Kulemin: So Hot Right Now
Editor's Note: Good Lord, if you write a fanpost like this then you will see it on the front page. An amazing analysis of 30 goal scorers, Nikolai Kulemin, and what it takes to repeat a 30 goal season.
One of the hot topics in Leafland this summer has revolved around one of our (very few) T.O. developed talents, Nikolai Kulemin. After scoring 16G in 2009/2010, Kulemin earned himself a 2 year, $2.35M/season contract in a deal that is now looking like a short term steal. Don't expect him to come this cheaply after next year, Leafs fans. Kulemin exploded for 30 G in 2010/2011, and short of a hugely disappointing contract year in 2011/2012, Kulemin will be looking to get paid and will be looking at the recent Dubinsky/Callahan contracts as comparables.
But can he perform like last year again? A quick scan over his stats shows a whopping 17.1 shooting percentage, as compared to his previous career average of 11.3%. The immediate reaction is to label him a "regress to mean" candidate that is slated for a pullback in production. And I don't necessarily disagree.
How does he compare to other 30 goal scorers? Will he be a one-hit wonder? Should we expect 20G from Kulemin going forward, or could he see 30+G again? After the jump, we'll see where he stands within the 30G group, as well as what he (and the coaching staff) have to do to keep Kulemin's game at an elite level of production.
The Sample
To see how #41 compares to other 30 goal scorers, I took a look at every player that had at least one 30 goal season since 1998/1999. Why 98/99? Well, because this is when they started publishing TOI data for all players, which I thought might be a useful stat to use. However, the sample data includes ALL career data on players that scored 30G from the 98/99 season onward, and as such certain prior seasons will not have TOI data included and were therefore excluded from any TOI analysis. The result is 150 players ranging from Scott Gomez to Steve Yzerman, all with different styles, draft pedigree and upside potential, but all with 1 thing in common - they at one point scored at least 30 goals.
What's interesting about the above chart? Well, for one thing, 71% of the players that scored 30G at least once did it again at some point in their careers. Another thing to remember is that the sample includes players that are still playing and many have a high probability of another 30G season in them - Jeff Skinner, Logan Couture, Derek Roy and Nicklas Backstrom to name a few. Another neat bit of info, only 3 players in the sample had 13 or more 30G+ seasons in them - Jaromir Jagr, Brett Hull and Mats Sundin.
This chart shows in a rather dramatic fashion how obviously important early draft picks can be to acquiring high-end goalscoring talent. 59% of the players in the sample were drafted by pick #30 or before, with 48% of those having multiple 30+ goal seasons. The only undrafted player in the sample with multiple 30+ goal seasons is Martin St. Louis.
Shooting % and Why it Matters
Below we see the first dramatic instance of how shooting % affects total goal output - depending on whether you look at his pre-2010/2011 sh% (~11.3%), his career sh% (~13.6%), or his 2010/2011 sh% (17.3%), the expected output ranges dramatically. The 17.3% stands out not only because it is substantially higher than his previous and now current career sh%, but it was quite a bit higher than the Sample Group's sh% as well. In seasons where the players in the sample scored 30+ goals, the group averaged 15.4%, and in non-30G seasons the group average was 11.5%. In some ways this is positive news, as a fallback to only 15.4% rather than 11% would give Kulemin a significant chance at repeating the 30G feat. Below is a graph of Kulemin's 10-game moving average sh% throughout the year, as well as how his he compares with the Sample Group.
The (not so) Secret to scoring 30+ Goals - Step 1: STAY HEALTHY
This one is obvious, but can't be emphasized enough: Getting to 30G requires not only talent, ice-time and a bit of luck, you can't be taking injuries. The Leafs were incredibly lucky with injuries to their Top 6 last year, and Kulemin was no exception - 30 goals scored in 82 games played. Regardless of what his shooting % returns to or how often he shoots, his number of games played will be one of (if not the most) significant factors in re-achieving 30 goals.
| Nikolai Kulemin | Sample Group | Pre-2010/2011 sh% | Career sh% | 2010/2011 sh% | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010/2011 | Career Avg | 30G Seasons | Non-30G Seasons | 70 Games | 78 Games | 82 Games | 70 Games | 78 Games | 82 Games | 70 Games | 78 Games | 82 Games | |
| GP | 82 | 77.7 | 78.1 | 62.7 | 16.7 | 18.6 | 20 | 20.1 | 22.4 | 24 | 26 | 28.5 | 30 |
The Sample Group splits shows the importance of staying healthy - in seasons where the players in the sample scored 30+ goals, they played on average 78.1 games, while the seasons they did not accomplish that feat, they played on average 62.7 games. Kulemin has proven extremely resilient thus far in his career, and short of an unpredictable injury there is no reason to conclude that 78+ games can't be achieved in 2011/2012. Depending on what shooting % he achieves, this could mean he could achieve anywhere between 18.6 and 30 goals, holding all other factors constant.
The (not so) Secret to scoring 30+ Goals - Step 2: Gimme the Ice, Man
The amount of ice-time a player gets is a huge factor in his total production. But ice-time shouldn't just be handed to a player, they have to able to do more with the time given to them than other players or they see themselves getting bumped down the depth chart.
| Nikolai Kulemin | Sample Group | Pre-2010/2011 sh% | Career sh% | 2010/2011 sh% | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010/2011 | Career Avg | 30G Seasons | Non-30G Seasons | 15.54 ATOI | 17.19 ATOI | 19.37 ATOI | 15.54 ATOI | 17.19 ATOI | 19.37 ATOI | 15.54 ATOI | 17.19 ATOI | 19.37 ATOI | |
| ATOI | 17.19 | 15.54 | 19.37 | 17.02 | 17.6 | 19.4 | 21.9 | 21.1 | 23.3 | 26.3 | 26.9 | 30.0 | 33.5 |
This is one area where I believe there is room for a SIGNIFICANT increase to Kulemin's game. Not only did Kulemin score 30 goals last year, he did it playing a paltry 17:19 per game, with on average 0:55 of that spent on the PK, which was actually an upgrade as he had played 13:48 and 16:22 the previous two seasons, bringing his career figure to 15.54 minutes per game. The players in the Sample Group on average had 19.37 minutes of ice-time per game when they had 30+ goal seasons, and just over 17 minutes in seasons they didn't.
