I have a couple questions. Is this all situations or 5 on 5? Is there a way to account for the quality of his line mates defensively? Do they even do that as a defensive measurement? We all know that certain guys are weaker defensively than others.Thanks for the warm welcome, guys...
While we're on the topic of Karlsson, there is some really interesting research I've done into him. Year after year, when Karlsson is on the ice, his actual goals against exceed his expected goals against in a manner that does not occur for his team when he is off the ice. In layman's terms, "expected goal" stats say that Karlsson's goalies suck when he is on the ice, but are much better when he is off the ice. My guess is that there is something about the way that Karlsson plays which makes him a better suppressor of expected goals than actual goals.
The much longer explanation of this is in a PM that I sent to another HFSharks poster, if anybody cares to read it:
The thing with Karlsson is that when it comes to xGA Vs. GA, this wasn't his worst year. It wasn't even close.
Just a disclaimer for the rest of this, I am using Natural Stat Trick's expected goal model. The reason I am doing this is because NST is by far the smoothest site and it easily allows me to look at players' teams with and without them.
Basically, here's how I looked at things. If a defenseman can impact goals against in a manner that does not impact expected goals against, then that should show in comparison to his team when he is not the ice. You pretty much have to control for the team or else the stat is worthless. You could put a beer leaguer in front of Henrik Lundqvist and he would probably allow fewer goals than expected. That wouldn't mean that he is a good defender or that he does something good in the defensive end that isn't quantified by expected goal stats. It just means he plays in front of a good goaltender and if that were the case, you would expect it to show in the numbers that his goaltender posts when he is off the ice.
For example, if Karlsson really does lead to more goals against than expected goals and his team has average goaltending, maybe his team would allow 11 goals for every 10 expected goals he allows, and 10 goals for every 10 expected goals that they allow without him. If the team just has good goaltending or faces bad shooters - say they allow 10 actual goals for every 10 expected goals with Karlsson on the ice, and 9 actual goals for every 10 expected goals - then we can still say Karlsson causes a problem.
In both of these examples, I am calculating his team-relative xGA/GA. So, for the first example of his team allowing 11 goals for every 10 expected goals with him and 10/10 without him, here is how you would calculate it:
Basically, you calculate the percentage of extra goals they allow above expected, and compare them to their team without them. It's pretty straight forward stuff but it's kind of hard to explain.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Team GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Team with Karlsson 11 10 (11-10)=1 ((11/10)-1)*100=10% Team without Karlsson 10 10 (10-0)=0 ((10/10)-1)*100=0% Karlsson Relative Impact 10%-0%=10%
Kind of like stats like CA/60Rel and isolated defensive impact stats, being in the negative is a good thing because you allow less. In this hypothetical case, Karlsson has a 10% positive impact on the goals above expected that his team allows when he is on the ice.
Just to explain things one more time, I'm going to use a slightly different hypothetical example in which Karlsson does a good job of suppressing goals against in comparison to actual goals.
Now, are you ready for the real Karlsson?[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Team GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Team with Karlsson 9 10 (9-10)=-1 ((9/10)-1)*100=-10% Team without Karlsson 10 10 (10-0)=0 ((10/10)-1)*100=0% Karlsson Relative Impact 10%-0%=-10%
2018-2019:
That's this season. It's worth noting before saying anything else that the reduction in goaltending pads this season has most expected goal models to underestimate the number of expected goals that a team allows. But you're right, everything was going in. His team allowed 15.62 goals more than expected. They allowed 27.70% more goals than expected. That is ridiculous. No matter how much worse than expected those shots actually were, that is still a beer league performance.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Erik Karlsson 72 56.38 15.62 27.70% Erik Karlsson Team Without 189 164.87 24.13 14.64% Karlsson Relative Impact 13.07%
However, take a look at the team without him. Yeah, they were still awful. They allowed 24.13 goals more than expected; actually more goals above expected than Karlsson allowed. However, the percentage of goals above expected that they allowed without him is actually about half as much as the percentage that they allowed with him. They faced far more expected goals and expected goals without him so obviously the sum of goals allowed above expected is higher without him. But make no mistake here - Karlsson's presence clearly leads to an increase in goals allowed above expected. They allow 14.64% more goals than expected with him and 27.70% more goals than expected without him. He makes terrible goaltenders worst.
