL	PHI	LW	37	8.39	-14	-19.33	0.105	1.132	6.96	946	1016	1.55	-1.45	1.55	-1.53	3	3.08	0	0.08	16.1

Line: 4

Group: between 3 and 4

Hall came to the Flyers in a trade mid season. These stats reflect season totals (not just with the Flyers). He was a 4th liner, and his time on ice reflects that. He faced tough competition for a fourth liner, but his possession numbers reflect that (-14 Rel Corsi). His low O-zone start % is particularly surprising, and it is yet another reason for his low Corsi stats.

With the Flyers, he went pointless in 11 games. It should be noted that he faced unusually tough competition/usage for a fourth liner at even strength. His GD/60 and Rel GD/60 are very close to 0, which considering that he is a fourth liner is a very good thing. His on-ice shooting percentage is slightly higher than most fourth liners, but he was considerably luckier with his on ice save percentage.

Brayden Schenn

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	BRAYDENSCHENN	PHI	C	47	12.65	2.9	-4.04	0.523	1.535	8.24	894	977	2.32	-0.01	3.13	0.38	2.33	2.75	-0.81	-0.39	52.8

Line: 2

Group: between 2 and 3

Schenn finished the year with 8 goals and 26 points. While Schenn did not make the next step in terms of production, it must be noted that this is only Schenn's second full year in the NHL. As a 21 year old, he still has plenty of room to grow.

Schenn played 2nd line minutes for the Flyers this year. As a 2nd liner, his Rel Corsi Numbers are slightly above average. However, since the Flyers were a poor team his Corsi on ice is negative. Considering Schenn's age, this is a very comforting fact. Schenn may not be lighting up the world yet, but he seems to be playing well and most importantly has time to develop.

Schenn's Rel Corsi QOC was right near the average for second liners.

We should expect at the very least his on ice save percentage to rise as he had a very low number this year. Hopefully he gets a little luckier and the Flyers goaltending situation improves.

Claude Giroux

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	CLAUDEGIROUX	PHI	RW	48	15.09	9.8	0.99	0.262	1.184	9.23	887	979	2.9	0.88	3.48	1.02	2.02	2.46	-0.58	-0.14	47.3

Line: 1

Group: 2

Giroux's Rel Corsi puts him near the 2nd group of first liners. However, he faced easier competition than most first line players (low Rel Corsi QOC for a first liner)

Giroux was a point per game player this season. He developed good chemistry with Voracek. Girioux was very good on the powerplay (8th in NHL in Points/60 on power play).

One thing to note is that Giroux had an abysmal on ice save percentage. This fact should account partially for his poor goal differential numbers.

Daniel Briere

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	DANIELBRIERE	PHI	RW	34	12.7	-1.8	-5.7	-0.015	0.719	6.97	892	961	1.95	-0.71	3.48	0.82	2.66	2.66	-1.53	-1.53	51.2

Line:2

Group: group 3

We saw probably the last of Danny Briere in a Flyers uniform this past season. Briere played second line minutes (when healthy), but was below average in his possession stats for 2nd liners. He also faced easier competition than most first liners, and yet his possession numbers were not great and his points dropped significantly.

Briere had a very poor PDO (both SH% and SV%) were very low. His GD/60 and Rel GD/60 were incredibly poor.

Briere did not have the greatest season, and that combined with his age and contract will likely mean that he will be bought out next year.

EriC Wellwood

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	ERICWELLWOOD	PHI	C	4	8.83	-8.5	-6.8	-0.336	0.125	0	1000	1000	0	-1.32	0	-1.32	1.32	1.32	0	0	52.6

Line: 4

Group: 3

We did not see much of Wellwood this year, and of course we are all hoping he recovers from his horrific injury a few months ago. He played most of his time in the AHL, and when up with the Flyers he played (predictably) fourth line minutes. We can't pull much from Wellwood's stats since of how small the sample size is. We can notice that he played slightly below average as a fourth liner. But again the small sample size limits what we can pull from Wellwood's performance.

