View Single Post
Old
04-08-2012, 01:05 AM
  #35
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Still, I think this favours Lidstrom for three reasons:

1. This analysis only takes into account the defensive impact of penalties (ie teams allow more goals while on the PK). However, this doesn't take into account the lost offensive opportunities (as it's much harder to score while on the PK compared to even strength).
Disagree. Yes it is harder to score, but you have already counted all goals against on the PK as a disadvantage of the penalty kill. If it were even strength, some goals would be scored - and some would be allowed. Your earlier calculations simply assume that neither team has an advantage at even strength, which is a reasonable assumption. It's even strength play, after all.

(In a specific game situation this may be a disadvantage - for example while trailing in the third period. But it shouldn't be a factor in aggregate.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
2. Even if both players have the same net impact on defense, Pronger still spends roughly triple the time in the penalty box. All things being equal, I'd rather have my Hall of Fame defenseman sitting on the bench, ready to be used as needed, rather than sitting in the penalty box.

3. Lidstrom maintained this elite level of play for a longer period of time. He might not be "better" (if we're talking about ability) but was clearly more "valuable" (if we're talking about how much he contributed to his teams). I place more focus on "valuable" but understand that this is a matter of personal preference.

4. I don't think that Pronger should get extra credit for being tough and intimidating - these are valuable only insofar as they help his team defensively. Since his goals-against numbers should already capture any positive impact of his strength and physical play, we would be double-counting if we gave Pronger additional credit for his toughness.
Fair points. Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
5. Technically I think this should be done on a per-minute basis. From 1999 to 2012 (I realize this doesn't correspond exactly to the years you used), Pronger has played about an extra 30 seconds per game (roughly 2%). I suspect Pronger played a slightly greater percentage of his ice time at ES than Lidstrom (just a hunch that I haven't verified). Perhaps this factor favours Pronger slightly?
In 97-98 and 98-99, Pronger played about 3 more minutes per game at even strength than Lidstrom did. From that point on they were pretty equal in ESTOI. Without crunching all the numbers, yes, that factor favours Pronger slightly.

----------------------

I found a breakdown of minor penalties on the nhl.com player pages.

Here are the minor penalties Pronger took in the playoffs from 1998 to 2010, with the associated PIM.

HI-STICKING 40
CROSS CHECKING 30
HOOKING 30
ROUGHING 28
SLASHING 24
HOLDING 22
INTERFERENCE 22
TRIPPING 14
ELBOWING 12
UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT 6
HI STICK - DOUBLE MINOR 4
HOLDING - OBSTRUCTION 4
HOLDING THE STICK 4
BOARDING 2
CLOSING HAND ON PUCK 2
DELAY OF GAME 2
DELAYING GAME-PUCK OVER GLASS 2
DIVING 2
HOOKING - OBSTRUCTION 2
INTERFERENCE ON GOALKEEPER 2
TOTAL 254

If all roughing, unsportsmanlike, and diving are coincidentals, 14% of his minors were coincidentals.

The same list, but considerably shorter, for Lidstrom.

HOOKING 20
INTERFERENCE 12
HI-STICKING 6
TRIPPING 6
HOLDING 4
DELAYING GAME-PUCK OVER GLASS 2
SLASHING 2
TOTAL 52

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote