If you know or are learning some coding, this might be helpful. It's really annoying to parse through the HTML. Hopefully this helps, and you can be on your way analyzing some nice tab-separated text file spreadsheets instead of those error-filled monsters.
It's a little hard to believe, but it's now been nine years (to the day) since the Capitals drafted Alex Ovechkin first overall in 2004. Among Caps players, Ovechkin only has the second-longest tenure with this organization—Brooks Laich came on board during the 2003-04 season (and Jeff Schultz and Mike Green are only minutes behind Ovechkin at third and fourth, respectively.) While the Capitals haven't had as exciting a player to watch develop as young Ovechkin, they have had some real difference makers race through the pipeline: Nicklas Backstrom, Alexander Semin, Mike Green, John Carlson, and, most recently, Braden Holtby and Evgeny Kuznetsov. Filip Forsberg might have become another, but for the time being there's no one else on the radar. I felt that during this season, the Caps sort of came to a crossroads. Early in the year, when the team was near the bottom of the standings, I thought the team should sell and reload for next season. It could have traded Mike Ribeiro for a first-round pick and more, maybe acquired and re-signed Stephen Weiss—who, luckily, wouldn't be able to contribute until next season, thanks to injury—kept Filip Forsberg, used the season as practice time for Oates to develop his players further (e.g. playing Backstrom and Ovechkin power versus power), and, finally, drafted Nathan MacKinnon, Jonathan Drouin, Seth Jones, or Aleksander Barkov (all four of whom should be able to step into the NHL within a year and have all-star potential) with their own first-round pick. Instead, they decided to gun for the playoffs, and thanks to a hot run at the end of the year, made it, falling in the first round to the New York Rangers. They traded Forsberg for Martin Erat—a trade I don't mind for a team that's looking to bolster an already formidable lineup. (Erat is a top-line, two-way player. Forsberg's upside, from what I've read, is similar in terms of impact, but Forsberg is a little more of a scorer. As it is, he won't reach his potential for at least six years, if at all.) They also kept Ribeiro on board, even though the playoffs were still a longshot at the deadline and the Erat trade meant it would be tough to find cap room to keep Ribeiro. They wanted results this year, and that's okay. But it's tough to trade for top-end talent you need year after year. (Brouwer, Ribeiro, Erat.) If you want impact players without giving up important roster players, you have to trade from a limited draft pick pool and, for the Caps, a thin prospect pool. Moreover, these players are getting added to a team that could be getting worse and worse.
Recall that in 2009-10, George McPhee added Joe Corvo, Scott Walker, and Eric Belanger to a team that was already headed for a comfortable President's Trophy win.
In 2010-11, he added Jason Arnott and Marco Sturm for a team that had not yet wrapped up the division, but probably would have taken it along with a top-two seed in the conference.
Now, you're adding players to a team that some people will no doubt predict to miss the playoffs next season. (The question is: how much do you trust the larger sample of games over which the Capitals' Corsi was brutal, and how much do you trust the smaller sample later in the year over which the Capitals' Corsi was almost playoff-level? If the former, you predict them to miss the postseason, probably.) At some point, this team will need to boost its "baseline talent level"—how good it is before trade deadline additions come in. You do that with young players, since they're the ones most likely to improve a lot while with the team. Marcus Johansson, John Carlson, and Karl Alzner are halfway or more to developing into the players they'll be at their best, I think, so we can't look for huge improvement there. Dmitri Orlov will still improve a lot, probably, but into a reliable second-pair D at best. While Braden Holtby is still pretty young, he already looks like an above-average starter, and it's hard to expect him to improve much more, if at all. Evgeny Kuznetsov and Tom Wilson could provide that improvement, but Wilson probably won't be a dynamic offensive presence (which every scoring line needs) and there's still uncertainty about Kuznetsov's future plans (although he said he's coming to the NHL after next season). With Filip Forsberg now with Nashville, the team has to bank on a permanent return to ES dominance from Ovechkin and Backstrom, or for Kuznetsov to pan out in a big way (i.e. "perennial All-Star").
Even if Kuznetsov does pan out, though, without the addition of another top prospect, the team will really be looking at him and Wilson to offset other players' declines (which will be especially difficult if Ovechkin and Backstrom don't age as well as, say, Datsyuk and Zetterberg). That's a lot to ask for.
