Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[Timo Time]

I'd like to see a more shoot-first mentality and fight for rebounds in a greasy way rather than this constant need to thread the needle and show off. Macklin needs to work on the less exciting parts of his offensive game.

I do think he's pressing a bit. Trying a lot of no-look or cross-ice passes.

 

[TheBeard]

I do think he's pressing a bit. Trying a lot of no-look or cross-ice passes.

It worked earlier on because teams were giving him a lot of respect, but they've adjusted and done a good job blocking a lot of lanes knowing he's in a pass-first mentality. He's still trying to sneak those passes across and some are finding their way, but that's still only half the battle. Losing not necessarily the talent of guys like Zetts and Granlund but the veteran ship to calm things on the ice hurt. As good as Toffoli is, he's really just a sniper with few other attributes.

 

[hohosaregood]

The first line has stagnated. Celebrini is really the only puck-hound for that line. I would like to see Warso go back to swapping Eklund and Smith honestly.

I thought the line was fine. It just looked like some of their timings were off but close enough that letting some playing chemistry develop would do the trick. Like they missed on connecting some golden opportunities just from taking a shot a milisecond early and things like that.

 

[Timo Time]

I thought the line was fine. It just looked like some of their timings were off but close enough that letting some playing chemistry develop would do the trick. Like they missed on connecting some golden opportunities just from taking a shot a milisecond early and things like that.

Definitely looked like some puck control problems last night but it could have just been some brief yips. Smith has gotten much better at sealing off pucks around the boards and angles. I think his skating is limiting how much board engagement he can actually provide. And similar with Toffoli, outside of being a great shooter he isn't the fastest.

Most of all, the PP has been super frustrating to watch.

 

[weastern bias]

I'm not worried about the tank job, SportLogiq's models show our metrics basically pace even with CHI but we're winning the tank war, we're finishing 32nd, it's okay to believe in this team out loud

 

[hohosaregood]

Definitely looked like some puck control problems last night but it could have just been some brief yips. Smith has gotten much better at sealing off pucks around the boards and angles. I think his skating is limiting how much board engagement he can actually provide. And similar with Toffoli, outside of being a great shooter he isn't the fastest.

Most of all, the PP has been super frustrating to watch.

Yea Smith's speed is a lot better now but would still like to see more knee bend from him. Needs better leverage for physical engagement.

 

[coooldude]

Yea Smith's speed is a lot better now but would still like to see more knee bend from him. Needs better leverage for physical engagement.

Big thing he needs to work on is explosiveness in every direction. His top speed isn't fast but it isn't too slow - evidence is his ability to read and get into 2 on 1s fairly consistently. Also EDGE data -- he's slightly slower top-speed, and more 20-22mph bursts but fewer 18-20mph bursts, than Hertl, and pretty comparable in speed and speed bursts to Jason Robertson. Currently slower in every way than an elder Kane.

However his acceleration is dog shit. It's why he's so careful in the DZ - he can't pop to change directions, so he has to stay exactly in the right position to not get cleanly beat because he overcommitted and can't recover. With more explosiveness he can be more active.

It's also why he's not a great F1, because he can't get himself to the puck carrier fast enough to pressure. BUT, if somehow the play comes to him, he's actually quite good at forcing a turnover. He'll be a core piece of a cup winner if he hits his offensive IQ and positioning ceiling such that he puts himself in the right spots, like Pavs or Kane. If he's just OK there, he'll be destined for good but not quite good enough. But I think he's shown enough that he's not going to totally bust. He'll be a 50 point player, it's a question whether he can be a consistent 70+ point player as a good piece of a non-contender or a PPG+ core piece of a contender.

 

[karltonian]

I'd like to see a more shoot-first mentality and fight for rebounds in a greasy way rather than this constant need to thread the needle and show off. Macklin needs to work on the less exciting parts of his offensive game.

I'm no coach but do you want to park your 1C in front of the goal to fish for rebounds? That seems like a winger's job.

