Why Vancouver Doesn't Have a Goalie Controversy

This post was originally an angry comment that I vomited all over this nhl.com article, but then it got such a positive response from other Canuck fans who have similarly grown bored of the persistent caterwauling of the lackadaisical effort put forth from the Canuck-covering media that I thought, "What the hell? Let's make a whole post out of my rant."

3...2...1...GO!

Have you heard the news? The Canucks have a Goalie Controversy! Just like last year! And the year before that! And the year before that!

In fact, since 2011, the word "Controversy" has been even more synonymous with the words "goalie" and "Vancouver" than "Graveyard" had been the previous 12 years or so.

For those of you who haven't read an article about the Canucks in 5 years, I'll summarize the "controversy" for you:

The goalie with the lower salary is playing better.

That's it. 

"So I guess we hate each other now, right?"

Photo Credit: www.theprovince.com

Every single season since 2012, that's been the case. Even in 2011, Schneider had a (barely) better save percentage than Luongo. As a Canucks fan, I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being told that there's a controversy when there isn't. If Lack is playing better, then just say that Lack is playing better. Stop saying "controversy" - it's become cliche. It's lazy journalism. Every hack reporter has commented on it fifty times by now. 

The only time in the past 4 years that things actually got controversial was when Lack started the Winter Classic instead of Luongo. And then Luongo was traded the next day. That's 1-2 days of actual goalie controversy, and 3-4 years of media-manufactured pseudo-controversy.

Here's a list of teams whose highest-paid goalie was outperformed by a lower-paid, younger goalie this season:

Senators (Hammond), Wild (Dubnyk), Blackhawks (Darling/Raanta), Rangers (Talbot), Red Wings (Mrazek), Stars (Enroth), Avalanche (Pickard), Lightning (Vasilevskiy), Canucks (Lack).

That's almost 1/3 of the league. It's a fairly common scenario. Having a young, talented goalie doesn't make you special just because he outperforms a veteran. 

And if you look into the numbers, it's not even especially surprising that Lack is the better goalie right now. Miller's numbers are slightly lower than his career average, but that's to be expected considering that he's almost 35. Even last year, Lack's save percentage was higher than Miller's is this year, and Lack was a rookie - chances were good that it would improve. 

If you want to talk about controversy, then ask the Vancouver management why they paid $18m for a goalie who would very likely be posting 2nd-rate numbers within a year. They were practically asking for a new "controversy". That's not Willie Desjardins' problem. Desjardins, as the coach, whose job it is to ice the best possible team, should not give two s#!ts about who is *supposed* to be the starter, or who has the higher salary. His job is to play the goalie who gives him the best chance to win. 

If Miller gets upset about having to sit on the bench, then it's his fault for not playing better. He's an adult. He's a professional. He's making $6m/year regardless. 

"But Lack doesn't have playoff experience!" you whine. You know what, Canuck fans, we're not winning the Stanley Cup this year anyway. How about we give Lack playoff experience now, so that we don't have an inexperienced goalie in 2-3 years when we might actually be contenders?

"But Miller has more shutouts!" Yeah, and somehow Lack still has a better goals against average. Do you know what it says about a goalie with a low GAA and a low number of shutouts? Consistency. If you don't get a lot of shutouts while maintaining a low GAA, it means that you don't get blown-out very often. 

"But Miller has more wins!" Do you know how 'wins' work when attributed to goalies? It's the goalie-of-record when the winning goal in the game was scored. It doesn't really say much about a goaltenders actual ability. 

The article under which this tirade was unleashed had opined that Canucks players should brace themselves to "expect to be answering more questions about goalie controversies".

Here's a rhetorical question: Why does the media even ask the players those types of questions?

Want to know the answer to my rhetorical question?

The answer is that because it's not the players' job to have any idea about the goaltending future of the team. As such, they're only going to give vague, enigmatic answers that provide fuel for more exaggerated tales of "controversy". If the media was actually interested in answers, they'd just ask Linden and Benning. But then, if they did that, they might have to put actual work into their jobs.

Guide to the Regular Season Finale

I haven't contributed to this blog in months. But there was so much action today with so few playoff brackets determined that I needed to create a schedule of games to follow. Just as I was finishing it, I thought, "Hey, maybe others could benefit from my handy summaries of last-day games". 

So if you're feeling overwhelmed by the abundance of hockey today, here's a handy schedule for you. We even tell you which games to catch, and which to skip: 

12:30 PM

Ottawa at Philadelphia

Ottawa: If Ottawa gets at least one point, they make the playoffs. If they win, they have a chance to play the second-seeded Atlantic team (Montreal/Tampa Bay) in the first round instead of a division winner (Montreal/New York) depending on whether Detroit loses in regulation. If they lose, then they have a chance of missing the playoffs depending on whether Boston wins, and Pittsburgh picks up at least one point.

Overall Incentive to Win: High

Philadelphia: They’re not going to the playoffs, and they’re three points removed from the closest team in the standings. This is a meaningless game.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 9/10 – Ottawa’s working on a miracle run, and has a chance at punching out the Bruins. Even if Philadelphia isn’t into it, this game has major implications.