As we see in the table and chart above, by increasing Kulemin's ice-time from 17.19 to the Group average of 19.37 in 30+ goal seasons, Kulemin could have seen his goal output raised between 2-4 goals over the course of the season, depending on the realized sh%, all other factors being held constant. If MGK dominates like it did last year, we may see the line a lot more in 2011/2012. Oh and if you're wondering, the significant drop around game 48 was due to him seeing 5:48 in ice-time that game after being punched in the face by Tim Gleason. And before you ask, excluding that game only moves his average ice-time up to 17.27.
The (not so) Secret to scoring 30+ Goals - Step 3: SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT
I'm going to avoid the "shot quality" discussion entirely here, so anyone who wants to expand please feel free in the comments. But it's hard not to agree that all else being equal, shooting more will lead to scoring more, and that's why for the purposes of this analysis I'll say: If Kulemin wants to repeat that 30+ goal season, he needs to shoot more. A lot more.
| Nikolai Kulemin | Sample Group | Pre-2010/2011 sh% | Career sh% | 2010/2011 sh% | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010/2011 | Career Avg | 30G Seasons | Non-30G Seasons | 7.24 S/60 | 8.49 S/60 | 9.46 S/60 | 7.24 S/60 | 8.49 S/60 | 9.46 S/60 | 7.24 S/60 | 8.49 S/60 | 9.46 S/60 | |
| Shots/60 | 7.30 | 7.24 | 9.46 | 8.49 | 19.4 | 22.8 | 25.4 | 23.3 | 27.4 | 30.5 | 29.7 | 34.9 | 38.9 |
Despite his great goal-scoring production last season, Kulemin didn't really shoot a lot more with the ice-time he was given than he did in previous years, around 7.3 shots/60 minutes of ice time. Comparatively, the players in the Sample Group shot at 9.46 per 60 minutes of ice-time in 30+ goal years, and 8.49 per 60 minutes in non-30+ goal years, both still well above Kulemin's level of shot output. From the table above, we can see that had he shot as much as the Sample Group's average during 30G seasons, Kulemin could have increased his output by as much as 9 goals, holding all other factors constant. More realistically speaking, if his sh% falls back down to his career average, he could still reach 30G by shooting at this increased rate of 9.46 Sh/60.
I find this graph to be the most interesting of all as it really highlights how much less Kulemin shoots in comparison with the 30+ G Sample Group. Even more so, it seems that he actually was shooting less and less per 60 minutes of ice-time as the year went on. Whether this situation continues next season will be one of the largest contributing factors to his production success.
Summary - What's the damn prediction already?
Well, I chose these 3 factors not only because they are the obvious way to increase ANY player's production, but also because I believe they are all EQUALLY important in determining the final goal prediction, so in my final calculation I will equally weigh the 3 to come up with a final figure.
Sh%: Since every one of the predictions is based on a guess for sh%, I'm going to go with his career sh% (13.6%) as it seems to be as good a guess as anything else.
Games Played: No matter how much I hope and pray that Kulemin sees 82 games next year, I gotta go with the career average (77.7) for the estimate.
Ice-time: Why Kulemin started seeing less time on average as the year went on is a headscratcher for sure, one that I will look into more separately. Did Kessel's line start getting hot? Was MGK used more to shutdown opponent top lines rather than get premier ice-time? Does Kulemin perform better given a lighter workload from an ice-time perspective? Whatever the answer, I have to think that based on his outstanding performance last year, he will receive a bump in ice-time, which I'll guess is 1 full minute more, up to 18.19 minutes per game.
Shots/60: Whether he knows it or not, Kulemin has to be shooting more with the ice-time he's given if he's going to repeat for 30 goals. That being said, there didn't seem to be many indications that he was starting to shoot the lights out as the year went on, so maybe his on-ice success has more to do with being in the right position than shooting the puck every time he touches it. Whatever the case, unless he actively works at changing his game to shoot more, I have to guess that we'll see something along the lines of his career 7.24 Shots/60 minutes again next year.
2011/2012 Goals = 1/3 * (Games Played Prediction) + 1/3 * (Ice-time Prediction) + 1/3 * (Shots/60 Prediction)
2011/2012 Goals = 1/3 * (22.4) + 1/3 * (24.7) + 1/3 * (23.3)
2011/2012 Goals = 23.5 Goals, let's round that up to 24.
So, given the equation, what would YOUR prediction be? Am I being too conservative/aggressive with the Games Played, Ice-time and Shots/60 predictions? Can Kulemin maintain a high shooting % or was this a 1-off year?
As always, glove tap to Hockey-Reference for the use of their spectacular hockey database.
PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.
134 comments
|
18 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow… nhlcheapshot so hot right now
Popped a Colboner - Certified Joe Colborne Fanboy
I'm telling you I was the King of Spain (now I eat humble pie)
Now the Leafs call me up to drive the Zamboni
Twitter me this.
Fantastic article, I love when someone does all the hard work and I get all the knowledge lol. Ps. Love me some graphs
Where in the world is Carmen San Diego?!!!
I usually just lurk in the summer and don’t comment a whole lot but holy hell, I had to give a glove tap on this one.. I mean that’s one hell of a article! Out of curiosity, how long did it take you to do all of this? Oh and by the way, nice job! lol
More like one in a million, So you're telling me there's a chance - Optimism
Out of curiosity, how long did it take you to do all of this?