Harry Zolniercyzkk

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	HARRYZOLNIERCZYKK	PHI	LW	7	7.32	-35.9	-29.28	-0.922	-1.864	5	967	1017	1.17	-2.57	1.17	-0.81	3.74	1.98	0	-1.76	52.4

Line: 4

Group: 4

I will admit perhaps the biggest surprise I had while looking at these numbers for each player was for Zolnierczykk. From just watching games I thought Zolnierczykk played very well in the few games he played.

However, his possession numbers (although in a small sample size) are horrific. A -35.9 Rel Corsi is awful, and he did that with very easy competition (even for a fourth liner).

We won't need to worry about whether Zolnierczykk's numbers are revealing or just a product of small sample size, as he was traded to Aneheim mid season.

Jakub Voracek

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	JAKUBVORACEK	PHI	RW	48	13.09	17.5	6.97	0.405	1.495	10.33	857	960	3.25	1.31	3.82	1.43	1.94	2.39	-0.57	-0.12	49.6

Line: 2

Group: 1

Voracek has a breakout season for the Flyers. He was arguably their best player, and was probably their best power play performer. His Corsi numbers (rel corsi 17.5) are great.

One thing this data shows is that Laviolette did not get Voracek nearly enough even strength minutes. He was so good and yet he played only slightly above average second line minutes. This definitely needs to change next year.

Production wise Voracek was a beast. With 22 goals and 46 points, he was great. However, the caveat is that his personal and on ice shooting percentage were very high. We all need to face the fact that Voracek will not shoot 17% next year. He may be a good shooter in the NHL, but he is not good enough to shoot at 17% year in and year out. His on ice shooting percentage was also elevated, though not nearly as high as his personal SH%. 10.33% is definitely an elite number even for top 1st liners, but considering Voracek has had a 9.5 on ice SH% four times in his career, a 10.33 on ice SH% is not that crazy a number for Voracek's career.

Competition wise he faced Rel corsi QOC compatible with his placement of line 2 group 1. However, Voracek is in reality a first line player and we can expect teams to start game planning for Voracek in the seasons to come.

I'd say for next year we might be able to expect a slight decline in production next year, but overall I believe Voracek is here to stay as very good top line forward in this league.

Jason Akeson

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	JASONAKESON	PHI	RW	1	12.38	20.7	-4.85	2.635	10.913	25	1000	1250	9.69	9.69	0	-1.7	0	1.7	9.69	11.39	50

Line:2

Group: 1

Akeson had a very good year down in the AHL. With 20 goals and 53 points, there is definitely promise in this young prospect. In his one game with the Flyers, he actually played significant minutes at around the second line level. He scored a goal in that one game and seemed to play very well. However, sample size is far too small to pull anything from this data.

Akeson definitely will be a possibility to fill a fourth line role next season, and we can only hope his production at the AHL level will translate to the NHL.

Jody Shelley

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	JODYSHELLEY	PHI	LW	1	7.97	-31	-7.53	-0.833	2.479	-	1000	-	0	-1.47	0	0	1.47	0	0	-1.47	60

Line: 4

Group: 4

There is not much to say about Shelley. He is a 37 year old enforcer who has no value anymore in the NHL. In fact, he really is a liability whenever he steps on the ice. He has been a terrible possession player the last few seasons, and although we can't pull anything from this year we know that Shelley should not be on the Flyers next year.

Matt Read

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	MATTREAD	PHI	RW	42	13.6	0.7	-7.46	0.51	1.837	9.89	912	1011	2.73	0.52	2.63	-0.19	2.21	2.82	0.1	0.71	47

Line: 1

Group: between 3 and 4

After a great rookie season, many were disappointed in Read's production. In 42 games he accumulated 11 goals and 24 points. However, while Read may have only played 2 years in the NHL, he is already 26. Thus, his improvement year to year will be far less than a normal 2nd year player. His Rel Corsi was just above 0, which is not very good considering he played minutes that place him somewhere between a 1st and 2nd line player at even strength.

He faced average competition for a 2nd line player. He had a very good on ice SH%, though it was actually a decline from last year's performance. Similarly, he had a fantastic personal SH% at 15.3%, but again that represents a decline from his rookie year when he sported a 15.5 SH%. Having played only 2 seasons and only 121 NHL games, it still is too early to determine a whether Read really is a 15% shooter (unlikely) or has just been hot to start his career.

