monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"
2019/20 Roster Thread XXIX | Page 38 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
  • Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

2019/20 Roster Thread XXIX

Status
Not open for further replies.
Striiker said:
A visual representation of his argument...

source.gif


He's gotta be close to China at this point...
Click to expand...

I've been saying since last year that Ghost plays perfectly adequate defense, in that he keeps up and really isn't the constant failed debacle his detractors claim. And that's true. I mean, that defense alone makes him a good 3rd pairing dman. Combine it with his ability to move the puck up ice, and you have an all-around effective player. When he's with players who can actually capitalize, why, he becomes good on any pairing. This should be self evident at this point. We've watched it for a while now.


He has his best chemistry with Giroux. Giroux's best chemistry with a dman is Ghost. Giroux on the left wing ensures they would naturally work well together. It's a shame our coaching staff decided to have no knowledge of the roster's past, or they might try giving that a regular look.
 
Beef Invictus said:
I've been saying since last year that Ghost plays perfectly adequate defense, in that he keeps up and really isn't the constant failed debacle his detractors claim. And that's true. I mean, that defense alone makes him a good 3rd pairing dman. Combine it with his ability to move the puck up ice, and you have an all-around effective player. When he's with players who can actually capitalize, why, he becomes good. This should be self evident at this point. We've watched it for a while now.


He has his best chemistry with Giroux. Giroux's best chemistry with a dman is Ghost. Giroux on the left wing ensures they would naturally work well together. It's a shame our coaching staff decided to have no knowledge of the roster's past, or they might try giving that a regular look.
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem is that many people are still bought into the outdated stereotype that defense is about physical battles of strength, fighting over the crease or grinding on the boards. Ghost isn’t someone who excels in those areas so they jump to the incorrect conclusion that it means he’s a defensive liability. Instead he’s very much like Giroux when in the defensive zone, he relies on non-size-related things like smarts, quickness, anticipation, and stick-work.

Then, as I’ve said many times now, the old saying is true: “the best defense is a good offense”, meaning that having the puck is the best possible way to make sure the opponent never scores... and that’s where Ghost is best, in making sure the puck exits the defensive zone and then doesn’t re-enter it. He’s great at starting rushes and defending against them... and that’s huge.

I think when it comes to preventing the enemy from scoring goals - if you look at everything a player does in all three zones that makes it harder for the opponent to actually score - Ghost is roughly as good as any defensemen on the team. There’s things that others are better at than him, but I’m talking about the full package of offense, defense, and transition and how it effects the opponents chances.

Plus, we saw how he played in 2017-2018 when he got top pair usage. He was with our best players, playing lots of minutes, and against the opponents best... he wasn’t even remotely close to a liability defensively and was fantastic offensively and at puck moving. That’s what we’re currently missing out on by wasting him on the 3rd pair with poor usage and poor teammates. It’s not even that he’d definitely play at an identical level, but that fact he even has the ability to do so is something we should be gambling on. No different than how we gambled on Provorov being able to play like he previously had, after playing so poorly last year. Imagine if we gave up on him and buried him too. Or imagine if we continued doing that to Sanheim. Ghost is no different, except he has a proven track record to show what he can do when given a chance.
 
More importantly, do we think Voracek will go on a goal tear for the last 32 games to finish with exactly 20 goals for the 4th year in a row?
 
Striiker said:
Of course this doesn't account for other things like forward teammates or usage but...