More than I’m willing to admit, but I confess that more than half the time was just putting it all into charts/tables, fixing it in HTML and aligning/spellchecking (I probably still screwed a few words up).
I actually started this over a month ago but never finished it, and with all the Kulemin predictions coming out lately I thought I may as well just spit it out on a hungover Sunday before it became irrelevent.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I personally think his ice time depends more on how Kessel/Connolly/Lupul play than on how well Kulie or his line plays. If Kessel and Connolly produce well together, I think Kulie will have trouble getting any more ice time at even strength. I think the fact that we’ll likely be icing a better 3rd line as well may chip away at MGK’s ice time at even strength. On top of that, I really don’t see Kulemin getting 1st unit PP time, at least to start the year. He’s probably going to have to produce as much as he can in the 17 minutes or so he got this year.
Anyway, great work.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
I wish I could print this out and hand it out before Leafs games to show people how good analysis is on the internet.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
BUT BLOGGERS LIVE IN THEIR PARENTS’ BASEMENTS NO ACCOUNTABILITY GWAAAAAAH
by TheOtherAndrew on Aug 14, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Well done, cheapshot. This is a rec'n.
As for your comment about shot quality, ask and you shall receive. Should see something on that in a couple days.
Oh, you better believe that's a paddling.
Great work!
It may just be confirmation bias, but I seem to remember Kulemin trying to get many shooting opportunities, but they would often times result in him either have trouble catching up to his linemates (which is strange considering he’s one of the Leafs’ fastest skaters) or missing passes from his linemates. Maybe he is trying to shoot more, but has trouble doing so? Or possibly it’s just a lack of confidence in his shot? I don’t know.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
the leading vote getter
is less than 20 goals? That’s what most people think will happen? wtf people?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that was someone or someones spamming the poll.
The Leafs are my Rushmore
Certified Grabbo Lover and member of the PPPPP
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 15, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
ah
ok well that’s irritating.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I predict this post will have an outlier hour in terms of PPM (posts per minute) as soon as Burtch finds it. Then we can debate how likely it is that this topic will keep up that rate of posting going forward.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 12:06 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
A+
great analysis. lots of numbers, but useful ones that you don’t need a PhD in advanced stats to understand what they’re telling you. nice work on the charts and graphs too, they look really pro.
re: kulemin…. 29 goals with a similar shooting %, just to prove all the naysayers wrong.
Congratulations Tomas!
I grasp the meaning and usefulness of most advanced stats but I don’t consider myself good enough at using them to present an analysis in any tangible form.
Pretty much everyone (’round here at least) understands sh%, games played, Ice-time and Shots/60.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Great work. The other obvious factor in actually producing 30 goals is powerplay. Kulemin only scored 5 there – only 1 in Feb-Mar-Apr. Production there could really be enhanced by improved special teams performance overall, by more time on the PP, etc. There’s perhaps another 5 goals in play from that variable.
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Aug 15, 2011 8:28 AM EDT reply actions
True enough – but I have nothing quantitative to suggest that Kulemin will get more powerplay time (other than the proportional increase I suggested by adding 1min overall to his ATOI) or that the powerplay will in fact get any better.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions
umm
his goal scoring totals and the PP’s productivity when he was on the ice are both solid reasons for him to be out there.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Solid reasons sure
But last year he was 6th in terms of PP ice time among regular forwards.
I think Connolly will replace Bozak’s minutes. I just don’t see any solid evidence of Kulemin’s PP time increasing over Kessel’s, Connolly’s, Grabbo’s, Lupul’s, Kadri’s…
I don’t think he’ll get any less, but I’m not sure there’s a ton of evidence suggesting he’ll get more from last year’s numbers. But with the new coaching changes, hopefully they have a stronger focus on special teams performance next year and it could very well increase.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed that it’s best to be cautious. That said, one area where there’s obvious room for Kulemin to improve his goal-scoring – beyond taking more shots – is on the Powerplay, where he only scored 5 goals last year.
I went back to check the last 5 years or so of players who scored >30 goals, and of the 160+ seasons, only FOUR had guys scoring 30 goals with less than 5 PP goals. On average, they scored around 12 per season.
So… if Kulemin could:
- Play on an improved Leafs powerplay, or
- Get more PP time, or
- Choose to shoot more while on it…
there’s potential for him to find another 4-8 goals/season.
Be interesting to me to see if any of the guys scoring >30 goals in more than one season did so with especially high numbers of powerplay goals, rather than above-average shots or shooting percentage, which we often look at.
In other words, with top goal-scorers averaging around 1/3 of all their goals on the PP, changes in their performance in this subset – special tams play – would seem of particular importance.
[None of this arguing against your thesis, just a possible add-on variable.]
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Aug 15, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Special teams specifically is an interesting factor I didn’t consider, mostly because the special teams splits data doesn’t go that far back. I’d think it would vary widely among the sample group but it’s worth looking into for interest sake.
I’d be hestitent to use it in a prediction model right away, as off the top of my head I think it is more difficult to model how well Kulemin would succeed on the powerplay in any given year – you would need to estimate # of powerplay opportunities, PP ATOI, PP sh%… it is interesting though.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
you could look at ES TOI vs. PP TOI
the NHL has data going back at least 1997-98. It would take some effort, but it’d be far from impossible to do.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
for instance
Jason Allison and Alexei Yashin both had 33 goals in 1997-98, despite scoring only 5 PP goals, while playing 317:16 and 347:53 in PP ice time respectively.
Last year Kulemin had 30 goals while scoring only 5 PP goals, but he only played 217:55 in PP ice time.
Milan Lucic meanwhile, also scored 30 goals with 5 PP goals, but he played even less at 198:39 in PP ice time.
Kulemin and Lucic’s difference in production on the PP alone from a goal perspective indicates they likely would have outperformed both Yashin AND Allison in that regard, and many other offensive stars of yore. In fact, IMHO they were both horribly short changed last year in terms of PP TOI. Considering their output they deserved far more chances offensively than they were really given.
Other examples of players to score 30 (or come extremely close) in the past 14 years or so while producing minimally on the PP include:
Mats Sundin in 1998-99 (4 PP goals, 31 goals total) – 359:40 PP TOI
Martin Straka in 1998-99 (5 PP goals, 31 goals total) – 385:23 PP TOI
Brendan Shanahan in 1998-99 (5 PP goals, 31 goals total) – 302:44 PP TOI
Mike Modano in 1998-99 (6 PP goals, 30 goals total) – 327:44 PP TOI
Miroslav Satan in 1999-2000 (5 PP goals, 30 goals total) – 354:40 PP TOI
Sergei Samsonov in 2000-01 (3 PP goals, 29 goals total) – 303:40 PP TOI
Radek Dvorak in 2000-01 (5 PP goals, 31 goals total) – 252:38 PP TOI
Simon Gagne in 2001-02 (4 PP goals, 33 goals total) – 245:16 PP TOI
Sergei Samsonov in 2001-02 (3 PP goals, 29 goals total) *talk about being shortchanged here – 215:21 PP TOI
Jere Lehtinen in 2002-03 (5 PP goals, 31 goals total) – 154:11 PP TOI
Alexander Mogilny in 2002-03 (5 PP goals, 33 goals total *for the LEAFS) – 338:17 PP TOI
Marian Gaborik in 2002-03 (5 PP goals, 30 goals total) – 291:00 PP TOI
Ok so that’s 14 players from a decade or more ago that had similar output, and similar issues with PP production, but out of those 14, only 2 or 3 have come remotely close to the limited minutes Kulemin and Lucic got when they produced 30. Lehtinen, Dvorak, and Samsonov are the only real victims of a comparable nature I’m seeing here, and frankly I would be fine if Kulemin can maintain a production rate similar to those guys during his career.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Which lends more weight – in my mind – to the idea that there are really TWO quite separate games going on, and should be separate statistics, for regular 5v5 and PP. I know we keep both sets already, but sometimes they get lost, like in many discussions of shooting percentage.
- I mean, I’d expect the overall shot quality of forwards on the PP would be somewhat better than on regular 5v5. If we knew this, it might also give us a sense of whether a player’s shooting % was enormously high largely out of “luck,” or from more PP time or shots taken there, etc. e.g. If a Stamkos shows a high shooting % because he’s T’ing up a lot of PP goals from a set position, I would expect that subset of goals to vary differently than shots taken from the regular movement of 5v5 play.
- In Kulie’s case, it might mean we have something even odder… which is, he had an enormously high shooting %, but very little PP time and few goals there, which likely means… his 5v5 shooting percentage was (relatively) that much higher than average. Which might mean XXX.
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Aug 16, 2011 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
to highlight
this even further, I’d point out that Lucic had even less PP time, but the same number of goals, and a virtually identical S% because of his exact same number of shots (173). Funny thing is, Lucic also scored 5 ENG, which means he only scored 25 goals with a goalie being able to stop the puck.
Ovechkin had 4, Backes and St. Louis had 3. Those are the only 30 goal scorers to come close to that number.
The way that affects Lucic’s S% is interesting, because if you drop those 5 goals on an Empty Net, you get 25 goals on 168 shots, which is a much more pedestrian 14.9% shooting rate.
Kulemin had 0 EN goals. So considering that fact, he really did have a horribly high S%. Based on the limited number of PP goals, and his 1 SH goal, that means he had 24 ES goals, in comparison with Lucic’s 20 (assuming the ENG all happened while the Bruins were at ES and not on the PP).
He really did have a “season to remember”.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
just so people are aware
Kulemin shot 5 goals on 21 5v4 PP shots… that’s a 23% shooting rate.
At 5v5 he shot 24 goals on 111 shots… which gives us a 21.6% shooting rate.
this according to BehindTheNet.ca
The only players with better PP shooting percentages were Grabovski and Bozak (who scored 6 goals on only 14 5v4 PP shots)… speaking of shooting more maybe Bozak needs to do the same.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
for some reason
I can’t get the 4v5 shot numbers to produce themselves, and I have no idea how many 5v3 or 4v4 shots Kulemin took… the 5v5 and 5v4 numbers only add up to 132, and he took 173, so that leaves out 41 shots.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
he had 1 goal
short handed, but considering we don’t know the number of shots he took, that doesn’t help. But from the looks of things his shooting at 5v3 and 4v4 both leave much to be desired?
0.0% all around!
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Which says to me....
that perhaps the right tool to use more often is 5v5 Shooting Percentage, with not just PP and SH shots removed, but also ENG’s (or are these classified as 5v6 already?)
Because a 3-5 extra goals during PP or EN situations produces significant swings in shooting percentage.
And thus, we could see a sharp fall in Kulemin’s shooting percentage during the usual course of play, but a couple of ENG’s and a few more PP goals could see his absolute numbers stay high….
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Aug 16, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t be too sure of that. Bozak is the team’s best face-off man.
Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.
Dear God.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
MC79 had a great post showing that faceoff skills don’t really mean much as far as special teams success goes. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see a #1 PP unit of Kessel-Kadri-Lupul-Connolly-Phaneuf. Though given our surplus of offensive defencemen, it might make sense to have Connolly just play centre on the powerplay.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but how many NHL teams, such as the Leafs, are aware of this? I would guess there are a lot of people in hockey who still believe in having strong face-off men on special teams. Don’t you?
Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.
Yes, but how many NHL teams, such as the Leafs, are aware of this?
Exactly.
I would guess there are a lot of people in hockey who still believe in having strong face-off men on special teams. Don’t you?
Definitely.
"Right side, left side, Komi can sit wherever he wants in the press box."
