Sunday, July 24, 2011

What Columbus lost...and gained

With the offseason talent acquisition period largely concluded for the Columbus Blue Jackets with the signing of Vinny Prospal to take Kristian Huselius' top 6 forward slot, I figured it was time to figure out what type of scoring production went out the door.  In the same vein, it's worth checking out what was gained - and then comparing to see whether there was any improvement in scoring ability.

Why am I looking so closely at scoring, you ask?  Simple.  The Blue Jackets didn't score nearly enough last season.  Now it's easy to blame some of the lack of production on now-departed assistant Bob Boughner, but at least some of the blame goes to the whole "LOFT" issue.

So let's take a look, with the recently-departed on the left-hand side and the newly-acquired on the right:


NAME

GAMES
(CBJ)
GOALS ASSISTS NAME

GAMES (NHL)
GOALS ASSISTS
Chris Clark
53
5
10
Jeff Carter
80
36
30
Jan Hejda
77
5
15
Radek Martinek
64
3
13
Sami Lepisto*
19
0
5
Vinny Propsal
29
9
14
Ethan Moreau
37
1
5
James Wisniewski (NYI)
32
3
13
Andrew Murray
29
4
4
James Wisniewski (MTL)
43
7
23
Craig Rivet*
14
1
0
Anton Stralman
51
1
17
Scottie Upshall*
21
6
1
Jakub Voracek
80
14
32
Kyle Wilson
32
4
7
Nikita Filatov
23
0
7
TOTALS
436
41
103
TOTALS
248
58
93
AVERAGE/GAME
.094
.236
AVERAGE/GAME
.234
.375
*Trade deadline acquisition

Wow.  Goal scoring potential increases by over 100 percent per game, and assists by roughly 50 percent.  That's no small potatoes.  Of course, we have to keep in mind that the guys coming in aren't slotted to be scrubs, and GM Scott Howson let a lot of scrubs go.

Also, the stat differential is largely attributable to Jeff Carter coming to town (The goal differential between Carter and Voracek alone is staggering), but it doesn't look like any of the now-gone defenders could hold Wiz's skates.  I mean, Wiz appears to be better from a scoring perspective than Hejda and Stralman combined.

Could the talent level on the Blue Jackets really be improving?

(NOTE: Edited to include Nikita Filatov's CBJ stats.)

8 comments:

  1. Okay, I've had it.

    If I see "LOFT" mentioned one more time here I'm dropping this blog like I dropped LTL and encouraging others to do the same. It's garbage whining disguised as poor-quality statistical analysis, and nobody with any pretense of rationality or sense should be spreading it.

    This has been a very high-quality blog for quite some time. Please don't go down the same road LTL did.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What about #28!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dark Blue JacketJuly 24, 2011 at 5:03 PM

    Sorry you didn't like the post.

    I write this blog for fun, as does Gallos on his posts, and we both hope that you enjoy what you read.

    If you don't, there are number of fine Blue Jackets blogs linked in the side column that you might want to check out. Not the same as mine, granted, but perhaps some of those might better suit your tastes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dark Blue JacketJuly 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM

    Anon: Good golly, I can't believe that I missed Little Nikita. I mean, it's not like I haven't written about the guy or anything. Thanks for the catch...and the stats are now included!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I get that this is a "written for fun" thing, and that's a large part of why I've liked it for some time. I just can't stand any endorsement whatsoever of the "LOFT" concept, which is based pretty much entirely on name recognition rather than, y'know, actually solving on-ice problems.

    Essentially, you did some reasonably decent analysis here, but colored it by bringing up something broken. It'd be like coming up with decent projections and then saying that they came from your astrologer.

    Please don't bring your hard work down by associating with that stuff. That's all I ask. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't get it, Viq, you know this team has not been sufficiently talented to compete successfully, so what's your bitch about a simplified way to gauge/display/quantify the gap? You can dispute assigned numbers, they're clearly personal and arbitrary, but why the giant kerfuffle over the concept?

    If you stop reading and participating in LTL and DBJ, haven't you conceded a win to our Cosmic Enemies? Shake it off, Girl, and get back in the game!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like LOFT for the same reason I like OPS in baseball. New stats carry the analysis a little further than just PPG. Read Moneyball and then tell me the new stats don't mean anything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For what it is worth, my issue with LOFT (and I am guessing that it is Viqsi's too) is that it is not quantifiable, and so it is just opinion presented as fact. Yes, there are numbers, but the origin of those numbers is vague. OPS is the sum of a player's on-base percentage and slugging percentage. You can debate its worth/accuracy, but its origin is clear. With LOFT, the origin of the number is based on the particular blog writer's perception of each player. Things like goals, plus-minus, and prior all-star status are part of the equation, but it is never clear how these facts become LOFT.

    One sign of the lack of transparency/validity is that LOFT comparisons are always drawn with the top tier teams (DET, PIT, & WAS). I haven't seen LOFT comparisons with other mid-level teams or between top tier teams. If it were a real quantifiable measure, wouldn't it be a great way to evaluate the differences between playoff/non-playoff teams or eastern/western conference teams?

    LOFT is and was an interesting approach to thinking about, and arguing that, we needed better players. It just doesn't mean that it is a quantifiable statistic in the way that OPS, WHiP, or plus-minus are quantifiable.

    ReplyDelete