He had 3 shots to Smith's 4, I don't see that as particularly pass first. Now Wennberg having 1 sog to Eklund's 8, that's pass first.

 

[TheBeard]

I'm no coach but do you want to park your 1C in front of the goal to fish for rebounds? That seems like a winger's job.

He had 3 shots to Smith's 4, I don't see that as particularly pass first. Now Wennberg having 1 dog to Eklund's 8, that's pass first.

I meant the first line in general. A little more crash the net instead of pretty passes that have led to way too many odd man rushes in transition as teams have figured out what Celebrini's mindset is.

It's pretty clear they've figured out how to minimize his effectiveness on the PP and that's by playing very aggressive on the puck rather than collapsing in a box. Teams are playing more diamond.

 

[tiburon12]

Yeah but the whole point is that under a 110M+ cap, 1.5M doesn't buy you jack shit. That's going to be Noah Gregor money very soon. And 1.5M/yr is on the higher end of post-tax income discrepancies.

That cap space doesn't need to be allocated to one player. Top teams will still be at the cap and having flexibility to add will still be valuable. You're right that 1.5 is, on its own, tiny potatoes money, but when you have savings on 4 or 5 contracts, that "savings" could easily become 5-6 million, and that's significant money.

 

[Shark Finn]

Grier needs to dumb Lou into a Smith + 2nd/late 1st for Dobson trade this offseason.

But we don't have Givani anymore.

 

[hockeyCEO]

Feel free to discuss away. Schaefer in the lineup, out of the lineup, whatever. I don't enjoy the hypothetical-on-hypothetical discussions but if you do, and you aggressively defend it, go. for. it! We're not talking about logic here, we're talking about preference.

I will say: your description of probability is objectively incorrect. You really can't argue your way out of it. "equally logical most likely scenario" only if you ignore math. If I flip a coin 4 times and it comes up heads 4 times, that doesn't mean it's going to come up heads a 5th time. The probability is still 50/50 on the 5th flip.

If I flip a coin 4 times and it comes up heads 4 times, that doesn't mean it's going to come up heads a 5th time. The probability is still 50/50 on the 5th flip.

This is statistically incorrect. The odds of flipping heads five times in a row is 3.125%. The odds of flipping heads n times in a row is 1/2^n

 

[jMoneyBrah]

If I flip a coin 4 times and it comes up heads 4 times, that doesn't mean it's going to come up heads a 5th time. The probability is still 50/50 on the 5th flip.

This is statistically incorrect. The odds of flipping heads five times in a row is 3.125%. The odds of flipping heads n times in a row is 1/2^n

I’m sorry, but your understanding of probabilities is wrong. Yes, the probability of flipping heads n times in a row is 1/2^n; but that does not influence the probabilities of any individual coin flip. Each coin flip is always 50/50 to land on heads; regardless of what has happened previously.

Said another way: if you’ve managed to flip heads n-1 times in a row, you would have 50% probability to get heads on the nth flip.

That the previous draft lotteries results haven’t aligned to the most probable outcomes doesn’t diminish the odds the next draft will; it has no bearing on the results. The most likely statistical outcome is just that; the most likely outcome.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I’m sorry, but your understanding of probabilities is wrong. Yes, the probability of flipping heads n times in a row is 1/2^n; but that does not influence the probabilities of any individual coin flip. Each coin flip is always 50/50 to land on heads; regardless of what has happened previously.

Said another way: if you’ve managed to flip heads n-1 times in a row, you would have 50% probability to get heads on the nth flip.

That the previous draft lotteries results haven’t aligned to the most probable outcomes doesn’t diminish the odds the next draft will; it has no bearing on the results. The most likely statistical outcome is just that; the most likely outcome.

And for the purposes of the draft, the most likely statistical outcome is objectively that the last place team will win the lottery.

 

[Cas]

And for the purposes of the draft, the most likely statistical outcome is objectively that the last place team will win the lottery.

