The better scoring stat

While in Europe it's often believed that the "NA-stats-science" is overrated I'm a true believer in stats. Stats tell something about players if you follow it in the long-term and if follow the right stats.

The problem in Europe is sometimes that we take the wrong stats for judging players and we take stats from just not a big enough amount of figures. E.g. we judge goalies save-percentage after just a handful of games in a tournament or so.

I guess it's time to look at a very important stat from the NHL. We have in average more than 30 games so I do dare to read something into it, in a stat I just can dream of from European leagues. It's the stat what shows how many minutes of ice-time a player needs in average to score a point. It takes away the aspect of logging a lot or nearly no ice-time. To be fair, it still doesn't take away the type of ice-time a player gets (e.g. power-play) but still... it's fair and valuable to read something into this stat. Here we go:

1. Sidney CROSBY, PIT, he needs in average just 13.4 minutes of ice time to score a point on the score-sheet.
2. Steven STAMKOS, TB, 14.7
3. Daniel SEDIN, VAN, 14.9
4. Milan HEJDUK, COL, 15.7
5. Chris STEWART, COL, 15.8
6. Teemu SELANNE, ANA, 16.1
7. Pavel DATSYUK, DET, 16.7
8. Matt DUCHENE, COL, 17.0
9. Alexander SEMIN, WSH, 17.8
10. Martin ST.LOUIS, TB, 18.1

What do I read into this:
Watch at Teemu Selanne, No. 6 and Milan Hejduk, No. 4. Players who are over the hill in their careers and still in the top10 right now? Congratulations is just not enough to be said. It's also obvious that you find whatever stat it might be, it's always Sidney Crosby at the near top or at the very top. It's time for us also in Europe to declare Sidney Crosby as simply the best hockey-player. He is the best player in my eyes since quite a long time.

I'm sure that by the end of the season this list looks a bit different but still: Matt Duchene... No.8... and Steven Stamkos... No. 2... new star-players on the horizon, actually not on the horizon, they are already right there.

Thomas Roost

B.A. Gustafsson, Josh Holden, Rafael Diaz or Anton Gustafsson?

In the NHL the lowest salary is just a little more than $ 500’000.— and the highest is around $10 Mio. I guess – if we wouldn’t have the salary-cap this difference would be even higher. Everybody knows the salary of eachother, it's a more or less open book and jealousy is not really a problem. Some players are even proud to play with the 8 Mio-man Crosby in the same team and they are not jealous! Different mentality...

Change of the scenery: Swiss pro-league. Last week the Zurich Lions hired Swedish Olympic Gold-medal coach B.A. Gustafsson and Zug resigned defenseman Rafael Diaz for estimated 600k per season. Salary-differences between 150k and 600k in our league will lead into sometimes ugly, jealous discussions. This is our mentality. A little bit more than rumours tell that Gustafsson was one of the most expensive coaches on the market. Right now there is a big discussion in Hockey-Switzerland about whether the contract-extension of the Zug defenseman Rafael Diaz for 600k is stupid or not. Nobody talks about the most probably expensive signing of B.A. Gustafsson. What is my view to all this?

Personally I really do believe that B.A. Gustafsson is a very good coach and a very intelligent person but like all coaches he has his certain methods, he has is own view of human beings and he follows his own philosophies with players on and off the ice. This means what it means with most coaches: Some players will play better under Gustafsson and some players will play worse. Some players blossom under the maybe new methodics and some players will falter. In the very end personally I do think that Gustafsson is a brilliant coach for intelligent players and players with a high level of self-responsibility but not all players are intelligent and not all players show much self-responsibility.

Second case is Rafael Diaz. Diaz is a young (26 or so) and still improving defenseman. Right now he might be the best Swiss defenseman in the Swiss league but definitely is one of the best (there are probably three, maximum four other Swiss d-men in our league who are as good as Diaz). In my eyes Diaz plays extremely smart and can play a high-tempo-game. He is also on the radar of NHL-scouts and he deserves it. He is not a spectacular player on first sight – he plays very well in a more quiet way but he does it on a really high level and he does he so smart! I do recommend to follow the development of Diaz to all NHL-organisations. If he can improve in the strength- and conditioning-department he definitely will get a chance for a try-out in the NHL. I like Diaz so much that I present him the “label” as a so called franchise-player for the Swiss-League. Is he overpaid with 600k per season (for my readers from outside Switzerland you must know that with 600k he belongs to the very best paid players in our league)? No, he is not overpaid. Maybe they could have signed him for a little less plus incentives but this maybe is a too big risk. They could have lost their franchise-player for just a handful of bucks because definitely nobody else would have signed him for less than 520 or 530 or so. In my eyes it was a wise decision from Zug to sign him as their future franchise-player. He is expensive, yes - so what? If a team like the ZSC lions complains about the price of Diaz and then the next day hires Gustafsson as their new coach? Common... Diaz is young, has energy, plays already on a top-level and it’s very likely that he will become even better. It’s always the big question whether you should pay extra for older players who did already win a lot in their career or if you should pay for actual performance and potential. I definitely would choose the second and Rafael Diaz belongs to this second category. Well done Zug! Don’t get me wrong, the best player in Zug is Canadien Josh Holden and he is now not the best paid player anymore but this is not unfair and probably doesn’t make Holden too angry because Josh Holden knows: The market tells so. Josh Holden counts as an import-player. Import-players come from all over the world and to replace players like Josh Holden you just need good scouting and good networking. Yes, it’s not so easy to replace the quality of Josh Holden. That’s why he deserves to have an above-average salary compared to other import-players and he has this but I do insist: You can replace Josh Holden, you have a fair chance if you do your homework. Can you replace Rafael Diaz? No, you can’t – he is one of the top-five Swiss defensemen in our league and we have 10 teams…so… you have to have him because you can’t replace him. He is Swiss and doesn’t hurt the import-licence-contingent. So again: My first answer to the question of whether Diaz is overpaid or not: No – he isn’t .

What about Bengt-Ake Gustafsson, one of the most famous coaches in the hockey-world? I do not know his salary but I still dare to tell that he is most probably overpaid. As a coach he has just limited influence to what happens on the ice. I definitely think that the Lions could have found e.g. a local coach for half the money with the same impact. But of course the pressure is big for a big-name coach after firing the former assistant and no-name-headcoach Colin Muller. The logical but completely wrong conclusion to this is: Not again a former assistant and not again a no-name-coach. The right conclusion would be: We will try to find the best possible coach and will find out this in structured interviews and analyses and of course this coach can be found everywhere (from local assistant-coaches to exotic headcoaches in Siberia). The hiring of Bengt-Ake Gustafsson does in my eyes not have the same long-term-value-ratio than the on first sight expensive contract-extension of Rafael Diaz.

But also this view is just the view of a GM who watches the world from the local Zurich-mountain, Uetliberg. The real good GM looks at it as an eagle from the Mount-Everest – ornithologists will forgive me this example because they will probably prove me that eagles can’t survive in the heights of Mount Everest…but in this, my example, they simply can J. The eagle-eye just watches from wuthering heights and finds the bloodlines of B.A. Gustafsson, so I come to the conclusion that:

Just average-influence coach B.A. Gustafsson  (my opinion) will maybe still be the diamond in the rough for the ZSC Lions because he has a son, Anton. Anton Gustafsson has a Swiss licence because he played as a junior first for Feldkirch in Austria and for some reason this Feldkirch-licence is equal to a Swiss licence…hmmm… I don’t want to go deeper into this but it’s just a fact. Anton Gustafsson is an excellent young hockey-player, a former first-round-pick of the Washington Capitals. He suffered various injuries in the last couple of years and is not on the level yet where he would be without injuries. Means, he didn’t get an NHL-contract , was demoted even to the ECHL a couple of weeks ago and returned home to Sweden highly frustrated, even considering quitting hockey. Fortunately there is a gold-mine in the Swiss league for him. He is not an import-player like Josh Holden and he is not as good as Josh Holden yet but still he has strategically the higher market-value than Josh Holden because you can’t replace him. He has the potential to be as good as the best imports in our league without being an import and this means a potential salary of close to 1 Mio! Of course he won’t get this salary right away – he first has to show what he can do. Although I do know for sure that not the ZSC-Lions had the first idea to hire Anton as a Swiss player – the ZSC Lions are definitely in the pole-position to do so, thank’s to his father Bengt-Ake Gustafsson. I guess you know what I mean: Not the actual performance dictates the value of a player in our Swiss league, if this would be the case Josh Holden would be the best paid player. It’s the market. And the market tells that we just have a handful of good “import-players” who are no “import-players” and the market tells that we just have a handful a really good defensemen with a Swiss passport in our league and the market tells that if you do a good job in preparing the hiring of import-players you have a decent chance to replace Josh Holden but you can’t replace a healthy Dan Fritsche, Christian Dube, Ryan Gardner and a healthy Anton Gustafsson. Personally I did like Anton Gustafsson as a junior-player so much that I was 100% sure that he never ever will play in our league. He is an excellent two-way-forward, responsible, gritty and on a good overall skill-level. Unfortunately for him and fortunately for our league his various injuries did guide his career into an unexpected direction.

So, in the very end…if the Lions will land a healthy and motivated Anton Gustafsson…the hiring of his father as the head-coach was a good and wise move! The eagle-eye tells me this...

Thomas Roost / 25th October 2010

Assessing talent in a child / Part 2

I did get a very nice amount of e-mails with insightful comments and also some questions to my blog “Assessing talent in a child”. I really want to tell thank you for that, I love to learn and I did learn from your comments! In addition I would like to answer some of the questions you did ask me. Here we go…

When should you start to scout players?

There exist different opinions about this. I know some colleagues who are not much interested in younger players, they just concentrate on the draftees. Personally I'm interested in younger player because of the described most important „ability to learn”, I want to check this. Actually I start with 14 years old but a couple of months ago e.g. I did watch even a 13 years old who is already an unbelievable explosive, fast and technically sound skater, so I don't tell he is just 13, I don’t tell I'm not interested in. A couple of weeks ago I even followed a 11 years old kid who did impress me a lot and again: I don’t tell that I’m not interested in this kid. Of course I will follow him, his progress and everything. On the one hand I do know for sure that projecting 11, 12 or 13 years old is extremely tricky. On the other hand I don't tell that I'm not interested in them, if somebody stands out in this age I'm of course interested in and if this someone has some special abilities I definitely write down some comments and check later about improvement. One person asked about scouting already a 7 years old. I don't know about 7 years old but if he stands out in the vision-category I would like to find out why. Maybe he did watch much more hockey-games than others in his age, maybe he has a dad who did teach him some sort of vision at a very early age. Maybe he played already tons of pond-hockey or something similiar. I definitely would be interested in this kid but mostly there are quite unspectacular answers about why he is so good in this aspect in such an early age. I definitely wouldn't project him yet but I definitely would love to watch him playing already. I love to watch exceptional things in hockey. Young phenoms, fastest players, most strong, most whatever. But for most of these discovered „most of whatever“ there are usually pretty simple reasons. And the reason No.1 is: This kid did play more hockey than others, did skate more, did have the better teachers or in the best case scenario: A combination of both. It’s usually not so much about just talent. Even Mozart was not really as much of a boy-wonder as we would like to think, he had a musician as father (Leopold Mozart) who was keen on doing drills with his son, Wolfgang. So Wolfgang became very good at a very young age because of more and better practice than others. Also the Beatles became just world-famous after practising thousands of hours together in Hamburg, also the Beatles were not just so called “naturals”. They did work extremely hard, and so did the Chess-Champions, so did Bill Gates, so did Roger Federer and all other world-class-performers. They all did work more than others because they did love what they did do, they all are very passionate people.

Somebody else did ask about what I think in terms of letting kids just shoot the puck, going coast to coast, always challenging the 1:1 and so on. I strongly support the approach of just letting the kids develop their fun, their passion with the game. Kids who can go coast to coast and shoot the puck - let them do this. Kids who love to pass the puck. Let them do this; don't punish them by telling "not allowed to go 1:1" or "not allowed to shoot", or "not allowed to pass". They will develop what they like most and then they come naturally to a point where they will find out that their domination doesn't work anymore. They will find out that if they want to go on with dominating the game they also have to learn to use their teammates with clever playmaking and passing. The vision-guy will find that if he wants to reach the next level he also has to learn how to score, how to shoot the puck, they will find out that it is most exciting if the opponents never will find out what I will do next, passing, going 1:1 or shooting. But don't punish them too early with not allowing doing this or that. Let them develop and cultivate their speciality and if the kid is really passionate about the game, curious about hockey in general, it will ask about players, about strategies, about different skills and assets of great hockey-players, curious, passionate kids want to know everything early enough and will adapt what is needed to become a more or less well-rounded hockey-player. Lazy kids, who want to stay in their comfort-zone, will just go on with only shooting, only skating or just passing. Try to observe this and if you find curiousity, passion to learn additional things, maybe even obsession, it tells a lot about overall talent - if the basic-mechanics and maybe the one or the other speciality are there in combination with the curiosity, the obsession to improve, the love for the game…then watch out!

I do also agree with somebody who told me that in his eyes you need to have a certain amount of basic talent. Yes, this is true, you need to have certain mechanics in your movements, a certain level of body-coordination, of hand-eye-coordination. You need to have certain basic physical tools if you want to become a world-class hockey-player (e.g. you never will be a deadly scorer if you have weak wrists) and I also guess it really helps if you have at least an average intelligence. If you don't have this it will be extremely difficult. But again...you also can improve your body-coordination, you also can learn this. A well respected Russian figure-skating-teacher did tell me once, - when my son was very small – “send him to gymnastic-lessons and you will see how much of a better skater he will be after all (he will improve body-balance and coordination)” I guess she was right. Of course you can't do everything, you have to set priorities, but again, work more - maybe even gymnastics - and you will be a better player. When I was very young my father wanted me to play the violin, I was pretty good at this, did win even a national-junior-championship but unfortunately I didn't like it too much - would have preferred to play hockey. So I did reach just a certain level (junior-championship) but didn’t improve later much because of lack of passion. When I was bigger I played more hockey and wondered why I had astonishing good, soft and quick hands and hand-eye-coordination and I guess part of the truth was my extremely developed hand-eye-coordination from playing the violin for years, I also did easily learn to shoot the puck pretty well with my backhand and this also had to do with certain mechanics, developed in my left arm/hand from playing the violin. I played some sort of hockey in the basement of our house with sticks with crushed hockey-blades from players who did throw away the damaged stick. Nobody did get me a real hockey-stick…poor boy I was…smile.... I stickhandled hours in narrow tight spaces around chairs, gardening-machines, potatoes and wine-bottles with a “handicapped” stick. It was big fun and you know what? With all this I developed excellent stickhandling-abilities and everybody did think that I’m just talented – but actually I did just practise hundreds of hours in our basement. Don't get me wrong: Don't make your son playing the violin if he wants to become a hockey-player and I also don’t think it’s necessary to present your son a crushed hockey-stick... but I guess you know what I mean.

Thomas Roost

What is a good coach?

There are different perspectives in terms of judging a good coach in hockey and in sports in general.

The first perspective is a business one. Everybody is his own entrepreneur. So, as a coach you have the target to get the best job for the best possible money. Means the best coach is the one who manages to get hired by the most famous franchises for the biggest salaries. It doesn’t really matter too much what you did do as a coach in detail, in the very end it just does matter that the most famous franchises are going to  choose you. Maybe you are just an excellent salesman, a very good entertainer, a good looking man with a very self-confident approach and charisma what make other people believe: This is the man! That’s it. Finish. We close the book and declare Jose Mourinho (Real Madrid) and Louis Van Gaal (Bayern Munich) the best coaches in football (soccer) and Ron Wilson (Maple Leafs) plus John Tortorella (Rangers) as some of the best coaches in hockey. For some reason they did make the owners of these franchises to hire them. Actually this is a clear, straight forward and honest perspective. Hired by the best franchises for very good money!

Of course – you most probably already guess it… - this is also a simple, a very simple, a too simple perspective but a perspective you very often can find in the sports-media, especially in the ones with the very big letters and the very short main-clauses.

If you are a person who likes simple solutions, clear truths and clear untruthfulnesses you can stop here to read, you’ve got it already!

Personally I really dare to make it more complicated. I’m very seldom happy with simple ideologies although I admire the philosophical approach: “Beauty is simple and straight forward…” but just not in judging coaches.

I dare to tell

that if I – a simple football/soccer fan with close to non soccer-coaching-education – would be the coach of Real Madrid in the Spanish League – I would finish in the league-standings not worse than 4^th place…  and if I would be hired as the CEO of a world-famous bank I’m not so sure whether my year-end-result would be much worse than it is with the CEOs who are now in charge. I also want to refer to Adam Smith’s book “An Inquiry into Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”  - by the way this is maybe one of the most important books in the history of economic thought – according to Smith, the managers charged with supervising the daily operation of a firm are nothing more than “principal clerks”. He definitely didn’t overrate the impact of managers on the success or failure of an organization. And in my opinion the same goes for head-coaches in sport-teams. In this on first sight very bold statement you can find between the lines what I want to tell you undermentioned.

