Around the NHL Discussion Part XV

[mw2noobbuster]

We had a scout at the BUF-BOS game

But what does it mean!?

 

[simon IC]

But what does it mean!?

Hopefully not Kane.

 

[ManyIdeas]

Scouting that 42 guy on Boston

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

The word from Sens land (not outside reporters) is that Melnyk has given the okay to newly re-signed Dorion to start taking offers for Karlsson. They just can afford to pay him and remain competitive, and there is seemingly no way they can get under 68M without severely weakening the team.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Ken Warren's take on the Senators press release regarding a "renewed commitment"

We sense that Melnyk’s media-release language about a “renewed commitment to scouting, drafting and development” signals that the door is open to any and all trade pitches for Karlsson.

Even if Karlsson wants to stay on a team that is clearly focussed on taking a step back in the hopes of taking two steps forward, it doesn’t sound like a team willing to fork out between $80 million and $100 million for its franchise player. It sounds more like a team wanting to shed salary.

Dorion’s extension certainly gives him the security to make what could be profound changes.

.....

Nobody should be shocked if one or both are dealt before the Feb. 26 trade deadline, freeing up some cash that will be needed to re-sign pending restricted free agent Mark Stone, who could, soon enough, become the Senators’ next captain.

.....

Friday’s moves, however, represented more signals that Karlsson’s future here was uncertain, that the Senators could be using their captain as the key piece for rebuilding the next generation of the team.

 

[PiggySmalls]

Thank you Vancouver! Beat Dallas 6-0.

Edit: Also good job Rangers.

 

[MissouriMook]

Absolutely disgusted that Dustin Brown only got suspended for one game for kneeing Sergachev last night. It was a predatory open-ice hit by a multiple repeat offender. If they’re not going to throw the book at guys like this when they endanger the careers of others, why have a DPS in the first place? When is the NHLPA going to stand up and protect it’s rank and file membership from the worst of their own?

 

[wannabebluesplayer]

Absolutely disgusted that Dustin Brown only got suspended for one game for kneeing Sergachev last night. It was a predatory open-ice hit by a multiple repeat offender. If they’re not going to throw the book at guys like this when they endanger the careers of others, why have a DPS in the first place? When is the NHLPA going to stand up and protect it’s rank and file membership from the worst of their own?

Remember when he tried to go knee on knee and threw out his elbow on Schwartz in his first year. I think that was the first playoff series against them. I can't stand the fact that douche won two Stanley Cups. He should absolutely kiss the asses of Carter, Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick.

 

[The Note in MI]

How hockey’s best young forecheckers use stick checks instead of physical play How hockey’s best young forecheckers use stick checks...

Fantastic article.

 

[The Note in MI]

Brandon Crombeen reflects on his transition from NHL player to local businessman Brandon Crombeen reflects on his transition from NHL player...

Brief article about BJ Crombeen and what he’s been doing with his life.

 

[The Note in MI]

How hockey’s best young forecheckers use stick checks instead of physical play How hockey’s best young forecheckers use stick checks...

Fantastic article.

He last part of this where it mentions drafting players with good sticks.

See one Robert Thomas folks.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

How hockey’s best young forecheckers use stick checks instead of physical play How hockey’s best young forecheckers use stick checks...

Fantastic article.

Agreed. FWIW, players on the block with at least 15 more takeaways than giveaways in the league right now (top 4% in the league) include:

Jake Virtanen
Charles Hudon
Boone Jenner
Alex Wennberg (doubtful, but maybe)
Mikael Backlund
Sam Bennett

Paul Stastny is first for the Blues at +22 takeaways (9 giveaways, 31 takeaways). Next closest are Brodziak and Sundqvist, with +14 apiece, Petro and Schwartz are at +13. At the bottom of the list (for those who don’t think our defense might be problematic) are Edmundson (-17), Bortuzzo (-10), Bouwmeester (-8), Gunnarsson (-8), Tarasenko (-4), and Dunn (-4).

Edit: although, again, FWIW, -4 is apparently still top 25% of the league for dmen with over 20 games. Go Dunn

 

[PiggySmalls]

Virtanen would be the only one I like out of that, for the cost of acquiring him. He is one that if he would accept that he needs to become a role player can become a really good net front presence type player.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Virtanen would be the only one I like out of that, for the cost of acquiring him. He is one that if he would accept that he needs to become a role player can become a really good net front presence type player.

I’m a big, big fan of Boone Jenner. I’d like Virtanen bc I think he has it in him to break out. Backlund is who I hope we sign instead of Stastny. Wennberg would be the playmaking center we’ve been dying for, and would be dynamic with Tarasenko: his very own Backstrom. Hudon and Bennett I could take or leave, but otherwise that’s a list of very decent trade targets. I’m hoping that Jarmo wants Sobotka or Berglund back and we can make a deal based around that.