Rangers at Washington

New York: They’ve clinched 1^st in the league and are trying to stay rested for the playoffs.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Washington: If they win, they secure home-ice advantage for the 1^st round. If they get one point, the Islanders can pass them with a non-shootout win. If they lose, the Islanders can pass them with any win.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium

Game Watchability: 5/10 – Not the highest stakes, but Washington has been hot and a win could give them a major confidence boost heading into the playoffs – especially if it leads to home-ice advantage.

3:00 PM

Calgary at Winnipeg

Calgary: If they win, they have a chance at home-ice advantage for the 1^st round, as long as Vancouver loses in regulation.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium

Winnipeg: They’re guaranteed to play the best team in the conference regardless of what happens.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 6/10 – Again, this isn’t the most meaningful game. But the Winnipeg crowd is already catching playoff fever, and we should get a good preview of the post-season atmosphere.

San Jose at Los Angeles

San Jose: They’re not going to the playoffs, and three other teams are close to them in the standings.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Los Angeles: They’re not going to the playoffs, and only the Bruins (who are trying to win) are close to them in the standings.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 1/10 if you care about the standings. 10/10 if you want to listen to the commentators mask their disappointment for 2 hours.

Minnesota at St. Louis

Minnesota: If they win, they have a chance at playing Nashville in the 1^st round (instead of St. Louis/Anaheim) if Chicago loses in regulation. If they don’t, then they play St. Louis if Anaheim wins, which they almost certainly will.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium

St. Louis: If they win, then they have a chance to play Winnipeg in the 1^st round if Anaheim loses, otherwise they play Minnesota. If they get one point, they still have a chance to play Winnipeg if Anaheim loses in regulation, otherwise they play Chicago if they lose in regulation or else Minnesota. If they lose in regulation, then they play Chicago if they lose in regulation or else Minnesota.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium-High

Game Watchability: 8/10 – This game has the highest potential to be a 1^st-round matchup, though both will be playing to avoid each other. Either way, you’ve got a good match.

7:00 PM

Pittsburgh at Buffalo

Pittsburgh: If they win, they’ll make the playoffs. They’ll definitely be a wild-card team, but they could avoid the Rangers if Ottawa didn’t win earlier, or if Detroit loses in regulation. If they get one point, they could miss the playoffs if Ottawa got at least one point AND Boston wins before the shootout. If Boston doesn’t win before the shootout, then they’ll play the Rangers if Ottawa got at least one point. If they lose in regulation, then they’ll miss the playoffs if Boston wins; otherwise they’ll play the Rangers.

Overall Incentive to Win: Very High

Buffalo: They’ve clinched last place.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 7/10 – Despite being a very important game for Pittsburgh, it’s impossible for a game in Buffalo to be any higher than 7/10 in watchability.

Montreal at Toronto

Montreal: If they get at least one point, they win the division and play the higher wild-card team, also securing home-ice advantage for the first two rounds. If they lose in regulation, and Tampa Bay wins, they play the 3^rd place Atlantic team and are only guaranteed home-ice advantage in the first round. There isn’t much discrepancy between the 3^rd place Atlantic team and the higher wild-card team.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium-low

Toronto: They’re not going to the playoffs, and they’re nowhere near anybody else in the standings.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Game Watchability: 3/10; though the send-off from the Leaf fans could bump this up to 7/10.

New Jersey at Florida

New Jersey: Not going to the playoffs, and nowhere near anybody.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Florida: Not going to the playoffs, and close to four other teams.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Game Watchability: 0/10 – Watching this game will cut your time in Purgatory by six years.

Columbus at Islanders

Columbus: Not going to the playoffs, and close to three other teams.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Brooklyn: If Washington won earlier, then this is a meaningless game. If Washington lost in regulation, then a win will get the home-ice advantage over Washington. If Washington picked up one point, then a non-shootout win will get the home-ice advantage.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Medium

Game Watchability: 3/10 – That’s an average of 1/10 to 5/10 depending on the Washington result.

Detroit at Carolina

Detroit: A regulation loss could possibly result in a first-round matchup against the Rangers. Otherwise, they’ll either finish 3^rd in the Atlantic or the higher wild-card spot. One of those teams faces Tampa Bay and the other faces Montreal, but it’s not yet determined which. Detroit’s not at home either way.

Overall Incentive to Win: Low

Carolina: No playoffs. No close teams.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Game Watchability: 2/10 – Remember when these teams met in the Stanley Cup Final? Me neither.

7:30 PM

Boston at Tampa Bay

Boston: If they lose in any fashion, they miss the playoffs. If Ottawa lost in regulation earlier, then a win in any fashion will make the playoffs. If Ottawa didn’t lose in regulation, then they need to win and hope that Pittsburgh loses. If Pittsburgh picks up a point, then they need to win before the shootout.

Overall Incentive to Win: Extremely high

Tampa Bay: A win will take top spot in the Atlantic if Montreal loses in regulation. There likely won’t be much difference in which team they play, but they’ll get home ice advantage in the first two rounds. However, they have a huge revenge opportunity as it was only four years ago that Boston beat them in a Game 7 Overtime in the Eastern Finals.

Overall Incentive to Win: High, if only to play spoiler to Boston.

Game Watchability: 10/10 – LA missing the playoffs was great, but Boston missing would be legendary.