I want to tell you that I’m pretty sure that there is a big amount of coaches in all sports who would be as good as the Mourinhos, Van Gaals, Wilsons and Tortorellas in terms of actual performance as a coach, of course not in terms of selling- and networking-skills. E.g. Ottmar Hitzfeld – coach of the Swiss football national-team  – one of the most famous soccer-coaches worldwide is very well comparable with his predecessor, Köbi Kuhn. Nobody on this planet (except the Swiss) knows Köbi Kuhn, and his charisma is light-years below the one of Ottmar Hitzfeld. Köbi Kuhn did never ever had any success as a professional team-coach – he had somehow decent results with the Swiss junior-nationalteam, that’s it. These two coaches coached more or less the same team, the Swiss national-team and both had more or less the same results. If I would dig a bit deeper about the results I would even find that Köbi Kuhn was slightly better… And this with the same team, the same players what makes it a very fair comparison. My inner feeling did tell me similar things since many years also in hockey but I actually never did go so far trying to proof it. Lately I did start to go into this much deeper and not surprisingly I did find the following results of sport-studies in the book “stumbling on wins”.  I admire North American Sports-Culture. It is really advanced in terms of scientific studies about all possible aspects in pro-sports and this makes the discussions so much more factual. They did do some detailed studies about factual success of NBA-coaches. Not surprisingly they did find out that the most successful coaches in terms on winning championships are the ones of teams with the best players.

Other examples:

African National football-teams did enter the World-Cups many years ago with local coaches. Everybody admired their enthusiastic style but chuckled and the common truth was that they need just European coaches to make them play a more realistic style and then they will make the next steps towards Championships. Since this time I did watch all sort of coaches from all over the world in these African countries. Experienced coaches, intellectual coaches, ridiculous coaches, young, dynamic coaches…and you know what? They all had more or less the same results. African football-teams are still good enough to advance to a certain point in the World-Cup but not much further. There are no significant factual differences with whatever system, whatever coach, whatever something they try to improve. It’s still Brasil, Italy, Argentine, Germany, lately Spain and more or less Holland who dominate world-football and this again with completely different coaches. It actually doesn’t matter much. Italy became world-champion with Marcello Lippi four years ago and with exactly the same coach they completely failed in 2010. So… success or failure is not so much the influence of a coach, it’s more the players…and if not the players…some other, still uncovered influences… as this example with Marcello Lippi shows.

Is the influence of a coach overrated?

I don’t want to find an answer to this question I want to find an answer to the question “what is a good coach”? In my opinion a good coach is when players play better than they play with other coaches. This means if a coach can make the players playing better over a long period and in different teams than other coaches could do, this tells me that he is a good coach. But this can happen in a 3^rd-level pro-league as well as in the Stanley-Cup-Final. In the NBA they did find out that just one single coach did manage to reach this target. They did follow and measure everything about the ones of Pat Riley, Lenny Wilkins, Georg Carl all the other big names and they did find out that just Phil Jackson had a record of long term and returning better stats of players when they played for him. Just one single coach who had measurable better results than the others in the long term! This study of coaches stands in contrast with the conventional wisdom. Coaches are often credited with the wins and losses of their respective teams. Those coaches with better records are believed to be better coaches. For most coaches, though, one can’t find any statistically significant impact on player performance. This suggests that for most coaches, their win-loss record is ultimately about their players. Give the coach productive players, and he will coach a winner. Give the coach unproductive players, though, and suddenly the coach is a loser. Does this mean the head coach doesn’t matter? No, this is not what the research is saying. But it’s telling that most coaches produce similar results if they work with the same players but most coaches is not every coach and it also tells that most coaches are good coaches because the study didn’t compare the head-coach-results with an arm-chair-coach.

Conclusion:

As I did tell in a blog before: You have to have the target to find the best possible coach. This is nothing but a professional approach and I would take this very serious. At the same time I do really believe that it is in the sport-business the biggest hiring-challenge to find a so called no-name-coach who is at least as good as the supposed superstar-coaches. And I am a strong believer that this is a very realistic target. I admire Pittsburgh Penguins GM Ray Shero’s brave decision to promote no-name-coach Dan Bylsma as head-coach of the NHL-team. In my eyes it’s very likely that you will find very good coaches if you scout just in your local area, watching Minor-Pro or even amateur- or junior-games in whatever sports compared to the Major-Leagues. The problem is, just a handful GMs believe that some of these coaches would be as successful as the Mourinhos, Wilsons’ and Tortorellas. 

And to come to an end and 

answer the question in the headline: 

A good coach makes his players better than they were before with other coaches. Good coaches increase productivity of players.

Last but not least: 

Please don’t get me wrong: I wouldn’t hire myself as a head-coach of Real Madrid or as the CEO of a world-famous bank, I’m not qualified enough for these jobs, but still… I do stand to my according statements…

Thomas

How to build a hockey-team?

This is a very often discussed question and I read a lot about team-chemistry, about players who can play within a certain system and fit to other players, fit to a coach, fit to certain philosophies. Fair enough, I guess all these aspects are true a little bit but... just a little bit.

Basically I have a very simple answer to this question. You have to find the very best player to all different positions in hockey. If you have all the best players you most probably will win. I’m a very strong believer in this very simple strategy. Actually this strategy is very simple just on first sight, but more on this later. Of course I do know all these Cynderella-Stories like „Miracle on Ice“, smaller teams win Championships here and there – and all these stories are true and not just theses or fantasies. But... I do stand to it... if you have the best players you most probably will win. Let’s turn the page to Soccer: In the most famous European leagues always dominate the clubs with the most money. And in this European Club-Soccer-System it’s as simple as that: If you have the most money you can buy the best players. Unfortunately this system didn’t copy the great North American Pro-Sports with their draft-, trade, and some sort of salary-cap-system. The richest teams (Barcelona, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Manchester United, Milan, Inter, Bayern München)...these teams are the richest (forgive me if I did forget the one or the other) and by far the most succesful. We have thousands of other teams competing with much better team-chemistry, much better game-strategies, much better atmosphere and much more disciplined workers on the field... but they never will have a chance vs these most rich teams with the very best players. Wins vs these teams were and always will be exceptions. In the European hockey-leagues it’s the same story, at least in the tendency. The richer teams have basically the better players and are more succesful, again... always with exceptions...but as the word exception tells...there are exceptions.

In NHL-Hockey it’s not so obvious because of the great system with the yearly draft, trades and salary-cap. This is a absolutely clever and exciting pro-sport-system, I admire it. It makes this business so much more interesting! But in the very end....I come to the same simple conclusion: If you have the best players, you most probably will win! Earlier I did tell that this simple strategy is just simple on first sight because you have never endless money and you have the draft. So all your decisions will show you another side of the coin. You pay a price for everything you do and all this means that you have to be very clever – and be lucky - to build a winner!

So what would I do to try to build a winner within budget-restrictions – such as salary-caps – or working within a European team with just small money because I just can’t take the best players? First of all I would ask myself critical questions?

1  Shall I spend multimillions for star-players and then have less money compared to other teams to spend for complementary-players?

2.   What positions are the most important ones? For what positions I shall spend most money?

3.   How important is experience? Shall I pay players for what they did achieve in the past? Do they bring this extra to the team? How valuable is it to have this experience compared to the sometimes lack of energy when they are older?

4.   How important is the coaching-staff? Means, how much money is it worth to spend for coaches?

My answers:

I would start with a nucleus of 9 really good players. If you have 9 really good players you can survive as a hockey-team. So I would concentrate to spend my money fully on these nine players in the following priority:

1.1 Most important for me are the No1. and No.2 defensemen! I

      would spend most money for them.

1.2 You need two very good centermen and at least one very good,

      productive winger

    1.3 Then again I would go for a d-man (No. 3).

    1.4 It’s time now for the No.1-goalie. To survive you need decent

          goaltending.

    1.5 I would go for another two wingers who bring something

          special to the table (e.g. speed or strength or shooting, or excellent two-
          way-play).

After that you have to fill your basket with complementary-players. Personally I would have just very small money left for these complementary-players. Even in Europe – where people are much more sensitive to big differencies in salaries – I wouldn’t care about – and I would try to find players who don’t care about too much – who will be just proud to play with certain star-players and are more or less free of jealousy. My complementary-players would be either very strong character-players and/or young or even very young players. I don’t see a big enough quality-difference between an average skilled player and a below-average skilled player with great character. I don’t see a big enough quality-difference between an experienced average skilled player and a promising young or very young player who has a good character. Of course – as I told earlier – it’s always a question of compromises and in the very end – I would definitely loose some quality with my players 10-22. But the key-question is: Would I lose more than I did theoretically win with my 1-9 strategy?

I guess I did answer already the questions 1 and 2. What is my answer to the question No. 3?

Experience is slightly overrated in my eyes and what I absolutely don’t like about experience is to pay a player for what he did achieve in his career before. I don’t want to pay for what a player did do in the past, maybe even for another team. I would be prepared to pay good or even very good money for the present performance and even extra bonuses if something unexpected positive will happen. Examples what support my theses that experience is slightly overrated: The Pittsburgh Penguins did win the Stanley Cup with extremely young key-players and you actually can tell the same about the Chicago Blackhawks.