Assuming a lot of things, here's what the lineup might look like in April 2018, along with ages:
And if the team continues to trade young (picks/prospects) for old, this lineup will be even older. And there will still be three full seasons left on Ovechkin's contract. This may be a formula to be a pretty good team for some time, but I don't see a way to hit that next level without some pretty good prospects, which the team has had some success drafting late in the first round...but hit a dry spell and there will be some serious issues. (Remember Tampa Bay when they had to trade Brad Richards and Dan Boyle?)
All of this is basically saying that the team isn't on a dramatic rise,
nor does it have the assets or prospects to go on a quick rise at the
moment. The solution is to get a good young player with high upside, and the almost surefire way to get that guy is by picking near the top of the draft. A player picked in this year's draft will be 22 or 23 in April 2018, still improving but likely already one of the best players on the team.
It might cost too much to move into the top four in this year's draft, but the 5-7 range (Carolina, Calgary, Edmonton) might be more realistic—Carolina and Edmonton are both teams that need to improve sooner rather than later, and both need D, which the Capitals have an excess of. If the #5 team is lucky, one of MacKinnon/Drouin/Jones/Barkov drops; if not, there's still Nichushkin, Monahan, and Lindholm, all of whom project as second liners at the lower end, with top-line upside. If you wait until next year's draft, the guy will be 21 in 2018, still taking huge strides every year and ready to be The Guy once Ovechkin's contract is up.
The 4-7 spot in the draft is far from a sure bet as far as forwards are concerned, but if management believes the top of this draft is strong—and it seems like everyone who has something to say only praises it at the top, so I have trouble believing that McPhee disagrees—then you're looking at the 4-7 guys in this draft being 2-3 guys in other drafts: near-locks.
Yes, five years is a long time from now, and I don't think a drastic cupboard-restocking is something that needs to happen this year. But while we can infer management's short-term plans (Backstrom-Ovechkin-Erat, depth on D) and medium-term plans (hope Ovechkin and Backstrom stay good, Kuznetsov and Wilson), I don't see a long-term plan in place. (A team like the Flyers has done alright while thinking short-term and figuring things out on the fly, but I think everyone saw their recent troubles coming.) It can't be "Ovechkin-Backstrom age really well or bust." You have to really buckle down and make a draft pick on the level of Kuznetsov, Claude Giroux, or Mike Green, a star with one of your picks in the 20s that can give you that strong push to the next level, or you can trade up, spend the equivalent of an early 20s draft pick in addition to that original 20s pick in order to be sure your pick will be good. (You could also go for quantity of picks over quality, but I think this team needs high-level talent sooner rather than later, and the higher picks will be more impactful individually while coming along a year or two sooner.) It's probably against the odds that this team wins a Cup with Ovechkin at this point—time is getting a little short. With a smart trade—dealing someone who can be adequately replaced in UFA—that lands a good pick, you could bolster your chances of winning a title every season for the remainder of Ovechkin's contract and beyond.
I do like Chicago in this, though--too much depth.
It may sound like a double standard considering that I liked Boston to
shut down Pittsburgh, but I don't think Pittsburgh had as much depth as
people thought--those third and fourth lines won't provide much--while
Chicago can throw out guys like speedy Stalberg and future top-six
center Kruger in the bottom-six. Chicago also can throw out many
different combinations up front, which may prove helpful--if Toews-Kane
isn't working, Toews-Hossa might, etc.
I also like the Hawks' blueline better than Pittsburgh's, or Boston's
for that matter--I feel like they're better equipped to hold their own,
since most of those guys have value at both ends of the ice (whereas
aside from Krug, Chara, and Hamilton, Boston's D is mostly valuable only
on the defensive end).
In goal, Crawford has played well. Rask has been much better, but I
think he'll come back to Earth somewhat. As it is, Chicago eventually
did solve Jimmy Howard, and broke Jonathan Quick. How much harder could
it be to solve Rask? Blackhawks in 6.
The Blackhawks got off to a bit of a slow start in this series, but they found their groove after Hossa got back into the lineup and Kane and Toews were reunited. I guess I sorta got the depth part wrong--Boston's depth did plenty of scoring, while in these last two Hawks wins it's been the top players, mainly (with a cameo from Bolland on the series winner). But they still played well. Corey Crawford held the Hawks in it through the rough times (losing Toews in Game 5, first period of Game 6) and IMO should have won the Conn Smythe, but I guess that's all in the past now.