***Quick note: it doesn't count games where the player was hurt or healthy scratched. In other words, obviously Provorov has played more than 412:37 at 5v5 away from Hagg this year. It's just that he's played 412:37 when Hagg was dressed but not on the ice. So the "without" numbers are kinda misleading***

-----ALL NUMBERS AT 5v5------
Purple text = small sample (less than 100 minutes)
Green text = positive
Red text = negative

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Provorov with Hagg[/TD][TD]22:19[/TD][TD]65.12 CF%[/TD][TD]73.73 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Provorov without Hagg[/TD][TD]412:37[/TD][TD]52.23 CF%[/TD][TD]53.43 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Provorov with Ghost[/TD][TD]30:19[/TD][TD]53.85 CF%[/TD][TD]38.60 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Provorov without Ghost[/TD][TD]558:57[/TD][TD]51.22 CF%[/TD][TD]53.62 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim with Hagg[/TD][TD]31:12[/TD][TD]37.70 CF%[/TD][TD]25.31 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim without Hagg[/TD][TD]412:37[/TD][TD]55.73 CF%[/TD][TD]57.16 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim with Ghost[/TD][TD]35:30[/TD][TD]50.00 CF%[/TD][TD]39.01 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanhieim without Ghost[/TD][TD]553:46[/TD][TD]51.09 CF%[/TD][TD]49.90 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen with Hagg[/TD][TD]15:34[/TD][TD]40.74 CF%[/TD][TD]57.62 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen without Hagg[/TD][TD]407:10[/TD][TD]51.37 CF%[/TD][TD]54.90 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen with Ghost[/TD][TD]31:00[/TD][TD]60.00 CF%[/TD][TD]67.32 CF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen without Ghost[/TD][TD]545:46[/TD][TD]50.23 CF%[/TD][TD]52.94 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun with Hagg[/TD][TD]53:07[/TD][TD]28.57 CF%[/TD][TD]27.76 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun without Hagg[/TD][TD]297:55[/TD][TD]58.17 CF%[/TD][TD]57.71 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun with Ghost[/TD][TD]161:06[/TD][TD]47.86 CF%[/TD][TD]46.18 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun without Ghost[/TD][TD]413:19[/TD][TD]55.02 CF%[/TD][TD]52.71 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Myers with Hagg[/TD][TD]48:19[/TD][TD]44.09 CF%[/TD][TD]49.04 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Myers without Hagg[/TD][TD]137:33[/TD][TD]54.49 CF%[/TD][TD]47.31 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Myers with Ghost[/TD][TD]110:25[/TD][TD]58.24 CF%[/TD][TD]58.74 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Myers without Ghost[/TD][TD]206:46[/TD][TD]45.67 CF%[/TD][TD]43.90 xGF%[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
Click to expand...

So everyone except 30 minutes of Niskanen and Myers has played better without Ghost. I would imagine that Myers has played most of his playing time with Hagg, so that's pretty much a writeoff too.
 
Striiker said:
I think part of the problem is that many people are still bought into the outdated stereotype that defense is about physical battles of strength, fighting over the crease or grinding on the boards. Ghost isn’t someone who excels in those areas so they jump to the incorrect conclusion that it means he’s a defensive liability. Instead he’s very much like Giroux when in the defensive zone, he relies on non-size-related things like smarts, quickness, anticipation, and stick-work.

Then, as I’ve said many times now, the old saying is true: “the best defense is a good offense”, meaning that having the puck is the best possible way to make sure the opponent never scores... and that’s where Ghost is best, in making sure the puck exits the defensive zone and then doesn’t re-enter it. He’s great at starting rushes and defending against them... and that’s huge.
Click to expand...

This is inaccurate on numerous levels.

1) defense does include physical battles in the crease and along the boards, you stop the cycle by getting the puck back, and one key way is to win board battles and battles behind the net. And clearing the crease allows your goalie to see shots. These skills are especially important in the 3rd period protecting a lead, because the other team will be more aggressive on the forecheck, pinch more aggressively and try to keep the puck in your D-zone. Ghost is clearly deficient in these areas.

2) defense also includes stick checking, and exiting the D-zone with the puck through skating or passing without turning the puck over, and breaking up plays in the neutral zone. Ghost is above average in these skills.

3) Even the best offensive defenseman will have CF% in the 55% range at best, which means the other team is still on offense almost half the time. Good offense isn't good defense, take a lot of shots and some will be blocked or bounce off the boards and if you're not playing responsible defense will lead to 2 on 1 breakouts for the other team. Good offense makes defense easier than bad offense, but it doesn't replace the need to play defense.

