Snider Speaks

[hf101]

"We better damn get our special teams straightened out or we’re in trouble," he said. "That’s what it’s all about in today’s game -- special teams -- because 5-on-5, it’s hard as hell to score nowadays.”

hey, last time he spoke didn't we get Bryz?........

oh yeah, we are in trouble

[OccamsRazor]

hey, last time he spoke didn't we get Bryz?........

oh yeah, we are in trouble

Well i look at as he says "hey boys better pick it up or some of you won't finish the season here"...and i can understand that, i feel that way.

My boss sets the line on my job every morning in the pre shift meeting...weak links will be weeded out and terminated, ain't a whole lot different because i'm a blue collar worker, he means bussiness he wants to win...the axe man cometh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with some of his moves/statemnets and some not so much...

[radoran]

hey, last time he spoke didn't we get Bryz?........

oh yeah, we are in trouble

That sounded eerily like @FakeWIPCaller

I get a feeling of panic around the organization*. The pervasive pressure of the winnow mentality is counterproductive towards building a championship team.

They had just gotten to the Finals with their nextClarke Captainforlife and Crater The Unstoppable Sex Machine and they blew the whole thing up to create a young core they can develop to... blow up in a year or two?

They have a productive young core. They're coming together after a lockout that their owner precipitated, backed and allowed to drag on as long as it did. Now they're thrown onto the ice to play a compressed schedule with a week of "training camp" while having major injuries - Briere, Meszaros, Hartnell - and giving time to a Junior cup of coffee and a waiver wire audition (Lilja).

The Flyers have more than enough time to bring everything together and make some noise in the playoffs. We'll find out in the next month where that goes, but it's too early to write off the season entirely.

Unless the organization* decides they "need" to do something rightnow.

* I use this term loosely

[Jmdodgesrt4]

Two words. Seth jones.

[Phillygrump]

Two words. Seth jones.

I have no problem with a down year for this squad. There is a ton of young talent on this team and if it is not clicking and you need to sell and focus on signing the young talent and creating a young nucleus through the draft with guys like Laughton, Couts, Read, Schenn(s), and Giroux thats fine.

You can get some picks for guys like Kimmo and Briere at the deadline then go for it. Its not he end of the world.

Not that I think the Flyers should hit the panic button and start chopping right now, I'm just saying that if it comes to that its not a terrible thing. The core group is very encouraging.

[LegionOfDoom]

An interesting thought brought out was to trade our last year contract players to teams we can get their Defesensive talents for or high draft picks and then resign our players back next season to finish their careers in Philly. That way we pick up talent on D and recoup our players back as with a negotiated lower hit than they where originally at and they can give our young players the ongoing tutelage and grooming.

Does that sound too far out there to reach for?

All this on stipulation if we weren't going to make the playoffs.

During the discovery, we would make a motion upon arriving with said facts to proceed with any new order of business, so their would be an adjoournment until the next rookie camp.

[Lindbergh31]

I have no problem with a down year for this squad. There is a ton of young talent on this team and if it is not clicking and you need to sell and focus on signing the young talent and creating a young nucleus through the draft with guys like Laughton, Couts, Read, Schenn(s), and Giroux thats fine.

You can get some picks for guys like Kimmo and Briere at the deadline then go for it. Its not he end of the world.

Not that I think the Flyers should hit the panic button and start chopping right now, I'm just saying that if it comes to that its not a terrible thing. The core group is very encouraging.

If Flyers are going to miss the playoffs I'd rather see them finish at the bottom of the standings instead of middle of the pack. They could trade Timonen and Briere for draft picks. Right now their powerplay unit sucks and unless they get that straighten around then there is a good chance they will miss the playoffs. Bryzgalov is playing decently but another 7 years when you can buy him out this coming summer, that's something the Flyers brass has to seriously consider. The next 15 to 20 games will go a long way of determining what Holmgren has to do before the deadline.