-Bower Power
by MapleLeafMole on Aug 16, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Given two players of roughly equivalent talent aside from faceoff skill, I’d rather put out the player with the better face-off abilities. Given the choice between, say, Bozak and Connolly, I’d be willing to accept Connolly’s poorer face-off skills in exchange for his superior play-making abilities.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 16, 2011 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
So it looks like barring more drastic improvement, Kulemin’s ceiling next season will be 30 goals
Shameless optimism
I'd be careful to use the word 'ceiling', as anything can happen in any given season
Plus he’s young and probably still improving.
But based on the factors identified above that go into his production, unless he changes his game in a significant way (shoots a lot a lot more, gets way more ice time, or gets more PP time, maintains a very high shooting % for longer than a season), it shouldn’t be expected.
If he shot as much as Kessel does and had his ice time (and PP time), there’s no reason he couldn’t pot 35. It just doesn’t seem likely based on how he’s played in his career.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
It seems likely that he’ll start shooting more this season, now that both he and Wilson know he can score 30. Shooting might not have been encouraged before, if they didn’t think of him as a goal-scorer, but after last season, I’d have to imagine they are thinking of him differently.
Come get your duds in order...
I think people under-estimate how difficult it can be to just “shoot more”. Increasing your shot totals isn’t just about deciding to fire more shots, it’s about increasing your territorial possession so that you have a better number of shot opportunities, and it’s about getting better at putting yourself in position to get off a good shot by evading defenders.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I WANT to agree but I really don't see any evidence to support this other than "we HOPE he starts shooting more".
By the end of the season when the Leafs were hot, Kulemin shots/60 were very low, close to 5.0. Which, given his 17m avg ice time, works out to about 1.4 shots per game.
Shooting less than 2 times in a game makes it very hard to score 30+. In comparison, Kessel was shooting at 12.1 Sh/60 last season, ~3.9 shots/game given his ice time.
That’s why there is no doubt in my mind Kessel can repeat 30+ barring injury, he’s doing all the things it takes – staying healthy, getting premier ice-time, and shooting a lot.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I totally agree. I just hadn’t thought of the coaching angle before, and about how Kulemin has sort of shifted from responsible, physical two-way player to 30 goal scorer (who can also do lots of other cool things), and how coaches might want him to shift priorities a bit this season (i.e. keep trying to score goals, which it turns out he’s good at). As Drag pointed out, though, that’s not obviously an easy shift to make.
Also, completely unrelated: I was wondering how many of the 30 goal scorers you looked at might have had a 28-29 goal season following up a 30+ season, and how that’s not really a regression (or a serious one) but would count as a non-repeater in your analysis. Probably doesn’t happen too often to make a huge difference, but it could bump that 71% even higher. (I always worry about things like this when strict standards are used to measure production.)
Come get your duds in order...
I did use the strictest definition, even if it’s only 1 goal, there has to be a hard cutoff somewhere to make it a binary split – either you scored 30 or you didn’t. It excluded players like Grabbo who came so close (29) but hey, 30 is 30, and there’s no asterisks in this life.
If you’d really like to follow it up, all the player data is provided at the end of the post.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
My comment wasn’t a criticism of your analysis; I was just curious, as I know if Kulie scored 28-29 goals next season we’d take that as effectively being a repeat performance.
Come get your duds in order...
That would be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, if Kulie scores 28 goals next year I’ll consider it to be a repeat performance.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh wait....
There goes one now.
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Aug 15, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
could we look at it
from a g/60 perspective at ES? I’d take 20+ ES goals in an 82 game season, while averaging 13+ ES minutes a night… that’d mean we’d be looking at a season of 1.12 ESG/60 or better as a cutoff of “solid” perfomances.
Last year he had 24 ESG in 1126:36 of ES TOI. That’s a 1.28 ESG/60 season right there.
If he can surpass or match that, then I’m happy.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I really don't know how likely this is
His shots/60 (total ice time) over his three seasons have been 0.1298, 0.1136, and 0.1282. So he didn’t even shoot as much /minute ice time last year as he did his first. Now of course this doesn’t take into account the split of his minutes (I don’t know where to find ES shots vs PP shots. I just used hockey reference).
I’d love for his shots to go up but its not necessarily going to happen.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
When I look at the poll, all I can think is “Oh ye of little faith” for the 40+% who voted less than 20 goals. From watching Kulemin all last year, I’m not sure how anyone can make the decision. Barring an injury, I’ll put down money on Kulemin potting at least 25 goals. The guy has great hockey sense. All last year he was not afraid to battle for the puck, but perhaps more importantly he put himself in good position to shoot into the net – he’d go to the front of the net, off to the sides, and wait for the puck to come to him. Other times he would create a play himself. I don’ t know if he’ll get 30 goals again – perhaps not. But he’s 2nd line talent, not a 2-way winger potting less than 20 goals whose place would be the third line. (I have no statistics to back me up, so this is clearly an opinion)
I also failed to mention that this article is fantastic – really great job!
by Goosemonster on Aug 15, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Some one is rigging the poll
Or another site is bombing it. That selection only had 2 votes until a few minutes ago.
Heh, I’m flattered my little article was worth anyone’s time to manipulate a poll.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, making polls open only to registered members is something we’re requested from SBN at some point because that can happen. No way he’ll go below 20 goals unless he’s injured a lot.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Hey, if he gets injured and gets less than 20, we can look back at this post and look like geniuses for predicting a 10+ goal drop!
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Habs fans trying to bavenge us for the Lupul comment on twitter?
"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 15, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if he doesn’t score 30 again, I think he’s still a legitimate 1st line talent. A guy who can score 25 goals is a first-liner on pretty much any team in the league. He may play on our “2nd line”, but I think his talent level is first-liner.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
so
the Leafs have 3/4 first liners? but no NHL all-star type talents? is that the problem we’ve got here?