8:00 PM

Nashville at Dallas

Nashville: They’ve secured 2^nd seed in the Central and aren’t going anywhere.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Dallas: They’re not going to the playoffs, and they’ve got two teams nearby.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Game Watchability: 1/10 – The best games are over, and the rest of the night isn’t much better.

9:00 PM

Chicago at Colorado

Chicago: If Minnesota won earlier, then one point will be the difference between playing Nashville and playing St. Louis in the first round. If Minnesota lost, then they’ll play Nashville for sure.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Low

Colorado: No playoffs. Three teams close by.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Game Watchability: 3/10 – These are entertaining teams, so they’ll give us a game. But in terms of playoff implications, this is much more of a dud than it should’ve been.

Anaheim at Arizona

Anaheim: They look at how many points St. Louis picked up in their game. If they can match that number, then they play Winnipeg in the first round. If they can’t, then they play Minnesota in the first round.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Medium

Arizona: They lost the tank-battle to Buffalo and are just playing out the season.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Game Watchability: 4/10 – There’s not a lot of suspense towards the outcome of this game, nor are playoff implications particularly high, but it’s one of the best versus one of the worst – so at least a shellacking is in order, right?

10:00 PM

Edmonton at Vancouver

Edmonton: Just playing for pride…I guess…

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Vancouver: If Calgary won earlier, then they need a point for home-ice advantage in the first round. Otherwise, this is just a pregame skate before the playoffs.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Medium

Game Watchability: 3/10 – By this point, you’ll have been watching hockey for 10+ hours. Even as a Canucks fan, I’ll probably call it a night.

Was Mike Gillis Better than Burke and Nonis?

One of the benefits to being a Canucks fan in Ottawa is the ability to follow my team from outside the Vancouver Media Bubble (VMB). The VMB, perpetuated mainly by The Province newspaper and Sportsnet Pacific, is the machine that dictates the opinions that Canuck fans are required to uphold.

I’ve followed the Canucks for 17 seasons, though the first 13 were from within the VMB. During that time, all of my opinions (unbeknownst to me) were refined by the VMB. I maintained that Vancouver was “The Goalie Graveyard”, even though the Canucks didn’t go through significantly more goalies than 80% of the other teams. I referred to the Sedins as “The Sisters” until it became unfashionable in 2006. I was excited about Luc Bourdon in 2005, then I forgot about him when he was written -off as just another draft bust three years later, then after he died I lamented on how our future stud-defenseman was taken from us too soon and vehemently denied that I had ever called him a bust. Just like everyone else.

But leaving Vancouver and breaking free from the groupthink of local fans has left me with a revelation: We’re friggin idiots devoid of long-term memory, patience, realistic assessment of our own players, or awareness of other teams.

Being outside of Vancouver for almost the entire duration of Mike Gillis’ tenure and seeing the rise and fall of the organization under his guidance without the VMB bias has left me with a much different perspective than those inside the VMB.

Which one am I supposed to hate today?

VMB Perception:

Brian Burke constructed a competitive team that was enhanced by his successor, Dave Nonis. Mike Gillis inherited the players they had acquired, idly reclined in his director’s chair, and watched the team develop into excellence while neglecting to add muscle to a skill-based team. After a few seasons, his laziness caught-up to him and the Canucks crashed, missing the playoffs.

Outside VMB Perception:

Dave Nonis inherited a team constructed by Brian Burke, stole Luongo from an insane Mike Keenan, then shuffled around draft picks and minor-leaguers until the Canucks missed the playoffs at which point Mike Gillis was hired. Gillis aggressively pursued free agents and traded draft picks and prospects for supporting players for three years until the Canucks won back-to-back President’s Trophies and came within a game of the Stanley Cup. He was awarded GM of the Year in 2011 for his efforts, but succumbed to over-conservation of assets after a bad goaltending controversy and an ineffective coaching change.

This isn’t meant to be a defense of Mike Gillis, but in all fairness, he does deserve some defense. Let’s give an honest assessment of Gillis compared to Burke and Nonis:

Drafting:

Brian Burke: Bryan Allen (4^th Overall); Jarkko Ruutu (68^th Overall); Daniel Sedin (2^nd Overall); Henrik Sedin (3^rd Overall); Nathan Smith (23^rd Overall); RJ Umberger (16^th Overall); Kevin Bieksa (151^st Overall); Ryan Kesler (23^rd Overall);

Dave Nonis: Cory Schneider (26^th Overall); Alex Edler (91^st Overall); Jannik Hansen (287^th Overall); Luc Bourdon (10^th Overall); Mason Raymond (51^st Overall); Michael Grabner (14^th Overall); Patrick White (25^th Overall);

Mike Gillis: Cody Hodgson (10^th Overall); Jordan Schroeder (22^nd Overall); Nicklas Jensen (29^th Overall); Frank Corrado (150^th Overall); Brendan Gaunce (26^th Overall); Bo Horvat (9^th Overall); Hunter Shinkaruk (24^th Overall);

Burke's Best Draft Trade

 Burke drafted marginally well. Bryan Allen (4^th overall) was a mild bust, but the 1998 draft was very hit-or-miss, so Burke could have done much worse. Obviously winning the Sedins (2^nd & 3^rd overall) makes him seem like the heavy favourite, but that had more to do with his shrewd trading ability to acquire the 2^nd and 3^rd overall picks. Nathan Smith (23^rd overall) was a bust, and RJ Umberger (16^th overall) was a decent selection who was later traded away for a rental player. In 2003, Burke drafted Ryan Kesler (23^rd overall). On one hand, you can make the argument that the 2003 first round was so talent-laden that Burke could’ve thrown a dart and still ended up with Mike Richards or Corey Perry. On the other hand, he was under pressure to draft the local boy, Jeff Tambellini. His only late-round success was Kevin Bieksa (151^st overall).