[Vanflyer]

hey, last time he spoke didn't we get Bryz?........

oh yeah, we are in trouble

I hate to say it, but he is 100% correct. We are not losing because of 5-on-5. We are losing because of our abysmal PP / PK. The irony is that last year he never said "we better get our goalie straightened out because our PK / PP and 5-on-5 are firing on all cylinders".

[Vanflyer]

They could trade Timonen and Briere for draft picks.

So, you are suggesting a total re-build?? Kimmo and Briere are both stalwarts to the leadership group. What are draft picks going to do to help this team? Don't we have enough young kids?

[LegionOfDoom]

@Vanflyer

If we were not making the playoffs...

I would only loan(last year of RFA players) our players out for high draft picks or good D prospects, as long as they would want to resign with us back for a few more years til they retire.

At this point Timo deserves a cup in his waning career.

I know it's unorthodox but if you think outside the box it could be a win/win situation.

He comes back to our team and finishes his career here.

If you think of our team as a business you look at the parts you can improve on and still try to retain your assets in the long term.

I would loan a few assets if it would recoup us a good ROI (return on investment) and we get to still keep our mature assets next year.

[jammer2]

I vaguely remember something in the new CBA that makes it illegal for a player that is traded from Team A to re-sign with Team A in the same clander year.....not sure if applies here in a potential trade. Can anyone clarify?

[brelic]

I vaguely remember something in the new CBA that makes it illegal for a player that is traded from Team A to re-sign with Team A in the same clander year.....not sure if applies here in a potential trade. Can anyone clarify?

If that's the case, it would be a poor rule. Short of collusion, there is no reason a player couldn't be traded from Team A to Team B, and then when he is a UFA in the same calendar year, look at Teams A through Z, and decide that Team A is the best fit. He has earned that right as a UFA.

But they've made poor rules before...

[brelic]

@Vanflyer

If we were not making the playoffs...

I would only loan(last year of RFA players) our players out for high draft picks or good D prospects, as long as they would want to resign with us back for a few more years til they retire.

At this point Timo deserves a cup in his waning career.

I know it's unorthodox but if you think outside the box it could be a win/win situation.

He comes back to our team and finishes his career here.

If you think of our team as a business you look at the parts you can improve on and still try to retain your assets in the long term.

I would loan a few assets if it would recoup us a good ROI (return on investment) and we get to still keep our mature assets next year.

There's no guarantee they would resign with us. It would be nice if we could unload Timo at the deadline for a nice return, but then things are out of our control. A good playoff run, a nicer city, a better climate, etc... maybe he decides "You know? It's not so bad here in LA"

[Mad Dog]

Why do I have a feeling The Old Man is going to do something criminally stupid, again?

[Lindbergh31]

Why do I have a feeling The Old Man is going to do something criminally stupid, again?

We have a winner, it seems everytime Snider blows up something ends up happening and it's usually not a good thing. He wants to win in the worst way before he kicks the bucket, so thinking realistic and what's good for the team goes out the window [the goalie situation before they went out and signed Bryzgalov to that stupid contract].

[DaGreatGazoo]

If that's the case, it would be a poor rule. Short of collusion, there is no reason a player couldn't be traded from Team A to Team B, and then when he is a UFA in the same calendar year, look at Teams A through Z, and decide that Team A is the best fit. He has earned that right as a UFA.

But they've made poor rules before...

I thought that was for players that are bought out, not traded, but am not 100%.

Sorry, Bre..was supposed to be in response to Jammer's post...I replied to the wrong one.

[BearOnIce]

Well i look at as he says "hey boys better pick it up or some of you won't finish the season here"...and i can understand that, i feel that way.

My boss sets the line on my job every morning in the pre shift meeting...weak links will be weeded out and terminated, ain't a whole lot different because i'm a blue collar worker, he means bussiness he wants to win...the axe man cometh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with some of his moves/statemnets and some not so much...

OcaamsRazor:

You got right, you working stiff. Thanks for working and making this country strong, not sitting on your xss sucking on the government dole.