Kessel, Kulemin, Grabovski, and then either Lupul or MacArthur… those are all 1st line level guys… you could even include Connolly based on prior years performances.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d agree with that. Our top 6 is very good when healthy, but we’re lacking PPG kind of elite level talent. As I said in my fanpost on the top lines of playoff teams, there tends to be significant separation between the best player on a top line and the 3rd player on a top line. We have decent 2nd and 3rd forwards, but we need a true #1.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Joe Colborne
Nazem Kadri, Greg McKegg, Josh Leivo, Tyler Biggs etc… we’re hoping! *crosses fingers.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Now I don’t know much about Stafford’s game, but here is a player who managed to increase his shot/GP basically every season.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
Stafford
is actually an excellent comparable.
Up until this season he was shooting at 11.8% (vs. Kulemin’s 11.3%), both had limited minutes (Stafford 14.38, Kulemin 15.13 before this year), and both exploded for 30+ goals this year with identical 17.3% sh%.
Two differences – Stafford wasn’t that healthy as he only played 62 games compared to Kulemin’s 82, and with his limited ice time he was shooting a lot more – 10.57 sh/60 2 seasons ago, 10.47 sh/60 last season compared to Kulemin’s 6.81 sh/60 2 seasons ago and 7.30 sh/60 last year.
If I had to guess, Stafford will outperform Kulemin next year assuming they both stay healthy. He is also a good comparable candidate when Kulemin is up for contract next summer as he will be the same age as Stafford is now when he’s up for RFA negotiations (Stafford just received a 4Y, 4M/season contract extension, which is probably about where we should expect Kulemin to re-up for if he has another decent season)
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 15, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep, I think I said the same thing when Stafford re-signed.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
does this mean
Stafford hit 30G a year later? I didn’t realize he was 25 last year…
odds are he dips a bit next season on that basis.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
stafford's shooting percentages
are ridiculously all over the map:
19.4%, 15.5%, 10.9%, 7.7%, 17.3%
Anyone have any idea wtf is going on with him from year to year?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Kulemin
Fair, balanced and logical. I’m having a tough time believing I read this on the internet – and I say that as the highest of compliments. Good work. My guess for Kulemin is mid-20’s in goals but for me, the real growth I’d be looking for is continued expansion of his two way game. It’s already good, but can always be better and he has the chance to be a complete player, something the Leafs lack.
by Matthew Gibbons on Aug 15, 2011 1:43 PM EDT reply actions
I think we'd all take our own
Jere Lehtinen…
also of note, Lehtinen twice scored 30 goals, but he also had five other 20 goal seasons.
On the other side of things though, Kulemin has already surpassed Lehtinen’s career best in points with his 57 last year. Lehtinen’s highest was 52 points when he scored 33 goals and had 19 assists, at 32 years of age in 2005-06.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Ironic thing here
Assists actually correlate more closely to Goals than Ice Time or Games Played does.
Shots correlate more closely than anything other than assists.
Shooting percentage hardly correlates at all.
So if we want him to score more goals, he needs to shoot more… Maybe we shouldn’t care if he shoots 17% or not.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
here are the correlations
using your data:
GP: 0.955471
Assists: 0.960986
Shots: 0.982701
SH%: 0.100644
So yeah… don’t think shooting percentage matters that much if he shoots a lot he’ll score more.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
But being able to generate more shots is a skill on its own, largely one dictated by possession. Kulemin isn’t going to just magically find more shots unless his line gets better at controlling the puck or Kulemin gets better at escaping defenders.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 15, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
can't see them getting
way way better at possession immediately… Grabovski was 62nd, MacArthur was 87th, and Kulemin was 161st in the NHL in their CORSI On last year. All three were under 10. If they could push up to the realm of 10+ they’d be even more dangerous.
Reality is their CORSI REL values were ridiculous, but that’s because everyone else on the team sucked balls at maintaining possession.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 15, 2011 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
the difference between GP and assists accounts for less than 1% of the variation in goals. my guess is if you put them all in a multiple regression, GP and shots would come out significant, the others wouldn’t.
Move along. Nothing to see here...
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Aug 15, 2011 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
It has been said, but great post.
"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 15, 2011 4:21 PM EDT reply actions
Well Done
Good read, but since Kulemin only scored 5 goals on the PP, wouldn’t his 5v5 SH% of 10.1 be more accurate?
With that said, his uptick in SH% isn’t that much, and I would agree with that he’s a career average 9-10% shooter. Maybe he’ll come down a little, but not that much – he had a great year corsi-wise, and was one of the best drivers of the play (Corsi rel QOT) in the league.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
actually
his Corsi wasn’t that great… his CORSI ON was 161st amongst forwards that played over 40 games in the NHL last year… which isn’t particularly stellar.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Corsi REL QoT
is a measure of the relative Corsi output of your linemates with respect to the rest of your team. It’s an indicator of the skill level of your line in comparison to the other players available, it isn’t at all a measure of the player in question.
Having a high Corsi REL QoT just means you played with the best players possible.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
His Corsi ON
was 4.77, which ranks him alongside the likes of Dan Cleary, Dany Heatley, Blake Wheeler, Rick Nash, and Steven Stamkos… unfortunately there were 160 guys ahead of him, so saying he’s similar to those guys doesn’t mean he’s awe inspiring.
Particularly when one considers that his Corsi REL QoC was 0.464 and his Corsi QoT was 6.90
Compare that to Dan Cleary’s Corsi REL QoC of 1.069 (way harder), or Dany Heatley’s Corsi QoT of 1.663 (way worse). Throw in Blake Wheeler’s Corsi REL QoC of 0.756 (harder) and Corsi QoT of 0.973 (way worse); Rick Nash’s Corsi QoT of 2.703 (quite a bit worse), or Stamkos’ Corsi REL QoC of 0.599 (a bit more difficult) and his Corsi QoT of 0.716 (way worse) and you don’t think so highly of him.