I couldn't find Cory Schneider's Draft-Day photo. So here's some guy.

In four years, Nonis’ first round selections were Cory Schneider (26^th overall), Luc Bourdon (10^th overall), Michael Grabner (14^th overall), and Patrick White (25^th overall). What’s notable about all four selections is that they required years to develop. Grabner and Schneider didn’t become full-time NHLers until they were 23 and 24, respectively. Patrick White never developed. Luc Bourdon passed on before reaching his potential, but based on where he was at age 21, he realistically would have topped-out as a decent third-pairing defenseman. However, Nonis did manage to find some diamonds in the rough with Alex Edler (91^st overall), Jannik Hansen (287^th overall) and Mason Raymond (51^st overall).

I couldn't find Cory Schneider's Trade-Day photo, so here's Bo.

In six seasons, Gillis only had two draft picks higher than 22^nd. One was Cody Hodgson (10^th overall) and the other was Bo Horvat (9^th overall). Similar to how Burke was under pressure to draft Tambellini, Gillis was under pressure to draft Kelowna’s Kyle Beach over Hodgson. Regardless of how disappointed you are with the Hodgson-for-Kassian trade, Kassian remains miles ahead of Beach. As for Horvat, Brendan Gaunce, and Hunter Shinkaruk, we’ll have to wait until at least 2015-2017 to properly cross-compare them to Nonis’ draft picks. So far, Gillis’ only the late-round selection to develop has been Frank Corrado (150^th overall).

Verdict:

I give this one to Nonis as he drafted five full-time NHLers in four years. Burke only drafted seven in six years (even with three top-5 overall picks). Gillis’ picks haven’t developed yet, but so far he has only two in six seasons.

Trading:

Brian Burke:

One of Burke’s first challenges as GM was dealing with the Pavel Bure situation (wow, that was a long time ago). The trade was a win for the Panthers, but Burke pulled a decent package in return, including Ed Jovanovski. His second challenge was finding a goalie, and that didn’t go so well. Kevin Weekes was part of the Bure package, and was later re-packaged for Felix Potvin who didn’t work out either. The best he could do was acquire Dan Cloutier for Adrian Aucoin and a 2^nd round pick and then Alex Auld for a couple more picks. Cloutier was actually an above-average goaltender during the regular season, but his legacy was overshadowed by an inability to replicate his success in the playoffs.

His playoff save percentage is right behind Corey Hirsch and Troy Gamble.

His crowning achievement was negotiating the trade that brought both Sedins to Vancouver, though flipping an inconsequential draft pick for Trevor Linden carried emotional significance. His last good trade was Peter Schaefer for Sami Salo, then he spent two years shuffling around draft picks and minor players. His most significant acquisition in that timespan was Marek Malik, just to give an idea as to how much he had stopped trying.

The greatest tragedy is that he played the majority of his career pre-shootout. 

Dave Nonis:

Let’s get this out of the way early: Nonis completely robbed the Florida Panthers of Roberto Luongo. The trade was so obviously lopsided that Mike Keenan was fired as Panthers GM immediately afterwards. However, Nonis’ inability to negotiate even one other marginally advantageous trade suggests that the Luongo deal was just a final ‘screw-you’ to the Panthers ownership from Keenan. In four years, Nonis’ second-best trade was a mid-round pick for Taylor Pyatt. Sure, he managed to get a 2^nd round draft pick for Brent Sopel, but he would later trade that pick ALONG WITH a 4^th round pick for…Brent Sopel. He literally threw away a 4^th round pick just to put Brent Sopel on another team for six months. And just for some salt in the wound, that 2^nd round pick turned out to be Wayne Simmonds.

Brent Sopel: So ugly that Dave Nonis gave up Wayne Simmonds just to get rid of him for six months.

Mike Gillis:

On the negative, Gillis never made any outstanding trades. His best trade was two nobodies for Christian Ehrhoff, but that was mostly just a salary dump for San Jose. On the positive, Gillis was very good at finding rental players. Burke threw away RJ Umberger for Martin Rucinsky and then later a 2^nd round pick for Drake Berehowsky. Nonis’ best trade-deadline move was losing a 2^nd round pick for Bryan Smolinski. But Gillis was able to find useful players at the trade deadline like Chris Higgins and Maxim Lapierre, and they only cost a 3^rd round pick and a minor leaguer each.

Verdict:

All three GMs did little-to-nothing towards the end of their respective tenures. Burke wins the Best Trade Award for the Sedins, Nonis wins the Biggest Steal Award for Luongo, and Gillis deserves credit for bringing in Higgins and Lapierre at the deadline, but looking over their entire rap sheet, I’d give it to Burke, with Gillis as runner-up, though none of these GMs was particularly strong.

Signings:

Brian Burke:

In six seasons, Burke only signed four free-agents who played more than a handful of games. Those four: Murray Baron, Harry York, Andrew Cassels, and Magnus Arvedson. They combined for 8 points in 30 playoff games.

Erik Karlsson recently passed him for 2nd on all-time scoring for the Ottawa Senators among Swedes.

Dave Nonis:

He signed Willie Mitchell, a feat which singlehandedly beats Burke. But he didn’t do much beyond that. His other notable signings include Jan Bulis (the namesake of the Pass it to Bulis blog), Rory Fitzpatrick (who was almost jokingly voted into an all-star game), Jeff "Bra-Barian" Cowan, and Curtis "Sandman" Sanford (Luongo’s longest-serving backup). In short, Nonis signed a lot of players who are famous for something other than being good hockey players.

Looking back, we were probably pretty bored.

Mike Gillis:

This is where Gillis shined. As a former player agent, he was seen as a GM who could attract talent in the free-agent market where Burke and Nonis failed. And that view, initially at least, turned out to be accurate. In only his first two seasons, Gillis would sign free agents who would go on to play more games with the organization than every single free agent signed by Burke and Nonis combined. Those signings include Dan Hamhuis, Manny Malhotra, Raffi Torres, Mikael Samuelsson, Tanner Glass, Pavol Demitra, Chris Tanev, and Darcy Hordichuk. Even omitting his offer sheet to David Backes, or his success in landing Mats Sundin, Gillis is the clear winner here. Unfortunately, his only notable signing in his final four years was Jason Garrison.

Watching Sundin score the shootout-winning goal against the Leafs made every penny of his contract worth it.

Verdict:

No GM owns a category like Gillis owns free agency.

Goalie Controversy

The biggest knock against Gillis was his handling of the goaltender controversy. Here’s how that came about:

1. He had a franchise goalie.
2. He signed the franchise goalie to a franchise contract.
3. A second franchise goalie developed within the organization.

You’re in that situation. What do you do?

1. Trade your franchise goalie and keep the young goalie, or
2. Trade your young goalie and keep the franchise goalie?

You choose (1):

Other GMs are aware that you’re desperate to move one of your goalies. They point-out that they would also be required to take on a massive contract, and that goalies have not fetched a high return on the trade market for the past 10 years. You do not receive any good trade offers.

You choose (2):

Other GMs are sceptical of your asking price for a young goalie who has not played much at the NHL level. You must either trade the goalie for very little, or else play him at your franchise goalie’s expense to give him NHL exposure and boost his trade value.

Obviously, Gillis’ only choice was B, and that’s what caused the “goalie controversy” despite there being no personal hostility between Luongo and Schneider. The “controversy” was completely manufactured by the VMB. Look around the NHL at other teams who have two good goalies: Anaheim, St. Louis, Los Angeles. Do these teams have “goalie controversies”? No, they just have two good goalies, and they play in a hockey market where the media isn’t going to pretend that it’s anything more than that.

Final Word:

And now Jim Benning is the team’s GM. Here’s a question: Why is it that when Mike Gillis trades away Roberto Luongo for a bottom six player and a goaltending prospect, he’s a moron, but when Jim Benning trades away Jason Garrison with a pick and prospect for a bottom six player, he’s a shrewd businessman looking to shed salary while getting rid of a player who wasn’t fitting into the organization? Sure, he saved some cap space, but then he spent it on Ryan Miller who hasn’t been good in 4 years, and has recently posted similar stats to young up-and-comer Eddie Lack! Based on the trajectories of their careers, Lack should be the better goalie by next year. So why are we giving 18 million dollars to a guy who may soon be our second-best goalie?!

It was time for Gillis to go. But we’re soon going to realize that we took him for granted. 

Sham Sharron is a Sham

If you haven't heard, there's an article going around Canuck Land about the uselessness of Ron Delorme and his scouting staff. If you haven’t read it at Canucks Army, I’ll give you the breakdown:

Ron Delorme, the Canuck’s Chief of Amateur Scouting, is so bad at his job that any nitwit with access to basic statistics could make better draft selections. By simply selecting the CHL’s highest-scoring forward available, the team could have drafted Justin Williams instead of Nathan Smith, P.A. Parenteau rather than Konstantin Mikhailov, Matt Stajan over Kirill Koltsov, and Claude Giroux (!) over Michael Grabner.

Ultimately, the article summarizes, the Canucks have missed out on almost 1000 extra goals in over 4000 extra man games (and counting) by relying on Ron Delorme’s scouting staff (and unnecessarily paying their salaries).

Frequent readers of my blog will know that I relish finding simple formulas that outperform raw intuition. In fact, both of them shared the article on my Facebook wall.

Needless to say, other Canuck fans are deliriously giddy over this newfound gem, practically begging to hand-deliver the news to Jim Benning’s front door. And initially, so was I. But then I discovered a problem.

It’s bullshit.

And even though I love a simple formula that outperforms intuition, it doesn’t apply when the formula is bullshit.

