Analyzing Dubas's Performance - III

[Stamkos4life]

You keep stating your opinions as facts, this makes it hard to take you seriously.



LMAO, that's funny.

So sort by ice time and award trophies. That's one of dumbest things I've ever read here. I gotta hand it to you, just when I think you've set the bar for being completely cracked as high as it can go, you raise it just a little bit more.

Despite ovechkin winning 7 of the last 8 rocket Richard's, @Dekes For Days literally told me ovi isn't the leagues best goal scorer.

Its honestly crazy.

 

[Stamkos4life]

Leafs on ice results now and playoffs - Who is more to blame?

Nailed it.

August last year, there were only a handful of people criticizing Dubas. Now? There are only a handful of people defending Dubas. And things have gotten pretty nasty in Toronto. I saw this coming a mile away.

Any defense of the overpayments was always "the cap is going up like crazy soon". But now with Covid and the flat cap... I think Marner is going to have to be traded. Sucks... but I see no other solution.

Or "dubas is ahead of the curve, all the other gms are going to give their rfas huge deals as well!".

As we all have seen, that clearly did not happen.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You again ignore that why should Matthews and Marner be measured under different caps. Which is ridiculous to focus on McDavid/Eichel. Measuring cap hit percentage in a year it doesn’t impact makes no logical sense.

Matthews and Marner were signed at different times under different cap information. We can measure by signing date, or we can estimate what the increase would have been projected to be, based on the recent increases and known information at the time. We can't measure against information that was not known at the time.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Despite ovechkin winning 7 of the last 8 rocket Richard's, @Dekes For Days literally told me ovi isn't the leagues best goal scorer.

Not currently, no. He's still great, and he used to be the best for many of those rockets, though being the best doesn't guarantee you awards. He got those awards so consistently because he was not only the best, but he also got significant opportunity advantages, and that limited the ways in which potential competitors could pass him in any given year.

 

[93LEAFS]

Matthews and Marner were signed at different times under different cap information. We can measure by signing date, or we can estimate what the increase would have been projected to be, based on the recent increases and known information at the time. We can't measure against information that was not known at the time.

Except rough estimates are known. You can’t use a cap for a year the contract doesn’t apply. It makes no sense. It’s a ridiculous mid-use of cap percentage. It over values all people who sign early and undervalues everyone who signs late.

Your way of using it creates an unbalanced system that therefore doesn’t make the numbers as concrete or honest as you are trying to present them as.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Except rough estimates are known.

Yes, but you're not going by what the rough estimations would have been. You're trying to measure it against unknown information, which did not match the projections.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Not currently, no. He's still great, and he used to be the best for many of those rockets, though being the best doesn't guarantee you awards. He got those awards so consistently because he was not only the best, but he also got significant opportunity advantages, and that limited the ways in which potential competitors could pass him in any given year.

Priceless. You're killing me dude.

 

[93LEAFS]

Yes, but you're not going by what the rough estimations would have been. You're trying to measure it against unknown information, which did not match the projections.

And you are measuring it against a year the contract never applied. The system you are using is unbalanced. It makes anyone who signed as a UFA undervalued and everyone who signed before there contract expired overvalued. Making it far from a useful measurement tool, since it is inexact and not precise.

 

[Dekes For Days]

And you are measuring it against a year the contract never applied.

I'm measuring it by when they signed, and if you don't like that, I said we could use a good estimate of what they would have projected increases to be. We know there was an increase of 3.5m projected when Matthews signed, with significant increases coming soon after. Based on the recent history before the McDavid/Eichel signing, it's not realistic to assume they would have expected the increase to be that much, let alone more.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

The Leafs aren't a balanced team. That's Dubas' job. He had no obligation to overpay with term and now he's handicapped with the cap.

Marner's contract isn't tradeable (unless we purposely lose the trade) but his contract is what needs moving for a top tier D. Freddie needs solid D to go anywhere. Outscoring opponents doesn't seem doable for this soft team in playoff hockey.

Changing GMs wo t solve anything. I see Dubas getting 2 years and I don't see this team doing anything unless a massive trade happens.

likely with Marner or Tavares.

And everyone knows Dubas won't do that.

 

[93LEAFS]

I'm measuring it by when they signed, and if you don't like that, I said we could use a good estimate of what they would have projected increases to be. We know there was an increase of 3.5m projected when Matthews signed, with significant increases coming soon after. Based on the recent history before the McDavid/Eichel signing, it's not realistic to assume they would have expected the increase to be that much, let alone more.

Against a cap it would never apply to. You are treating your use of cap percentage as concrete not realizing it is riddled with inherent flaws. The goal of analytics is to be more precise and accurate, therefore anything with the type of inherent flaws as the measurement wouldn’t be useful. You are using something that overvalued and undervalues players under the same cap based on signing date. This way of using cap percentage has no precision.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Against a cap it would never apply to. You are treating your use of cap percentage as concrete

Did you not read the rest of my response?

 

[93LEAFS]

Did you not read the rest of my response?

We only have what happened. Matthews signed for a closer percentage to McDavid and Eichel on the first year of the contract relative to the cap. That is a fact. Trying to frame it as closer to Eichel than McDavid is misleading and incorrect.

 

[Cleetus]

Not currently, no. He's still great, and he used to be the best for many of those rockets, though being the best doesn't guarantee you awards. He got those awards so consistently because he was not only the best, but he also got significant opportunity advantages, and that limited the ways in which potential competitors could pass him in any given year.

please explain this?

 

[Dekes For Days]

We only have what happened. Matthews signed for a closer percentage to McDavid and Eichel on the first year of the contract relative to the cap. That is a fact.