Coming to my question No. 4: How important is the coaching-staff? It’s very important in my eyes but not so much as it seems to be e.g. in European Soccer and in Swiss hockey where coaches are sometimes even better payed than the best players. An excellent head-coach has in my eyes an approx. value of a decent second or very good third-line-player. So, of course, it’s very important to choose the right coach, you can’t take this decision serious enough but on the other hand don’t let yourself get fooled by unrealistic expectations if you have a good coach. It’s more important to have the best players than to have the best coach. Various studies from American pro-sports support this theses. The questions and answers about what is a good coach will be the subject of one my next blogs. In the tendency underrated is the value of a good assistant-coach. I guess the coaching-package (combination of head-coach and assistant-coach) is very important. The assistant-coach basically should complement the head-coach and brings everything to the table what a head-coach is missing. E.g. if the headcoach is a extroverted, impulsive, emotional guy it’s important that the assistant is more introverted, analytical and the other way round. If a head-coach has very good knowledge about forwards it’s a good idea to hire an assistant who is specialized about defensemen and so on.

Another aspect is hiring of players, trading for players and drafting for players. There are two theories about this: Always drafting, trading or hiring players for what you actually need in terms of position - what your team is lacking - or do the same with the philosophy „best player available“. I’m a strong believer in the theory „best player available“ because all your players, especially your best players are always also assets on the trade-market. Of course it’s a complicated way to get just indirectly what you actually need, it takes time and energy but if you want to be best you have to pay this price. So I would always go for the best player available, either in the draft or in trades. I might end up with having three No.1-centermen and just one of them can fill this role in my team. So what? I will trade them and I will have an excellent return on invest if I’m a good trader. If I’m actually looking for a reliable and steady defensive d-man and a good one is on the market but at the same time a very good centerman is on the market for a comparable price, I definitely would go for the centerman and then would try to turn him into not only a reliable/steady defensive-defenseman but into an excellent defensive defenseman. This strategy needs time and will cause some pain on the way down the road but in the end, in my eyes, it will be the more succesful strategy in the big picture.

So, all this is my theory what you should think of if you try to build a succesful hockey-team. Yes, it’s theory, I do know very well from my life-experience – but I also don’t overrate my life-experience...smile... – that theory and what happens in reality are not always the same pair of shoes and we all have to be flexible in our minds and react sometimes fast to unexpected happenings. But still, you should have a certain strategy and I tried to paint mine. Looking forward to discuss this!


Thomas Roost / Central Scouting Europe, NHL

Positive thinking makes me feel sick!

Summer-time is always the time when GMs and coaches never stop to talk about how much better the team will be in the next season, how moch harder they did work in summer and in case of lacking spectacular transfers – how much better the team-chemistry is in this „new“ team. If a key-player suffers a serious-injury this is not bad at all it just means that other players have the chance to step up. If an old veteran is leaving it means this team has now more energy because of younger players. If an old veteran is new in a team it means that this transfer brings much needed experience to the team. If last season the team was not succesful with an extroverted, outspoken, active and rhetoric coach the same team has now an introverted analytical coach who is very good in developping young players. The very same coach was fired from a team who then did hire a more loud, active, motivational coach who will bring more energy to the bench and to the locker-room. If you talk behind closed doors with GMs they sometimes make jokes about another team who did offer their player „X“ a very good contract and signed him. „How stupid they are to offer player „X“ so much money“. If I talk to the other GM who „stupidly“ signed player „X“, he is making jokes about the other GM who did sign player „Y“ from their team. „How stupid they are to offer  „Y“ so much money...

In summer everybody did do just everything perfect. Everybody could realise their „dream-transfers“ – „we did follow this player since many years“... is an often heard sentence when presenting new import-player „Z“. If you then start to discuss a little bit more about this player you not very seldom will find out that they don’t know much more about this player than the stats and the selling-rhetorics of his agent“. Similar things happen in the NHL. Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke advertises his latest big trade – what did bring hard-nosed defenseman Dion Phaneuf from Calgary to Toronto – as a franchise-player with superstar-abilities. At the same time some discret voices in Calgary celebrate the excellent return on invest for Phaneuf because they think that Phaneuf is one of the most overrated players in the league... In summer everybody is with everything always happy and for everybody just good things are ahead.

All these rhetorics come from the completey overrated „positive-thinking-theories“ . They tell that if you just think positive strong enough you never will lose. In the end everybody is thinking just positive – and not just this – in summer in hockey everybody is just thinking naivly, unbelievable positive, just to find out three or four weeks later that they didn’t think positive enough... These theories even go so far that e.g. Lance Armstrong tells that the best thing happened in his life to him was that he got cancer.... PLEASE???? This is so sick! What a slap in the face of millions of people who did lose the fight with cancer. They did lose it because they didn’t think positive enough....common...please stop it!!! If you get a diagnose of a very serious illness this is NOT positive, it’s VERY bad! If in the Swiss league Biel’s key-player Emanuel Peter suffers a serious knee-injury this is not a chance for other players to step up, this is VERY bad for Biel and for their coaches! If you lose key-players because other teams offer more money – this is not the chance to bring more energy to the team with younger players – this is a serious loss of quality in your team! If the Pittsburgh Penguins lose Sidney Crosby because of a serious groin-tear it means that the Pens are in deep trouble to catch a playoff-spot. Why we don’t want to see the reality?

Please don’t get me wrong: I am a strong supporter of judging a glass of water half-full in stead of half-empty. But if the glass is not only empty but even broken on the floor – so we have to name it, loud and clear. There is nothing positive about a broken glass on the floor. We have to learn that the opposite of positive thinking is not pessimism. It’s the ability, to judge situations realistically and to ask critical questions. But especially in some cheap manager rhetoric-educations you learn that people who ask critical questions and put question-marks to new strategies or ideas are not the employees you need. These people are in danger to get fired sooner or later. The same cheap rhetoric is invading sports-franchises more and more. When will we find out that we just got trapped by trivial psychological theories?

Thomas Roost, Central Scouting Europe, NHL

NHL-Draft 2010 / Goalies

To my surprise two goalies were drafted in the first round. While Jack CAMPBELL was not a surprise at all - in my eyes he is a "high-end" prospect and already VERY close to be NHL-ready - the Phoenix Coyotes' pick Mark VISENTIN (27th overall) came with quite a big surprise, for me at least. Also in the second round two goaltenders were picked - so we have four goalies in the top60 in this draft and all this in a year I really did believe it will be not a good draft for goalies.  Thanks to "Goalies World" I have some interesting statistical facts: In 2009 the first four goalies picked in the NHL-Entry-draft were from Europe. This year it's more than the opposite: The first seven goalies picked in the 2010 NHL-entry-draft are all from North America! 21 goalies did get picked overall and only one of them is under 6 feet tall (Cody ROSEN, New York Islanders, he is "only" 5.11). 9 of the mentioned 21 goalies are 6.02 or taller! All this means that the trend of selecting big, tall goalies is ongoing. Personally I do agree with the tendency of counting on taller goalies, good size is definitely an advantage because nowadays a lot of tall goalies are quick, fast and mobile at the same time. However... I also think that the latest drafting-trend towards goalies is a bit exaggerated, I guess the "being taller means being better goalie-wisdom" is slightly overrated. What's on the horizon for 2011? Again I personally think it's a bad draft-year in terms of goalies but maybe again I will be surprised in June 2011.

Stats-desert and stats-heaven

Living in a country with healthy looking cows, juicy green grass, tidy roads, a pitoresque landscape and a great life-quality in general...  I still feel like living in a desert, I’m hungry and thirsty. I’m a hockey-man and compared to living in other hockey-countries I feel like a beggar in terms of hockey-stats. I can follow Swedish and other junior-league-games online and get informed by the minute about all the ongoing stats including plus/minus of all junior-players....hmm.... in Switzerland?

So I turn my head to North America and find my huge steak with a splendid smell of a great barbecue with a tasty and cosy glass of red-wine. I start to analyse the real stats what really helps me to discuss the real player performances.

In the NHL I did find my favourite stats. They tell us how much time a player needs to score a point. It more or less takes away the argument of not having enough ice-time and shows a relatively fair mirror of player-productivity.

Here we go: Who were the real best players in terms of point-production in the season 2009/2010:

1.     Alex OVECHKIN, WAS / he in average did need just 14.2 minutes on the ice to score a point.

2.     Daniel SEDIN, VAN / also 14.2

3.     Henrik SEDIN, VAN / 14.4

4.     Nicklas BACKSTROM, WAS / 16.4

5.     Alexander SEMIN, WAS / 16.6

6.     Sidney CROSBY, PIT / 16.9

7.     Steven STAMKOS, TB / 17.7

8.     Patrick KANE, CHI / 17.9

9.     Brad RICHARDS, DAL / 18.3

10. Marian GABORIK, NYR / 18.5

In terms of goalie-performance I did find this interesting, stats-based ranking of the season 2009/2010:

1.     Ryan MILLER, BUF / Save-Percentage 92.9% / 53 hot games, 10 ok games, 6 bad games (ratio 8-1-1), 4 steals, 5 shutouts and a shootout-percentage of 64.5%.

2.     Evgeni NABOKOV, SJ / Save-Percentage 92.2% / 46 hot games, 10 ok games, 11 bad games (ratio 6-2-2), 7 steals, 3 shutouts and a shootout-percentage of 74.0%.

3.     Tomas VOKOUN, FLA / Save-Percentage 92.5% / 44 hot games, 13 ok games, 11 bad games (ratio 7-2-1), 6 steals, 7 shutouts and a shootout-percentage of 61.2%.

4.     Henrik LUNDQVIST, NYR / Save-Percentage 92.1% / 50 hot games, 12 ok games, 11 bad games (ratio 7-2-2), 4 steals, 3 shutouts and a shootout-percentage of 68.2%.

5.     Miikka KIPRUSOFF, CGY / Save-Percentage 92.0% / 51 hot games, 13 ok games, 9 bad games (ratio 7-2-1), 8 steals, 4 shutouts and a shootout-percentage of 44.4%.

Explanation:

A hot game is a game with a save-percentage of 90% or more.

An ok game is a game with a save-percentage of 85-89.9%.

A bad game is a game with a save-percentage of < 85%.

A steal is a win in a game with at least 90% save-percentage and the team is outshot by the opponent by 10 shots or more.

Would be great to have hockey-discussions based on such analyses in my country, Switzerland. How long I do have to wait for this?

Thomas Roost, Central Scouting Europe, NHL

Assessing talent in a child

The perfect talent is a combination of a lot of things:
Size and strength: You have to be just big and strong enough, means not the bigger the better or the stronger the better, you just have to be big enough, let's say in modern and future hockey, if you are a forward you are big enough if you are 5.11 or bigger and you should have a frame with the potential filling out of 190 or more. If you are a d-man or a goalie you should be 6.00 or bigger, maybe as a goalie and a shut-down-dman 6.01 or even 6.02 or bigger. It doesn't mean that you won't become a hockey-player if you are smaller or not as strong, but it means it will be a disadvantage. 

In addition one of the most important abilities in prospects is the ability to learn to improve, to adapt what teachers tell. So it's a good thing as a scout to try to know the young players already when they are 14 or 15, judge and rank them and then follow their progress until their draft-year and then judge and rank them again. This result is always very interesting and it's not very often that the best 15 year old will be also the best 18 year old. Further on you need to have the possibilities to have more ice than others and to have the best possible teachers, worldclass teachers/coaches. The more you practice (quantity) and the better you practice (quality) and the faster you learn - the better player you will be. Very important is passion. If you just like to play hockey...this is not enough, you have to really love the game, you have to love to study the game, to watch the game, to play the game. If you just like the game and you like also a lot of other things...fair enough, you are a well-rounded person with an interesting life...but you most probably won't become a world-class-hockey-player. Mentally you should have a relaxed personality, composed and calm even in pressure-situations and at the same time you should have a certain positive aggression, competitive, love to compete and keen on winning. In the very end...if we are talking about world-class...it helps if you have the one or the other outstanding asset, you have to be top10 in the world in either stickhandling, using the body, skating, shooting, hockeysense, vision or whatever. It helps to have this one or two outstanding assets compared to a player who is good in everything but misses the one or the other really excellent, outstanding asset. Personality-wise it also helps if you have a certain level of egoism. If you have an altruistic personality like Mother Theresa you won't become a world-class hockey-player. YOU have to improve and YOU have to do everything that helps YOU improving. I don't mean that you have to have a highly egoistic personality - because this will not help you overall - but a bit more egoistic than the average would be just perfect. 


Further on: Watch the surroundings of a player. If his father was a good player and this father cares about the son's career...it definitely helps. If you know that the player takes on his own responsibility additional power-skating-lessons e.g. - it definitely helps. If you know that the prospect is studying games on the video and tries to identify passing-lanes or whatever...shooter-strategies (if you are a goalie) - it definitely helps. If the player has at least an average technical intelligence - it definitely helps. Again...not the more intelligence the better player you will be...it's just good enough if you have an average or better intelligence, average is enough. Don't overrate tactical discipline and disciplined defensive positioning in players who are really young, this is the easiest part to learn when you are older, but if you can't control the puck, if you can't skate...you won't learn this when you are 20. E.g. I have seen a couple of high-end Russian talents becoming great NHLers although they lacked completely tactical discipline when they were 16, 17 or 18. On the other hand I have seen enough young Swiss players who play so disciplined in a system and know already with 15 years how to close passing-lines and how to play the game without the puck - so they are able to compete in games, in terms of results - but in the end, nearly nobody of them did reach the hockey-olymp, the NHL, because they didn't develop the basic-skills enough (handskills, skating, moves, dekes, puckcontrol, physical strength). All this is from my 13 years experience as a scout for Central Scouting Europe. Of course there are other aspects. This is just the beginning of a maybe interesting discussion.


Thomas Roost, Central Scouting Europe, NHL

Maybe some interesting international pre-season-facts

I did put some efforts into researching some statistical comparisons between the most important hockey-countries and the according leagues. The qualifying date for my figures was 1st September 2010.


What countries (except Canada and USA who are lightyears away) do export the most players in the best paying leagues (NHL, KHL, SWE, FIN, SWI, GER, AHL)?


1. Sweden 113 players
2. Czech Republic 95
3. Finland 93
4. Slovakia 56
5. Russia 46
6. Germany 16
7. Switzerland 11




What countries (again without Canada/USA) do export the most players in the very best paying leagues? (NHL, KHL)?


1. Sweden 73 players
2. Czech Republic 66
3. Finland 43
4. Slovakia 39
5. Germany 10
6. Switzerland 7




What is the average size of a hockey-player in what league? (in cm)


1. NHL 185.78 cm
2. AHL 185.48
3. Sweden 183.82
4. Russia 183.76
5. Czech Republic 183.74
6. Germany 183.20
7. Slovakia 183.18
8. Finland 183.15
9. Switzerland 182.40




What is the average weight of a hockey-player in what league? (in kg)


1. NHL 91.40 kg
2. AHL 88.49
3. Russia 87.33
4. Sweden 87.23
5. Germany 86.11
6. Czech Republic 85.99
7. Switzerland 85.59
8. Finland 85.57
9. Slovakia 84.97




What is the average age of a hockey-player in what league?


1. AHL 23.39 years
2. Finland 24.52
3. Sweden 25.59
4. Czech Republic 26.67
5. Switzerland 26.74
6. Russia 26.93
7. NHL 27.07
8. Germany 27.12
9. Slovakia 27.27




Conclusions:
I’m Swiss so I dare to take the focus of these conclusions a bit to Switzerland. The low amount of exported players indicates that the quality of Swiss hockey is still overrated in my home-country. Especially if we take the figures of exported players to the very best paying leagues (significantly better paying leagues than the Swiss league). At least according to these figures It’s also an arrogant and naiv common Swiss view to think that German hockey is worse than Swiss, it’s very close in my eyes with Switzerland having a tiny little small edge in terms of depth but at the very top Germany is right there.


If you take a look at the age-average of the leagues one can easily notice that a player exodus abroad (e.g. Sweden, Finland) leads into a significantly younger home-league and this is probably one of the best instruments to develop younger players. They start to play on a high level already at a young age. Switzerland can’t really tell - with an age-average of close to 27 years - that it has a development-league. This honour goes to the AHL to Finland and to Sweden.


It looks like the Swiss have some problems in terms of height and weight. Yes, could be that the Swiss genetics leads into a little bit smaller people in average than in other hockey-countries but if you really study these figures you will easily find out that these differences are probably overrated: Even the small Swiss will find out that their tallest team, EHC Biel (average size 185.23 cm) would face 6 NHL-teams with a smaller size-average (Minnesota Wild, Montreal Canadiens, Colorado Avalanche, New York Islanders, Detroit Red Wings and the Nashville Predators) – this finding-out was a bit of a surprise for me! So, yes, Switzerland has to try to get a little bit bigger and stronger in average (scientific guided off-ice-training-programs and a little bit different player-recruiting can solve this small problem more or less). In my eyes the main-difference is still in the skill- and skating-department. Especially hand-skills, passing, shooting, puck-control is the main-problem and in terms of skating it’s the stability-part, not really the mobility. We also have some really fast, quick skaters but we don’t have enough players with stable, powerful skating.


So, let’s discuss these figures and my conclusions.


Thomas Roost / Central Scouting Europe, NHL

Zug-Arena

Did watch today my first game in the new Zug-arena and because the game was not really that exciting I offer here some of my first impressions about this new hockey-rink: Basically I guess it's ok, maybe even good overall. But to be honest there is nothing what I haven't seen before in other arenas around this planet. It's just one of these new arenas, not less and not more. There is nothing that really disapointed me but there is also nothing what I absolutely love and did make me...wow... What do I like: I like the good view from nearly all seats. I like the idea of putting the names in a stylish way of former players to some arena-walls really a nice and pleasant idea. I really also like the garbage systems close the food-stands - they are integrated in the walls. This looks really very nice, again stylish. The video-cube is good, nothing to complain about. From players side I did listen to some positive comments in terms of the locker-rooms and from my according short view I can confirm this. What I don't like: The accustic of the arena-speaker was not very good. I hardly could understand his questions and I definitely didn't understand the answers of the players. The chairs down low are close to the glass but not close enough. The distance between the rows in the lower part is too big, I agree with big enough distance for comfortable stretching the legs but this is too much and takes away atmosphere and seats, in addition the lower part is not steep enough. I don't like so much the seats, they push you back-down and this is not so comfortable, ok this is a very personal view. In the upper part I don't understand why they did put behind every seat some sort of iron something, so every seat looks like hand-luggage in the airports. In general it looks cool but maybe too cool, too much beton, not enough living-room-atmosphere. From the players-side I did hear complaints about the soft ice, so the ice-quality seems not be real good, maybe this has to do with the still ongoing some sort of summer but basically this complaints has to be taken serious by the Zug-management and ice-technicians. My big question-mark: Why they did put just 9 or so luxury-boxes? I guess exactly the luxury-boxes would be the huge potential in the Zug-area where you never will have an endless crowd but you have nearly endless international companies around who might be interested in luxury-boxes because they want to improve their reputation with the locals. I definitely question this VERY small amount of luxury-boxes. Overall: A good arena but nothing sensational, my critics is on a high level, means I'm pretty demanding in terms of arenas... so don't take my critics too much to your heart. I wish everybody happyness and fun in the new Bosshard-arena in Zug. Enjoy!

Stallikon, 26th August 2010

NHL-Trends 3 / Goalies - Mr. 50%?

Immer wieder wird behauptet, dass man nur mit einem erstklassigen Goalie eine Meisterschaft gewinnen kann und dass die Goalieposition die wichtigste sei im Eishockey. Martin Brodeur, einer der besten und erfolgreichsten NHL-Goalies aller Zeiten behauptet gar, dass der Eishockeygoalie die am wichtigsten zu besetzende Position im professionellen Mannschaftssport überhaupt sei! Weil Martin Brodeur nicht irgendwer sondern ein Goalie selbst ist – und somit befangen in seiner Aussage zu diesem Thema – bin ich stutzig geworden und habe versucht, diese These kritisch zu hinterfragen. Stutzig geworden bin ich auch darum weil in den letzten Jahren viele Meisterschaften gewonnen wurden von Teams die nicht mit einem Top-Goalie besetzt waren (z.B. die Detroit Red Wings mit Chris Osgood, Pittsburgh Penguins mit Marc-André Fleury, Chicago Blackhawks mit Antti Niemi. Auch in der Schweiz wird häufig nicht dasjenige Team mit dem besten Goalie Meister. Wichtig bei meinen diesbezüglichen Beobachtungen: Alle genannten Goalies sind keine schlechten Goalies sondern entsprachen in etwa in der jeweiligen Saison dem Durchschnitt der Liga wobei ich bei Chris Osgood eine Ausnahme mache, er ist aus meiner Sicht ein unterdurchschnittlicher NHL-Goalie und trotzdem haben die Red Wings mit ihm den Stanley-Cup gewonnen. Konklusion: Um Meisterschaften gewinnen zu können benötigt man einen mindestens durchschnittlichen Goalie aber es ist eine Mär, dass man nur mit einem Spitzengoalie Erfolg haben kann. Die Wichtigkeit der Goalieposition wird heute tendenziell überschätzt.



Wie komme ich zu dieser Einschätzung? Ich habe mir die Statistiken von Martin Brodeur angeschaut und sie mit den Statistiken durchschnittlicher Goalies verglichen. An dieser Stelle sei die Bemerkung erlaubt, dass die Evaluation von Goalieleistungen am einfachsten statistisch zu erfassen ist; dies im Vergleich mit den Leistungen der Stürmer und Verteidiger. Am einfachsten darum, weil die Goalieposition eine reaktive Position ist. Der Goalie hat „nur“ die Aufgabe, Schüsse aufs Tor unschädlich zu machen. Bei der Goalie-Evaluation hilft die so genannte Save-Percentage, die prozentuale Anzahl der abgewehrten Schüsse die aufs Tor kommen. Ich habe die Save-Percentage-Zahlen von Martin Brodeur mit dem Ligadurchschnitt verglichen. In seiner Karriere wurde Brodeur (Stand Ende Saison 2008/2009) 25'126 Schüssen ausgesetzt, davon resultierten 2'172 in einem Gegentor. Dies entspricht einer Save-Percentage von 91.4%. Im gleichen Zeitraum lag die durchschnittliche Save-Percentage-Zahl von NHL-Goalies bei 90.4% (an dieser Stelle ein herzliches Dankeschön an die Autoren des Buchs „Stumbling on wins“, David J. Berri und Martin B. Schmidt die diese Zahlen recherchiert haben). Dies ist für Insider ein beträchtlicher Unterschied und beweist, dass Martin Brodeur in diesem beobachteten Zeitraum (1991 – 2009) ein erstklassiger Goalie war. Rechtfertigen diese Zahlen aber auch die Aussage, dass die Goalieposition die wichtigste im professionellen Mannschaftssport überhaupt sei? Nein, keineswegs. Halten wir uns folgendes vor Augen: Ein durchschnittlicher Goalie hätte im selben Zeitraum von 16 NHL-Saisons 217 mehr Gegentore kassiert (bei derselben Anzahl Schüsse aufs Tor). Auf den ersten Blick schaut dies nach viel aus aber man muss diese 217 mehr Gegentore durch 16 Saisons teilen und dies ergibt nur gerade 13.5 mehr Gegentore pro Saison die ein durchschnittlicher Goalie gegenüber Martin Brodeur kassiert hätte und dies bei mehr als 80 Spielen! Wenn man diese Zahl verlinkt mit der Anzahl Punkte für die Mannschaft so bedeutet dies, dass diese 217 zusätzlichen Gegentore die Devils ungefähr 67 Punkte gekostet hätte (als Grundlage für diese Berechnung gilt die Regel, dass ein Sieg zwei Punkte ergibt), oder 33.5 Siege. Rhetorisch formuliert: Mit einem durchschnittlichen NHL-Goalie anstelle des weit überdurchschnittlichen Martin Brodeur hätten die Devils pro Saison 2.1 Siege weniger eingefahren als sie es mit Brodeur getan haben. 2.1 Siege weniger bei einem Spielplan von über 80 Spielen! Auf die Schweiz übertragen bedeutet dies, dass man mit einem mittelmässigen NLA-Goalie im Vergleich zu einem Spitzen-NLA-Goalie durchschnittlich ca. 1 Sieg weniger pro Saison holt. Hmmm…. Irgendwie tue ich mich extrem schwer mit diesen Zahlen….aber….es sind Fakten und wir tun sicher gut daran, diese nicht einfach so zu verwerfen, sondern darüber nachzudenken.


Für mich bedeutet dies, dass auch die Goalieposition - wie jede andere im Eishockey – extrem gut besetzt sein muss. Jede Rekrutierung muss im professionellen Eishockey bestmöglich und mit grösster Sorgfalt erfolgen (vom Top-Import-Player bis hin zum Materialwart und zum Administrationsassistenten). Am Schluss entscheiden Details über Erfolg oder Nichterfolg und darum plädiere ich zu möglichst professionellen Auswahlverfahren bei allen Angestellten in einer Eishockey-Franchise. Es bedeutet aber auch, dass die Goalieposition vielerorts unkritisch überbewertet wird. Ich kenne Franchises bei denen die Goalieposition über 10% der gesamten „Payroll“ auffrisst und dies ist definitiv zu viel. Wir müssen bei der Goaliefrage sachlicher werden und romantische Hexer-Geschichten über „Board“ werfen. Ein Goalie muss den Puck stoppen, that’s it. „He has to get his job done“ nicht mehr und nicht weniger. Für dies muss er anständig bezahlt werden, aber weder ein Goalie noch ein Trainer kann Wunderdinge bewirken. Wir müssen die Zauber-Mythen bekämpfen.


In den vergangenen Wochen haben verschiedene NHL-Teams begonnen, der unkritischen Explosion der NHL-Goaliegehälter zu widerstreben. Dies führte beispielsweise dazu, dass der Klassegoalie Evgeny Nabokov kein befriedigendes Angebot der San Jose Sharks erhalten hat und neu in der KHL spielen wird. Ein weiteres Beispiel: Der Stanley-Cup-Sieger mit den Chicago Black Hawks, Antti Niemi, ist am 24. August 2010 noch immer ohne Team, obwohl er mit 2.7 Mio Dollar Gehalt nur zu den unterdurchschnittlich verdienenden Spielern gehört. Die NHL-Bosse sind sensibler geworden auf Forderungen von NHL-Goalies und behelfen sich mit „Deals“ wie demjenigen mit Martin Gerber. Vielleicht weil sie ahnen, dass sie mit dem 500'000 Dollar-Mann Martin Gerber nur maximal zwei Spiele weniger gewinnen als beispielsweise mit Evgeny Nabokov?






Stallikon, 24. August 2010 / Thomas Roost NHLTrends3Goaliemythos.doc

NHL-Trends 2 - Immer weniger Europäer

Noch vor 5 Jahren warnte das legendäre „Hockey Night in Canada“-Aushängeschild, Don Cherry – der Christoph Blocher des kanadischen Hockeys – vor einer Ausländerinvasion in der NHL. Es waren die Zeiten in denen Jahr für Jahr mehr Europäer in der „Big League“ Fuss fassten und es waren die Zeiten in denen wir Europäer überzeugt waren, die besseren Ausbildungskonzepte für Eishockeyspieler zu haben als die Nordamerikaner. Den Kanadiern und US-Amerikanern wurden in der Regel technische und läuferische Defizite nachgesagt. Die NHL-Franchises rüsteten ihre Scouting-Teams in Europa auf und dies obwohl Don Cherry die europäischen Spieler pauschalisierend als Weicheier betitelte.



Seit geraumer Zeit hat der Wind gedreht. Es werden kaum mehr Schweizer Spieler für die NHL gedraftet. Dies hat mich dazu bewegt, die Gründe hierfür zu beleuchten. Ja, ich bin der Meinung, dass unser Juniorenhockey stagniert hat in den letzten Jahren. Stagniert auf recht hohem Niveau, allerdings nicht auf einem Niveau das nicht verbessert werden könnte und verbessert werden muss. Es war noch nie die Stärke des Schweizer Eishockeys, gute Einzelspieler zu produzieren. Taktisch kluges Verhalten, disziplinierte defensive Laufwege und das Warten auf die Fehler des Gegners; dies zeichnete unser Hockey in den letzten Jahren vor allem aus. Die rückläufige Anzahl Draftpicks deutet sogar darauf hin, dass wir schlechter geworden sind und diese These wollte ich mit meinen Recherchen untermalen oder relativieren. Bei meinen Recherchen bin ich auf erstaunliche Resultate gestossen. Dies vorneweg: Ja, wir sind „draftmässig“ spürbar schwächer geworden, aber nicht nur wir, es ist ein europäisches Problem mit Ausnahme der Schweden. Doch dazu später mehr. Es wurden in den letzten Jahren sehr deutlich weniger Europäer gedraftet als noch vor 5-10 Jahren!

2005, das Jahr nach dem Lockout, war der Wendepunkt, der Niedergang der europäischen Eishockeyjunioren hat begonnen. Ja, der neue Gesamtarbeitsvertrag hat die Anzahl Draftrunden von neun auf sieben reduziert. Dies die eine aber nur ansatzweise befriedigende Antwort auf weniger europäische Draftpicks.


Hier die Fakten:

In den Jahren 1999-2004 wurden insgesamt 626 Europäer gedraftet. 2005-2010 waren es noch lediglich 322, ein Rückgang von beinahe 50% und dies bei einer Reduktion von 9 auf 7 Runden, was ca. 22% entspricht. Vergleich Schweiz: 1999-2004: 28 Spieler. 2005-2010: 10 Spieler, entspricht einem ungefähren Rückgang von 64%. Die Russen verzeichnen in diesen beiden Zeitspannen einen Rückgang von 90%. Die neu gegründete KHL spielt da sicher eine gewichtige Rolle aber nicht nur. Der Rückgang bei den Finnen beträgt 45%, bei den Slovaken 70% und bei den Tschechen 65%. Die einzige Nation die die Anzahl Draftpicks in der Zeit von 2005 bis 2010 gegenüber der gleichlangen Vorperiode steigern konnte ist Schweden und zwar um stolze 21%. Diese Zahlen sind für mich darum sehr erheblich weil sie nichts mit der Anzahl lizenzierter Spieler und nichts mit der Einwohnerzahl zu tun haben sondern diese Zahlen vergleichen sich mit sich selbst.

 Konklusion:
Die Schweden dürfen sich auf die Schultern klopfen, währenddessen sich die Finnen harte und die Tschechen, Slovaken und Schweizer sehr harte Fragen stellen sollten. Weil ich in der Schweiz aufgrund meiner Beobachtungen nicht davon ausgehe, dass in den letzten 5 Jahren schlechter gearbeitet wurde – dies im vermuteten Gegensatz zu Nationen wie Tschechien und der Slovakei – muss ein weiterer Grund in der Erstarkung der Nordamerikaner liegen und diese Erstarkung erfolgte vor allem in den USA. Die USA hat in den letzten 5 Jahren ihre NHL-Draftees mehr als verdoppelt im Vergleich zu den Jahren 1999 – 2004! Dies ist ein eindeutiges Resultat und erfolgte unter den erschwerten Bedingungen des um zwei Runden reduzierten Drafts! All diese Zahlen untermauern die subjektiven Beobachtungen, dass in den letzten Jahren die Schweden und die US-Amerikaner unserem Niveau enteilt sind. Die heutige Hierarchie bei den Spielern im Alter zwischen 16 und 24 Jahren lautet für mich:

 1a) Kanada

1b) USA

3 Schweden


dann ein spürbarer Abstand zu

4 Russland


dann wieder ein spürbarer Abstand zu

5a) Finnland

5b) Tschechien

erneut ein spürbarer Abstand zu
7a Schweiz
7b Slovakei


ein sehr kleiner Abstand zu
9 Deutschland


anschliessend sehr kleine Abstände zu Nationen wie
Dänemark, Weissrussland, Norwegen


Für die Zukunft gibt es tendenzielle Anzeichen, dass die Slovakei hinter die Schweiz zurückfallen könnte. Die Schweiz und Deutschland stagnieren auf dem aktuell achtbaren Niveau. Norwegen und Dänemark rücken auf, Weissrussland wird vermutlich mittelfristig ebenfalls aufrücken, kurzfristig sehe ich aber noch keine diesbezüglichen Anzeichen in Weissrussland ausser, dass mit dem Segen der Regierung viel Geld ins Eishockey investiert wird (Präsident Lukachenko ist ein grosser Eishockeyfan).
 Der nachweisbar dramatische Rückgang der Anzahl europäischer Draftpicks hat in einigen NHL-Organisationen bereits zu einem stark spürbaren Stellenabbau bei den europäischen Scouts geführt. In jedem Sommer werde ich damit konfrontiert, dass dieser und jener Scout keinen neuen Vertrag mehr erhalten hat und dies hat in der Regel weniger mit dem Scout sondern sehr viel mehr mit dem ausgetrockneten Talentmarkt in Europa zu tun. Wenn es in Europa weniger NHL-Talente gibt dann braucht es in Europa weniger NHL-Scouts, so einfach ist diese Rechnung. Ich weiss es daher sehr zu schätzen, dass mein Vertrag - trotz weitgehend ausbleibender Schweizer NHL-Draftpicks - wiederum verlängert wurde. Dies ist unter diesen Umständen (Rückgang der Anzahl Schweizer Draftpicks in den letzten 5 Jahren um 64%!) nicht selbstverständlich. Es gibt auch Stimmen, die das Fehlen eines gesamteuropäischen Transferagreements mit der NHL als Grund für den Rückgang der europäischen Draftpicks sehen. Diese Ansicht teile ich nur sehr bedingt, denn wichtige Länder, u.a. auch die Schweiz, haben dieses „Agreement“ nicht unterschrieben womit vorläufig fest steht, dass man die Rechte an einem gedrafteten Spieler aus der Schweiz nicht nur zwei Jahre – wie im neuen Gesamtarbeitsvertrag vorgesehen – sondern sehr viel länger behält und die NHL-Clubs zudem auch die vorgesehenen $200'000.— nicht bezahlen müssen. Auf Juniorenstufe sieht es anders aus. Immer mehr Europäer versuchen sich in den nordamerikanischen Juniorenligen. Die russischen Agenten reagieren auf die restriktive Vertragspolitik der KHL mit einem Exodus ihrer Nachwuchstalente. D.h. sie empfehlen ihren 16/17-jährigen Talenten, keinen Profivertrag in der KHL zu unterschreiben weil sie dann auf Jahre hinaus an die KHL gebunden sind. Die Alternative zu einem Profivertrag in der KHL ist ein Wechsel in die kanadische CHL und dieser Weg wird von jungen Russen jüngst wieder häufiger beschritten. Auffallend ist, dass nur sehr wenige Skandinavier den CHL-Weg wählen und dies wiederum öffnet die Tore für andere Nationen wie z.B. die Schweiz und Deutschland. Je 5 Schweizer und Deutsche wurden in diesem Jahr im CHL-Import-Draft gezogen und meines Wissens alle davon folgen diesem Ruf aus Nordamerika. Zu glauben, dass dies in den deutschsprachigen Ländern zu mehr NHL-Draftpicks führen wird wäre aber naiv.
 Zurück zu den USA. Der eindrückliche Anstieg an USA-NHL-Draftpicks ist ein Indiz dafür, dass der Weltmeistertitel 2010 bei den U20-Junioren nur ein erstes Müsterchen von dem ist was aus den USA noch kommen wird. Die Kanadier müssen sich warm anziehen und selbst die sich sensationell verbesserten Schweden werden sich unter diesen Umständen sehr schwer tun, um ihren Anstrengungen mit einem Junioren-Weltmeistertitel die Krone aufsetzen zu können.

