During the vicious rout at the hands of the Washington Capitals, Matt Saler from On The Wings coined the term “gradients of failure,” specifically in reference to performance on the power play. The term was too good to languish in Twitter archives. After some discussion and development, and a lot of time with Photoshop, we’re now prepared to reveal the official Gradient of Failure.
CLICK to enlarge.
The gradient plots salary of the player against player failure. Failure ranges from 0 (perfect humanesque) to 10 (shitboxian). We all assign a failure score to each player, and then those scores are averaged to come up with the final level of failure. That way when I constantly rate Helm at 1 and Petrella constantly rates Ericsson at 10, the subjectivity is balanced. We decided to plot against salary, because its a nice way to see what kind of bang we’re getting for the Wings’ buck. As players are brought up and sent down to the Griffins, I’ll add or remove them (Nyquist will join after playing tomorrow, Brunnstrom has been removed.)
- Despite our general dissatisfaction with the team’s play, most everyone is below 5 (6 out of 23 players are above 5.) I don’t know whether this is because we’re being too nice, we blame everything on Ericsson and Conklin, or if we just don’t really know where the problem is.
- Conklin’s at Shitboxian Levels, two terrible games wiping out his previous shutout.
- IR is a tricky thing on the Gradient. We have Mursak at 5, since his preseason was impressive, but we have yet to see him play. He’ll sit on 5 until he returns.
- A 9 might be harsh for Commodore, seeing how he’s been injured, but he hasn’t impressed us much yet. His consistent refusals to answer our questions about appearing on TP:60 might have affected his score as well.
Look for this to update as the season continues.