Read's goal differential numbers are good considering he was on a bad team, which is a hopeful sign.

Maxime Talbot

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	MAXIMETALBOT	PHI	C	35	11.6	-10.8	-11.23	1.333	1.544	8.7	917	1004	2.36	0.47	2.36	-0.52	1.89	2.88	0	0.99	35.2

Line: 3

Group: 4

Talbot is a prototypical defense - first forward. He plays alot of minutes at even strength for a third line forward. He played the most minutes per game on the penalty kill, as well as having the highest Rel Corsi QOC amongst Flyers forwards. His Corsi numbers are very poor, though much of that results from his usage as a top defensive forward. His Rel GD/60 is very good, esepcially for a defensive forward playing tough minutes.

Talbot did not have as a good of a season production wise. After scoring 19 goals last year, he chipped in only 5 goals and 5 assists. However, he is not counted on for scoring as much as helping shut down the opposition.

Mike Knuble

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	MIKEKNUBLE	PHI	RW	28	10.9	-1.6	-7.08	0.496	0.627	7.52	898	973	1.97	-0.7	2.75	-0.57	2.67	3.32	-0.78	-0.13	43.5

Line: 3

Group: between 2 and 3

Knuble played low minutes for a 3rd line forward. After producing 20 goals for 9 years straight, Knuble has scored 10 goals in the last 2 years. As a 40 year old, he is on his last legs of his career. His Rel Corsi was not too bad, and he played strong competition for a 3rd line player and had a 43.5% o zone start. His Goal differential numbers are not the best, though is Rel GD is not too bad.

His on ice shooting percentage wasn't abnormal for a third line player, though is on ice save percentage.

In the end, Knuble is an aging forward whose time in the NHL is nearing an end.

Ruslan Fedotenko

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	RUSLANFEDOTENKO	PHI	LW	47	9.48	-13.8	-16.29	0.232	0.699	11.36	929	1043	2.69	0.49	2.02	-1.01	2.2	3.03	0.67	1.5	35.7

Line: 4

Group: between 3 and 4

Fedotenko spent the year on fourth line for the Flyers. With 4 goals and 13 points, he certainly wasn't lighting the world on fire. Fedetenko's Rel Corsi lies somewhere between groups 3 and 4 of the 4th liners, but he did face competition closer to that of what a 3rd line player might face. He was probably a bit lucky considering is high on ice SH% of 11.36 and On ice save percentage of .929. His Goal differntial numbers were very good (closer to what we might see from a 1st liner).

Fedetenko is a UFA this summer, and if the Flyers choose to resign him he should come relatively cheap.

Scott Hartnell

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTHARTNELL	PHI	RW	32	12.57	17.4	4.47	0.45	1.946	6.03	911	971	1.79	-0.44	2.39	-0.49	2.23	2.88	-0.6	0.05	49.8

Line:2

Group: 1

Scott Hartnell was easily the most disappointing Flyer this season. After 37 goals and 67 points the year before, Hartnell had only 8 goals and 3 assists this past season. We should definitely take Hartnell's injuries into account. Hartnell was injured for much of the year and as a result was most likely not 100% during this season.

While Hartnell may never score 37 goals again, we definitely should expect a semi-bounce back season next year. For one thing, Hartnell, playing 2nd line minutes, had a great Rel Corsi number that puts him at the top of 2nd line players. His Rel Corsi QOC is also very good for his position in group 1 of line 2.

His shooting percentage of over 15% last season came down to 10.8% this year, while his on ice shooting percentage came down from 9.76 % to 6.03%. We should definitely expect the on ice shooting percentage to go up, while this year's personal shooting percentage is probably closer to reality as his career shooting percentage is 11.3%.