HE was quite comparable to David Krejci, if that helps? Tomas Vanek was worse too, but he had way worse linemates (Corsi QoT of 2.182).
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Kulemin has been among the best players on the Leafs in terms of Corsi and QualComp more or less since he started playing for the team, though. He’s definitely up there with Grabbo as far as best possessional player on our team.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 16, 2011 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
He trailed
Grabovski pretty significantly this year, MacArthur was actually better by a sizable margin.
I think the three of them were miles ahead of the rest of the Leafs, but MacArthur and Grabo were pretty close to eachother from a Corsi perspective, while Kulemin lagged quite a bit.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 17, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I still think 3rd on the team is pretty good, and if you include last year as well, Kulemin looks better than MacArthur. He’s also generally faced tougher competition.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 17, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
As I said above - I didn't include ANY advanced stats in my analysis.
I welcome the additional insights, but I stand behind my analysis from a simple stats perspective. One main point with this is PP/ES/PK sh%, TOI, etc. isn’t easily available back very far, and I wanted a larger sample size of 30G scorers to compare to. Already 150 isn’t a huge sample.
I might get some flak from this, but honestly I don’t care how a goal comes – ES, PP, PK, EN they all count the same towards the game’s outcome. Sometimes too many splits/focused analysis misses the forest for the trees.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 16, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
i think
it is fair to say shooters enjoy a sizable advantage when the team is up a man, and I think the fact that a huge number of goal scorers score a large chunk of their goals on the PP speaks to that.
Denying this strikes me as a tad closed minded. Not all goals are born equal in terms of the originating situation.
I feel like all this push back against analysing situational play or “deterministic” factors is a bit odd.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Just a bit of quick math...
which may or may not make sense but:
20% of NHL goals last year were scored on the PP, while 3% were scored short handed, but less than 10% of the actual ice time in the NHL was spent on the PP. If we assume The ratio of PP time to SH time to ES time is approximately 1:1:8, but in reality goals were scored in a ratio of 20:3:77, which means your odds of scoring on the PP are roughly 20 times higher than those of scoring at ES, while scoring short handed is slightly below 1/6th your normal chances at ES.
At least, I think that makes sense logically… someone else can read that over to see if it makes sense… it does to me, sort of?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
put another way
if you play 1 minute of PP/SH time for every 8 minutes of ES time, but you score 20 PP goals for every 3 SH or 77 ES goals, then you’re looking at a huge variation in your predicted scoring rates. oh wait… it’s 2 times what you’d expect, not 20… that’s too much.
so yeah, twice as likely to score on the PP, and 3/10ths when SH…. that makes more sense…
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
1:1:8
would be what you’d expect in the goal ratios if everything remained the same, but it’s 2 : 0.3 : 7.7.
To adjust that up, we look at a factor of 8/7.7, which is 1.04 or so. So the rate on the PP is 208% of the rate at ES (more than double), and SH it’s 31%, or slightly below a 3rd…
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Denying this strikes me as a tad closed minded.
I’m not denying anything, and I’m not closed minded.
I’d love if i had shots/TOI splits for ES/PP/PK for every player in the comparable sample, I think it’d be an interesting excercise. I don’t have that data, and I think once you start aggregating enough samples and years, the fact that a player shot 20% on the PP and only 10% at ES doesn’t substantially change the conclusion or prediction drawn from his overall sh%. Plus then it adds another layer of guessing – how much PP TOI will he get next year? What will his PP sh% be? How will that affect his final goal output?
I think it would be INTERESTING, but I don’t think the conclusions would be substantially changed.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 16, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
well couldn't we use
aggregate totals though… like I did above… generally speaking you expect players to produce twice as often as they do at ES on the PP… that’s approximately the League Average… though obviously the best players are seeing PP time, but we’d assume most 30 goal scorers are in that group.
So if we think he can score at roughly twice his normal rate on the PP, wouldn’t we want him to get MORE ice time, not less? if he is more effective than average at ES?
I know not all players find success on the PP, but there he’s been as succesful as many others with far less ice time
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
The only players
with more PP goals than Kulemin on the Leafs last year were Kessel (12), Grabovski (10), MacArthur (6), and Bozak (6).
Now look at their PP TOI and g/60 rates on the PP:
Kessel = 307:36 (2.34)
Grabovski = 254:37 (2.35)
MacArthur = 239:17 (1.50)
Bozak = 242:40 (1.48)
Kulemin = 217:55 (1.37)
Based on production rates I guess we would say they earned the PP time they got. So much for that theory.
I guess we’ll just have to be happy with the fact that Kulemin produces a lot of goals at ES.
Personally I’m of the opinion that players that play more on the PP tend to grow more confident in offensive situations, sort of grow into things a tad… but maybe that’s just my perception.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
from a PP point perspective
Kessel had 23, MacArthur had 19, Grabovski had 15, while Lupul and Kulemin had 13, Bozak only had 5 assists giving him 11 points… I think production wise he’d be the odd man out, not Kulemin.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
but hey
on the plus side, Kulemin, MacArthur, and Grabovski all finished tied for 37th in NHL ES Scoring with 43 points.
That’s more than Ryan Kesler, Ilya Kovalchuk, Phil Kessel, Brandon Dubinsky, Mike Richards, Jamie Benn, Paul Stastny… etc.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
this makes me curious about the variation in
PP goal scoring for the individual players who are regular 30 goal scorers… how does their PP production maintain?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 16, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Data for the Sample Group of 30G scorers is here.
The third tab has PP goals for each season for the sample players, but does not include PP sh% or PP TOI (which is one of the reasons I didn’t seperate out PP and ES stats)
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 16, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah
I tried to do it with the data set, but the whole part of having career totals included made it hard to work around so I gave up the effort rather than manipulate it a bunch more.
