Photo credit: Mitchell Layton

Quite the depressing week. We don’t score. We got blown out. People are revolting. He-who-can’t-be-named is now front and center on our site. Despite it all, I still maintain we shouldn’t panic.

This week I am going to take a break from individual scoring chances and look at the team as a whole. I wrote over at WaPo that this is just a string of bad luck and wanted to go a little more in depth. As you probably know by now, I use a specific definition of what I consider a scoring chance based on shot quality data and log everyone who is on the ice at the time using the script from Vic Ferrari. You can find the spreadsheet online that summarizes each week, and I promise I will get it up to date in the next few days.

First, I want everyone to see how the Caps have been converting their scoring chances to goals. Or rather how they haven’t. Convert percentage is simply goals-for divided by scoring chances-for. I’ll use a 10-game moving average to help smooth out the highs and lows. Period one on the chart is the average conversion percentage of games 1 through 10, while period two is the average of games 2 through 11, and so on. Stats from the Nov 27 game vs CAR are not included due to NHL.com errors.

As you can see, the Caps had a decent goal conversion rate which skyrocketed (35.7% vs TBL) and then poof! Offense gone. Hello 6-game losing streak.

Here it is in 5-game increments, except for the last six games which I grouped together. Remember, not all goals are scored from “dangerous” scoring areas, so they aren’t logged as chances.

See? They are converting at almost a third of what they consistently did in the games earlier. Plus, they are getting three to five more scoring chances per game. Remember, scoring chances are high quality shots, so it is not as if those extra chances are 60 foot bombs from the point – they are from the “dangerous” areas on the ice.

Now I ask you: if a team is getting more chances per game and is converting on a third less than usual (including a game which saw three shots hit the post in two minutes), does it really mean the coach should be fired?

Didn’t think so.

Complaining about officiating is an unmistakable sign of a poor sport. Only a terrible sportsman blames the referees, but let’s get real: the Caps are getting screwed on penalties against the Pittsburgh Penguins. I’m not here to spread conspiracy theories or accuse officials of malpractice; I’ve just got some cold, hard facts that may blow your mind.

Our friend Addison Huber did some number crunching on our behalf and turned up some exciting finds.

Recently, Caps PR maven Nate Ewell tweeted some interesting statistics regarding the discrepancy between penalties for and against the Capitals in games against the Penguins. Nate’s count came to 73 penalties against the Caps versus 43 against the Penguins in the last 14 games the two teams have played against each other. This information made me wonder just how unusual these numbers were compared to some sort of “average” data set.

In order to come up with an average to compare the Caps-Pens series against, I compiled two different sets of data. The first comparison was the Caps against several other teams in 14 game sets. In order to keep the time period the same as the Caps-Pens set, I limited the team selection to Eastern Conference teams, since they play with much more frequency. All the Eastern Conference teams (less Pittsburgh and Washington) were arranged in alphabetical order and numbered. I then used www.random.org to select three of those teams, which ended up being New Jersey, New York Rangers, and Tampa Bay. Penalty statistics for the last 14 games against each of those teams were taken from www.espn.com. Penalties for each team in each series were summed, then averaged to give an average for-and-against number, percent of penalties called, and average penalties called per game. That action yielded the following results: in a 14 game series against a random team, the Capitals would be expected to be called for 67 penalties, while their opponent would be called for 73 (48% and 52% of total penalties, respectively). Penalties-per-game were be 4.81 for the Caps and and 5.19 for their opponents. On average, there were 140 total penalties called in the series.

To provide another data point I again used www.random.org to select 14 games from the last 240 games played (the same period as the last 14 games against Pittsburgh) and looked at the penalty data for that random “series.” Game 1 was the first game of the 2007-8 season and game 240 was the most recent game against Calgary. The random 14 game series showed that the Caps should be expected to be whistled for 72 penalties, while their opponents would be whistled for 63 (53% and 47% of total penalties, respectively). Penalties-per-game would be 5.14 for the Caps and 4.5 for their opponents. On average, there were 135 total penalties called in the series. With a variance of about only 5% between the two data sets, I would say these numbers are a pretty accurate representation of the Caps’ propensity to be called for and draw penalties.