Many are calling for Hartnell to be taken off the top line, but I think that just the opposite action should be taken. I believe putting Hartnell back with Giroux and Voracek is the best option. Looking at Hartnell's WOWY numbers, Hartnell played very well with G and V. Both Giroux and Hartnell were about 5% better in terms of CF% together then when apart. When playing with Hartnell, Voracek also experianced a 5% CF% jump, though it seems from the data that Voracek was partially carrying Hartnell. Nevertheless, Voracek's 57% CF% when playing with Hartnell tells us that they play well together.

Hartnell might never be an all star again in his career, but he can be a valuable asset on the first line with Giroux and Voracek.

Scott Laughton

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTLAUGHTON	PHI	C	5	10.99	-15.7	-15.28	-0.593	-0.825	0	1000	1000	0	-2.28	0	-1.14	2.28	1.14	0	-1.14	29.6

Line: 3

Group: 4

Laughton is being hailed as a very good two way player. He recieved some heavy praise this year after a very good year in Oshawa (56 points in the regular season and a strong post season). He began the year up with the Flyers, but was not able to contribute much. Poor Corsi stats, even with poor QOC numbers show that the Flyers were probably right in sending him back down to the OHL.

But of course with young players like this with a small sample size, his stats in 5 games are far less important than his development down in junior. A few NHL scouts said that Laughton was the best player in the OHL this year. Hopefully Laughton will continue to develop as he matures towards the NHL. He will definitely be in the mix for a roster spot next year.

Sean Couturier

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SEANCOUTURIER	PHI	C	46	11.39	2.1	-4.24	0.952	1.936	7.26	887	960	2.06	-0.31	3.09	0.5	2.37	2.59	-1.03	-0.81	32.1

Line: 3

Group: 2

I would hate to beat a dead horse. Kurt wrote a great piece on Couturier that I would advise everyone to read. Playing third line minutes, Sean's Rel Corsi places him in group 2 of line 3. However, as one of the team's top defensive forwards, Couturier's rel Corsi QOC of nearly 1 and his ridiculously low Offensive zone start % show that he was used against top players often in the defensive zone. As a result, his Rel Corsi (which is still in the black) is even more impressive.

Couturier's on ice shooting percentage was slightly below average for a third line forward, but was down about 2% from last year. His personal shooting percentage was an abysmal 5%, and we can expect that to go up significantly next year.

I'll stop here on Courtier, since Kurt's article goes far more in depth. Playing Couturier in a more offensive role could provide Couturier the opportunity to produce at a much higher level. However, Couturier is also playing well in his defensive role, so the Flyers have a lot of options with Couturier.

Simon Gagne

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SIMONGAGNE	PHI	LW	38	11.91	-3	-3.18	0.356	1.948	8.18	908	990	2.39	0.29	2.65	-0.07	2.1	2.72	-0.26	0.36	52.6

Line: 3

Group: 3

Gagne returned to the Flyers this season in a trade with the Kings. Gagne played 2nd line minutes this season with the Kings and Flyers. His Rel Corsi QOC was low for a second line forward, as was his possession numbers.

He Chiped in 5 goals and 6 assists for the Flyers in 27 games. This data seems to point towards a drop in playing time if the Flyers choose to resign Gagne. Gagne definitely will be taking a pay cut on his next contract, and he most likely should be given third line minutes or less rather than 2nd line minutes.

Tye McGinn

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	TYEMCGINN	PHI	LW	18	11.02	15.2	13.61	0.101	0.237	6.86	908	977	2.12	-0.23	2.12	-1.46	2.35	3.58	0	1.23	50.4

Line: 3

Group:1

We got to see a decent amount of young Tye McGinn this year. Advanced stats tell us that McGinn had a played well in his 18 game stint with the Flyers. Playing 3rd line even strength minutes, McGinn sports a fantastic 15.2 Rel Corsi and 13.6 Corsi. As a rookie he did not play the toughest minutes (.1 Rel Corsi QOC), but he played very well against the competition he faced.

Production wise he only had 3 goals and 2 assists in 18 games. He produced more with the Phantoms in the AHL however with 14 goals and 26 points in 42 games. His on ice shooting percentage was pretty low for a third line player, and hopefully that will rise if he stays with the Flyers next season.

