Summer in the Southeast

The summer of 2012 was a pretty eventful one in the NHL – more so than usual, too, as the wheeling and dealing of the offseason smashed head-on into the expiring CBA and resulting lockout.

Before the owners padlocked the arenas and put away the wallets, however, there was plenty of notable movement around the League, with the Southeast Division often right smack in the middle of it. Big names headed south, old foes became teammates (and vice versa), and the result was a division that could be quite competitive this season... that is, if it ever gets underway.

Carolina Hurricanes (33-33-16, 82 points, 5th in the Southeast, 12th in the Eastern Conference)

Notable Additions: Alexander Semin (F, UFA – WSH), Jordan Staal (F, Trade – PIT), Joe Corvo (D, UFA – BOS), Marc-Andre Gragnani (D, UFA - VAN), Tim Wallace (F, UFA - TB)

Notable Losses: Jaroslav Spacek (D, UFA), Bryan Allen (D, UFA - ANA), Derek Joslin (D, UFA - VAN), Brandon Sutter (F, Trade - PIT)

Bottom Line: Of all the division teams, Carolina easily made the biggest splashes of the offseason. First they capitalized on Jordan Staal’s desire to play alongside big brother Eric, locking him up for six years to do just that, then pulled the trigger on a lucrative one-year deal for former Cane-killer and division rival Alex Semin. The moves give them a potentially lethal top six, adding Staal and Semin to a lineup that already included Eric Staal and Jeff Skinner... although it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to overcome a still-suspect defense (headlined by Joe "fool-me-three-times" Corvo).

But hey, the ol’ "win by outscoring the other guy" method has been known to work a time or two. Ahem.

Florida Panthers (38-26-18, 94 points, 1st in the Southeast, 3rd in the Eastern Conference)

Notable Additions: Peter Mueller (F, UFA - COL), Andre Deveaux (F, UFA - NYR), Jean-Francois Jacques (F, UFA - ANA), George Parros (F, UFA - ANA), Filip Kuba (D, UFA - OTT)

Notable Losses: Wojtek Wolski (F, UFA - WSH), Krys Barch (F, UFA - NJD), Jason Garrison (D, UFA - VAN), Mikael Samuelsson (F, UFA - DET), Marco Sturm (F, UFA), John Madden (F, Ret.), Matt Bradley (F, UFA)

Bottom Line: Coming off of their first ever division title (and their first playoff berth in over a decade), the Panthers have plenty to prove this season. Whether they'll be able to do so with only minor tweaks this summer, however, remains to be seen. The Panthers lost a few of their depth players as well as arguably their best defenseman in Jason Garrison, who rode the free agency train all the way to a lucrative 6-year deal with Vancouver, but the additions of Mueller and Kuba (as well as top rookie prospect Jonathan Huberdeau) could make up for that.

For Florida, though, their success may very well revolve around who is - or isn't - in net, whether they're able to finally swing a deal to bring back Roberto Luongo or whether they'll have to continue with a tandem of Jose Theodore and Scott Clemmensen (although that duo could be bolstered by Jacob Markstrom's continued development).

Tampa Bay Lightning (38-36-8, 84 points, 3rd in the Southeast, 10th in the Eastern Conference)

Notable Additions: Sami Salo (D, UFA - VAN), Matt Taormina (D, UFA - NJD), Matt Carle (D, UFA - PHI), B.J. Crombeen (F, Trade - STL), Benoit Pouliot (F, Trade - BOS), Anders Lindback (G, Trade - NSH)

Notable Losses: Dwayne Roloson (G, UFA), Tim Wallace (F, UFA - CAR), Brandon Segal (F, UFA - NYR), Bruno Gervais (D, UFA - PHI), Sebastion Caron (G, Trade - NSH), Brett Clark (D, UFA)

Bottom Line: With Steven Stamkos, Vincent Lecavalier and Martin St. Louis (along with a slew of role-playing goal-scorers), the Lightning have had plenty of firepower up front; what they've lacked in recent years was a strong defense and a goaltender who didn't remember the 60s. Those were two key areas that they clearly set out to address over the summer, bringing in a couple of strong blueliners in Sami Salo and Matt Carle as well as a young, 6'6" Swedish goalie to replace Roloson. They've still got question marks in their lineup, particularly since St. Louis isn't getting any younger, but the moves made this summer by GM Steve Yzerman may have given them a boost they needed.