Comparing these penalty numbers to the penalty numbers from the Penguins “series” that Nate referenced led to some interesting results. At first glace at Nate’s Tweet, I would have guessed that the Caps were being called for penalties at a higher rate than normal. However, in a 14 game series, we would expect the Capitals to be called for 70 penalties, whereas in the Pens series they were called for 73, only a 5% increase and well within standard deviation. Looking at the penalties called on the Penguins, however, yields a much more unexpected result. While we expect the Pens to also be called for about 70 penalties, they were only called for 43, a 37% decrease, way outside a reasonable margin of error. To find the probability of this few penalties being called against the Penguins I plugged the numbers into the Poisson distribution. [Ed. note - see Appendix A below for more information regarding Poisson.] According to that function, the probability of the Pens being called for only 43 penalties is .01437%. Not that I am a frequent wearer of aluminum millinery, but it is clear that, for whatever reason, the referees are putting away their whistles against the Penguins when they play the Caps but continuing to call the Caps for penalties at the same rate. Alternatively, it could be argued that the Penguins, for some reason, play much more disciplined hockey against the Capitals. No matter what the explanation, it is obvious that the Caps should always practice their penalty kill before they play the Penguins.

For everyone who blacked out when the numbers came, the proliferations of Caps’ penalties against the Pens stretches credulity.  We could spend hours guessing why the Penguins receive preferential treatment while the Capitals get the lash, or we could cast aspersions against the zebras, or we could claim the the game is fixed.  But we will do none of that.

The Capitals will win or lose on their merit.  Nothing else.  The officials are imbued with the trust of the game, and if that trust is abused, so be it.  It is beyond our ability to fix.  Until the last horn blows, it is up to the team — and no other–  to determine its own fate.

We leave you now with further ruminations on the Poisson distribution, as expounded by noted philologians Richard Bell, Michael Bivins, and Ronald DeVoe.

What follows is a peek into a disturbed mind, wherein the machinations of p-values and standard deviations are comprehended with ease.  Abandon all hope, ye who read on, of understanding what Stevie K now lays at your feet; let the numbers wash over you and ease you into a narcotic stupor.  Trip the light fantastic amidst a really big spreadsheet.   I promise to bold the important stuff that makes sense to normal human beings.

I took the Standings page from ESPN and pasted it into a JMP data table, then manually input simulated results for every game. Simulated results required that the Caps win, and that for every other game, whichever team had more points going into the game would lose in regulation. The only exception is a game between Chicago and Phoenix on 3/23, where they have the same point total. Phoenix gets simulated to win this game because Chicago has more games remaining.

The columns at the end had JMP formulas in them.

• GAMES REMAINING is just 82 – today’s GP – games they’ve played so far in the simulation.
• POINTS UPDATED is PTS + all of the simulated game results so far
• Available Points is 2*GAMES REMAINING
• Can beat or tie Caps? is if (Available Points >= Caps(POINTS UPDATED)-OtherTeam's(POINTS UPDATED),1,0)

So each day of the remaining schedule I would make a new column, simulate the results, and update the 4 columns at the end. Once there were no more teams with a 1 in the last column, the Caps had won the Presidents’  Trophy. It occurs immediately at the end of the Ottawa game, where the Caps have 76GP and 114PTS. Chicago has 74GP and 97PTS.

Let’s go Caps.

Would you trust this man with your statistics?

You can view Stevie K’s inane spreadsheet here.

Okay, you can keep reading again.  Here’s what this means: if the Caps win every game, and all the other contenders lose every game, the soonest the Caps could win the Prez is after the March 30th game against the Senators (which we’ll be attending).  The god of statistics, MC Stephen Hawking, deems this unlikely.  Still, the projections favor the Caps to win first seed for the first time ever.

Let’s all take a moment to thank Stevie K. for giving us the most incomprehensible report since the last time he contributed to the blog.  (We kid because we love, K.  This is awesome.  Chipotle is on me next time!)

If the Caps win tonight, they will break the team’s record for consecutive games won (10, by the 83-84 Caps). They will also break the Bruins’ record for consecutive games lost (8, by the 56 Bruins). The Caps team is playing at their acme right now, whereas the Bruins are hoping they’ve already hit rock bottom. What does this portend for tonight’s game?

Well, if you flip a coin, your chances of getting heads are the same from one toss to another. Ideally, all binary competitions (one winner and one loser) would be like this. If the principle could be extended to sports, the Caps would likely win tonight just because they are the better team objectively. But first we much deal with a few others factors, and also, we must maul intelligent statistical theory until the results please us.  Please join us behind the jump.