Wayne Simmonds

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	WAYNESIMMONDS	PHI	RW	45	12.2	1.4	-4.15	0.226	1.448	7.3	914	987	2.19	-0.18	2.73	-0.18	2.37	2.91	-0.54	0	49.7

Line: 2

Group: between 2 and 3

Simmonds experienced a very good year production wise with 15 goals and 32 points in 45 games. Part of that success lies on his heavy usage on the power play. He played the third most minutes per game on the power play amongst Flyers forwards.

His Rel Corsi was slightly below average, and he faced easy competition for a 2nd liner. However, this year's corsi numbers are a vast improvement over previous years. Thus far in his career Simmonds has not been the strongest possession player. Eric T found that he is also a very weak (at least in 2011-2012) neutral zone performer. So while his Rel Corsi is not the best for a 2nd liner it should be encouraging that it is improving.

His on ice shooting percentage was low for a 2nd liner, and we should expect that to improve a little next year.

Zach Rinaldo

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	ZACRINALDO	PHI	LW	32	8.32	-17.3	-18.7	-0.236	0.36	5.88	892	950	1.13	-1.27	2.93	-0.01	2.4	2.94	-1.8	-1.26	39.3

Line: 4

Group: 4

Rinaldo's advanced stats are very interesting. By the eye test (or at least my eye test) he seams to be a very good fourth line player who can disrupt the play on the fourth check and bring a physical edge. However, advanced stats tell us he is a liability on the ice.

Rinaldo is in the fourth group of the fourth line in terms of Rel Corsi. Translation: in terms of Rel Corsi he ranks as one of the worst forwards in the NHL in the past 6 years.

To Rinaldo's credit, he faces tougher minutes than most fourth liners and started a lot of shifts in the defensive zone. We also can see that he was unlucky (sporting a 950 PDO).

His GD numbers are not very good, both normal GD/60 and Rel GD/60.

Well this gives us a lot of information to soak in. I am going to stop here. In Part 3, I am going to analyze the forwards a little more and see if what we can learn from all this data.

So in Part 1, I looked tried to define 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line players and separate them based on performance.

In part 2, I will use that information to compare the average 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liners to the Flyers forwards.

First, lets re-paste the two tables for reference.

Forward Lines	players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Max minutes	Min minutes	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	Rel GF/60	GA/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good thing)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st	510	71.34705882	14.42380273	17.8	13.47	5.767022163	4.293413632	0.535742239	0.313444026	9.373055228	0.911114939	1004.845491	2.936672512	0.753002461	2.611887141	0.313913379	0.324785371	0.439089082	52.65371134
2nd	543	67.01657459	12.83452982	13.47	12.19	1.930067594	1.396441857	0.5134547	0.294733197	8.41610905	0.915702069	999.8631592	2.52384902	0.154145804	2.467837711	0.093307059	0.056011309	0.060838745	49.90640494
3rd	687	52.92430859	11.3541115	12.19	10.36	-1.195302872	-1.123923901	0.311433374	0.131443054	7.749786884	0.918505992	996.0038608	2.215858792	-0.241978539	2.354658814	-0.087945411	-0.138800023	-0.154033128	48.87820797
4th	1145	31.79475983	8.468449938	10.36	1.92	-6.285112749	-5.223100963	-0.31251398	-0.398100197	6.571980541	0.922047785	987.7675905	1.716349126	-0.843968026	2.213212638	-0.248258453	-0.496863513	-0.595709573	49.52742407