Eishockey-Europa hat ein Problem. Kanada war schon immer top und wird immer top bleiben, relativ unabhängig von ihren Ausbildungsprogrammen. Die USA mutiert zur neuen Hockey-Supermacht. Schweden ist aktuell die einzige europäische Nation die sich mehr oder weniger erfolgreich dagegen wehrt, von den beiden Nordamerikanern abgehängt zu werden.






Stallikon, 16. August 2010 / Thomas Roost NHLTrends2wenigerEuroäer.doc

NHL-Trends 1 / Durchschnittsverdiener unter Druck

Drei-Sterne-Hotels*** sind unter Erfolgsdruck. Es mehren sich die Anzeichen, dass sie mehr und mehr von der Bildfläche verschwinden. Ein ähnlicher Trend ist in der NHL zu sehen. Doch dazu später.

In der Tourismusbranche ist seit längerer Zeit ein Trend hin zu Fünfsterne-Plus-Hotels einerseits und zu günstigen Schnäppchenhotels andererseits zu erkennen. Zahlungsfähige Klienten wollen nur das Beste und der Preis spielt hierfür eine untergeordnete Rolle. Gleichzeitig werden aber auch sehr pragmatisch Hotelzimmer ausgewählt, zum Teil von derselben Klientel, situationsbedingt. Praktische, saubere Hotels ohne Schnörkel, ohne ungewünschte Servicedienstleistungen zu einem vorteilhaften Preis „boomen“ ebenso wie die „High-End-Häuser“. Mittelklassehotels mit mittelmässigem Komfort und mittelmässigem Service kämpfen mehr und mehr ums Ueberleben.

Wieso dieser Exkurs in die Tourismusbranche? Ein sehr ähnliches „Kaufverhalten“ ist jüngst in der NHL zu beobachten. Die GMs sind einerseits bereit, für die absoluten Top-Spieler Höchstpreise zu bezahlen. Die mittelmässigen Spieler haben hingegen einen sehr schweren Stand in den Vertragsverhandlungen und werden mehr und mehr durch so genannte „Schnäppchenspieler“ ersetzt. Spieler die nur unwesentlich schwächer sind als die Mittelklasse – falls überhaupt – und aber bereit sind, für einen „Dumpingpreis“ in der NHL zu spielen. Verzeihen Sie mir das Wort „Dumpingpreis“ wenn wir von sehr gut bezahlten Spitzensportlern sprechen aber ich möchte dies ganz einfach in Relation stellen zu dem was ansonsten in den NHL-Vertragsverhandlungen abgeht (Beispiel Kovalchuk-Deal). Leidtragende dieser Entwicklung sind mittelmässige NHL-Spieler die auf Verträge in der Höhe zwischen 2 und 3 Millionen Dollar hoffen. Solche Verträge sind aktuell sehr schwer zu erhalten weil sich die GMs ausrechnen, dass es ebenso gute Spieler gibt die auch für ein Salär zwischen 500´000 und 800´000 unter Vertrag genommen werden können. Beispiel hierfür: Der Finne Niemi, Stanley-Cup-Sieger mit den Chicago Blackhawks, ein 2.7 Mio-Mann, tut sich sehr schwer, irgendwo unterzukommen. Martin Gerber, neuerdings „nur“ noch ein 0.6 Mio-Mann, hat bereits einen Vertrag bei den Edmonton Oilers.

Hinsichtlich der Salary-Cap-Problematik (reglementarische Salärobergrenze für die Gesamtlohnsumme) gewinnt das wirtschaftliche Denken bei den Vertragsverhandlungen mit Ergänzungsspielern immer mehr an Bedeutung. Gewinner in diesem GM-Strategiewechsel sind gute Spieler aus den europäischen Ligen einerseits und junge hoffnungsvolle eigene Spieler - so genannte „Draftees“ - andererseits. Bleiben wir bei den Europäern. Die Beispiele Blindenbacher und Gerber sind sehr typisch für diese Entwicklung. Dallas steht im Umbruch und hat kurzfristig keine Ambitionen. Dallas wird über den Draft mittelfristig ein neues Team aufbauen. In einer solchen Situation ist es widersinnig, für mittelmässige NHL-Verteidiger Millionenbeträge auszugeben. Forderungen dieser Art werden vom Management kalt lächelnd und ohne Kommentar zurückgewiesen. Ersetzt werden diese Spieler durch eigene Draftpicks und ergänzt durch den einen oder anderen Europäer der bereit ist, für deutlich weniger als 1 Million Dollar zu spielen. Exakt dasselbe gilt für die Edmonton Oilers. Die Oilers sind bereits weiter im Aufbauprozess als die Dallas Stars. Die jungen Spieler (Hall, Pääjärvi und ansatzweise auch Eberle), sind positioniert und werden im nächsten Draft hoffentlich durch ein weiteres Supertalent ergänzt. In zwei Jahren spielen die Oilers wieder um einen Playoff-Platz aber vermutlich noch nicht in diesem Jahr. Soll man in einer derartigen Situation viel Geld ausgeben für einen Nr. 2-4-Goalie? Selbstverständlich nicht. Martin Gerber bietet sich in dieser Konstellation als hervorragend geeignet an. Ein solider Goalie, charakterstark und günstig. Ein Schnäppchen für die Oilers: Wenig Geld ausgegeben, kein Risiko. Ein Schnäppchen ist es aber auch für die Spieler Blindenbacher und Gerber. Beide stehen mit diesen Deals im Schaufenster der NHL und haben die theoretische Chance, sich mit guten Leistungen für einen weit höher dotierten Nachfolgevertrag zu empfehlen. Dieses Szenario würde aus heutiger Sicht allerdings überraschen. Ich glaube nicht, dass weder Dallas noch die Oilers grosse Mittelfristpläne hegen mit ihren Schweizer Verpflichtungen. Trotzdem sind die Deals aus Schweizer hoch einzuschätzen. Es ist als Zeichen des Fortschritts zu werten, wenn einige unserer Spieler als „Ausverkaufs-Schnäppchen“ in den Einkaufstaschen von NHL-Teams landen. Bei Roman Wick beurteile ich die Situation als tendenziell anders. Er hat reelle Chancen, sich für einen lukrativen Nachfolgevertrag zu empfehlen. Aktuell ist er aber auch nicht mehr – und auch nicht weniger – eine Art Testspieler, d.h. ein Spieler der so gut ist, dass man ihm einen Vertrag gibt, aber (noch) nicht so gut, dass dieser Vertrag echt lukrativ und langfristig ausgelegt ist. Vermutlich werden mehr und mehr Schweizer und Deutsche solche Vertragsangebote erhalten. Dies verkompliziert die strategische Planung für die Teams in unserer Liga denn kaum ein Spieler wird künftig einen Vertrag ohne NHL-Ausstiegsklausel unterschreiben. Wer will es ihnen vergönnen? Der Lockruf NHL ist noch immer das „Non Plus Ultra“ für jeden Hockeyspieler und wenn sich die Tür öffnet dann muss man die Chance auch packen. Wie gesagt, all dies ist auch ein Zeichen des Fortschritts für die Qualität unserer Spieler. Ein



Fortschritt zwar, aber noch kein Durchbruch. Von einem Durchbruch und dem letzten Schritt zum erweiterten Kreis der absoluten Weltklasse fehlen uns ein halbes Dutzend Spieler die bei NHL-Vertragsgesprächen den Verhandlungsverlauf selbstbewusst mitbestimmen können, d.h. Spieler bei denen es darum geht, ob sie für 4, 5 oder 6 Millionen Dollar pro Saison unterschreiben. Oder wie wärs mit einem Schweizer Spieler bei dem das NHL-Schiedsgericht den Vertrag annullieren muss weil der Spieler so begehrt ist, dass die Verhandlungspartner die Gesamtarbeitsvertragsabsichten virtuos umkurven?


Thomas Roost / 18. August 2010