4) the numbers suggest that Ghost has been mediocre at best on defense this season.
xGA/60: Braun 2.06, Provorov 2.11, Niskanen 2.16, Myers 2.25, Sanheim 2.38, Ghost 2.44, Hagg 2.52, Friedman 2.72
xGF/60rel: Provorov -0.26, Braun -0.24, Niskanen -0.17, Myers -0.02, Sanheim +0.16, Ghost +0.18, Friedman +0.23, Hagg +0.47

Ghost is clearly better than Hagg, but also far worse than Braun on defense.
 
Beef Invictus said:
I didn't say he was positive. I was refuting your claim that he is a net negative.

Nothing changes the fact that you are intently, zealously yelling about a single statistic and another flawed metric while ignoring all other context. All this vitriol you're pointing at me for observing you're using flawed methodology doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
LOL. You must live in some other dimension. You didn’t even properly observe one of several stats I cited, for which you admitted you were completely wrong (but are now back to acting like you were right).
 
JojoTheWhale said:
It is a lot!

Everything matters. As the axiom goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful. This is why you need to look at a wide variety of sources of information (numerical, eye, and everything between) and draw your own conclusions.

This is also why I harp on degrees of certainty whenever related topics come up. If you have a player at +2.5% xGFRel and one at +3.2%, it's irresponsible to say that xGF% makes one a clear upgrade. Likewise you should never take out a 40 game sample size as irrefutable proof of anything, especially if we have hundreds of other games of priors on the players in question.

It's fairly rare to look at a player from every angle and be utterly convinced he's tremendous or useless. Hagg does some things well, but there is absolutely no argument he has leveraged those skills well or often enough to be an NHL player. None.
Click to expand...
Yup. I find these numbers to be most useful picking out the outliners more than anything- the guys that are at opposite ends of the bell curve. Most guys are going to be bunched around the breakeven point.

Also can you list the things Hagg does well. Thanks. ;)
 
Ghosts Beer said:
LOL. You must live in some other dimension. You didn’t even properly observe one of several stats I cited, for which you admitted you were completely wrong (but are now back to acting like you were right).
Click to expand...

Ah yes the stats you used wrong.

It's amazing. You spend post after post whining about people taking a single stat and using it definitively, and then do the exact same thing.

What you've failed to observe is all the people who combine many stats and pair it with usage and attempted honest observation.
 
FLYguy3911 said:
Also can you list the things Hagg does well. Thanks. ;)
Click to expand...

  1. Has excellent hair.
  2. Breaks probability through SHOT SELECTION.
  3. Takes the same percentage of team shots while on the ice at 5v5 as Gostisbehere. Shooters shoot.
  4. The dirty work.
  5. Very few shots allowed from the slot when he's on the ice on the PK. Please don't ask about what happens right in front of the net.
  6. Provides obvious "It can always be worse" scenarios, thus preventing me from getting too down on the team.
  7. Makes opposing players think twice.
  8. Makes Hockey Men swoon.
  9. Drops the gloves with the opposing enforcer, preventing goons like Kotkaniemi from taking runs at stars.
  10. Bothers @Striiker.
 
BrokenStix said:
So everyone except 30 minutes of Niskanen and Myers has played better without Ghost. I would imagine that Myers has played most of his playing time with Hagg, so that's pretty much a writeoff too.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that without seeing the numbers.

CF% is whatever as a stat.... it has a weak statistical correlation and weak predictive value to team performance in at least two models I've seen (though it does have better predictive value for individual players).

The xGF% is interesting to me. On the surface, it looks like Ghost is a drag on just about everyone when it comes to xGF%. Of course, there are a ton of other variables involved as well.
 