When Ed speaks, the boys, including Homer, take notice. No one want da axe!

Go Flyers. More Flyer KoolAid please.

BOI

[brelic]

hey, last time he spoke didn't we get Bryz?........

oh yeah, we are in trouble

That's an interesting quote from Snider, but I'm not sure it's true.

I just ran a regression analysis on goals per game. Keep in mind that this was a limited analysis of the past 4 years with readily available data!

The factors I looked at were:

- the ratio of goals scored 5 on 5 (for / against)

- the pp%

- the shots on goal

- the faceoff %

Here are the simplified results:

My 'model' had an R-squared(adj) of 0.6996, which means that roughly 70% of the variation in goals is explained by the 4 factors I've chosen.

Here's the relative strength of individual factors on the variation in goals per game:

5 on 5 F/A - 92.4%

PP% - 4.2%

SOG - 3.3%

FO% - -2% (it's a negative value, which means that as the FO% increases, the number of goals per game a team scores decreases!)

So 92% of the variation in a team's goals per game can be explained by their 5 on 5 F/A ratio, which is the exact opposite of what Snider is saying.

I know that conventional wisdom is that PPs and PKs decide games - heck, we witnessed one the other night - but it might be in different ways. It might serve as momentum changers, and ensuing goals are not necessarily scored on the PP. Or PP and PK may have a HUGE impact on a limited number of games, but not in the grand scheme of things.

I have not looked at playoffs, and that would be interesting to see if it's any different.

In case you're curious, here is the same analysis for goals against per game:

The 4 factors I looked at were:

- 5 on 5 F/A ratio

- PK%

- Shots against per game

- FO%

The R-sq(adj) is very similar at 0.69, so roughly 69% of the variation in goals against per game is explained by this model.

Here's the relative strength of individual factors on the variation in goals against per game:

5 on 5 F/A - -77%% (a negative value, meaning that as your 5 on 5 F/A ratio decreases, the number of goals against per game increases)

PK% - -5.4%

SA/G - 2.4%

FO% - was not a factor

So, 77% of the goals against per game is explained by a team's 5 on 5 F/A ratio.

It might be fair to say that it's hard to score 5 on 5, but that seems to be the biggest predictor of goals per game and goals against per game.

And I did the same analysis on total points (full season) to see what was connected. The biggest predictor for points was again the 5 on 5 F/A and scoring 1st %.

Anyway, this was rough and dirty and done in 15 minutes, but I think it does bring up some interesting discussion points.

[brelic]

I thought that was for players that are bought out, not traded, but am not 100%.

Sorry, Bre..was supposed to be in response to Jammer's post...I replied to the wrong one.

No worries DGG!

That's definitely the case for bought out players. They can't resign with the team that bought them out.

[pilldoc]

Why do I have a feeling The Old Man is going to do something criminally stupid, again?

Is the hair on the back of your neck raised! Because as others have alluded to...Snider has done this to us before.......

[pilldoc]

That's an interesting quote from Snider, but I'm not sure it's true.

I just ran a regression analysis on goals per game. Keep in mind that this was a limited analysis of the past 4 years with readily available data!

The factors I looked at were:

- the ratio of goals scored 5 on 5 (for / against)

- the pp%

- the shots on goal

- the faceoff %

Here are the simplified results:

My 'model' had an R-squared(adj) of 0.6996, which means that roughly 70% of the variation in goals is explained by the 4 factors I've chosen.

Here's the relative strength of individual factors on the variation in goals per game:

5 on 5 F/A - 92.4%

PP% - 4.2%

SOG - 3.3%

FO% - -2% (it's a negative value, which means that as the FO% increases, the number of goals per game a team scores decreases!)

So 92% of the variation in a team's goals per game can be explained by their 5 on 5 F/A ratio, which is the exact opposite of what Snider is saying.

I know that conventional wisdom is that PPs and PKs decide games - heck, we witnessed one the other night - but it might be in different ways. It might serve as momentum changers, and ensuing goals are not necessarily scored on the PP. Or PP and PK may have a HUGE impact on a limited number of games, but not in the grand scheme of things.

