A Note on Terminology, Ice Time and Production

The TSN Panel just had a conversation about Matt Beleskey and the kind of production a team can expect from him as a sought-after UFA this summer. Beleskey has been put into the same conversation as David Clarkson in 2013 as a player who will likely be overpaid due to a season in which he scored 22 goals on 15.2% shooting and had a playoffs that raised his profile even more with 0.5 goals per game on 17.8% shooting.

Ferraro made the point that Beleskey will only be a worthwhile signing if he is played in a top line role, with guys like Perry and Getzlaf, and McGuire added that he believes in such a situation the power winger could put up as many as 25 goals. But I think this type of discussion is missing the point. The goal for a general manager, after all, is to maximize team wins and thus team goals (both for and against but in this case we’ll focus on goals for).

Sure, if you put Beleskey in a first line role and give him 18 minutes per game (he averaged 14:29 this year), he’s more likely to put up 20 goals on say 180 shots, which is an 11.1 shooting percentage, something that would seem a lot more “sustainable”. But at what cost?

It makes sense to want to play a net-rushing garbage-goal winger with skilled players to maximize his skill set, but you can’t base your team structure around making a UFA deal you offered look like it paid off. If you find yourself in a position where you HAVE to play a guy in a top line role to make a deal seem worthwhile, you aren’t doing things for the right reasons.

Continue reading

Advertisements

AP Hockey Story of the Day: November 5 – On Skill Development as an Inefficiency

There’s a fascinating look at skill development here that reminds me of an interesting anecdote I read in Sports Illustrated a while back. When people think of sports inefficiencies these days they think of analytics, numbers, Moneyball, etc. But those are just the most the most prominent modern manifestations. Back in the late 19th century, Baltimore Orioles manager Ned Hanlon began bringing his team down south prior to the season to work on their skills and ability to execute plays like the squeeze bunt and the hit and run. He had players field grounders and fly balls for hours every day, and his teams, more ready for the season than ever before, won three straight National League pennants, leading other managers to copy his practice and develop what has become known as Spring Training. Hanlon actually developed baseball’s first true inefficiency: fundamentals.

Continue reading