JojoTheWhale said:
  1. Has excellent hair.
  2. Breaks probability through SHOT SELECTION.
  3. Takes the same percentage of team shots while on the ice at 5v5 as Gostisbehere. Shooters shoot.
  4. The dirty work.
  5. Very few shots allowed from the slot when he's on the ice on the PK. Please don't ask about what happens right in front of the net.
  6. Provides obvious "It can always be worse" scenarios, thus preventing me from getting too down on the team.
  7. Makes opposing players think twice.
  8. Makes Hockey Men swoon.
  9. Drops the gloves with the opposing enforcer, preventing goons like Kotkaniemi from taking runs at stars.
  10. Bothers @Striiker.
Click to expand...
11. Shooters shoot FROM THE POINT BAYBEEE
 
Striiker said:
Of course this doesn't account for other things like forward teammates or usage but...

***Quick note: it doesn't count games where the player was hurt or healthy scratched. In other words, obviously Provorov has played more than 412:37 at 5v5 away from Hagg this year. It's just that he's played 412:37 when Hagg was dressed but not on the ice. So the "without" numbers are kinda misleading***

-----ALL NUMBERS AT 5v5------
Purple text = small sample (less than 100 minutes)
Green text = positive
Red text = negative

Provorov with Hagg22:1965.12 CF%73.73 xGF%
Provorov without Hagg412:3752.23 CF%53.43 xGF%
Provorov with Ghost30:1953.85 CF%38.60 xGF%
Provorov without Ghost558:5751.22 CF%53.62 xGF%
Sanheim with Hagg31:1237.70 CF%25.31 xGF%
Sanheim without Hagg412:3755.73 CF%57.16 xGF%
Sanheim with Ghost35:3050.00 CF%39.01 xGF%
Sanhieim without Ghost553:4651.09 CF%49.90 xGF%
Niskanen with Hagg15:3440.74 CF%57.62 xGF%
Niskanen without Hagg407:1051.37 CF%54.90 xGF%
Niskanen with Ghost31:0060.00 CF%67.32 CF%
Niskanen without Ghost545:4650.23 CF%52.94 xGF%
Braun with Hagg53:0728.57 CF%27.76 xGF%
Braun without Hagg297:5558.17 CF%57.71 xGF%
Braun with Ghost161:0647.86 CF%46.18 xGF%
Braun without Ghost413:1955.02 CF%52.71 xGF%
Myers with Hagg48:1944.09 CF%49.04 xGF%
Myers without Hagg137:3354.49 CF%47.31 xGF%
Myers with Ghost110:2558.24 CF%58.74 xGF%
Myers without Ghost206:4645.67 CF%43.90 xGF%
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Click to expand...

OK, so I wanted to update this with a more informative chart.

Like I said in the quoted post: The problem with the above "without" numbers is that they're missing a massive chunk of information because they only calculate the "without" time when the players are apart but both are dressed. For example, "Ghost without Hagg" doesn't include all the games where Ghost was paired with Myers and Hagg was healthy scratched. Which also means stats like "Sanheim without Ghost" isn't counting his performances while Ghost is out hurt.

You can see how much is missing by just adding up "Ghost with Hagg" and "Ghost without Hagg" (barely over 300 min) and comparing it to Ghosts total 5v5 icetime, 589:16. Almost 300 min unaccounted for.


So, instead, I think the below chart is a bit more relevant, even though most are extremely small sample sizes and doesn't account for which forwards they're with... which makes a massive difference.

-----ALL NUMBERS AT 5v5------
Purple text = small sample (less than 100 minutes)
Green text = positive
Red text = negative