I think you're smart and capable of comprehending all of this, so I'm hoping you get where I've gone so far. I'm just typing this message up without any response so I don't know exactly where you're at in terms of comprehension here but I'm making the assumption that you know what is going on here. I also haven't explained this stuff to anybody except for my mom so I'm not sure how difficult it is to comprehend. Even if you aren't 100% caught up, I suggest that you keep reading and I think that things will actually become much more clear.
This could have just been a bad season, right? I certainly agree that by the eye test, it appears that Karlsson was unlucky all year. When I went into looking at these numbers, I realized that this was something that would heavily fluctuate just based on luck, even if guys didn't individually impact this.
Let's look at other years for Karlsson.
2017-2018:
Yikes. Sure, Craig Anderson sucked and Ottawa was a tire fire, but they still almost matched their expected goals against without Karlsson on the ice. Why did their actual goals against blow their expected goals out of the water without him? Maybe he was just unlucky again.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Erik Karlsson 121 85.28 35.72 41.89% Erik Karlsson Team Without 178 171.42 6.58 3.84% Karlsson Relative Impact 38.05%
2016-2017:
As a whole, the Sens had very good goaltending this year, stopping over 16 goals more than expected. That is a big part of why they made the ECF. But with Karlsson on the ice, they still allowed more goals than expected. Why?[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Erik Karlsson 85 81.54 3.46 4.24 Erik Karlsson Team Without 133 152.85 -19.85 -12.99 Karlsson Relative Impact 17.23%
2015-2016:
This is Martin Jones level goaltending with Karlsson on the ice and elite goaltending without him on the ice. What's going on here?[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Goaltending Impact Impact Percentage Erik Karlsson 115 97.08 17.92 18.46 Erik Karlsson Team Without 140 169.03 -29.03 -17.17 Karlsson Relative Impact 35.63%
2014-2015:
This time, we've got bad NHL level goaltending with Karlsson on the ice, and true Vezina level goaltending without Karlsson on the ice. After looking at this, I was seriously puzzled. Convinced, in fact, that Erik Karlsson did definitely do something on the ice that drove his actual goals above expected. But I had to look at other defensemen. Here are some of the guys that I compared Karlsson to:[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Goaltending Impact Impact Percentage Erik Karlsson 89 79.27 9.73 12.27 Erik Karlsson Team Without 136 175.15 -39.15 -22.35 Karlsson Relative Impact 34.63%
I looked at 51 players total; all defensemen who played some time in each of the past 5 seasons. Karlsson's average team-relative impact of goals against over expected goals against was by far the highest of any defenseman on this list. I didn't show them all because I didn't want to overwhelm you with data. The reason that I included DeKeyser, Coburn, and Rielly, is because they were the next 3 defensemen behind Karlsson, and the only 3 to have a higher average team-relative impact than him. The rest were the Sharks defensemen that I included because we know them best and I find that it's always best to look at what you know best when doing this type of analysis.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 5-Year Sum of Team Relative Impact Average Team Relative Impact Erik Karlsson 34.63 35.63 17.23 38.05 13.07 138.61 27.72% Danny Dekeyser 22.45 19.24 45.34 13.9 15.92 116.85 23.37% Braydon Coburn 44.79 15.15 6.96 5.13 41.04 113.07 22.61% Morgan Rielly 10.41 30.84 38.56 26.61 -0.19 106.23 21.25% Marc-Edouard Vlasic 12.88 39.58 17.64 4.64 4.66 79.4 15.88% Justin Braun 14.71 25.05 14.89 2.21 5.38 62.24 12.45% Brent Burns 25.64 18.37 -15.4 12.07 -10.05 30.63 6.13% Brenden Dillon 29.97 -36.5 0.2 31.69 -8.37 16.99 3.4%
One thing to note is that their average team relative impact on expected goals was all positive. This was the case for 48 out of the 51 defensemen that I studied I am still trying to look into the nuances of why this is, but my initial conclusion is that most regular NHL defensemen will have a higher team-relative xGA/GA simply because they are playing against NHL level shooters. You bring in a replacement level defender and play him for only 40 games per season, he's only going to play against other team's 4th lines who are generally full of replacement level players that can't shoot. Meanwhile, a full-time NHLer, even one like Brenden Dillon who generally plays against bottom-6ers, is still playing more against full-time NHLers. However, I'm not sold on this explanation yet. I ran a regression and couldn't find a correlation between TOI% QoC and team-relative goals against above expected. That may change as I add more replacement level defensemen with a discernible difference in their TOI% QoC but it hasn't yet. It's possible that this has something to do with which positions play special teams and 6V5 situations - like, maybe this stat will always hurt defensemen because they play more on the PK where xGA tends to exceed GA - I don't know. My biggest fear is that the data is somehow faulty but I don't believe that is the case.
But, let's get back on topic and look at the rest of the Sharks and especially Karlsson. Not only does Karlsson find himself in the mid-30s in 3 out of 5 seasons, he is in the teens in every season. Brent Burns' aggregate is still positive, but has two seasons where he was double digits in the negative. Just in case you're still not 100% on this, let's look at those two seasons in particular:
2018-2019:
As you can see, Burns in 2018-2019 played in front of two terrible goaltenders. The same two goalies as Karlsson. When he was out there, they 12.2% more goals than expected. That's horrible. But without him? They allowed 22.26% more goals than expected. Did he really do a great job of suppressing goals that didn't translate to expected goals? I do believe that Burns was better defensively last year and in his Norris year than the other 3, but I'm not convinced that this is anything more than blind luck.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Brent Burns 106 94.47 11.53 12.20 Brent Burns Team Without 155 126.78 28.22 22.26 Burns Relative Impact -10.05%
2016-2017:
This season, the Sharks actually had slightly good goaltending and they pretty much got all of it when Burns was on the ice. It was dead on average without him.[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Player GA xGA Impact Impact Percentage Brent Burns 81 95.61 -14.61 -15.28 Brent Burns Team Without 121 120.86 0.14 0.12 Burns Relative Impact -15.40%
Before I did this study, I assumed that Burns would be the goalie killer. I thought he was one guy whose turnovers and defensive gaffes frequently led to goals against in a manner that xGF simply could not quantify. However, after looking at this, he's actually not bad. In fact, he ranks 36th out of the 51 defensemen that I looked at, and his average team-relative impact percentage of 6.13% is well below the average 5-year average of 10%.
Looking at the other Sharks, they tend to fluctuate from year to year. Vlasic and Braun never get good team-relative goaltending but that's probably because they have almost always, over this time frame, taken on the bulk of the toughest forward matchups which include the best shooters. If you look at the team-relative impact percentage of the 4 full-time Sharks defensemen, the player with the highest team-relative impact percentage is the one who faces the top competition, and the team-relative impact percentage drops as competition drops. Dillon faces the easiest competition, and he also gets the best goaltending relative to his teammates. It's also worth noting regards to competition, that Erik Karlsson's competition is not generally high. In fact, his TOI% QoC over this time frame - 31.81% - is less than that of "sheltered Burns" who clocks in at 32.24%, and Vlasic who clocks in at 32.85%. So, I'm skeptical that competition is killing Karlsson. Maybe it's because he plays so many minutes that he faces top lines and 2nd lines, and his team without him plays against 3rd and 4th liners? However, Drew Doughty and Ryan Suter play a higher percentage of their team's minutes and still don't get crushed in team-relative impact on xGA/GA like Karlsson does.
There's a lot more that I could write but I just wrote way too much as it is. I'm curious to see what you think of all of this. I haven't ran a regression yet to see if there is year-to-year repeatability on a season-to-season level for each individual defensemen. My initial guess from looking at these is that there is not but I'm not sure. It's also worth saying that I am still a huge fan of Karlsson and would re-sign him at league maximum term and AAV if it was between that and keeping him. His ability to generate xGF, drive his actual GF above xGF, and suppress xGA makes him a massive net positive even despite this. But this is a legitimate concern.
I am still on record as saying that the Sharks should offer Karlsson max term/AAV if that is what it takes to retain him. (Sounds like it will only take the Doughty contract, though.) But the goals against are a real concern for Karlsson and it's not just bad luck either. I'm curious to see what everybody else thinks of this, though.
Speculation: 2019-2020 Sharks Roster Discussion
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
- Status
I have a couple questions. Is this all situations or 5 on 5? Is there a way to account for the quality of his line mates defensively? Do they even do that as a defensive measurement? We all know that certain guys are weaker defensively than others.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
These numbers are at all situations. I’m not sure how you would account for the quality of his linemates. TOI% QoT will tell you how many minutes his linemates play and CF% QoT will tell you the Corsi of his linemates but that won’t really tell you the defensive quality of them.
On his podcast, Friedman said that word was the Sharks were going to let Pavelski hit free agency. He also mentioned that the Sharks were interested in re-signing Donskoi and Nyquist.
I agree with others that the Sharks need to do what is necessary to keep Karlsson. Him signing and staying healthy opens up a legitimate cup window for this team, especially if Hertl and Couture can function as top-2 centers.
I'm all for keeping Donksoi at 3 million or below as I see him as an ideal third line forward. Nyquist might come in below 6 million, if so, I'm in. Keeping this team competitive with Karlsson all but guarantees that a d-man is moved for cap space.
I want the fourth line to be made up of Cuda players to save cap. Keep rotating them through until someone sticks. Gambrell will be given every opportunity to make this team.
The only way I see Pavelski staying is with a 5 year deal with a 4 million hit. The term is insane and would likely be structured for a buy out as I believe this is not a 35+ contract. Is that contract worthwhile for a slow bottom line center and PP specialist? Maybe.
I agree with others that the Sharks need to do what is necessary to keep Karlsson. Him signing and staying healthy opens up a legitimate cup window for this team, especially if Hertl and Couture can function as top-2 centers.
I'm all for keeping Donksoi at 3 million or below as I see him as an ideal third line forward. Nyquist might come in below 6 million, if so, I'm in. Keeping this team competitive with Karlsson all but guarantees that a d-man is moved for cap space.
I want the fourth line to be made up of Cuda players to save cap. Keep rotating them through until someone sticks. Gambrell will be given every opportunity to make this team.
The only way I see Pavelski staying is with a 5 year deal with a 4 million hit. The term is insane and would likely be structured for a buy out as I believe this is not a 35+ contract. Is that contract worthwhile for a slow bottom line center and PP specialist? Maybe.
So what I read..... Pavelski is greedy like Marleau? Bull...…. Don't believe that, we will find out this off season what his intention is. *checks kurz twitter* (reads EK for 88m/8 year 11m/year)So thats a pretty normal shark contract at 28 or whatever he is. He got enough assists to prove he's a high caliber player.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Would you mind linking the podcast and giving a time stamp for the Pavelski/Donskoi/Nyquist section?
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 33,080
- 13,707
Honestly, I feel like these are all the right choices if it all happens like that. Pavs is a great dude and was great for us and could still be great on the right team but I don't see him being the right player for us anymore.
31 Thoughts Podcast: Things looking different now for the Maple Leafs – Sportsnet
2nd podcast, Things look different now for the Maple Leafs. Karlsson talk starts at about 40 minutes.
Here is the link to the podcast: 31 Thoughts Podcast: Things looking different now for the Maple Leafs – Sportsnet
Karlsson talk starts around the 40 minute mark.
Sharks free agency around the 43 minute mark.
Be interested to hear others' takes.
Karlsson talk starts around the 40 minute mark.
Sharks free agency around the 43 minute mark.
Be interested to hear others' takes.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,402
- 5,466
I think having Nyquist and Donskoi both is a bit redundant. Would like at least one of our RW to not be an undersized finesse guy. Labanc is already locked into one of those spots in the top 9 so adding both Nyquist and Donskoi would mean there is not a single sizable body on the right side of the forward group as it currently stands which makes us much easier to play against come playoff time when the neutral zone clogs up and you have to play more dump and chase style hockey.
Also, I interpreted that comment on the pod to mean if no EK65, they would be more likely to bring Nyquist back. If EK65 is back, I don't see the cap space working out there. If they want to bring Donskoi back at around $3 mil a year and play him on a 1a/b shutdown line with Meier and Cooch, that is fine with me. Just boils down to whether you can find another 2/3 line RW with some size and skating to play either with Kane-Hertl or Sorensen-Thornton (assuming he comes back like most expect).
themelkman
Always Delivers
It sounds to me like there is solid reason to think Karlsson has a good chance at staying. If he doesn't though, sounds like everyone else gets signed and takes some extra money.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
You aren’t the only one who makes this mistake but it’s imperative when listening to Friedman that you differentiate between whether or not he’s reporting or he’s just speculating. If he reports something, it’s legitimate. But he also speculates a lot more frequently than he actually reports stuff and when he talked about the 3 RWs, he was pretty clearly speculating.
My personal opinion on those players is that only Donskoi should be brought back. You’re probably looking at Donskoi from ages 27 through 29 at $3M per, Nyquist from ages 30 through 34 at $6M per, or Pavelski from ages 35 through 37 at $7M per. Yeah, Donskoi is the worst player of the 3 but he’s also probably going to provide the best bang for your buck throughout that time frame.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,402
- 5,466
It is somewhat surprising to hear the org wants to bring him back given he was benched for Haley in the playoffs on more than one occasion, but would not be opposed at a $3 mil a year hit. Just have to assume he will only play about 60-65 games a year and hope he is healthy come playoff time. For a smallish cap hit like that, I can deal a few injuries given we now have some internal depth that can fill in some games or even push him out of a job in the Ch twins and new Euros.
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
I don’t think they actually want to bring him back. This is all just speculation from Friedman and I think he’s just off-base.
I don’t think the actually organization has any interest in bringing back Donskoi or Nyquist. I don’t think they really want to bring Pavelski back either but I think they’ll still make an offer to Pavelski that will be notably below what he gets offered in UFA.
I totally understand arguments for and against bringing Donskoi, Nyquist, and Pavelski back, and, I agree that Donskoi is worth a contract at 3.
Assuming Donksoi is a third-liner, who do you target as a top-6 forward? Labanc is still a tweener to me.
Assuming Donksoi is a third-liner, who do you target as a top-6 forward? Labanc is still a tweener to me.
I think Pavelski isn’t signed before UFA. But I am honestly 100% certain he comes back. I think he is doing exactly what Jumbo did and waiting to see how the team shakes out before making an ask.
We scored 4 goals in 5 minutes when he went down. Guy is huge to this team’s culture, dressing room and scored nearly 40 goals last season. There is just no way he doesn’t return
We scored 4 goals in 5 minutes when he went down. Guy is huge to this team’s culture, dressing room and scored nearly 40 goals last season. There is just no way he doesn’t return
This podcast is from June 4th. I think we already discussed this in the Karlsson part V thread.
Cappuccino
Registered User
Even if he would have put pen on paper, before the contract is filed where ever they need to file those papers, I would fear for someone snagging EK65, make him sign and filing the papers before the Sharks have
LA Shark
Hello Darkness My Old Freind
I agree that I can see Pavs walking and Nyquist, EK, and Donskoi coming back. It just works out too well money and roster construction wise. Resign those 3, trade Braun, Melker, and Dell.
sharks_dynasty
Registered User
Wouldn’t it make more sense to sign Donskoi and trade him later to get some asset for him? Why lose him for free?
aircobra
Registered User
- May 4, 2013
- 145
- 175
LA Shark
Hello Darkness My Old Freind
Do you have a plan to ice a better team than what we had this season? Gonna be pretty hard to do considering Pavs, EK65, Jumbo, and Donskoi are all free agents. The key is having all your best players healthy for the duration of the playoffs.
JoeThorntonsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
I think you just kind of have to accept in that case that Donskoi and Labanc will be your top-6 RWs going forward until somebody else takes their spot or somebody takes a top-6 spot on the left and pushes Meier to RW. That’s not ideal but I think it’s better than making a heavy financial commitment to Pavelski or Nyquist in their 30s.
That’s a pretty unethical business practice that sends a bad message to the team and turns off future FAs from signing here.
SactoShark
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't know what to do with the rest, but Shovels and Chmelevski could very likely make the opening roster.
LA Shark
Hello Darkness My Old Freind
Shovels is an interesting case. I liked what I saw of him with the Sharks, but 20 points in 47 AHL games is concerning. I do think its possible if Chmelevski impresses during camp, he could be a fit with Jumbo and Labanc on the 3rd line. That would let Sorenson play in a role hes probably better suited for(4th line.)
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 33,080
- 13,707
I don't know if Chmelevski and Chekhovich make the team out of training camp but I think they have a good chance of ending the season on the roster like Timo and Labanc ended up doing. Only concern with them is that they don't seem to play particularly heavy games so i don't know how well they'll be able to deal with physical teams.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread | The Oilers Biggest Roster Need Is?- Latest: KeithIsActuallyBad
-
Upcoming events
-
Grey Cup 111TH GREY CUP - Toronto Argonauts vs Winnipeg Blue Bombers - Vancouver - TSN, CBS Sports NetworkWagers: 14Staked: $97,823.00Event closes- Updated:
-