Final record: 12-3 (Missed on both Senators series and on Kings-Blackhawks; nailed two series: this one and Kings-Blues in the first round)
If you're reading this, you're probably aware that the Caps used to be an elite puck possession team but aren't any longer. For the uninitiated, Corsi is like plus-minus, but with shots instead of goals (and ignoring special teams play). And it's not just shots on goal—it includes misses and blocks, the theory being that while Corsi misses out on things like elite finishing ability, playmaking, and goaltending, it gives you a better picture of team quality than goals, on average. The Capitals used to be a top Corsi team. From Hockey Analysis (here and for the rest of this post, unless otherwise noted):
Season
WSH C%
League rank
C%, Tied
Rank
07-08
55.6
2
55.5
2
08-09
54.9
4
54.7
5
09-10
52.9
3
52.1
7
10-11
51.2
12
50.2
18
11-12
48.9
19
50.4
12
12-13
48.7
21
49.7
18
The final two columns are with the score tied—teams that lead a lot sit back and see a decrease in their Corsi%, and teams that trail a lot press forward and see an increase in Corsi%.
I can think of a few explanations for the decline worth looking at right off the bat:
Considering that the Caps haven't made a deep playoff run in my hockey fan-time, the Olympics are the most exciting tournament for me. It's the only series of best-on-best games (where the players are actually trying), back-and-forth action with superb offense, defense, and goalie play. It helps that the United States was really good in 2010, and should challenge for the gold again next year in Sochi.
While their forwards remain exceptional, it's weird how the Canadians may actually have some trouble on the back end. Their goalies, first off, look like Roberto Luongo, Carey Price, Marc-Andre Fleury, and Cam Ward. (James Reimer is good enough to make the team, but I doubt he gets selected--he doesn't have the big name.) Luongo is very good, but public opinion may put him on the bench or off the roster entirely. The other three are good, not great. Meanwhile, Sweden should be icing Henrik Lundqvist, Finland could have Antti Niemi, Pekka Rinne, and Tuukka Rask, and the Americans Jonathan Quick, Cory Schneider, and Craig Anderson.
Second, there's a potential imbalance on the blueline. Drew Doughty, Duncan Keith, and Shea Weber are locks to make the team, returning from the gold medal-winning 2010 team. I imagine Brent Seabrook is in the same boat (though he looks like a #7 or #8 for Canada). Then there's Kris Letang, P.K. Subban, and Alex Pietrangelo. Of those seven, six are right shots. (From the Vancouver team, we've replaced righty Dan Boyle with another righty, and lefties Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger with righties as well.) It's not an ideal situation, and may mean a lefty like Jay Bouwmeester or Marc-Eduoard Vlasic gets the nod over one of the right shots. It's not much of a downgrade--all names involved here are top-pairing defensemen--but you're suddenly not icing six Norris-level D, and may have a relatively vulnerable pair. Depending on which team controls the matchups, that could matter.
But the missing names are nowhere near as curious as the missing element:
right-handers. Out of 35 total players, just two, Karlsson and
Hornqvist, shoot right. The Swedes can still add players to the mix. If
they do, this glaring problem requires addressing.
It's also not like there aren't other teams that can throw out six top-pair D. Sweden has Erik Karlsson, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Victor Hedman, Niklas Kronwall, Alexander Edler, and Tobias Enstrom, and the United States has Paul Martin, Ryan Suter, Ryan McDonagh, John Carlson, Dustin Byfuglien, Matt Carle, and Brooks Orpik. Neither team could even compare to Canada in 2010. Now, in 2013, looking ahead to 2014? The gap is narrower. And considering how young both those bluelines are, they could be even better than Canada's in 2018. (Remember than Jonas Brodin is a star on the rise for Sweden, and Jake Gardiner, Justin Faulk, and Cam Fowler are in the same boat for the US.)
Finally, up front, Canada is stacked with offensive firepower, but defensive responsibility could be a bit lacking. Patrice Bergeron (lock), Jonathan Toews (lock), Mike Richards (good chance), and Jeff Carter (great chance), and Claude Giroux (great chance), if selected, can help provide that. But what do you do with all the firepower that isn't as competent without the puck--John Tavares, Taylor Hall, Matt Duchene, Steven Stamkos, Eric Staal, Jamie Benn, etc? Do you pass over point-per-game players in favor of pluggers, like you did in 2010, picking Brenden Morrow over the likes of Martin St. Louis and Stamkos? How will the larger ice surface play into offensive strategy and the possession game--will dump and chase and cycling be more effective? Will there be so much room off the rush that raw skill will trump hockey sense without the puck?
The US doesn't have this problem. Between Dustin Brown, Zach Parise, Ryan Kesler, Ryan Callahan, Derek Stepan, David Backes, and Joe Pavelski, the Americans have forwards who will backcheck (which, as I wrote in my Pittsburgh-Boston preview, I think is more important to the possession game than great defensemen, once your blueline has achieved a minimum level of two-way competency). Sweden won the gold in 2006 with a system that hinged on the all-around ability of most of its players.
Canada is certainly the favorite, but I have a feeling that in the near future we'll see a country throw out 12 forwards, six defensemen, and two goalies that form a legitimately better team than Canada A. (I'm sure Canada B and C will remain miles better than anyone else's depth teams.) Luckily for us non-Canadians, depth only matters for the first (healthy) 18 skaters and one goalie.
On Boston-Pittsburgh, I might have overestimated the quality of Boston's group of skaters. I didn't think they'd be dominant, but aside from Game 2, seemed like Boston had the better of it overall. I did think/hope Rask would give Boston the edge, but not such a big edge. I don't think anyone would have picked Boston to hold any team to just two goals against in four games, let alone Pittsburgh, which boasts the league's best offense (this sweep notwithstanding).
Pittsburgh probably has better defensemen--Chara vs
Letang/Martin/Orpik--but Boston's forward group is pretty scary, too.
Bergeron has played pretty well in the postseason so far, and at his
best he and Chara can beat either Malkin or Crosby, I'd think.
Given how the Krejci line has been playing (really well), it might be
able to hold the other line (probably Malkin's) to a draw...It's worth remembering that this isn't the same old Pittsburgh
team, but with Crosby, Iginla, Morrow, and Vokoun--Jordan Staal could
provide low-end-top line-level scoring in difficult minutes, and you
basically lose all of that offense with Brandon Sutter instead of Staal.
Pittsburgh aside from Crosby isn't as strong as it was in the past...I think Boston's offense is much better than it
showed during the abbreviated regular season.
Bruins in 7.
On Blackhawks-Kings, I was hoping LA would get its act together, but that didn't happen.
I don't know whether "normal" LA will show up again, like it did in Game
7 against San Jose, or whether we'll see a worse Kings team. Chicago
has depth, and if the Kings aren't playing well, it may be too much for
even them to handle. I think ultimately, though, Kopitar should be able
to play Toews to a standstill or win, Richards should be able to handle
the Hawks' second line, and with good discipline and reasonable special
teams, the Kings should advance. (And that's not even considering that
Quick is lights-out right now.)
Kings in 6.
It was amazing how much of a difference maker Drew Doughty was on a bad ankle (h/t @Tsetse_fly). Dustin Brown, who was playing on a torn PCL (shouldn't his knee have fallen apart by now?), was not, and Kopitar did hold Toews to a standstill for the most part but could carve out an advantage for LA.
It's also amazing how productive Chicago's depth has been, carrying them through the playoffs while Kane and Toews haven't been the center of the offense (though Kane's hat trick could signal the end of their slump). Bickell especially has made some nice plays, and while Sharp and Hossa didn't really stand out to me in Game 5, they've had their chances throughout the playoffs, and their two-way play should really help against Boston's plethora of defensively responsible forwards.
It should be a great Finals matchup. I do like Chicago in this, though--too much depth.
It may sound like a double standard considering that I liked Boston to shut down Pittsburgh, but I don't think Pittsburgh had as much depth as people thought--those third and fourth lines won't provide much--while Chicago can throw out guys like speedy Stalberg and future top-six center Kruger in the bottom-six. Chicago also can throw out many different combinations up front, which may prove helpful--if Toews-Kane isn't working, Toews-Hossa might, etc.
I also like the Hawks' blueline better than Pittsburgh's, or Boston's for that matter--I feel like they're better equipped to hold their own, since most of those guys have value at both ends of the ice (whereas aside from Krug, Chara, and Hamilton, Boston's D is mostly valuable only on the defensive end).
In goal, Crawford has played well. Rask has been much better, but I think he'll come back to Earth somewhat. As it is, Chicago eventually did solve Jimmy Howard, and broke Jonathan Quick. How much harder could it be to solve Rask?
Thanks for reading my blog. I started up in February 2010.
I like feedback. Just defend your opinions and no ad hominems.
If you want to contact me, email redarmylinecaps @ gmail.com
Not understanding Corsi and other stats I'm using? In short, Corsi is plus-minus, but based on shots + missed shots + blocked shots. Remember that context is important; by itself, Corsi is as meaningful as +/- (which is to say, not at all). For more, check out Gabriel Desjardins' advanced hockey stats FAQ here.
Posts