I. Advantages

Momentum. The Caps have momentum of the winning kind, the Bruins of the losing. At this risk of spurring the ire of physics nerds, inertia dictates that teams that suck will continue to suck.  Put another way: the Caps might win tonight because they’re in the habit of winning. The last two games could have easily been lost if not for some unquantifiable, mystical winning-ness. Maybe the guys are visualizing their victory and using the power of positive thought to actualize it. Maybe Bruce Boudreau is reaping the benefits of sage training.  Either way, the Caps are in the mode to win.

Daddy. The Caps’ dads have joined them on their trip up to New England. Right now, they’re all getting soused at the Sam Adams brewery tour. In most people’s experience, a drunk father would criticize you about your hair, clothes, video-gaming habits, career prospects, handshake firmness, political orientation, or car maintenance skills. But the Washington Capitals are world-class athletes whose fathers must be immeasurably proud. The good tiding shared by their forebearers may lift the Caps to a win.

The Doors. Craig Laughlin said that his winning ’84 team used to get focused by listening to The Doors’ “Break on Through to the Other Side”. Well, at the risk of influencing tonight’s result…

II. Disadvantages

“They’re due.” This is the flip side of the momentum argument above, and it too is characterized by a stunning lack of logic. The Bruins haven’t lost this long since the fifties; they’re not going to blow it now. The Caps have won as many as they can, it’s time to let the streak die a noble death. In the coin-toss scenario, that the Bruins have lost eight straight would not affect the chances of losing the next match. But hockey ain’t coin tossing. In this case, the “head” side of the coin is furiously motivated to win, whereas the “tails” side just sort expects it to happen. The further a team descends into a streak of either kind, the less likely it seems they will continue.

Barely squeaking by. Some of the last ten games have been blowouts. Doubling up over the Pens, for example, felt like a particularly well formed blowout. But the games against the Panthers and Lightning have found the Caps playing not at their peak, but managing to eke out a win somehow. If your average winning margin decreases, you’re trending towards imminent loss. Will tonight find the Capitals on the wrong side of the scoreboard for the first time in over a month?

Records are records for a reason. They’re hard to break. Is anyone closing in on Cal Ripken’s consecutive games played record? No one knows why, but some force kept the Red Sox away from winning the World Series for 86 years. Let’s name that force excellence.  To win tonight the Caps must prove their excellence exceeds the opposing force presented by the record. To lose tonight the Bruins must be beyond excellent at losing.  Tonight’s decision is not which his the better team, but which team’s excellence is proportionately greater than the excellence of its record?

Confused yet?  Good.  Me, too.  I’m just making this up as I go along.  Drink something brown and stored in a barrel.  It’ll start making more sense when you’re as besotted as “Grandpa Nasty” Schultz.

III. Conclusions

We’d like to think that Caps will win tonight’s game because they’ve got momentum.  But to believe that a previous appointment will affect a new appointment is known as the gambler’s fallacy; however, we all believe that momentum counts for something in sports– even if we cannot quantify it. Even if the influence of the last win on the next game is marginal, we admit it exists. Contrapositively, we must also admit the presence of the “being due” principle, the efficacy of which is probably just as marginal. This entire paragraph has been a cop-out, and I’ve scammed you into reading it.

Here’s the bottom line. I’m wearing the damned shirt (8-0-0).

We’re winning this one. The team has the attitude, fundamentals, and familial support needed to break a record.  My prediction to blogiarch Ian Oland is a 4-3 win (GWG by Semin) for the Caps. Ian predicts a 9-0 win (GWG by Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin, Ovechkin).  That’s right: the fabled triple hat trick.

Chris Clark and Milan Jurcina in a Blue Jackets Uniform. Weird.

The Washington Capitals made a trade this week, picking up Jason Chimera from the Columbus Blue Jackets for Chris Clark and Milan Jurcina. Given that I spent all weekend putting together a spreadsheet trying to approximate the Goals Versus Threshold that Puck Prospectus uses to give an idea of a player’s contributions, I thought it would be a good time to put it to use. I wasn’t able to match their GVT exactly, but I got close enough to make the thing potentially viable.

First, on what GVT is:

“To explain in terms already familiar to sports statisticians, GVT is very similar to VORP in baseball: it is the value of a player, in goals, above what a replacement player would have contributed. The fact that GVT is measured in goals is crucial: statistics that divide up “Win Shares”, so that the ratings of a team’s players sum to that team’s number of wins, are very erratic and non-linear, since wins don’t increase or decrease linearly with team caliber. While hockey is ultimately about winning or losing, players’ contributions always come down to scoring goals and preventing them. A player cannot “win” a game, even though he may be put in a situation where scoring a goal or making a key save would create or conserve a win. Each player’s role, no matter his position, is to try and increase the goal differential in favor of his team. An offensive player who scores a hat trick only to see his teammates allow 4 goals against has nevertheless done his job; a goaltender who stops 39 of 40 shots only to lose 1-0 has likewise performed well. Using this standard, all players can be compared by the same yardstick: how much did they help (or harm) their team’s goal differential?…

• GVT is measured in goals. This makes it a convenient unit that hockey fans are already comfortable with.
• GVT compares hockey players of all positions and over any period of time.
• GVT only uses statistics that lead directly to goals. You cannot incorporate goaltender wins into GVT, because they are not a measurement of goals prevented. However, if you can rationally explain what are the odds of a faceoff win (or loss) leading to a goal or goal against, it would be possible to incorporate faceoff wins and losses into GVT, though I have not done so.
• GVT has built-in accounting. The sum of player GVTs on a team equals that team’s GVT plus the replacement level. This is essential, as player statistics often come with caveats. “Kovalchuk scored 43 goals, but he doesn’t play defense and his team isn’t good”. This makes it much easier to measure “how good would this team be replacing player A with player B?” It is also essential in that player success is correlated with team success, which after all is the entire point of the sport.
• GVT automatically normalizes for the strength of the league…

GVT does not measure a player’s talent. The statistic measures a player’s contribution to his team’s goal differential. A goaltender that faces zero shots will have a value of zero, regardless of whether he is Patrick Roy or Andrew Raycroft. Likewise, a player that is injured or gets little ice time will see his GVT reduced accordingly. It also does not take into account environment: a player will score more with better linemates, and I make no attempt to adjust for that…

GVT does not measure intangibles. Things like leadership do exist in hockey, and they do help to make your teammates better. However, there is no way to measure this through statistics, and any attempt to quantify it is futile. In effect, we are not trying to see what information is “hidden” in the statistics; we are simply trying to better characterize the information that is at hand”

Alright, on to the trade!

Jason Chimera
Pos: F
Goals: 8
Assists: 9
Games: 39
Offensive Goals Versus Threshold: 1.0

Not a top scorer by any means, but he’ll add a little bit and was projected by VUKOTA (Puck Prospectus’ projection system) to be at +1.4 OGVT for the season (in 60 games). Depending on who’s playing around him on the Capitals, his scoring may even go up.

Plus/Minus: -7
Defensive Goals Versus Threshold: -0.1

Had a +/- of +8 last year, and -5 the year before that. VUKOTA had him contributing more on defense than on offense with a +2 DGVT. Maybe dial that down a touch rate-wise, but as long as he’s playing more that might be accurate as a raw number.

Overall, Chimera looks like around a 3-4 GVT player. With 6 goals being a win, and one win being worth about $3 M on the open market, that would make Chimera worth about $1.5 to $2 M. He’s going to be paid $1.875 M both this season and next, so his contract looks just about on the button. One could theoretically take into account the amount by which acquiring Chimera increased the Capitals’ chances of making the playoffs (where is certainly worth something), but I think the effect would be negligible.

Clark wasn’t expected to add much on offense – VUKOTA projected him at just 0.1 OGVT – but it seems he’s done even less than that.

Plus/Minus: -4
Defensive Goals Versus Threshold: -0.8

He was projected to have a +0.6 DGVT this season.

Overall, the 33 year-old isn’t a major contributor to the team. He makes $2.63 M this season and $2.63 M more next season before his contract is up, so in some respects it’s a plus just to get that off the books.

The guy isn’t exactly a scoring defenseman. He had just 3 goals and 11 assits last season, and is likely around zero with the OGVT in the near future.

Plus/Minus: 0
Defensive Goals Versus Threshold: -1.0

VUKOTA had projected Jurcina to be a +2.9 DGVT player this season, and with numbers this small the precision becomes an issue. Maybe say he’s a +2 DGVT (for a full season) guy going forward.

Overall, Jurcina hasn’t played all that well and despite his size isn’t an impact defenseman. He’s making $1.375 M this season, and will be an unrestricted free agent. At -2 Goals Versus Threshold, Jurcina wouldn’t actually be worth anything. As a 2 GVT player (all on defense), he would be worth about $1 M. Therefore he was just worth his salary at best, and isn’t a loss to the team.