Oh sure, it may look airtight to the amateur armchair GM. But when you look below the surface, you'll see that you need to predict the future in order to make use out of the method. Like any poor indicator, it uses information that would not be available to the GM at the time of the draft pick. And any method that relies on not-yet-available information is only effective in 20/20 hindsight.

If you believe that the Sham Sharron method is simply picking the next-available CHL forward who scored the most points in his draft-eligible year, then you failed to read the fine print. 

Here’s how the method actually works:

1. Look at a given Canucks draft-pick, and all of the players chosen after that draft-pick, but before their next draft-pick.
   
2. Only look at the CHL forwards.
   
3. Select the player with the highest-scoring draft year FROM AMONG THOSE WHO WERE SELECTED BEFORE THEIR NEXT PICK.
   

So in the above illustration, it looks pretty simple. Of the 15 forwards who were drafted between 24^th and 60^th, Mike Richards was the highest scoring forward. Sham would therefore select him. Except that there’s one easily overlooked problem: When Sham goes to make his selection, the draft board looks like this:

Sham, the uneducated intern, has no idea who the other teams are going to select before his next pick. For all he knows, any one of those teams might select Corey Locke (who led the CHL in scoring with 151 points). 

Would you draft this guy over Ryan Kesler?

Unless Sham has a crystal ball, he has no idea that Locke will go unselected until the 113^th pick. At this point in the draft, an uneducated moron like Sham might believe that Locke has a good chance of being selected in the near future. Following his formula, he should therefore draft Locke over Mike Richards (or Ryan Kesler, Corey Perry, Shea Weber, or Patrice Bergeron). Corey Locke, in case you’ve never heard of him, would play a grand total of 9 NHL games, assisting on a single goal by Nick Foligno during a stint with the Senators. For those keeping track, that’s 645 games, 391 points, and one Selke Trophy fewer than Delorme’s preference - Ryan Kesler. Suddenly, the New York Rangers aren’t the only team that busted in the 2003 first round.

Hugh Jessiman, better known by his nickname, "Oops".

If you’re curious as to Sham’s 1^st round picks in every other year:

On the surface, it may not seem like Sham does too poorly in comparison with the Canucks’ actual picks. Although he scores only half the points, he does so without any salary and still picking the better player almost half of the time.

But when you look below the surface, you realize something terrible: Not only is Sham completely neglecting defense and goaltending, but all of his forwards are one-dimensional scorers! Ryan Kesler ALONE is more valuable than every one of Sham’s picks COMBINED!

And let’s not forget that the article conveniently applies Sham’s method beginning in 2000 as opposed to one year earlier. What would Sham have done if he had been hired in 1999?

I’m no Ron Delorme fan, but he's at least worth a positive number.

---EDIT---

After I posted this, it was brought to my attention that the Sham Sharron method chooses players based on their scoring numbers at age 17 which isn't necessarily the year that they're draft eligible. I humbly re-did some calculations, and discovered ANOTHER problem: SHAM FUDGED SOME NUMBERS!

Justin Williams, for example, may have scored 83 points in his draft eligible season, but he was 18 years old at the time. He was born in October 1981, so he would have turned 17 at the start of the 1998-99 season in which he scored a measly 12 points in 47 games. Nathan Smith, by comparison, scored 49 points at 17-years-old and 90 points at 18-years-old.

The Churko Formula's 2nd Round Predictions

The Churko Formula guarantees a correct prediction for at least 8/15 series. So the fact that it's only 4/8 thus far means that it must go at least 4/7 over the next three rounds. Hang onto your seats and get ready for some wild predictions, because for the first time since its implementation, we're going WAY off the map.

Atlantic Division Finals

Prediction: Canadiens in 6

The Formula predicted both to lose in the 1st round. Between this year and last year, the Canadiens have been the only Formula-proof team in the league, so maybe this will be a miscalculation as well. My intuition wants to go with Boston, but that was true in the Stanley Cup Finals last year too. Don't worry - Montreal has to lose either this round or next round.

If They Win...

They'd lose to Pittsburgh, but could beat New York. If they could manage to get to the Finals, they'd have a 50/50 shot at winning depending on who they play.

If They Lose...

Boston is unstoppable...unless they face Anaheim in the Finals.

Metro Division Finals

Prediction: Penguins in 7

Unlike the Atlantic Division, the Formula predicted both of these teams to win. It should be a close series that possibly goes to seven games, but if it does, the home-ice advantage will tip the scales in Pittsburgh's favour.

If They Win...

They'd go on to beat Montreal or else lose to Boston. If they make it to the Finals, they'll win the Stanley Cup.

If They Lose...

New York will lose in the next round anyway.

Central Division Finals

Prediction: Wild in 6

Easily the most Wild prediction of the round, but Chicago only managed one regulation win against Minnesota in the regular season. The Formula predicted Minnesota to lose and Chicago to win in the first round, so it seems strange that it should suddenly favour Minnesota, but that's how the Formula works - it's all about who you play.

If They Win...

They'd probably lose to Anaheim, but in the event that they face the Kings, they could make it to the Finals...and then definitely lose.

If They Lose...

Chicago will probably make another run to the Finals. And then probably lose unless they're playing Montreal.