I have not looked at playoffs, and that would be interesting to see if it's any different.

In case you're curious, here is the same analysis for goals against per game:

The 4 factors I looked at were:

- 5 on 5 F/A ratio

- PK%

- Shots against per game

- FO%

The R-sq(adj) is very similar at 0.69, so roughly 69% of the variation in goals against per game is explained by this model.

Here's the relative strength of individual factors on the variation in goals against per game:

5 on 5 F/A - -77%% (a negative value, meaning that as your 5 on 5 F/A ratio decreases, the number of goals against per game increases)

PK% - -5.4%

SA/G - 2.4%

FO% - was not a factor

So, 77% of the goals against per game is explained by a team's 5 on 5 F/A ratio.

It might be fair to say that it's hard to score 5 on 5, but that seems to be the biggest predictor of goals per game and goals against per game.

And I did the same analysis on total points (full season) to see what was connected. The biggest predictor for points was again the 5 on 5 F/A and scoring 1st %.

Anyway, this was rough and dirty and done in 15 minutes, but I think it does bring up some interesting discussion points.

damm @brelic..too much time on your hands!!! (just kidding of course). I had to go back to my old stat course notes to be able to understand your post. Great job! So if I'm understanding your anaysis, basically what you are saying is that 5 on 5 goals ARE a big factor of deciding the outcome of a game, BUT/HOWEVER ...PPG/PPK although not statiscally significant can change the momentum of the game. Example a team can kill off PP being down 1 man, however, if you are routinely down 2 men and tha opposing team scores..then that is a huge momentum swing and visa verca...just like last week when the Flyers killed off a huge 5 on 3 vs the Rangers. It all has to do with momentum......very interesting..thanks for doing the leg work Brelic.....

[jammer2]

@DaGreatGazoo " I thought that was for players that are bought out, not traded, but am not 100%."

I think you're right DGG, perhaps I read it in regard to buy outs and thought it applied to trades....my bad.

[jammer2]

@brelic That's some nice research right there buddy!! Nice job!

[brelic]

damm @brelic..too much time on your hands!!! (just kidding of course). I had to go back to my old stat course notes to be able to understand your post. Great job! So if I'm understanding your anaysis, basically what you are saying is that 5 on 5 goals ARE a big factor of deciding the outcome of a game, BUT/HOWEVER ...PPG/PPK although not statiscally significant can change the momentum of the game. Example a team can kill off PP being down 1 man, however, if you are routinely down 2 men and tha opposing team scores..then that is a huge momentum swing and visa verca...just like last week when the Flyers killed off a huge 5 on 3 vs the Rangers. It all has to do with momentum......very interesting..thanks for doing the leg work Brelic.....

Haha, too much time indeed! I'm just getting back into statistical analysis with my new job, so I'm a little rusty and can use the practice!

You got it. The higher a team's ratio of (goals scored : goals against) when 5 on 5, the higher their goals per game, and also the higher their point totals.

I guess maybe what we need to look at is, in games where a team scored a PP goal, what was the outcome? What about 2 PP goals? More? And the same for PK. So then instead of looking at PP% and PK% (which is just an average), you're looking at the effect of PP goals/PP goals against for each individual game.

[pilldoc]

Haha, too much time indeed! I'm just getting back into statistical analysis with my new job, so I'm a little rusty and can use the practice!

You got it. The higher a team's ratio of (goals scored : goals against) when 5 on 5, the higher their goals per game, and also the higher their point totals.

I guess maybe what we need to look at is, in games where a team scored a PP goal, what was the outcome? What about 2 PP goals? More? And the same for PK. So then instead of looking at PP% and PK% (which is just an average), you're looking at the effect of PP goals/PP goals against for each individual game.

also one would need to take into account PPG when scored when 2 men down vs 1 man down....obvious scoring on a 5 on 3 has a much greater effect then say being on a 5 on 4 PP