There’s no way the variance is 700… lol
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 17, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
You can see now why I just stuck to total goals rather than separating PP and ES.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 17, 2011 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
that’s the team’s SH% when he’s on the ice, not his individual SH%.
Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.
To be honest I'm kind of surprised that there are only 30 votes for 20-24 Goals next season
If anything I thought my own calculation would anchor the outcome lower. (disregarding the lovely poll-adjuster who added 130 votes to the <20 category)
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 16, 2011 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I the options were like 18-22, 23-27, 28-32. Because then I would have chosen the 23-27. I think he’ll be there, so I didn’t know which one to choose (20-24 or 25-29)
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
I think 25 is a fair target. Since 24 was the cut-off for the previous option, and I love Kulie, I figured I’d err on the high side. Honestly I’d guess his production is roughly 23-26 goals this year.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
by Draglikepull on Aug 16, 2011 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I basically called him for 25 with a 10% error margin on either side. So 22.5-27.5
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
I said
he’d be 25-29, but I personally hope he hits 40 this year.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 17, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I have a followupp post coming.
I may have to restate my guess, because I’m thinking 20 or less unless something changes.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 17, 2011 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh
If he shoots the same number of shots and reverts to his career SH% he’ll get 23.52 or 24 G.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
I keep going back and forth... I keep trying to look at it different ways.
In some ways it looks totally possible for 25, other ways it just looks like this is a huge outlier year.
I’ll give Grabbo even odds for hitting 30. Kulemin maybe 1 in 10.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 17, 2011 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
25 is the number i am going with, i am confident he will be within 3 goals either way
Y'all Heard About Me, You Just Didn't Know It was Me
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 17, 2011 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Kule is the better goal scorer than Grabbo. Don’t forget to take into account Kule’s time in the KHL. He won a playoffs MVP over there for scoring 9 goals in 13 games and that season he scored at a 0.5 GPG rate as a 20 year old.
I think Kulemin will score more goals this year than Grabs.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
I'll take that bet
Grabovski is a better goalscorer than Kulemin. No doubt in my mind.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 17, 2011 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
What city are you in? I’ll bet a pint if we ever end up in the same PPP bar night
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
T.O.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 17, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Grabovski's
career sh% is 12.1%, while Kulemin’s is 13.6%. Before you say “yeah but Kulemin shot 17.3% last year which is way above his career shooting percentage”, then I guess we’ll throw out Grabovski’s 16.7% he shot two years ago which was way above his career shooting percentage also?
In the past 3 seasons, Grabovski has scored 59 goals on 485 shots for a 12.1% shooting percentage. Kulemin on the other hand has scored 61 goals on 447 shots for a 13.6% shooting percentage.
How are we reaching the conclusion that Grabovski is a “better goal scorer”? The only advantage I see is number of shots, and that’s largely on the basis of last year.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 21, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
“We” aren’t reaching that conclusion, it’s what “I” believe. And yes shots is a huge component of that.
What next year brings is a mystery, I just think the trend is in favour of Grabovski more than Kulemin right now. Him hitting his prime years and Kulemin is still a few years away is probably helpful too.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 21, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
hitting his prime years?
from a goal scoring perspective prime years are normally 24-26… not 27+.
Kulemin is the one hitting his goal scoring prime, Grabovski should be leaving it in his rearview.
Also, saying that the trend is in favour of one and not the other is also surprising to me. Based purely on trends I’d argue Kulemin was more consistent last year than Grabovski from a scoring perspective:
Kulemin’s gpg monthly: 0.10; 0.62; 0.31; 0.23; 0.43; 0.40; 0.50
Grabovski’s gpg monthly: 0.00; 0.38; 0.67; 0.54; 0.29; 0.33; 0.00
So we’ve got an average for Kulemin of 0.37 gpg on a monthly basis, while for Grabovski it’s 0.32 gpg. Grabovski’s numbers swing far more wildly, which doesn’t speak much to consistency for me. His shooting percentage largely lifted on the basis of a 2 month string of goals where he had 15 goals in December and January.
Kulemin had 8 goals in one month, but other than that seemed to be fairly consistent.
I think looking at things for the whole year, as if averages and TOI make sense is a bit obfuscating to be honest. Reality is, up until December, through 2 months of play, Grabovski had all of 5 goals through 23 games. Then if you look after January, he had 9 goals through 33 games. Together that’s 56 games out of an 82 game season where he only posted 14 goals.
The only stretch for Kulemin where you’d really be worried about his production was October where he had 1 goal in 10 games. After that, he had 9 goals through the first 23 games, then he had 7 over the next 26, and then he put up 14 over the last 33 games. He never really got ridiculously prolific.
If he can shoot like he did in November with regularity (which considering it was a 13 game stretch implies it wouldn’t be impossible) he could produce almost 270 shots. If we lower it to a more reasonable 250 shots, he could easily hit 30 goals again.
Anyway, looking long term, Kulemin has been the better goal scorer, while Grabovski is a superior passer. I haven’t seen much beyond a 2 month stretch that would severely sway me to the side of saying Grabovski is a better “goal scorer”.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 21, 2011 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
put another way
look at the shooting percentage numbers for the two of them on a monthly split basis:
Grabovski: 0.0; 14.7; 19.0; 17.1; 8.3; 10.0; 0.0
Kulemin: 7.1; 18.6; 14.3; 10.7; 18.2; 27.3; 40.0
I’d say the end of the year part of Kulemin’s season is the unsustainable portion, but he was far more consistent than Grabovski was.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 21, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll stick with my original assessment – Grabbo scores more than Kulemin next year.
Crazy would be NOT overanalyzing everything.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 21, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
other reasons to not think this way
Grabovski’s more likely to get injured thanks to his smaller size and style of play.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 22, 2011 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

by 










