Pacific Division Finals

Prediction: Ducks in 5

Just like the Central Division, it's a team that was predicted to lose versus a team that was predicted to win, but now it's the former who's predicted to win. 

If They Win...

They'd beat Minnesota, but in the event that Chicago gets through, they'd probably be taken out. I'd say they're a 50-50 shot to make the Finals, and then a 50-50 shot to win in the Finals. 

If They Lose...

LA would go down to either Chicago or Minnesota...but if they made the finals, they'd have a 50-50 chance.

The Churko Formula's Guide to the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Last year, I published The Churko Formula, a method of picking the winners of playoff series based off of season series. To my knowledge, it’s the only method that’s guaranteed to pick a winner more than 50% of the time, or in the case of last season, 87% of the time.

Because I’m not in any hockey pool this year, I don’t mind tipping my hand early and sharing my predictions. If I’m right, it only adds to my credibility, yeah?

Boston Bruins – 1st Eastern Conference

Won Season Series: Tampa Bay, Columbus, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

Lost Season Series: Detroit, Montreal

Prediction: Possible first-round exit; otherwise good chance at Stanley Cup

This has the potential to be the upset of the year as there’s a 74% chance that they’ll face the Red Wings, who beat them 3 out of 4 times during the regular season. But in the 26% chance of event that they’ll face Columbus or Philadelphia, it should be a clean shot to the Finals for the Bruins.

Pittsburgh Penguins – 2nd Eastern Conference

Won Season Series: Tampa Bay, Columbus

Lost Season Series: Boston, Philadelphia

Tied Season Series: Detroit, Montreal, New York

Prediction: Stanley Cup Favourites

Pittsburgh should be safe, especially since they have a 63% chance of facing Columbus who they beat 5 out of 5 times (all in regulation). There is, however, an 11% chance of facing the Flyers in the first round who beat them 4 out of 5 times. But given that that’s a slim chance, and Boston has moderate-to-good odds of falling in the first two rounds, Pittsburgh is pretty far down my likeliness-to-choke-o-meter.

Tampa Bay Lightning – 2nd Atlantic Division

Won Season Series: Montreal, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Pittsburgh, Columbus

Prediction: Eliminated somewhere between 2nd Round & Stanley Cup Finals

There’s still the possibility that Tampa Bay will drop down to 3rd in the division, but they’ll face Montreal either way. The two teams split shootout victories, but Tampa Bay won both non-shootout games, which is what counts. If The Churko Formula is especially accurate, Tampa Bay should be a dark-horse favourite, provided that Boston and Pittsburgh get knocked out early.

Montreal Canadiens – 3rd Atlantic Division

Won Season Series: Boston

Lost Season Series: Tampa Bay, Philadelphia

Tied Season Series: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Detroit, New York

Prediction: Eliminated 1st Round; otherwise Eastern Finals

They technically have one more series-deciding game against the Rangers, but given the slim chance that they’ll actually face them, I’m not bothering to wait for the result. In the event of a tied season series, the edge goes to home-ice advantage, and Montreal would have home-ice advantage against most teams. Unfortunately, they’d have to defy my formula to get past the Lightning, then defy everyone else to get past Boston, then defy both to get past Pittsburgh.

New York Rangers – 2nd Metro Division

Won Season Series: Columbus, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Tampa Bay

Tied Season Series: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Montreal

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd Round

Statistics show that home-ice advantage is a better prediction of victory in a tied season series than a won season series. Bearing that in mind, New York should be one of the safest first-round bets. They have an 83% chance of facing Philadelphia, and a 17% chance of facing Columbus, neither of whom are favoured by The Churko Formula. They’ll have to beat some major odds to avoid Pittsburgh or Boston in later rounds, but winning the East isn’t impossible for the Rangers.

Philadelphia Flyers – 3rd Metro Division

Won Season Series: Pittsburgh, Montreal, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Tampa Bay, Columbus

Tied Season Series: New York

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st Round 

They have an 83% chance of facing New York who they likely wouldn’t beat, an 11% of facing Boston who they likely wouldn’t beat, and a 6% chance of facing Pittsburgh who they could beat. But then even if they defeated Pittsburgh, they’d probably lose to either New York or Columbus in the second round, and even if they defiantly won, they’d likely have Boston or Tampa Bay waiting for them in the Eastern Finals. Let’s put it this way: If Philadelphia wins the East, I’ll stop talking about the Churko Formula. Deal?

Columbus Blue Jackets – 1st Wild Card

Won Season Series: Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Pittsburgh, New York

Tied Season Series: Montreal

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st Round

There are actually a fair number of teams that Columbus could beat. And depending on the last two days of the regular season, there are several teams that Columbus might face in the first round. There’s a 63% chance that they play Pittsburgh, a 20% chance that they play Boston, and a 17% chance that they play New York, so…um…okay fine, Columbus is going to lose right away.

Detroit Red Wings – 2nd Wild Card

Won Season Series: Boston

Lost Season Series: Tampa Bay, New York, Philadelphia, Columbus

Tied Season Series: Pittsburgh, Montreal

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd Round

Well, they've only won a single season series so I guess…wait, they beat THE BRUINS?! And they’re probably going to play the Bruins in the first round?! Alright, I guess Detroit is just here to slay the dragon and then peace out in the second round. Thanks for potentially making the eastern playoffs more exciting, Motor City. We should invite you more often.