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Provorov with Ghost[/TD][TD]30:19[/TD][TD]53.85 CF%[/TD][TD]38.60 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Provorov with Hagg[/TD][TD]22:19[/TD][TD]40.33 CF%[/TD][TD]73.37 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Provorov overall[/TD][TD]887:34[/TD][TD]51.96 CF%[/TD][TD]52.92 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim with Ghost[/TD][TD]35:30[/TD][TD]50.00 CF%[/TD][TD]39.01 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim with Hagg[/TD][TD]31:12[/TD][TD]37.70 CF%[/TD][TD]25.31 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim overall[/TD][TD]828:40[/TD][TD]51.66 CF%[/TD][TD]49.58 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen with Ghost[/TD][TD]31:00[/TD][TD]60.00 CF%[/TD][TD]67.32 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen with Hagg[/TD][TD]15:34[/TD][TD]40.70 CF%[/TD][TD]57.62 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Niskanen overall[/TD][TD]797:37[/TD][TD]51.11 CF%[/TD][TD]52.92 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun with Ghost[/TD][TD]161:06[/TD][TD]47.86 CF%[/TD][TD]46.18 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun with Hagg[/TD][TD]53:07[/TD][TD]28.57 CF%[/TD][TD]27.76 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Braun overall[/TD][TD]661:18[/TD][TD]52.42 CF%[/TD][TD]50.97 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] [/TD][TD] [/TD][TD] [/TD][TD] [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Myers with Ghost[/TD][TD] 110:25[/TD][TD] 58.24 CF%[/TD][TD] 58.74 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Myers with Hagg[/TD][TD] 48:19[/TD][TD] 44.09 CF%[/TD][TD] 49.04 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Myers overall[/TD][TD] 502:07[/TD][TD] 50.17 CF%[/TD][TD] 48.06 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] [/TD][TD] [/TD][TD] [/TD][TD] [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] Ghost with Hagg[/TD][TD] 209:55[/TD][TD]50.54 CF% [/TD][TD] 45.00 xGF%[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

So basically, these numbers aren't too helpful because the sample size sucks and it's missing critical usage informaiton, but it's still interesting.

Also, our 6 pairs with 100+ minutes at 5v5...

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Provorov-Niskanen[/TD][TD]648:31[/TD][TD]51.11 CF%[/TD][TD] 51.07 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim-Braun[/TD][TD]338:49[/TD][TD]56.68 CF%[/TD][TD] 53.53 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Sanheim-Myers[/TD][TD]284:22[/TD][TD]49.50 CF%[/TD][TD] 44.94 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ghost-Hagg[/TD][TD]209:55[/TD][TD]50.54 CF%[/TD][TD] 45.00 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ghost-Braun[/TD][TD]161:06[/TD][TD]47.86 CF%[/TD][TD] 46.18 xGF%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ghost-Myers[/TD][TD]110:25[/TD][TD]58.24 CF%[/TD][TD] 57.74 xGF%[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
 
flyersnorth said:
Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that without seeing the numbers.

CF% is whatever as a stat.... it has a weak statistical correlation and weak predictive value to team performance in at least two models I've seen (though it does have better predictive value for individual players).

The xGF% is interesting to me. On the surface, it looks like Ghost is a drag on just about everyone when it comes to xGF%. Of course, there are a ton of other variables involved as well.
Click to expand...
Raw CF% isn’t very useful. Even in a case where you are comparing players on the same team like Gostisbehere and Hagg since both have missed several games this year. It’s missing the team factors.

Relative stats are almost always more useful.
 
flyersnorth said:
Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that without seeing the numbers.

CF% is whatever as a stat.... it has a weak statistical correlation and weak predictive value to team performance in at least two models I've seen (though it does have better predictive value for individual players).

The xGF% is interesting to me. On the surface, it looks like Ghost is a drag on just about everyone when it comes to xGF%. Of course, there are a ton of other variables involved as well.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Myers and Hagg (2 of his 3 most common partners) both have FAR better xGF% with Ghost than without him.

Provorov, Sanheim, and Niskanen are fluke tiny samples. He basically sees a handful of seconds at a time with them when there’s a partial line change.
 
All these stats and charts are nice, but really unnecessary if you actually watch the games.

Hagg: routinely ices the puck under pressure, loses his man in coverage, makes inaccurate passes and misses the net when he shoots

Ghost: makes pretty good plays under pressure, passes the puck well, has a hard and fairly accurate shot and while he can certainly get outmuscled in the D zone, his overall positional work is solid and his reads are well above average

So, overall:

Hagg-bad
Ghost-pretty good

You’re welcome
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top
-->->