"Clutch Shootout Stars"

[Screamin'Weasel]

Puck Daddy's blog discussed the shootout clutch players, most notable to Sabres fans, Ales Kotalik.

 

Linky Dinky Doo

 

Anyway, I actually call attention to this article to point out the photo near the bottom of the article (seen below):

 

 

Anyone else notice something odd about this pic? They honestly couldn't find a better one?

[NowDoYouBelieve]

Puck Daddy's blog discussed the shootout clutch players, most notable to Sabres fans, Ales Kotalik.

 

Linky Dinky Doo

 

Anyway, I actually call attention to this article to point out the photo near the bottom of the article (seen below):

 

 

Anyone else notice something odd about this pic? They honestly couldn't find a better one?

 

Good stuff, I like the Puck Daddy Blog. If it weren't for Kotalik's shootout prowess, I would want him to be somebody else's headache. But as long as he's directly winning us 3-4 games on an annual basis, he's worth keeping around right? By the way, I do NOT want to see the reverse angle on that picture of Kessel.

[R_Dudley]

Argh my eye's. :lol: Wonder if he just split em or it's a preference because he likes to feel the breeze as he fly's down the ice.

[carpandean]

But as long as he's directly winning us 3-4 games on an annual basis, he's worth keeping around right?

I've gone through this a few times, but I am not convinced that he gets us 3-4 wins more than we would without him. If Kotalik isn't there, we don't lose every SO goal that he would have scored; somebody shoots in his place. Kotalik scores in SOs that we lose, so that replacement can't make those any worse. Kotalik misses between 1/3 and 1/2 the time, so that replacement can only do better in those games. Kotalik scores in a 2-0 win through two rounds, so the replacement either makes it (win) or misses (go into third round up 1-0, which is still a very high probability that we win.) Kotalik wins some 1-0 (or 2-1 or ...), so his replacement either makes it (win) or we're tied (still roughly 50/50 we win.) The only case where it necessarily costs us is when it's tied after three rounds, in which Kotalik would have scored, we end up winning in a later round and the replacement misses. I'd bet that in a good season in SOs (like this year or 2006-07), Kotalik gets us maybe 2 points, and in a bad year (like last year), he gets us maybe 1. On the flip side, I'd attribute one point lost down the stretch last year to a late, lazy hooking penalty by Ales in a game with a two-goal lead against Montreal . He doesn't take that penalty and the league's best PP doesn't get two shots (that one and the pulled-goalie 6-on-5) in the final three minutes and they likely don't even it up in regulation and don't get the chance to beat us in OT. I'm sure there are lots of other examples where his lazy play contributes, at least in part, to losing points. Use his money, especially if he wants a raise, for someone better during the first 60-65 minutes of the game and I bet we are better off. Heck, you could stick Mancari in his spot for less than a million and put the extra $2 million toward getting another scoring-line center or upgraded Dman.

[Screamin'Weasel]

I've gone through this a few times, but I am not convinced that he gets us 3-4 wins more than we would without him. If Kotalik isn't there, we don't lose every SO goal that he would have scored; somebody shoots in his place. Kotalik scores in SOs that we lose, so that replacement can't make those any worse. Kotalik misses between 1/3 and 1/2 the time, so that replacement can only do better in those games. Kotalik scores in a 2-0 win through two rounds, so the replacement either makes it (win) or misses (go into third round up 1-0, which is still a very high probability that we win.) Kotalik wins some 1-0 (or 2-1 or ...), so his replacement either makes it (win) or we're tied (still roughly 50/50 we win.) The only case where it necessarily costs us is when it's tied after three rounds, in which Kotalik would have scored, we end up winning in a later round and the replacement misses. I'd bet that in a good season in SOs (like this year or 2006-07), Kotalik gets us maybe 2 points, and in a bad year (like last year), he gets us maybe 1. On the flip side, I'd attribute one point lost down the stretch last year to a late, lazy hooking penalty by Ales in a game with a two-goal lead against Montreal . He doesn't take that penalty and the league's best PP doesn't get two shots (that one and the pulled-goalie 6-on-5) in the final three minutes and they likely don't even it up in regulation and don't get the chance to beat us in OT. I'm sure there are lots of other examples where his lazy play contributes, at least in part, to losing points. Use his money, especially if he wants a raise, for someone better during the first 60-65 minutes of the game and I bet we are better off. Heck, you could stick Mancari in his spot for less than a million and put the extra $2 million toward getting another scoring-line center or upgraded Dman.

The error in your math is the fact that you assume the replacement shooter will or does have equal ability to Kotalik. If everyone on the Sabres was equal in that regard, we'd have all the players on the team with the 55.6% shooting percentage. If that were the case then your math would be correct. Since Lindy (rightly) feels Kotalik is better than average (ie better than the other guys on the team) you have to assume they are not equal so your replacement player would not have the same shooting percentage and would miss more often than not.

 

As for the "Ales scores first and Player X scores in round two preventing a third round" argument, I get what you are saying. However if goal number one was all that was needed, he got the win, not Player X. Player X prevents further rounds from being needed, but did not get the goal needed to win. If the second shooter misses causing a third round, there is a <50% chance shooter 3 scores or misses. However, the opposing shooter 3 also has the same percentage of scoring or missing. Looking at the numbers, only 3 players are above .500: Kotalik (15/27), Christensen (15/27) and Kozlov (14/27). The next closest to .500 is Parise (13/31) at 41.9% and that is with having more shootout trips than anyone else on the leader board. That is why I say <50% on the third shooter example.

 

I think your estimate of 2 points in a good season is on the low side. I'd be more apt to agree with 4-5 points per good season.

[deluca67]

Argh my eye's. :lol: Wonder if he just split em or it's a preference because he likes to feel the breeze as he fly's down the ice.

Looks like the economy is hitting the NHL hard. I wonder if he has replaced his shin pads with rolled up newspapers.

[carpandean]

The error in your math is the fact that you assume the replacement shooter will or does have equal ability to Kotalik. If everyone on the Sabres was equal in that regard, we'd have all the players on the team with the 55.6% shooting percentage. If that were the case then your math would be correct. Since Lindy (rightly) feels Kotalik is better than average (ie better than the other guys on the team) you have to assume they are not equal so your replacement player would not have the same shooting percentage and would miss more often than not.

 

As for the "Ales scores first and Player X scores in round two preventing a third round" argument, I get what you are saying. However if goal number one was all that was needed, he got the win, not Player X. Player X prevents further rounds from being needed, but did not get the goal needed to win. If the second shooter misses causing a third round, there is a <50% chance shooter 3 scores or misses. However, the opposing shooter 3 also has the same percentage of scoring or missing. Looking at the numbers, only 3 players are above .500: Kotalik (15/27), Christensen (15/27) and Kozlov (14/27). The next closest to .500 is Parise (13/31) at 41.9% and that is with having more shootout trips than anyone else on the leader board. That is why I say <50% on the third shooter example.

 

I think your estimate of 2 points in a good season is on the low side. I'd be more apt to agree with 4-5 points per good season.

I did not assume that the player would score with the same frequency. In fact, I didn't assume any frequency and had no stated calculations. My point is that the new player would score sometime. Yes, you might be going from 60%, 60%, 40%, 40%, 20%, ... to 60%, 40%, 40%, 20%, 20%, ..., but you're not dropping a 0% in where Kotalik was before. That player will score some of the times where Kotalik scored that they won, so you don't lose all of those cases. Even in the cases that they other player doesn't score, a win becomes a tie or even just a less certain win, which we could win in later rounds, so you don't even lose all of those. The only time where it absolutely guarantees a loss is, as mentioned, when Kotalik's goal was needed to prevent a loss through three round, that we later won and that the replacement doesn't score in.

 

We've won six times in SO's this year (out of 8, so we probably won't do much better in a give year):

Canadiens - Kotalik scored, won 2-0 through 2

Bruins - Kotalik missed, won 2-1 through 5

Islanders - Ales scored, won 2-0 through 2

Rangers - Ales scored, won 1-0 through 3

Stars - Ales missed, won 1-0 through 6

Florida - Ales scored, won 2-0 through 2

 

So, at most, he's gotten us 4 points so far. There is some chance that his replacement would have scored in the one loss where Al missed, but lets ignore that part (would only make my point stronger.)

 

In three of those games, if his replacement misses, we go to the third round up 1-0. If we score, we win. If both teams score or neither team does, we win. If we don't and they do, we're tied and go to round 4. Let's be conservative and say that this last scenario happens 40% of the time (all shooters/goalies equal, it would actually be more like 25%) and let's say the we only win 40% if it goes forward tied (again, all shooters/goalies equal, we would win around 50%.) That means that even if Ales' replacement didn't score, we're still probably winning >75% (0.4*0.6 = 0.24 chance that we lose) of the time.

 

In the remaining case, if his replacement misses, we're going into round 4 tied. Again, let's say the we win 40% of those.

 

In total, you're looking at roughly (3)(.25) + (1)(.6) = 1.12 less points with very friendly (to our opposition) estimates. So, you're still looking at one, maybe two points so far if you assume the replacement misses all of the ones that Kotalik made, which he probably won't. Even with a weaker shooter -- say, half as good -- you're still only looking at 1-2 points over the course of the season.

 

 

With the whole "2-0 through two rounds" win argument, Ales did not "get the win". He made it hard for the other team to win, but not impossible. Adding the second goal does, in fact, make it impossible for the other team to win even with the third round. So, yeah, you can say that the first goal will be sufficient more often than not, but it is not sufficient to guarantee the win, so you can't say that he "got the win". Give him the GDG if you want, but it is not logically correct; not 100%. Without the second goal, you can lose after two rounds.

[spndnchz]

I did not assume that the player would score with the same frequency. In fact, I didn't assume any frequency and had no stated calculations. My point is that the new player would score sometime. Yes, you might be going from 60%, 60%, 40%, 40%, 20%, ... to 60%, 40%, 40%, 20%, 20%, ..., but you're not dropping a 0% in where Kotalik was before. That player will score some of the times where Kotalik scored that they won, so you don't lose all of those cases. Even in the cases that they other player doesn't score, a win becomes a tie, which we could win in later rounds, so you don't even lose all of those. The only time where it absolutely guarantees a loss is, as mentioned, when Kotalik's goal was needed to prevent a loss through three round, that we later won and that the replacement doesn't score in.

 

We've won six times in SO's this year (out of 8, so we probably won't do much better in a give year):

Canadiens - Kotalik scored, won 2-0 through 2

Bruins - Kotalik missed, won 2-1 through 5

Islanders - Ales scored, won 2-0 through 2

Rangers - Ales scored, won 1-0 through 3

Stars - Ales missed, won 1-0 through 6

Florida - Ales scored, won 2-0 through 2

 

So, at most, he's gotten us 4 points so far. There is some chance that his replacement would have scored in the one loss where Al missed, but lets ignore that part (would only make my point stronger.)

>>snip<<

Some people on this board feel that if he was gone then somebody else would have scored in regulation and we wouldn't need any shootouts anyway. That's 8 games, 4 more points too.

[carpandean]

Some people on this board feel that if he was gone then somebody else would have scored in regulation and we wouldn't need any shootouts anyway. That's 8 games, 4 more points too.

I'm one who would argue that using his money to improve our roster in the first 65 minutes would gain us points back. We've lost five times in SO/OT, so that's five points that were available. There were also some one-goal (or two with an ENer) regulation losses that a could have been tied, gaining one to two points each. Certainly, I'm not suggesting we'd get all of those using his money elsewhere, but it only takes a couple to make up for his estimated value in the shootout.

[spndnchz]

I'm one who would argue that using his money to improve our roster in the first 65 minutes would gain us points back. We've lost five times in SO/OT, so that's five points that were available. There were also some one-goal (or two with an ENer) regulation losses that a could have been tied, gaining one to two points each. Certainly, I'm not suggesting we'd get all of those using his money elsewhere, but it only takes a couple to make up for his estimated value in the shootout.

Word.

 

IMHO, If only he used his size more we'd be happy with his production.

[carpandean]

Word.

 

IMHO, If only he used his size more we'd be happy with his production.

And wasn't lazy on the backcheck ... and didn't take lazy penalties ... and ...

 

Generally, he does the little things about one game in 10. If he got that up to just six in 10, he'd be a top-6 forward on our team. He's had a lot of chances and never has.

[spndnchz]

And wasn't lazy on the backcheck ... and didn't take lazy penalties ... and ...

 

Generally, he does the little things about one game in 10. If he got that up to just six in 10, he'd be a top-6 forward on our team. He's had a lot of chances and never has.

If he got up from 6 to 10, I'd be happy. :blush: :thumbsup:

[Screamin'Weasel]

I did not assume that the player would score with the same frequency. In fact, I didn't assume any frequency and had no stated calculations. My point is that the new player would score sometime. Yes, you might be going from 60%, 60%, 40%, 40%, 20%, ... to 60%, 40%, 40%, 20%, 20%, ..., but you're not dropping a 0% in where Kotalik was before. That player will score some of the times where Kotalik scored that they won, so you don't lose all of those cases. Even in the cases that they other player doesn't score, a win becomes a tie or even just a less certain win, which we could win in later rounds, so you don't even lose all of those. The only time where it absolutely guarantees a loss is, as mentioned, when Kotalik's goal was needed to prevent a loss through three round, that we later won and that the replacement doesn't score in.

 

We've won six times in SO's this year (out of 8, so we probably won't do much better in a give year):

Canadiens - Kotalik scored, won 2-0 through 2

Bruins - Kotalik missed, won 2-1 through 5

Islanders - Ales scored, won 2-0 through 2

Rangers - Ales scored, won 1-0 through 3

Stars - Ales missed, won 1-0 through 6

Florida - Ales scored, won 2-0 through 2

 

So, at most, he's gotten us 4 points so far. There is some chance that his replacement would have scored in the one loss where Al missed, but lets ignore that part (would only make my point stronger.)

 

In three of those games, if his replacement misses, we go to the third round up 1-0. If we score, we win. If both teams score or neither team does, we win. If we don't and they do, we're tied and go to round 4. Let's be conservative and say that this last scenario happens 40% of the time (all shooters/goalies equal, it would actually be more like 25%) and let's say the we only win 40% if it goes forward tied (again, all shooters/goalies equal, we would win around 50%.) That means that even if Ales' replacement didn't score, we're still probably winning >75% (0.4*0.6 = 0.24 chance that we lose) of the time.

 

In the remaining case, if his replacement misses, we're going into round 4 tied. Again, let's say the we win 40% of those.

 

In total, you're looking at roughly (3)(.25) + (1)(.6) = 1.12 less points with very friendly (to our opposition) estimates. So, you're still looking at one, maybe two points so far if you assume the replacement misses all of the ones that Kotalik made, which he probably won't. Even with a weaker shooter -- say, half as good -- you're still only looking at 1-2 points over the course of the season.

With the whole "2-0 through two rounds" win argument, Ales did not "get the win". He made it hard for the other team to win, but not impossible. Adding the second goal does, in fact, make it impossible for the other team to win even with the third round. So, yeah, you can say that the first goal will be sufficient more often than not, but it is not sufficient to guarantee the win, so you can't say that he "got the win". Give him the GDG if you want, but it is not logically correct; not 100%. Without the second goal, you can lose after two rounds.

 

Just for the sake of argument, in the two "2-0 after 2" wins, in which position did Ales shoot?

 

Again, as I stated earlier, I understand your logic in the "2-0 after 2" situation. I really do. I guess it is just a matter of perspective. For example, in regulation time does the player that scores the go ahead goal with .1 second left in the third get the "GDG/GWG"? Sure. But did he make it "impossible for the other team to win"? No. The clock running out of time did. "Logically" that is what did the opponent in, not the goal at .1 second left.

 

And anyway, I'd rather get a better regulation player as you guys have been saying, too.

[carpandean]

Just for the sake of argument, in the two "2-0 after 2" wins, in which position did Ales shoot?

 

Again, as I stated earlier, I understand your logic in the "2-0 after 2" situation. I really do. I guess it is just a matter of perspective. For example, in regulation time does the player that scores the go ahead goal with .1 second left in the third get the "GDG/GWG"? Sure. But did he make it "impossible for the other team to win"? No. The clock running out of time did. "Logically" that is what did the opponent in, not the goal at .1 second left.

 

And anyway, I'd rather get a better regulation player as you guys have been saying, too.

Al always shoots first.

 

The difference is that with a win in regulation, if you took away all scoring after the game winner, the team still wins, but if you also take away the game winner, they don't necessarily. That's why it's the game winner. It was the goal that gave them enough to win. In the "2-0 after 2" case, if you take away the second goal, they don't necessarily win. The first goal is not sufficient to win. There would be a third round without the second goal and they could end up losing. It doesn't have a direct analogy with a regulation win, because they end it when there is no chance for the other team to win, not when it is actually over. As I've said before, you win "at least 2 out of 3 to no more than 1 out of 3", not "2 out of 3 to 1 out of 3." Whatever, though, I don't base his value on the number in his "GDG" stat, I base it on the difference between the team's record with him in that spot vs. my estimate of it with the next best option. In those "2-0 after 2" games, I don't count the first shooter any differently than the second.

[Screamin'Weasel]

If anyone watched tonight's shootout finish to the Boston-Ottawa game, Kessel's pants still look like that...both legs.

 

Also, Spezza's stick has some huuuuuge curve on it and the blade tapers almost to a point at the tip. Anyone else ever see a stick like that?

[Bmwolf21]

Al always shoots first.

 

The difference is that with a win in regulation, if you took away all scoring after the game winner, the team still wins, but if you also take away the game winner, they don't necessarily. That's why it's the game winner. It was the goal that gave them enough to win. In the "2-0 after 2" case, if you take away the second goal, they don't necessarily win. The first goal is not sufficient to win. There would be a third round without the second goal and they could end up losing. It doesn't have a direct analogy with a regulation win, because they end it when there is no chance for the other team to win, not when it is actually over. As I've said before, you win "at least 2 out of 3 to no more than 1 out of 3", not "2 out of 3 to 1 out of 3." Whatever, though, I don't base his value on the number in his "GDG" stat, I base it on the difference between the team's record with him in that spot vs. my estimate of it with the next best option. In those "2-0 after 2" games, I don't count the first shooter any differently than the second.

Still trying to sell that "SO GWG should be split into halfsies/what if" swamp land, huh? Well at least you hooked one into buying what you're selling. ;)

 

Anyway I looked into your "Al always shoots first" theory and it's mostly true for this year, and for most of last year as well. I found a handful of games where Al was not the leadoff shooter for the Sabres' SO efforts, but they were all last season.

 

But all in all I agree that a player should not be kept on the basis of his SO results alone. If we're going to lay out $3M for a guy to play the third line he better do some other stuff really well - PP, be a difference-maker in the corners, along the boards and in front of the net, something else. We have a glut of wingers coming up and a need at center, so I say let's spend that money there.

[carpandean]

Still trying to sell that "SO GWG should be split into halfsies/what if" swamp land, huh? Well at least you hooked one into buying what you're selling. ;)

Resistance is futile.

[Bmwolf21]

Resistance is futile.

I'm very impressed by the Borg smiley. :thumbsup:

[carpandean]

I'm very impressed by the Borg smiley. :thumbsup:

I credit my amazing Google skills. :thumbsup:

[inkman]

They honestly couldn't find a better one?

Speaking of pics, I thought your pic of the "screaming" weasel was much more apt.

[Screamin'Weasel]

Speaking of pics, I thought your pic of the "screaming" weasel was much more apt.

I am a bit confused and don't know which pic you are referring too... :unsure: