Let’s start this one off with some quick trivia. Tell me which one of these prorated stat* lines belongs to what player:
Player A: 21G, 21A, +3
Player B: 21G, 18A, +6
Player C: 11G, 38A, -8
Player D: 11G, 40A, +5
*Prorated stats devised from dividing total goals, assists and plus-minus by games played with the CBJ in their first full-ish year with the team, then multiplying those numbers by a full 82 game season.
I’m sure the title of this post will give away who the four players are, but without looking at their stats there is really no way to differentiate between Cam Atkinson (Player A) and Matt Calvert (Player B), as well as Nikita Nikitin (Player C) and Grant Clitsome (Player D). Traditional stats show almost no difference at all. Cam looks like a little bit more of a playermaker, but those three assists are basically negated by the extra +3 heading to Calvert. Clitsome on the other hand, looks like the better player, with 2 more assists and a +13 jump on Nikitin.
How Nikitin and Atkinson fare this coming year is going to be a huge factor in how the Blue Jackets season unf0lds. Some fans remain positive they can continue their stellar play from late last season. Others are more cautious, using the downfalls of Calvert and Clitsome as evidence that “we have seen this before.” Calvert and Clitsome came up late in the 2010-11 season and energized the team and fanbase with their play. They followed that up with extremely disappointing sophomore seasons, with Calvert being sent to Springfield after 13 goal-less games, and Clitsome waived at the trade deadline after 51 games of subpar defense countered with only 14 points. Looking at just the traditional statistics, nothing is there to tell us that Nikitin and Atkinson won’t be repeats of the last Jackets players to have strong partial seasons, only to flop. However, a look at the underlying statistics shows us that Atkinson and Nikitin shouldn’t suffer the same kind of drop off.
The first glaring difference between Atkinson/Nikitin and Calvert/Clitsome is their zone starts. During the 2010-11 season, both Calvert and Clitsome started 63% of their shifts in the offensive zone, which is a staggering figure. This ranked as the 17th and 18th highest number of offensive zone starts in the entire NHL (of players with at least 30 games), and put them barely behind Kristian Huselius at 63.4% for the easiest zone starts on the Blue Jackets. Further, that 63% figure would have ranked Calvert and Clitsome as the two highest players in offensive zone starts on the 2011-12 Jackets (Ryan Johansen ranked 1st at 53%). In 2011-12, Calvert and Clitsome dropped to 47.4% and 49.7% respectively, and their offensive production dropped. Compare those first year 63% figures to Atkinson and Nikitin, who started only 46% and 43.9% of their shift in the offensive zone. This ranked Cam 8th among Jackets forwards and Nikitin 8th among Jackets defenseman. In fact Nikitin ranked 22nd in the NHL among defenseman for the toughest zone starts. To sum up: Calvert and Clitsome were very sheltered in their zone starts, while Atkinson and Nikitin were trusted in the defensive zone.
The second major difference I see is in their zone finishes. Calvert and Clitsome finished their shifts in the offensive zone only 48.7% and 46.1% of the time respectively. This ranked 11th among CBJ forwards for Calvert, while Clitsome finished eighth of eight among Jackets defensemen. Contrast this with Atkinson and Nikitin, who came in at 54.3% and 50.7%, ranking 1st among Jackets forwards and 2nd among Jackets defensemen. Atkinson’s 54.3% actually ranked 38th among forwards in the NHL for highest rate of offensive zone finishes. This is even more impressive when considering his low offensive zone starts, as only two of the 37 forwards ahead of him had less offensive zone starts. In summation, Calvert and Clitsome started most of their shifts in the offensive zone, but opponents drove them back into their own end, while Atkinson and Nikitin started most of their shifts in the defensive zone and drove the play back into the offensive zone.
The next underlying stat that jumps out is not really a fancy-stat, but is simply shooting percentage. It has been shown that shooting percentage tends to regress to the NHL mean, with a few exceptions for particularly skilled (or unskilled) shooters. Calvert scored on 22% of his shots his rookie year, a rate that is absolutely unsustainable and was bound to be cut by more than half. Atkinson scored on a very repeatable 10.6% of his shots. In a similar vein, PDO shows that Calvert and Clitsome were likely to decline, while Atkinson and Nikitin should stay close to their current production. PDO is simply the addition of a player’s on-ice shooting percentage and on-ice save percentage. As the league averages in save percentage and shooting percentage tend to stay steady, these numbers should equal 1000 consistently. Like shooting percentage, this can fluctuate slightly for very good or very bad players. The PDO for Calvert and Clitsome was 1007 and 1030. Both of these numbers should be expected to decline, and they did. For Atkinson and Nikitin, they had PDO’s of 999 and 975. Cam’s is almost exactly where it should be expected. Nikitin on the other hand should see improved raw numbers, as his on-ice shooting percentage should increase, while his on-ice save percentage should improve. What this means is that Calvert and Clitsome’s numbers were boosted due to good “luck” both offensively and defensively, while Cam had no benefit (or detriment) due to luck, while Nikitin was “unlucky.”
*The term luck doesn’t mean there is not skill involved, more that hockey is a streaky sport and Calvert and Clitsome’s seasons were basically extended hot streaks which were bound to be brought down by cold streaks eventually. Cam’s season was balanced and showed a good representative of both hot and cold streaks, while Nikitin’s season was more cold streak than hot streak and should improve with a full season.
The final major underlying stat that shows that Atkinson and Nikitin won’t repeat Calvert and Clitsome revolves around Corsi. Now a lot of people dislike Corsi, but all it shows is how much a team outshoots their opponent when specific players are on the ice. Teams that outshoot their opponents tend to win more than those getting outshot. It doesn’t mean they will win. As for these players, Calvert ranked 5th in CorsiRel among CBJ forwards at +8.2, while Atkinson ranked 2nd at +11.7. Clitsome ranked 5th among Jackets defensemen at -0.4, while Nikitin ranked 1st at +8.1. Atkinson’s mark was good for 47th in the NHL, while Nikitin came in at 18th among defensemen.
These results are even more impressive when considering the opposition faced. Using CorsiRelQoC, Calvert faced the 11th hardest opponents among forwards, while Clitsome faced the 4th toughest opponents among dmen. Conversely, Atkinson faced the 2nd toughest competition among forwards, while Nikitin faced the 3rd toughest among defensemen. Nikitin faced the 18th toughest competition of all NHL defensemen, while Atkinson faced the 40th toughest among NHL forwards.
To break down what this all means in simpler terms: Calvert and Clitsome faced easy opponents, usually started their shifts in the offensive zone, and benefited from “luck” and/or unsustainable hot streaks. In spite of this, they were dominated by their opponents regarding possession of the puck, and were driven into their own end frequently. These were two players who were poised for a massive decline, as the luck/hot streaks would not continue, and neither player should have expected to continue receiving such easy minutes.
On the other hand, Atkinson and Nikitin faced the opponents best players, started their shifts in the defensive zone, and received no benefit (or were harmed) by “luck” and/or unsustainable streaks. In spite of this, they dominated their opponents regarding possession of the puck, and were able to drive play from their own end to the offensive zone frequently. These two players are poised to continue their production from last season, and should be two reasons for Blue Jackets fans to be excited for the 2012-13 season. With a little more luck and some easier minutes, both could break out with even bigger seasons than those prorated numbers above.
*All advanced statistics can be found at Behind the Net
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