You said we have to assume their expectations about what the cap would do, and now you're saying we can't? If we only have what happened, then we can only go by signing cap hit percentage. That's the only factual number it was signed against. Matthews' cap hit percentage was closer to Eichel, despite being comparable to McDavid at that point in time, to account for the term differences.

 

[93LEAFS]

You said we have to assume their expectations about what the cap would do, and now you're saying we can't? If we only have what happened, then we can only go by signing cap hit percentage. That's the only factual number it was signed against. Matthews' cap hit percentage was closer to Eichel, despite being comparable to McDavid at that point in time, to account for the term differences.

No, its closer to McDavid. Again. 12.6, 14.2 and 15.7. Those are the cap hit percentage-wise.

Your use of cap-hit percentage is inherently flawed. It is unbalanced and creates a system that overvalues players who re-sign early vs those who sign after July 1st. It isn't a precise or accurate measurement. The fact you can't accept this is ridiculous. Its a fact. Anyone who has any semblance of basic logic would get it. Which makes it a useless measurement for players relative contracts. The only logical conclusion is to measure it by the start date of the contract, since that is the only time it makes an actual impact.

 

[Martin Skoula]

please explain this?

Ovechkin had more PP minutes this year than the Toronto Maple Leafs did as a whole. Does this hurt or help him score more goals? I'm not going to look it up on my phone right now but I'm willing to bet he's played 20+% more PP minutes over the past decade than the 2nd closest forward in that timeframe. Over the last 3 seasons, he's played 1034 PP minutes, the second closest forward over that timeframe is MacKinnon with 884.

He deserves those minutes and there's no one I'd rather have playing those minutes, the guy is the best goal scorer of all time. But having said that, what is someone like Matthews supposed to do when he would have less PP time this year if he played every single second of every single powerplay his team had? It's not within his control how many PPs the refs decide to give us. Ovi scoring 2 more goals in 100 more PP minutes isn't really proof that he's better right now.

 

[Dekes For Days]

please explain this?

Ovechkin gets a ridiculous amount of PP time relative to the rest of the league, and has for pretty much his whole career. This makes it hard for people to pass him in raw numbers, especially with his health.

 

[Dekes For Days]

No, its closer to McDavid. Again. 12.6, 14.2 and 15.7. Those are the cap hit percentage-wise.

The cap hit percentages are 13.3, 14.6, and 16.7.

Your use of cap-hit percentage is inherently flawed.

You said you wanted it based on factual information. That's the only factual cap information we have for their signings. It's less flawed than the method you're trying to push, based on unknown information that didn't match the projections. I've been open to different methods. Whether we go by signing cap hit percentage, or estimate what they would have projected the cap to be, the answer is the same.

 

[orbiter11]

Yes, but you're not going by what the rough estimations would have been. You're trying to measure it against unknown information, which did not match the projections.

Since everything Dubas does in your view is pretty relative to the rest of the league. Can you explain to me the justification in giving Marner a much bigger contract then Rantanen and Aho?? Keep in mind Aho is a Center who put up almost 40 goals this season and Rantanen is also an over 30 goal scorer (and remember that's why Matthews got one of the biggest rfa contracts in recent history ,goals)......

 

[Dekes For Days]

Can you explain to me the justification in giving Marner a much bigger contract then Rantanen and Aho??

Because he was much better than both Rantanen and Aho.

and remember that's why Matthews got one of the biggest rfa contracts in recent history ,goals)......

Matthews was great at a lot more than just goals.

 

[egd27]

You're the first person I've seen use it this way, and you haven't supported it being the best way

No he really isn't.

There have been several reasonable posters that also believe that calculating cap % using a cap that exists in a time before the contract has started is utterly foolish.

The "time of signing" argument seems to be only used by those sadly attempting to defend an inaccurate position.

 

[93LEAFS]

The cap hit percentages are 13.3, 14.6, and 16.7.

You said you wanted it based on factual information. That's the only factual cap information we have for their signings. It's less flawed than the method you're trying to push, based on unknown information that didn't match the projections. I've been open to different methods. Whether we go by signing cap hit percentage, or estimate what they would have projected the cap to be, the answer is the same.

You want to use a system that is very imprecise and is rooted in a system that over and under values players because it favours your outlook on Dubas.

Simply put. Matthews cap hit is closer to McDavid, Matthews cap hit percentage wise in the first year of the contract is closer to McDavid, yet using a flawed system it is closer to Eichel. This is before getting into the lack of term. Both of what I said are facts. Yours is using a cap that none of the players contracts ever applied to.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You want to use a system that is very imprecise and is rooted in a system that over and under values players because it favours your outlook on Dubas.

As I've said, I'm willing to look at in different ways. The only thing I will not do is the only thing you seem to want to do, which is measure it against unknown future cap information that didn't match projections at the time the contracts were signed. This debate is pretty irrelevant anyway, because even in your method, there's nothing wrong with Matthews' contract.

 

[orbiter11]

Because he was much better than both Rantanen and Aho.

Matthews was great at a lot more than just goals.

Stats don't say hes much better then Ratanen or Aho. Id also say theirs more coaches GMs that would prefer Ratanen on there wing then Marner (especially with his contract) and remember Ratenen puts up more goals then Marner and is bigger. As far as Aho goes right now he is the better player and he plays Center, so i don't think that's accurate.

As for Matthews. He does have one of the best shots in recent history but hes not a good 2 way forward , often mailing it in on the defensive zone. I think this playoffs were the first time I saw him throw a body check. So im skeptical of your overview of him.