Forward Lines	Group	players	avg GP	TOI/60 even strength	Rel Corsi / 60 min	Corsi On / 60 min	Rel Corsi QOC	Corsi QOC	On ice SH %	On ice SV%	PDO	GF/60	Rel GF/60	GA/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is a good thing)	GD/60	Rel GD/60	O zone start %
1st line	1	123	73.64227642	14.55834732	14.00552116	11.51982783	0.403332262	0.148170037	9.440397686	0.912236781	1006.640757	3.167676895	1.023903526	2.450149394	0.201800504	0.717527501	0.822103021	54.39302672
1st line	2	127	71.88976378	14.39018401	8.123255645	5.380580914	0.513694515	0.36709378	9.352200657	0.91046849	1003.990497	2.957474206	0.799516978	2.588018272	0.226354391	0.369455935	0.573162587	52.80560894
1st line	3	125	72.856	14.3735017	3.735361432	2.710360712	0.558863804	0.298087236	9.328432954	0.910216771	1003.5011	2.872127529	0.656458504	2.669070954	0.395476273	0.203056574	0.260982231	52.52868956
1st line	4	135	67.34814815	14.37390453	-2.879793406	-2.505685353	0.66835565	0.441659488	9.370763799	0.911532463	1005.240101	2.747316232	0.529590002	2.741806908	0.433369584	0.005509324	0.096220418	50.8711845
											0
2nd line	1	148	61.63513514	12.94308485	11.20425194	8.194405005	0.390037355	0.120941038	8.422856946	0.914096683	998.3252528	2.69898012	0.387298743	2.400166279	-0.010852511	0.298813841	0.398151255	52.5307806
2nd line	2	125	72.904	12.8349369	4.610891792	2.691226245	0.473334758	0.381075736	8.593504619	0.912829011	998.7640575	2.592575303	0.268759882	2.521271788	0.170111455	0.071303515	0.098648427	50.48778765
2nd line	3	128	71	12.76299736	-0.269179047	0.550710842	0.524155335	0.269548043	8.50356674	0.915212667	1000.248334	2.54090607	0.14672876	2.506765231	0.125122927	0.034140839	0.021605833	50.15368975
2nd line	4	142	63.85211268	12.79660527	-8.01112173	-5.980831955	0.668789008	0.409717649	8.14298285	0.92072121	1002.151039	2.259305219	-0.191232384	2.443917708	0.090066891	-0.184612489	-0.281299275	46.40259795
											0
3rd line	1	187	48.7540107	11.44255347	8.976978849	6.256481189	0.249561611	0.068897873	7.885147059	0.917239067	996.0905381	2.452412613	0.083732331	2.282170086	-0.256793956	0.170242527	0.340526286	51.70301264
3rd line	2	155	58.67096774	11.38535738	1.387519621	1.115945524	0.241085034	0.100136812	7.929812884	0.917628879	996.9270074	2.323195134	-0.114182337	2.375929172	-0.059924965	-0.052734038	-0.054257371	50.69426721
3rd line	3	161	56.29192547	11.25171135	-4.063266132	-2.968953631	0.3289061	0.116968862	7.700721975	0.919896293	996.9035126	2.139363404	-0.336484557	2.331176515	-0.104496018	-0.19181311	-0.231988539	48.21687828
3rd line	4	184	49.375	11.33623335	-11.2560518	-9.024753315	0.427528115	0.240601736	7.480271868	0.919294497	994.0972155	1.94407828	-0.606805086	2.429952205	0.071304719	-0.485873924	-0.678109805	44.84594056
											0
4th line	1	351	25.87179487	8.932099989	4.978200805	3.821162662	-0.36135277	-0.400073262	6.565789328	0.919269507	984.9273998	1.910681967	-0.593944598	2.161445106	-0.324213114	-0.250763139	-0.269731484	52.52545935
4th line	2	216	42.06018519	8.6983082	-3.731591958	-3.5089156	-0.332940751	-0.40108995	6.683010259	0.924401854	991.2319568	1.779709565	-0.765781895	2.110747692	-0.362399777	-0.331038127	-0.403382118	49.86808879
4th line	3	230	39.60434783	8.449231529	-9.525694633	-8.430940689	-0.282488663	-0.346340444	6.711778693	0.922482591	989.6003781	1.683903069	-0.863225852	2.249102016	-0.224568738	-0.565198947	-0.638657113	48.38293581
4th line	4	348	26.23563218	7.79773713	-18.44883266	-13.96233976	-0.266656191	-0.448488867	6.304662352	0.922130098	985.1767218	1.4596871	-1.194793413	2.347129661	-0.060635182	-0.887442561	-1.134158232	46.97080685

We'll go alphabetically:

Adam Hall

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	ADAMHALL	PHI	LW	37	8.39	-14	-19.33	0.105	1.132	6.96	946	1016	1.55	-1.45	1.55	-1.53	3	3.08	0	0.08	16.1

Line: 4

Group: between 3 and 4

Brayden Schenn

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	BRAYDENSCHENN	PHI	C	47	12.65	2.9	-4.04	0.523	1.535	8.24	894	977	2.32	-0.01	3.13	0.38	2.33	2.75	-0.81	-0.39	52.8

Line: 2

Group: between 2 and 3

Schenn's Rel Corsi QOC was right near the average for second liners.