Washington Capitals (42-32-8, 92 points, 2nd in the Southeast, 7th in the Eastern Conference)

Notable Additions: Mike Ribeiro (F, Trade – DAL), Wojtek Wolski (F, UFA – FLA), Joey Crabb (F, UFA – TOR), Jack Hillen (D, UFA – NSH)

Notable Losses: Alexander Semin (F, UFA – CAR), Jeff Halpern (F, UFA – NYR), Mike Knuble (F, UFA), Tomas Vokoun (G, Trade – PIT), Dennis Wideman (D, Trade – CGY)

Bottom Line: This was not a summer of big, sweeping moves and lucrative free agent signings for GM George McPhee. Instead it was an offseason consisting largely of locking up homegrown pieces, adding a few complementary roster players and, most importantly, finding a new coach. The biggest loss for the Caps was arguably that of Alex Semin, who takes his sniper abilities south to division rival Carolina, leaving the role of secondary scoring to a committee that now includes new Cap Wojtek Wolski; the biggest gain, Mike Ribeiro, who will hopefully fill the long-vacant job of second-line center behind Nicklas Backstrom.

The biggest change? A new face behind the bench in rookie head coach Adam Oates, who will be tasked with not only bringing out the team's potential but giving them an identity and a unity that's been lacking in recent years.

Winnipeg Jets (37-35-10, 84 points, 4th in the Southeast, 11th in the Eastern Conference)

Notable Additions: Olli Jokinen (F, UFA - CGY), Al Montoya (G, UFA - NYI), Alexei Ponikarovsky (F, UFA - NJD)

Notable Losses: Tanner Glass (F, UFA - PIT), Chris Mason (G, UFA - NSH), Eric Fehr (F, UFA), Tim Stapleton (F, UFA - KHL)

Bottom Line: For a team outside the playoff picture last season, the Jets had a relatively quiet offseason, adding a few key forwards in Jokinen and Ponikarovsky but ultimately staying out of a lot of the summer's bigger deals. They've likely got a bit of a honeymoon period left as they kick off their second season in a city that's been craving hockey since the original Jets bolted for Phoenix in '96, but with news that stud defenseman Zach Bogosian is out for four-to-six months and an as-yet-unsigned Evander Kane, that honeymoon period could end pretty fast. No worries, though, because Al Montoya's on his way.

Have These Capitals Passed Their Peaks?

Dramatic title, eh?

Don't worry, this isn't another "window opening/closing/shattering" post, but rather a look at when hockey players peak and how the Capitals roster stacks up, relatively.

The latest issue of ESPN the Magazine - "The Age Issue" - pinpoints players' primes by position (try saying that a few times fast). How? Thanks to help from the good folks at Hockey Prospectus and their stat, Goals Versus Threshold (GVT), which measures a player's worth (taking into both account offense and defense) in comparison to a typical fringe NHL player. Essentially they endeavor to answer the question, "At what age are players at different positions at their best?"

With the obvious caveat that every player is unique, here's a list of which Caps' best days may yet be ahead and who may be beyond his "best by" date - who's not yet at his peak, who's past his peak, and who's Pat Peake. (OK, not really on that last one.) First, the forwards, with their ages as of October 12, 2012 (Opening Night... stop laughing/crying and read on) and Hockey Prospectus's peak age for forwards, after the jump.

Forwards	Defensemen	Goalies
' Jason Chimera (33.4) ' Mike Ribeiro (32.7) ' Joel Ward (31.9) ' Matt Hendricks (31.3) ' Joey Crabb (29.5) ' Brooks Laich (29.3) ' Troy Brouwer (27.2) ' Alex Ovechkin (27.1) ' Jay Beagle (27.0) ' Wojtek Wolski (26.6) ' Nicklas Backstrom (24.9) ' Mattias Sjogren (24.9) ' Mathieu Perreault (24.8) ' Peak Age For Forward: 23.5 ' Marcus Johansson (22.0)	' Roman Hamrlik (38.5) ' Tom Poti (35.6) ' John Erskine (32.3) ' Mike Green (27.0) ' Jack Hillen (26.7) ' Jeff Schultz (26.6) ' Peak Age For Defenseman: 25.8 ' Karl Alzner (24.0) ' John Carlson (22.8) ' Dmitry Orlov (21.2)	' Peak Age For Goalies: 24.8 ' Michal Neuvirth (24.6) ' Braden Holtby (23.1)

It would seem as though the forwards are perhaps a bit long-in-the-tooth, that the core of the blueline is largely in good shape and that the goalies may be just about to come into their own. Does that mesh with your perception of the roster? Does it impact how you'd construct a team if you were at the helm?

Regardless, one thing is certain - the clock's a-tickin', and the longer this lockout drags on, the older every one of these players gets.

Caps Re-Sign John Carlson

Per the team, the Caps have re-signed defenseman John Carlson to a six-year, $23.8 million contract extension. The new contract comes on the heels of what was a less-than-inspiring regular season but a spectacular postseason performance, as we noted in his 2011-12 Rink Wrap:

[Carlson] took the most shifts per game of any Caps player, and once again led the team in blocks, led the D corps in hits, shots (tied), and was the leading scorer from the blue line, despite getting significantly less power play time than Wideman or Mike Green. Carlson did all this while facing the toughest opposition on the Bruins and Rangers, and the lowest offensive zone start percentage (35.8%) of any D.

Team release:

ARLINGTON, Va. – The Washington Capitals have re-signed defenseman John Carlson to a six-year, $23.8 million contract extension, vice president and general manager George McPhee announced today. Carlson will earn $3.8 million in 2012-13 and $4 million per year from the 2013-14 season through 2017-18.

"John is a talented young defenseman who has played very well for the Capitals and still has room to grow," said McPhee. "He wanted to make a long term commitment to the team and we are delighted that this young man who is an important part of our future will be a member of the club for many years to come."

Carlson, 22, recorded 32 points (nine goals, 23 assists) and 22 penalty minutes in 82 games last season with Washington, setting a career high in goals scored. He finished the season ranked second among Capitals blueliners in goals, points and shots (152) and tied for the team lead among defensemen in power-play goals (4). He ranked second on the Capitals in ice time per game (21:51) and led the team in blocked shots (153). Carlson finished the postseason tied for fifth on Washington in points (two goals, three assists) and was tied for the lead among Capitals defensemen in goals, assists and shots (27). His 24:02 of ice time per game was second on the team and his 38 blocked shots led all Capitals players.

The Natick, Mass., native matched a Capitals single-season record for most points by a rookie defenseman (37) during the 2010-11 season and led all rookies in ice time per game (22:38), blocked shots (160) and ranked fourth among rookie blueliners in points. He was named to the 2010-11 NHL All-Rookie Team. In 186 career NHL games with Washington, Carlson has tallied 75 points (17 goals, 58 assists) and a plus-17 rating.

Capitals Extend Troy Brouwer

Per the team:

The Washington Capitals have re-signed forward Troy Brouwer to a three-year, $11 million contract extension, vice president and general manager George McPhee announced today. Brouwer will earn $3.6 million in 2013-14, $3.65 million in 2014-15 and $3.75 million in 2015-16.

Read more on Brouwer in our Rink Wrap of his 2011-12 season. Money quotes:

Acquired on Draft Day 2011 for a first-round pick, Troy Brouwer was brought in to provide a big, physical presence (and a bit of offense) to the Caps' top six. And at the end of the day, that's pretty much what he did - he brought the big body, the bone-rattling checks and a few fights, while chipping in 18 goals and finishing fourth on the team in that department.

...

After putting up 26 points in the first four months, his offense fell off a cliff to the tune of just seven points over the final three months of the season (with three in the final month) - at a time when the Caps, fighting for their playoff lives, needed every point they could get. The trend even continued, albeit at a more compressed rate, during the playoffs, as both his postseason goals came in the first round and he managed just two more assists - both in Game 5 - against the Rangers.

Welcome to the Future of Japers' Rink and SB Nation

Just over seven years ago, Japers' Rink was born. It's grown and flourished, joined the most impressive sports blogging network on the Internet, and continues to host one of the finest online communities around.

Now it's time to take another step forward, and for more on that, I'll turn it over to SB Nation founder Tyler Bleszinski:

It’s with great pleasure that I unveil the first step in the next evolution of Japers' Rink and SB Nation. In the next month SB Nation will be undergoing a dramatic upgrade to our platform and our editorial process. There will be much more detail to come but for now, the new logo below is just a first taste of what is coming for Japers' Rink and SB Nation.

This is a small, but important sample of what is coming when our network undergoes its most exciting and radical transformation in the eight-year history of the company. A new visual identity here and across the network is only one step we are taking to unite our network of sites. United through individuality is the underlying theme of this project. You’ll notice that our team colors and the unique spirit of our individual community is maintained while making it clear to sports fans that each site is a part of the larger SB Nation network. We want everyone to know that they can find the same type of great writing, video and conversation that we offer here on all of our 300 plus sites. You can browse through all the new logos on a special page we put together at sbnation.com/united.

Our commitment to passionately follow our sports will never end. It’s what makes SB Nation a special place and that will only be enhanced by these new changes. In the meantime we’re setting up additions to our store so you can be sporting the latest and greatest before it even launches. Welcome to our future.

What's coming is going to be awesome. What's here now is our new logo:

How Alex Ovechkin Can Make The Most Out Of A Lockout

As the calendar moves the hockey world ever-closer to the brink of yet another work stoppage, talk of potential temporary landing spots for the planet's best players is picking up steam. Perhaps driven in equal parts by a desire to show NHL owners that they do, in fact, have other options and the realization that their careers as professional athletes are short while their time as bill-paying adults is much longer, destination speculation is all the rage these days.

The young'uns will head to the AHL, the Europeans to their respective home countries (even if Sweden doesn't want to go along with the plan), and the North American veterans... eh, somewhere. Easy enough, and made all the easier by the KHL rolling out the red carpet for short-timing NHL ringers.

All of which naturally brings us to Alex Ovechkin (because all roads lead to Ovi).

By way of background, the president of Ovechkin's former club (his beloved Dynamo Moscow), recently said that he'd be against bringing the team's most-famous alum back during an NHL lockout, calling such a move "unnecessary" and apparently telling Ovechkin's mother as much. Dynamo's GM was a bit more measured in his comments, noting "to pay crazy salary [for Ovechkin] is wrong." KHL goon squad Vityaz Chekhov has expressed interest (likely as a publicity stunt), but reports also have well-financed CSKA Moscow in the mix, which prompted KHL president Alexander Medvedev to clarify the League's position:

Medvedev insisted that Dynamo should have first refusal on the 26-year-old wing in the event of a lockout, despite reported interest from big-spending CSKA Moscow, Medvedev said.

"Of course there's a formal bureaucratic side which can be disputed sometimes, but there's also a moral-ethical side," Medvedev said.

"I don't think anyone will dispute the moral rights of Dynamo to the player Alexander Ovechkin."

And the Caps' captain is certainly thinking about where he's going to be plying his trade in the weeks and months ahead.

But since Medvedev brought morality and ethics into the conversation (no doubt the flip side of Dynamo's "moral right" is Ovechkin's "moral obligation"), here's an idea: Alexander Ovechkin should tell Dynamo, CSKA and Medvedev to kick rocks and make public overtures about his desire, should the NHL lock its players out, to play for... Lokomotiv Yaroslavl for a League-minimum salary.

In one fell swoop, Ovechkin would do wonders for his public image (which, in case you haven't noticed, has taken a bit of a hit over the past two-and-a-half years or so), insulate himself from legitimate criticism for his decision, save himself the potential embarrassment of being shunned by his former club or not fetching a salary commensurate with his superstardom and, most importantly, help a team and a fan base still recovering from one of the most devastating tragedies imaginable (one in which Ovechkin himself "lost a lot of friends."). As wonderful an effort as Evgeni Malkin and Ilya Kovalchuk hosting a charity exhibition might be, imagine the country's biggest star wanting to pull on that Lokomotiv sweater for meaningful games (where he'd be reunited with at least three former Caps teammates... if not more).

It's a pipe dream, of course (actually, it's a pipe nightmare, thinking about the mass exodus of NHL talent to the far reaches of the globe), as Ovechkin is fiercely loyal to Dynamo and perhaps to the almighty ruble as well. But as stories go, this would be a nice one at a time that hockey fans could use it, and one that would do a lot of good for a lot of people... including Alex Ovechkin.

On Tracking Scoring Chances, Part III

Today we conclude our three part series on tracking scoring chances. In Part I we covered our first impressions of the process, and what we thought we got out of it. In Part II we dove into some specific examples to look at how a variety of factors led to our ultimate decisions. Today we'll give you our closing thoughts on the value of scoring chance data, what it means, and why it may be more valuable to NHL teams than to fans tracking the game manually. Without further ado...

So what are the finals thoughts, did it change how you view the data or how useful you think it is?

RP: I don’t think it really changed my beliefs on the utility of scoring chance data, I already thought it was useful data. I did used to think that if more people tracked the data, it would be more useful. Now I'm not so sure. I have notes of potentially questionable chances that I personally didn’t consider a scoring chance and I thought that having more people judge those plays will create a more robust picture of what happened. This process highlighted how subjective these things are on an individual level, but I also had a lot of experience with that when I did the soft goals analyses so it wasn’t surprising. The degree to which the subjectivity infiltrated our analysis, and the fact that there were pairs or groups of us were clearly on the same page did make me think that it's so subjective that large numbers don't necessarily cure the subjectivity.

JP: Agreed. I wouldn’t say that it changed my thoughts on the utility of scoring chance data, generally, but it hammered home that scoring chances are, ultimately, subjective - as I fret about whether a guy’s release point was inside or outside of the "home plate" area, what I decide impacts the data itself. And that, in turn, highlights my bigger takeaway (which is confirmation of what I’ve always thought about scoring chance data), namely that counting up chances is all well and good, but not all chances are created equal and treating them as such doesn’t necessarily faithfully represent what’s happening (a tap-in from the side of the net isn’t the same as a backhand flip from the dot with a defender in the way). Chances should be graded, which would be all well and good for an individual team’s analysis (which I’m sure is exactly what they do), but would be hell in trying to compare players across teams. Point being, great chances are going to be "scoring chances" on everyone’s sheet, but how many not-so-great chances get included can make big differences.

GOULD: It didn’t make me question the value of scoring chance data in general (I think it could be very valuable.) What it did was make me want to figure out who did the scoring and whether they were experienced and whether their data is generally accepted. Because I was terrible at it, and I wouldn’t want anyone relying on my data. One thing became very clear right at the beginning: with my personality type, I can either enjoy a game or score it, but I can’t do both. This felt like work. I scored the game two months after it happened, and there was no suspense about the outcome -- I had to click right on the final score to load it up on GameCenter live (something I’d like them to change so that you can, you know, watch a game after the fact without having it ruined before you start). So I wasn’t watching play or systems or paying attention to the flow of the game or anything fun like that. I was just focused on whether there was a chance or not. I found my focus wandering at times, so I didn’t do a great job, though I did rewind and rewatch lots of plays and I generally took it seriously and tried to do a good job. This is probably not something I’m going to do again. And the folks who have been doing it all the time, like Neil, have even more of my respect than they had before. In the immortal words of Dr. Klahn, you have contributed a data set of enormous magnitude, and you have our gratitude.

SME: I don’t think there’s necessarily much utility in the raw numbers for scoring chance data. However, I do think there is very good utility in the ratios recorded by the team. As already touched upon, they are very subjective, which can change the numbers quite a bit. And as JP noted, the way they are recorded is far too binary for scoring chances; it assumes that all chances are created equal. All chances are equal, but some chances are more equal than others. It’s difficult to record all of the chances in a way that makes it easy to compare in such a broad manner across teams and players, especially when taking in the subjectivity of it, and all of the moving parts involved in the game.

renstar: This project changed how I viewed the data in the sense that, beforehand, I had very little appreciation for what the scoring chance data gave us. I found that actually tracking the stat gave me a better understanding of what the data describes and found that the action of tracking the chances gave me a better feel for how the control of the game ebbs and flows (maybe just because I was watching more closely). But this project as a whole made me more wary of the individually tracked data sets. I mean that as no insult to those who did the tracking: it was definitely yeoman's work, and we learned so much from the two-season effort. Rather, there are too many places for human decision to come in to play, and too many seemingly valid definitions of a scoring chance to convince me that there is one that captures something that correlates cleanly to possession. (More on this in a moment.) In a way, I'm actually glad that it was eventually found that scoring chances track with Corswick, as the Corswick stats can be adjusted for home/away/arena biases and are based on globally available data.

Briefly going back to the idea of possession...before we found out that the scoring chanes project ended, I went back over the first period of the game that we all tracked (so this is the king of small sample sizes) and looked at two easily defined, unambiguous measures of possession: the zone that the puck was in and the team who had control of the puck. The next image shows possession in the first context. Red is when the puck is in the PIT zone and WAS 'has' possession, white is the neutral zone, gold is PIT possession (puck in WAS zone), and black lines are stoppages. The scoring chances determined by this project are plotted for each tracker.

Similarly, I looked at actual possession, as in which team had the puck on their stick. Again, red is WAS possession and gold is PIT possession with the scoring changes plotted over it.

As I said, these are small sample sizes so I'm not drawing any strong conclusions, but it is not completely clear to me how scoring chances correlate with or drive possession.

D’oh: This exercise changed my thoughts on the utility of tracking chances, and I’m sad to say it was for the worse. I don’t think it’s an entirely fruitless endeavor, but I’ll echo what JP said above - it’s far too subjective and not all chances are created equal. I found myself marking a lot of chances as "marginal" to reflect that, while I thought it was an above-average chance, it wasn’t almost a goal. Moreover, a more liberal interpretation of a scoring chance would seem to heavily favor a puck-possession team or a team that takes many shots, whereas a more restrictive interpretation might favor a team that worked to create excellent chances. This means that comparisons between teams (and between players on different teams) are largely useless unless the same person is tracking both teams - even then the validity of the data would depend on the styles of the teams being tracked and the tendencies (liberal or restrictive) of the person doing the tracking. I’d wager that teams have their own internal tracking system, with grading scales and multiple people to track each game.

GOULD: There are ways to deal with the subjectivity. First I think is experience. I bet folks get more consistent with one another at scoring games just by scoring lots of them, even if they don’t compare data or anything. Second would be some kind of cross-check that doesn’t currently exist. I’m actually a published author on a couple of statistics-based legal articles: we coded hundreds of trade secrets cases for certain objective factors and then presented an analysis (email me if you want to know more). One of the things we did was cross-check a few of each other’s cases and talk through any differences of opinion on how the case should have been coded. It made us more consistent with one another. If scoring chance trackers would organize and coordinate, this would actually be pretty easy to implement. It would make the data better, but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary. For now, we should treat the data like "hits" and even "shots" -- data where there’s a certain range of subjectivity so you have to take it with a grain of salt, but ultimately the world is better for having the data available and you just have to do your best to make sense of it in a fair and accurate way.

JP: My second big takeaway here flows from the first one, and it’s another point that you touched on, Rob - given the subjectivity involved, the more people tracking this stuff, the better the data will be. Even just having a second or third scorer will make the resulting numbers more useful. As fans, it’s not a futile exercise - it’s important crowd-sourced information that can help provide a better understanding of what we’re all seeing.

SME: The ratios and numbers involved strike me as lending themselves to being overemphasized in the same manner that faceoffs are, though scoring chances are much more important. But when the ratios have a player getting 45% of the chances when he’s on the ice, that seems bad, until one looks at the fact that with a couple more chances, they’d be at 50%. It strikes me at being useful at comparing players on the same team, though not necessarily across teams. Like so many of the stats that already exist.

D’oh: One thing that struck me is that the offensive data for defensemen is probably skewed by the fact that a lot of good chances are off the rush, and the defenseman (men) who started the play with outlet passes have left the ice on a change by the time the chance is registered. I counted a few instances of this phenomenon during this game and, as SME points out above, that can shift a player’s chance ratio from positive to negative pretty quickly. I’ll also point out that I found one pretty large error in the RTSS data that timeonice.com uses to track who’s on the ice for chances - given the small difference between a player being a "plus" and being a "minus" I think this makes me more wary of using this data for analysis of individual games. Over the course of a season I imagine those errors wash out. Another take-away is that more and better camera angles would really help. There was a chance at 5:31 of the 2nd period where Steve Sullivan and Richard Park managed to create a little 2-on-1 in the slot against John Carlson. From the original angle (shown below), I logged it as a chance, albeit a marginal one.

Later, the broadcast showed a view from behind the net. From this second angle (shown below), it appears as though Carlson has the passing lane almost totally cut off and Sullivan has his head down. It would take a great pass to get to Park, and because Sullivan would have to put the pass somewhat behind Park (in order to clear Carlson), Neuvirth might have enough time to get over to make the save. I still think it’s a scoring chance, but the second angle really gives much more information.

Rob: More camera angles would definitely help, I just don't think this is the best example to make your case. A two-on-one in the slot is going to be a scoring chance. Period. You can applaud Carlson for playing the pass well (as is his job) but the fact remains that the Penguins should have had a high quality shot on net; the Caps were saved by an extremely poor decision from Steve Sullivan more than anything else. But I digress.

There's a bit of a paradox in scoring chance evaluation. On the one hand, you want more eyes to build a more complete picture and to wash out individual biases, but on the other hand you can only truly get a consistent definition to apply if you use a single person to define a scoring chance. I think this is where the main difference between fan tracking and team tracking lies. Teams only need the definition they are comfortable with, and their scouts can calculate the data as they are comfortable; the same set of eyes is creating the entire data set. With fan tracking, you have a different set of eyes tracking each team, and they are simply not going to be able to apply the same definition. If they do manage to agree upon a mechanical definition of "scoring chance," they'll lose some specificity and undercut the value of their own data. As Dan Bylsma noted: "There is more to it than just location," said Bylsma. "Way more. It's not just odd man rushes. We have a certain area [on the ice] we consider to be a scoring chance. There are circumstances that if it's outside that area it could still be a scoring chance, like a wrap-around. Some wrap-arounds are chances, some are not."

In order to apply that highly specific, context-dependent definition of a scoring chance, you need a dictator to make the final ruling, even a tightly knit coaching staff is going to disagree, and several eyes can muddy the picture just as easily as they can clarify it. In an NHL organization, one person has the final word, but that's not the case in fan tracking. For an NHL team, it's the head coach that has the final word. Bylsma continued: "There are some times as a coaching staff, maybe twice a game, we have to get together and decide if there was a scoring chance or not. The reason it is or isn't is not because we all agree, it's because I say it, because I'm the last guy to say it is or not." There's no way to make those close calls in fan tracking, so it ends up aggregating individual biases without identifying or controlling for those biases.