Is Casey Cizikas really anything special?

The Isles announced the signing of two of their three remaining RFAs* today: Calvin de Haan was signed to a 3 year just under 6 Million dollar contract, and Casey Cizikas signed a 2 year 2 Million dollar deal.  Both of these contracts are reasonable for what the guys are:  de Haan’s 2 million per year is a pretty standard rate for a Bridge Contract given to an RFA in the NHL, and getting the third RFA year at that rate is a reasonable compromise for a guy with an injury history (instead of getting the first two years cheaper, the Isles get his long term contract started a year later, with him being an RFA after this deal – assuming he pans out again).  Cizikas’ one-way 1 Million per year rate is a pretty standard 4th line rate, and is only a slight raise over what he made last year (900K) although it’s no longer 2-way.  In short, neither deal should be considered a big deal either way, and both are pretty in-line with league prices.  Neither incidentally should commit the Isles long term to either player, although the Isles are more likely to be reluctant to cast off de Haan’s deal even if de Haan busts the next two years.

*Kevin Poulin is the last RFA given a QO and is awaiting his chance at arbitration.

That said, there’s a bunch of talk from Isles fans about how good deals both of these are.  I’m not going to talk about de Haan now (another time), but I’d like to talk about Casey Cizikas.  To a bunch of Isles fans, Cizikas is a pretty solid player – maybe even a pretty good one.  On twitter today, I mentioned that I didn’t see the need to add a second year to Cizikas’ deal, calling him a “mediocre 4th liner” and got a bit of pushback.  So it’s worth asking:  Is he really mediocre?

Looking at Cizikas’ fancystats (from the great extraskater.com):

Cizikas

The Key #s here (I’ll refer to the other #s below, but these two are the ones you should make sure you understand – feel free to tweet or comment me with questions on the others!) are his CF% – which is his corsi – and his CF% rel – which is his relative corsi.  A quick explanation: 

Corsi%: % of all Shot Attempts (SOG+Missed Shots+Blocked Shots) taken by a player’s team while they’re on the ice on 5v5. A Corsi% of 50% means that each team is getting an equal amount of shots while a player is on the ice; above 50% means the team is outshooting the opponent, under 50% means they’re being outshot. Corsi has been found to approximate time of possession and scoring chance #s extremely well.

Relative Corsi%: Difference in Corsi% while a player is on the ice for a team and when he is off the ice. For example, a Relative Corsi% of 5% means that the team’s corsi with the player is 5 percentage points better with that player than without him – while a negative 5% means the team is 5 percentage points better in corsi with him on the bench. This measure allows us to separate a player’s performance from his teammates to a certain extent.

On CC, you basically have the picture here of a guy who in his first full season last year put up solid points for a 4th liner, but was losing the possession battle (taking into account zone starts only makes it slightly better) and this year his possession #s went off a cliff. When he was off the ice, the Isles were winning the possession battle and were spending more time in the O Zone than the D zone.  With him ON the ice, the Isles were greatly outshot instead.

Now here’s the thing:  4th liners are GOING to have negative relative corsi #s – relative corsi measures a player relative to his team, so naturally the 4th liners should be worse than the top 9 guys.  So how does CC compare relative to other 4th liners?   Well let’s look at this year and see similar forwards to CC.  Behindthenet.ca is the original hockey advanced stat resource (in fact the years NHL PBP allows us to obtain individual player fancystats is often referred to as the “Behind the Net” era) and while extraskater is most of what you need these days, it offers a level of customization that is currently unmatched.  In our case, we can use it to see how well Cizikas does in comparison to players with similar ice time.  I’ve generated a list of such players here. 

This list essentially includes forwards who played at least half the season last year, between 8 and 11 even strength minutes per game.  Those are your typical minutes given to 4th liners who aren’t face-punchers (Cizikas is just below 11 minutes per game, as is Matt Martin.  Colin McDonald misses the cutoff).  I then also removed players with extreme zone starts (players who started under 40 or over 60 percent of their starts in the offensive zone), who tend to be extreme defensive specialists (Manny Malhotra) or extremely sheltered players (Bryan Bickell) and thus aren’t comparable to Cizikas.  This left me with 54 players who fit the criteria, as you can see on that link.  In terms of relative corsi, or corsi relative to his teammates, Cizikas was 43rd of these 54 or fairly below average.*  Cizikas wasn’t much better in scoring per minute compared to these guys as well.  Even if you try adjusting for zone starts and competition, the season ranks toward the bottom of 4th liners, and remember our relative corsi metric isn’t exactly comparing him to a top 9 that ranked in the top of the league. 

*I’m not going deep into it because this post is already running way too long, but Cizikas does also play penalty kill.  Unfortunately, his PK results aren’t good either.

Now there are two elephants left in the room:  First, Cizikas’ teammate, Matt Martin, is also on the list BELOW Cizikas (Martin is 46th) and Colin McDonald would also be bad if he made the list.  How do we know Cizikas is the problem?  Well, we don’t – and in fact, I think it’s pretty clear from Martin’s play with other players, that he’s also a problem (more on that in a later post).  But Cizikas’ play without both of these guys – he played 240 minutes without Matt Martin – isn’t that much better than it was with Martin (See his #s with and without each linemates (WOWY #s) HERE). 

Second, Cizikas’ #s were better last year.  And in fact they wound up last year around average for a 4th liner.  So perhaps CC bounces back (he certainly will score a few more assists this year, as he had notoriously bad shooting luck from his linemates) a little.  But if his upside is “average 4th liner”, that’s not worthy of talking about much.  And the Isles do have FIVE other centers (although I’d rather Nelson and Strome play wing on the top 9), six if you count Bailey.  He may be 23, but there isn’t much growth likely here.

In short Cizikas isn’t anything special, and calling him mediocre is hardly wrong.  In fact, his #s compare unfavorably to one other Islander on the BTN list linked above: Peter Regin – who scored just a little less points but drastically was better at keeping the puck out of our own end.  And Regin was hated by fans and traded for peanuts (that wound up being traded for Halak).  But let’s stop talking about him as if he’s a key part of the lineup, who deserves to have 4C locked up.  If guys like Sundstrom or hell, even Halmo (who doesn’t usually play C), might be better, the Isles shouldn’t hesitate eating the 2M and switching over.  And late in games where the Isles are down, Cizikas should be getting as little ice time as possible.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Is Casey Cizikas really anything special?

  1. Out of curiousity, why not use just straight CorsiOn as the comparison? I doubt it would make a huge difference, but CorsiRel doesn’t seem like the right metric when looking at guys from different teams. Too much variance in how effective the other players are, no?

    Like

    • An in-depth analysis would use both metrics but using straight CorsiOn alone doesn’t work because then you’re extremely affected by team effects (particularly whether the teams have good D Men) – doing such sorting results in a bunch of kings near the top and a bunch of lousy possession teams at the bottom.

      Again if I was going more in depth, and I wasn’t trying to since the point was clear here using just Relative Corsi, I’d use both – using corsi on to weed out examples of where players had bad relative corsis but were being compared against great teams (or vice versa) – but it doesn’t affect things in this example.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s