We should expect at the very least his on ice save percentage to rise as he had a very low number this year. Hopefully he gets a little luckier and the Flyers goaltending situation improves.

Claude Giroux

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	CLAUDEGIROUX	PHI	RW	48	15.09	9.8	0.99	0.262	1.184	9.23	887	979	2.9	0.88	3.48	1.02	2.02	2.46	-0.58	-0.14	47.3

Line: 1

Group: 2

Giroux's Rel Corsi puts him near the 2nd group of first liners. However, he faced easier competition than most first line players (low Rel Corsi QOC for a first liner)

Giroux was a point per game player this season. He developed good chemistry with Voracek. Girioux was very good on the powerplay (8th in NHL in Points/60 on power play).

One thing to note is that Giroux had an abysmal on ice save percentage. This fact should account partially for his poor goal differential numbers.

Daniel Briere

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	DANIELBRIERE	PHI	RW	34	12.7	-1.8	-5.7	-0.015	0.719	6.97	892	961	1.95	-0.71	3.48	0.82	2.66	2.66	-1.53	-1.53	51.2

Line:2

Group: group 3

Briere had a very poor PDO (both SH% and SV%) were very low. His GD/60 and Rel GD/60 were incredibly poor.

Briere did not have the greatest season, and that combined with his age and contract will likely mean that he will be bought out next year.

EriC Wellwood

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	ERICWELLWOOD	PHI	C	4	8.83	-8.5	-6.8	-0.336	0.125	0	1000	1000	0	-1.32	0	-1.32	1.32	1.32	0	0	52.6

Line: 4

Group: 3

Harry Zolniercyzkk

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	HARRYZOLNIERCZYKK	PHI	LW	7	7.32	-35.9	-29.28	-0.922	-1.864	5	967	1017	1.17	-2.57	1.17	-0.81	3.74	1.98	0	-1.76	52.4

Line: 4

Group: 4

However, his possession numbers (although in a small sample size) are horrific. A -35.9 Rel Corsi is awful, and he did that with very easy competition (even for a fourth liner).

We won't need to worry about whether Zolnierczykk's numbers are revealing or just a product of small sample size, as he was traded to Aneheim mid season.

Jakub Voracek

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	JAKUBVORACEK	PHI	RW	48	13.09	17.5	6.97	0.405	1.495	10.33	857	960	3.25	1.31	3.82	1.43	1.94	2.39	-0.57	-0.12	49.6

Line: 2

Group: 1

Voracek has a breakout season for the Flyers. He was arguably their best player, and was probably their best power play performer. His Corsi numbers (rel corsi 17.5) are great.

I'd say for next year we might be able to expect a slight decline in production next year, but overall I believe Voracek is here to stay as very good top line forward in this league.

Jason Akeson

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	JASONAKESON	PHI	RW	1	12.38	20.7	-4.85	2.635	10.913	25	1000	1250	9.69	9.69	0	-1.7	0	1.7	9.69	11.39	50

Line:2

Group: 1

Akeson definitely will be a possibility to fill a fourth line role next season, and we can only hope his production at the AHL level will translate to the NHL.

Jody Shelley

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	JODYSHELLEY	PHI	LW	1	7.97	-31	-7.53	-0.833	2.479	-	1000	-	0	-1.47	0	0	1.47	0	0	-1.47	60

Line: 4

Group: 4

Matt Read

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	MATTREAD	PHI	RW	42	13.6	0.7	-7.46	0.51	1.837	9.89	912	1011	2.73	0.52	2.63	-0.19	2.21	2.82	0.1	0.71	47

Line: 1

Group: between 3 and 4

Read's goal differential numbers are good considering he was on a bad team, which is a hopeful sign.

