Salary Evaluation Equation

[Darkstone42]

i did not know luongos cap hit was that low. how can you say that is overpaid? what is fleury then?

I thought his hit was $7 million. Just a mis-evaluation. Like I said above, he's no more than $500K overpaid.

And Fleury is overpaid. But has the talent to play his way into that contract. Right now he's worth about 3 - 3.5 I'd say.

 

[scottflyers88]

if luongos cap hit is 5.3 mil i would say he is underpaid.

 

[Darkstone42]

if luongos cap hit is 5.3 mil i would say he is underpaid.

Based on his career numbers, definitely. Last season he played just (and I mean just) below his contract. It's very likely that next season he'll rebound on it and play above his contract.

 

[naslundfan19]

Based on his career numbers, definitely. Last season he played just (and I mean just) below his contract. It's very likely that next season he'll rebound on it and play above his contract.

Boy, I hope you're right, Chris!

 

[Darkstone42]

Boy, I hope you're right, Chris!

Well, laws of statistics suggest a regression to the norm. So that's what I anticipate.

 

[puckhead]

OK........ Here's the Canuck breakdown:
caveat: I used last year's regular season stats, but this upcoming year's salary cap.
(DS - this could be the Luongo differential - his cap hit last year was $6.75m, next year if $5.3m)

Canucks only have three overpaid players, and even then they are by minimal amounts
Kesler $5.0 million - overpaid by $125k. as a 2x Selke nominee, that's just fine.
Hordichuck $0.625m - overpaid by $430k (technically $125 k, as he can only be a league min player
Malhotra $2.5 m - overpaid by a mere $23k

Sedins $6.1m - are each underpaid by about a million bucks each (hometown discount!)
Burrows $2.0m - underpaid by $2.35 mill
Samuellson $2.5m - underpaid by $1.3mill
J Tambellini $0.5m - underpaid by $1.6 mill (?!?) - didn't get in many games, but was productive.

also rather interesting, the equation suggests the following RFA contract levels:
M Raymond - $3.4 million. I would guess it should be between $2.5 - $3.0
J Hansen - $1.7 million. Again, that's about $7-800k too much.


I'm sure the formatting will be all messed up, but here's the data points anyways
==============================================================
actual calculated
games points p / g cap hit cap hit differential
H Sedin 82 112 1.3659 6.1 7.2790 1.1790
D Sedin 63 85 1.3492 6.1 7.1903 1.0903
R Kesler 82 75 0.9146 5 4.8744 -0.1256
A Burrows 82 67 0.8171 2 4.3544 2.3544
M Samuelsson 74 53 0.7162 2.5 3.8169 1.3169
M Raymond 82 53 0.6463 3.4445
J Hansen 47 15 0.3191 1.7008
T Glass 67 11 0.1642 0.625 0.8750 0.2500
R Rypien 69 8 0.1159 0.55 0.6179 0.0679
D Hordichuk 56 2 0.0357 0.625 0.1903 -0.4347
M Malholtra 71 33 0.4648 2.5 2.4770 -0.0230
V Oreskovich 50 6 0.1200 0.575 0.6395 0.0645
J Tambellini 36 14 0.3889 0.5 2.0725 1.5725

 

[Darkstone42]

I'm inspired, Puck. I did the same thing for the Penguins. As it turns out, the Penguins are spending, according to this formula, $2.275 million more than they should be on their players. Of course, when you see where the over-payments are, a couple will stand out as they clearly possess other qualities.

Also, I used three-year averages for this analysis. I thought it would be more telling.

This will simply list the Penguins' forwards from most overpaid to least overpaid, and the number next to them will be the value of overpayment.

Malkin: +1.9
Crosby: +1.5
Staal: +1.3
Godard: +0.5 (or, if you consider that the League minimum is 0.55, +0.2)
Kunitz: +0.325
Rupp: -0.075
Cooke: -0.1
Adams: -0.15
Talbot: -0.55
Dupuis: -0.8
Kennedy: -1.575

 

[puckhead]

fwiw, the Canucks are getting $7.3 million more "value" out of their forwards than they are paying.
(the two outstanding RFA players are not included until they get their contracts.)

given the number of players who had career offensive seasons last year, that kind of makes sense.

 

[Darkstone42]

fwiw, the Canucks are getting $7.3 million more "value" out of their forwards than they are paying.
(the two outstanding RFA players are not included until they get their contracts.)

given the number of players who had career offensive seasons last year, that kind of makes sense.

That's pretty solid. Beyond that, one of your "overpaid" players was also a Selke nominee. So he really wasn't overpaid when you consider overall value.

 

[Dacks]

Hey Darkstone, why force an intercept at all? And why only work with a linear trendline? Why not try others to see if they give a better r-squared value? Have you plotted the residuals?

 

[Darkstone42]

Hey Darkstone, why force an intercept at all? And why only work with a linear trendline? Why not try others to see if they give a better r-squared value? Have you plotted the residuals?

I could very well go without an intercept. I just forced the intercept to simplify the equation. And I'm working with a linear trend line because only a polynomial fit works better, but the difference between the two is incredibly small, and the linear equation is much easier to work with and makes more sense (at least to me) from an economic standpoint. Although the polynomial trend might be an interesting one to look at, and once I get back to my lap top so I can look at it, I'll post that as well. I'll also post the linear equation without forcing an intercept, and then we can go from there.

Once thing I did notice about the polynomial fit was the the higher salary/higher production players fell in better correlation between their production and salaries, but the middle guys fell above the line more frequently.

 

[Darkstone42]

Okay, so here are the linear equation without a forced intercept and the polynomial equation.

y = 5.619x - 0.2014 (R^2 = 0.6577)

y = 1.2265x^2 + 4.1743x + 0.1105 (R^2 = 0.6618)

The linear fit gives a better fit to mid-level players and the polynomial for high-end players, for what it's worth. The polynomial's fit is overall better than the linear fit, though.

 

[puckhead]

Okay, so here are the linear equation without a forced intercept and the polynomial equation.

y = 5.619x - 0.2014 (R^2 = 0.6577)

y = 1.2265x^2 + 4.1743x + 0.1105 (R^2 = 0.6618)

The linear fit gives a better fit to mid-level players and the polynomial for high-end players, for what it's worth. The polynomial's fit is overall better than the linear fit, though.

surprising that r2 is pretty damned similar on all of them

 

[Darkstone42]

surprising that r2 is pretty damned similar on all of them

The polynomial curve barely curves at all. That probably has something to do with it.

 

[puckhead]

no one else wants to ruin their team through the ringer?

 

[RangersReds03]

no one else wants to ruin their team through the ringer?

I already know Sather sucks

 

[Dacks]

If the r2 doesn't improve significantly, might as well stay with your original equation since it's simpler. I'd love to see the scatterplot though. Assume you did this with excel? Why don't you save an image of the scatterplot with trendline, and upload it for us all to see? We can have fun trying to determine the outliers...

 

[Darkstone42]

If the r2 doesn't improve significantly, might as well stay with your original equation since it's simpler. I'd love to see the scatterplot though. Assume you did this with excel? Why don't you save an image of the scatterplot with trendline, and upload it for us all to see? We can have fun trying to determine the outliers...

I'm trying to do that, actually. The file's not cooperating so far, but I'm sure I'll pull it off sooner rather than later.

 

[Darkstone42]

And here they are. Got it!

 

[puckhead]

And here they are. Got it!

nice. i think I know who the outlier at $7m, 0.4 ppg is

I'm curious who the three are at the far end of the 500k level (in a line)
I think i see Burrows, too.