No, the statistical most likely outcome is that the field will win the lottery. The statistical most likely individual winner of the lottery is the last place team, but it is more likely than not that some team other than the last place team will win the lottery and pick 1st overall.

These are two entirely different statements, but both are mathematically correct. We are the most likely winner, but we are simultaneously not likely to win.

 

[coooldude]

Oh my God, we're back to this?

 

[Barrie22]

Oh my God, we're back to this?

Every year leading up to the lottery same one

 

[hockeyCEO]

I’m sorry, but your understanding of probabilities is wrong. Yes, the probability of flipping heads n times in a row is 1/2^n; but that does not influence the probabilities of any individual coin flip. Each coin flip is always 50/50 to land on heads; regardless of what has happened previously.

Said another way: if you’ve managed to flip heads n-1 times in a row, you would have 50% probability to get heads on the nth flip.

That the previous draft lotteries results haven’t aligned to the most probable outcomes doesn’t diminish the odds the next draft will; it has no bearing on the results. The most likely statistical outcome is just that; the most likely outcome.

You're correct only if no data history is available or you ignore it. In that case it is 50/50. When history is available or to predict an outcome, it is 1/2^n

If you don't believe me that's fine. I did statistics professionally for many years. Good luck (pun intended)

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No, the statistical most likely outcome is that the field will win the lottery. The statistical most likely individual winner of the lottery is the last place team, but it is more likely than not that some team other than the last place team will win the lottery and pick 1st overall.

These are two entirely different statements, but both are mathematically correct. We are the most likely winner, but we are simultaneously not likely to win.

All I'm trying to get at is that it needs to be a like for like outcome comparison. Every team has poor odds against the field but someone has to win. Making the lottery odds about anything beyond each individual team's odds of winning is just muddying the waters here.

 

[Cas]

All I'm trying to get at is that it needs to be a like for like outcome comparison. Every team has poor odds against the field but someone has to win. Making the lottery odds about anything beyond each individual team's odds of winning is just muddying the waters here.

I don't care about anyone else's odds of winning, I care about ours.

 

[coooldude]

You're correct only if no data history is available or you ignore it. In that case it is 50/50. When history is available or to predict an outcome, it is 1/2^n

If you don't believe me that's fine. I did statistics professionally for many years. Good luck (pun intended)

Are you referring to the concept of regression to the mean, or something? Because I don't see how anyone versed in pro or graduate level stats could think that a completely independent lottery/chance event would have any reliance on past events for its outcome. There is data history but it's not the same event pool, distribution, or sample.

If we were trying to assess the probability that 5 years of lotteries ended up some such way, then sure.

 

[weastern bias]

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't care about anyone else's odds of winning, I care about ours.

And if we finish last, we have the best odds of winning the lottery. The rest is noise.

 

[PattyLafontaine]

MISS SCARLET: You as a mere butler have no access to government secrets. So, I’m afraid your moment has come.
WADSWORTH : Not so fast Miss Scarlet. I do know a secret or two.
MISS SCARLET: Oh yeah, such as?
WADSWORTH: The game’s up Scarlet, there are no more bullets left in that gun.
MISS SCARLET: Come on, I am not going to fall for that old trick.
WADSWORTH: It’s not a trick. There was one shot at Mr Body in the study, two for the chandelier, two at the lounge door and one for the singing telegram.
MISS SCARLET: That’s not six.
WADSWORTH: One plus two plus two plus one (1+2+2+1).
MISS SCARLET: Ahah, there was only one shot that got the chandelier. That’s one plus two plus one plus one (1+2+1+1).
WADSWORTH: Even if you were right that would one plus one plus two plus one (1+1+2+1) not one plus two plus one plus one.
MISS SCARLET: Ok, fine 1+2+1…. Shut up! Point is, there is one more bullet left in this gun and guess who is going to get it?

 

[Patty Ice]

View attachment 1005453

So get off your ath, let's do some math.