Koivu Contract Continues to Confuse

However, when someone from ESPN, the Worldwide Leader in Knowing Nothing About Hockey, chimes in, it makes me take notice, and makes me want to read what type of beautiful ignorance they can come up with. Was it analysis from Barry Melrose, John Buccigross, or Pierre LeBrun? No. Why would we want to include the handful of guys at ESPN that have actually watched more than the Stanley Cup Finals?

No, it's stats and analysis man Peter Keating, who also writes their "Ultimate Standings" articles, which Hockey Wilderness has contributed to in the past . To make matters worse? They bury the article behind their "Insider" area to make those who wish to read it pay for a service they'll never use again.

I gained access. Join me, won't you?

First off, let me give you ESPN's bio on Keating:

Got it. Stats guy. Check. Let's look at his hypothesis:

Get new statistics? At Statistics R Us, or what? It's not true that there are aspects of the NHL and players that cannot be explained by stats? Man... thanks for saving us from ourselves. Here I thought "Moneyball" was a book about baseball. But hey, let's see what the man has to say, shall we?

Let's be clear. GVT is a great stat, sheds some light on how players compare to each other. Not going to knock the stat. And I will stipulate that Mikko ranks 19th in that statistical category. Puck Prospectus does great work. Half the time, I can't figure out what it is they are trying to tell me, but I'm not much of a stats guy.

We'll accept Peter at his word on this section and keep the knowledge in our back pockets, shall we? Next up:

Agreed. That should not even be in an article telling me that Koivu isn't worth his money. Thornton, St. Louis, or Hossa? Sounds good to me, but hey, maybe that's just me.

No sir, these are not the things that traditionalists call "intangibles." Intangibles are things like leadership, who wins the battles in the corner, the intensity on ice and off, the ability to play in multiple situations and not lose a step. Intangibles are, by definition, things that cannot be measured. Faceoff wins is such a standard statistic, it is included in every fantasy hockey league ever made.

Buried in this paragraph is the line "Further, Koivu has started a majority of his possessions in the defensive zone over the past three seasons." Indeed, he has, but that wouldn't be to prevent the other team from scoring, right? I mean, since you say that Koivu's time as a shut down center is over. It must just be because it was Mikko's turn on the ice, and it's just coincidence that it was in the defensive zone.

There's that number again. 19th. It was so important that it had to be set off from the rest of the sentence. 19th. Same as his rank for GVT. Interesting. Moving on.

He's not a top five-or-ten guy, he's a top 20 guy. So... around, say 19th? Koivu ranks 17th in the GVT per million stat. 17th. 19th. Top 20. Got it. Next?

OK. My turn now, good sir. You say that the Wild are paying Koivu $1.2 million more per year than his production justifies. This is where you lose me. Which production are you referring to? Are you going back to goals and points? Could be, but  Mikko ranked 24th in points, and just 78th in goals. So which one is it? Maybe it is the categories in which Mikko finished 19th? Or was it GVT per million dollars, where Mikko finished 17th?

I'm only asking all of these questions because Mikko's new $6.75 million cap hit would rank him 21st in salary cap hit, according to NHLNumbers.

But hey. Paying a guy the 21st highest average salary for ranking 17th in at least one of your quoted stats, and 19th in two others, plus calling him a "top-20 guy" seems to be not worth it. All of the metrics Peter used suggest that Koivu is somewhere between the 17th and 19th best player in the NHL. Well... except for that pesky faceoff stat, where he is second only to Sid the Kid.

This begs the question: If he is somewhere between 17th and 19th, how is paying him the 21st highest average salary not a good deal?