Maxime Talbot

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	MAXIMETALBOT	PHI	C	35	11.6	-10.8	-11.23	1.333	1.544	8.7	917	1004	2.36	0.47	2.36	-0.52	1.89	2.88	0	0.99	35.2

Line: 3

Group: 4

Mike Knuble

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	MIKEKNUBLE	PHI	RW	28	10.9	-1.6	-7.08	0.496	0.627	7.52	898	973	1.97	-0.7	2.75	-0.57	2.67	3.32	-0.78	-0.13	43.5

Line: 3

Group: between 2 and 3

His on ice shooting percentage wasn't abnormal for a third line player, though is on ice save percentage.

In the end, Knuble is an aging forward whose time in the NHL is nearing an end.

Ruslan Fedotenko

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	RUSLANFEDOTENKO	PHI	LW	47	9.48	-13.8	-16.29	0.232	0.699	11.36	929	1043	2.69	0.49	2.02	-1.01	2.2	3.03	0.67	1.5	35.7

Line: 4

Group: between 3 and 4

Fedetenko is a UFA this summer, and if the Flyers choose to resign him he should come relatively cheap.

Scott Hartnell

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTHARTNELL	PHI	RW	32	12.57	17.4	4.47	0.45	1.946	6.03	911	971	1.79	-0.44	2.39	-0.49	2.23	2.88	-0.6	0.05	49.8

Line:2

Group: 1

Hartnell might never be an all star again in his career, but he can be a valuable asset on the first line with Giroux and Voracek.

Scott Laughton

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SCOTTLAUGHTON	PHI	C	5	10.99	-15.7	-15.28	-0.593	-0.825	0	1000	1000	0	-2.28	0	-1.14	2.28	1.14	0	-1.14	29.6

Line: 3

Group: 4

Sean Couturier

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SEANCOUTURIER	PHI	C	46	11.39	2.1	-4.24	0.952	1.936	7.26	887	960	2.06	-0.31	3.09	0.5	2.37	2.59	-1.03	-0.81	32.1

Line: 3

Group: 2

Simon Gagne

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	SIMONGAGNE	PHI	LW	38	11.91	-3	-3.18	0.356	1.948	8.18	908	990	2.39	0.29	2.65	-0.07	2.1	2.72	-0.26	0.36	52.6

Line: 3

Group: 3

Tye McGinn

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	TYEMCGINN	PHI	LW	18	11.02	15.2	13.61	0.101	0.237	6.86	908	977	2.12	-0.23	2.12	-1.46	2.35	3.58	0	1.23	50.4

Line: 3

Group:1

Wayne Simmonds

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	WAYNESIMMONDS	PHI	RW	45	12.2	1.4	-4.15	0.226	1.448	7.3	914	987	2.19	-0.18	2.73	-0.18	2.37	2.91	-0.54	0	49.7

Line: 2

Group: between 2 and 3

His on ice shooting percentage was low for a 2nd liner, and we should expect that to improve a little next year.

Zach Rinaldo

SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	GF On/60	Rel GF/60	GA On/60	Rel GA/60 (negative is better)	GF Off/60	GA Off/60	GD/60	Rel GD/60	Off Zone Start %
2012-2013 Season	ZACRINALDO	PHI	LW	32	8.32	-17.3	-18.7	-0.236	0.36	5.88	892	950	1.13	-1.27	2.93	-0.01	2.4	2.94	-1.8	-1.26	39.3

Line: 4

Group: 4

Rinaldo is in the fourth group of the fourth line in terms of Rel Corsi. Translation: in terms of Rel Corsi he ranks as one of the worst forwards in the NHL in the past 6 years.

To Rinaldo's credit, he faces tougher minutes than most fourth liners and started a lot of shifts in the defensive zone. We also can see that he was unlucky (sporting a 950 PDO).

His GD numbers are not very good, both normal GD/60 and Rel GD/60.

Well this gives us a lot of information to soak in. I am going to stop here. In Part 3, I am going to analyze the forwards a little more and see if what we can learn from all this data.