Anaheim Ducks – 1st Western Conference

Won Season Series: St. Louis, Los Angeles, Minnesota

Lost Season Series: Chicago, Dallas

Tied Season Series: San Jose, Colorado* (*with one more game)

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st or 3rd round 

Everyone should pay attention to their game Sunday against Colorado, as that puts them into a very interesting situation. If they win, they’ll have a first-round date with Dallas who beat them in the season series. If they lose, they’ll have a chance of playing Minnesota instead, but only if they lose their game tonight against LA. It’s hard to imagine Anaheim dropping both, but it may be in their best interests to do so. Let’s say they do. They would play Minnesota in the first round (and probably win), then either Los Angeles or San Jose in the second round (and probably win), but then probably either Colorado or Chicago who will both have beat them in the regular season. Either way, Anaheim’s not going to the Finals, at least not according to MY formula.

Colorado Avalanche – 2nd Western Conference

Won Season Series: San Jose, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota

Lost Season Series: St. Louis

Tied Season Series: Anaheim* (*with one more game), Los Angeles

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd Round or Stanley Cup Finals

The Avalanche are guaranteed to have the Churko Advantage (I just made that up, and I’m keeping it) in the first round. As long as they stay ahead of St. Louis (73% likelihood), they can take out a wildcard team, let the Blackhawks take care of the Blues, and then punch-out the Blackhawks. The most likely winners of the Pacific Division will either be Anaheim or (as I explain later, surprisingly) Dallas. Colorado could beat Dallas, but Anaheim? The season series will be determined on Sunday, though as mentioned above, Anaheim may lose the game strategically (but probably not). In the 27% chance that Colorado falls behind St. Louis, they’ll have no way to avoid the Blues and will bow-out in the second round. But amazingly, The Churko Formula predicts these guys as having the best chances of winning the west.

St. Louis Blues – 2nd Central Division

Won Season Series: Colorado, Minnesota

Lost Season Series: Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Chicago, Dallas

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st or 3rd round

For such a good team, the Blues have lost a surprisingly large number of season series matchups. Depending on how Sunday goes, there’s a 27% chance that St. Louis will recover from their losing streak and lock the top spot in the Central. If that’s the case, they can take out Minnesota and then probably Colorado, but even then, they’ll be stonewalled in the Western Finals. In the much more likely event that they face Chicago right away, they’ll probably be knocked out in the first round.

Chicago Blackhawks – 3rd Central Division

Won Season Series: Anaheim, St. Louis, San Jose, Los Angeles, Dallas

Lost Season Series: Colorado, Minnesota

Prediction: Eliminated 1st, 2nd, or 4th round (they're a hard team to predict)

They’re the exact opposite of St. Louis. St. Louis can only beat Colorado and Minnesota, and Chicago can only beat everyone else. What does that mean for the defending Stanley Cup Champions? They’ll probably lose to Colorado in one of the first two rounds (they lost 4 of 5 to the Avalanche during the season), but if they use take advantage of all of their extra playoff experience (which is probable), they could be an exception to the rule and win the West.

San Jose Sharks – 2nd Pacific Division

Won Season Series: St. Louis, Minnesota, Dallas

Lost Season Series: Los Angeles, Colorado, Chicago

Tied Season Series: Anaheim

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st round

Not much to this. They’ll lose to Los Angeles. If not, they’ll lose to Anaheim. If not, they’ll lose to Chicago or Colorado. If not, they’ll lose to Boston or Pittsburgh. If not, then I guess I look like the world’s biggest jackass.

Los Angeles Kings – 3rd Pacific Division

Won Season Series: St. Louis, San Jose

Lost Season Series: Anaheim, Chicago, Minnesota, Dallas

Tied Season Series: Colorado

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd round

Again, pretty cut-and-dry. They should beat San Jose then lose in the second round, or eventually.

Minnesota Wild – 1st Wild Card

Won Season Series: Chicago, Los Angeles

Lost Season Series: Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis, San Jose

Tied Season Series: Dallas

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st round

Impressively, the Wild have the Churko Advantage (heh) over recent champions Chicago and Los Angeles as well as Dallas. Unfortunately, they have no chance of playing any of them in the first round, so it should be a short post-season return for Minnesota.

Dallas Stars – 2nd Wild Card

Won Season Series: Anaheim, St. Louis, Los Angeles

Lost Season Series: Colorado, Chicago, San Jose

Tied Season Series: Minnesota

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st or 3rd round.

Funny how the first ever western “Wild Card” teams would literally be the Wild and the Stars (who are from the wild west). Just thought I’d point that out. Speaking of wild, the Stars have an 80% chance of facing the Ducks, who they beat in the season series. If they win, they’ll probably play the Kings, who they also beat in the season series. In short, the Stars are my dark horse favourite to go to the Western Finals.

The Stanley Cup Finals

My favorite teams to win the East: Pittsburgh, Boston, Tampa Bay

My favorite teams to win the West: Colorado, Chicago, Anaheim

Boston could beat Chicago or Colorado
Pittsburgh could beat any of them
Tampa Bay could beat Chicago

My Prediction: Pittsburgh over Colorado