 

[nicholas89alex]

Man Justin Bourne is writing for the athletic? I think I gotta subscribe now. When he was with Yahoo I read his stuff religiously and it was so cool to get that kind of insight from a guy that was a professional hockey player, but borderline echl guy at best. It feels so much more relatable than an nhl player who is in the top 1% of the top 1% of players world wide.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I love looking at takeaways versus giveaways. I use this a lot whenever I play EANHL. In real life, I think it's a valid metric, but tends to favor the players that are on teams with terrible possession in the first place. Although, if they can take the puck away more often than losing it, I suppose that's good no matter what.

 

[The Note in MI]

The Athletic has a very good stable of writers for sure.

 

[The Note in MI]

Toronto blowing 3-0 lead to Tampa.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Agreed. FWIW, players on the block with at least 15 more takeaways than giveaways in the league right now (top 4% in the league) include:

Jake Virtanen
Charles Hudon
Boone Jenner
Alex Wennberg (doubtful, but maybe)
Mikael Backlund
Sam Bennett

Paul Stastny is first for the Blues at +22 takeaways (9 giveaways, 31 takeaways). Next closest are Brodziak and Sundqvist, with +14 apiece, Petro and Schwartz are at +13. At the bottom of the list (for those who don’t think our defense might be problematic) are Edmundson (-17), Bortuzzo (-10), Bouwmeester (-8), Gunnarsson (-8), Tarasenko (-4), and Dunn (-4).

Edit: although, again, FWIW, -4 is apparently still top 25% of the league for dmen with over 20 games. Go Dunn

I've never been able to figure out what the criteria is for an official giveaway/takeaway. They always seem so incredibly subjective. A defenseman reads the cycle, bodies off his man, and wins the puck? Not a takeaway, even though it forces a change in possession through his direct action.

A forward misses a pass through the neutral zone that goes to the opposing defender? Not a giveaway, even though it's an unforced error that results in a change of possession.

It's not unusual for me to see a player create three or four turnovers and get credit for zero to one takeaways in the box score. I'm sure they're measuring something, but I'll be damned if I can pin down exactly what that is. It's probably different for every official scorer, just like hits.

I'd rather have guys with good numbers than bad, but I try not to put much stock in those numbers. I think they paint an incomplete picture at best of a player's contributions on those fronts, and at worst a potentially misleading one.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I've never been able to figure out what the criteria is for an official giveaway/takeaway. They always seem so incredibly subjective. A defenseman reads the cycle, bodies off his man, and wins the puck? Not a takeaway, even though it forces a change in possession through his direct action.

A forward misses a pass through the neutral zone that goes to the opposing defender? Not a giveaway, even though it's an unforced error that results in a change of possession.

It's not unusual for me to see a player create three or four turnovers and get credit for zero to one takeaways in the box score. I'm sure they're measuring something, but I'll be damned if I can pin down exactly what that is. It's probably different for every official scorer, just like hits.

I'd rather have guys with good numbers than bad, but I try not to put much stock in those numbers. I think they paint an incomplete picture at best of a player's contributions on those fronts, and at worst a potentially misleading one.

I got back on to ask exactly this.

Here’s an article that breaks down this metric and adds some context to it by comparing each player’s give and take differential to their team’s average. It paints a more expected picture.

Giveaways vs. Turnovers: how to find value in an unreliable stat - Sportsnet.ca

I feel like combining this idea with possession metrics would give a better picture. Maybe takeaways per time without the puck and giveaway per time with the puck. Zone and region breakdowns would also help, as would being able to collect data on turnovers that lead to possession across two zones (a turnover in the NZ leading to possession for the opposing team in their OZ).

Maybe I’ll try to keep track and crinch some numbers in the next OHL game I watch. Sarnia v. Saginaw or SSM or London’s game on Wednesday (although I’ll have to watch those after they’ve taken place because Valentimes).

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I've never been able to figure out what the criteria is for an official giveaway/takeaway. They always seem so incredibly subjective. A defenseman reads the cycle, bodies off his man, and wins the puck? Not a takeaway, even though it forces a change in possession through his direct action.

A forward misses a pass through the neutral zone that goes to the opposing defender? Not a giveaway, even though it's an unforced error that results in a change of possession.

It's not unusual for me to see a player create three or four turnovers and get credit for zero to one takeaways in the box score. I'm sure they're measuring something, but I'll be damned if I can pin down exactly what that is. It's probably different for every official scorer, just like hits.

I'd rather have guys with good numbers than bad, but I try not to put much stock in those numbers. I think they paint an incomplete picture at best of a player's contributions on those fronts, and at worst a potentially misleading one.

I’m not having the “What even are stats” discussion with you again brother. I’m just reporting what the stats say. The presence of random error (within a certain level of course) doesn’t make a data set any less valuable, especially if every “test subject” is subject to the same random error

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I’m not having the “What even are stats” discussion with you again brother. I’m just reporting what the stats say. The presence of random error (within a certain level of course) doesn’t make a data set any less valuable, especially if every “test subject” is subject to the same random error

Random or not, QoC and severity of turnover need to be taken into account before any of this begins to be meaningful beyond +\-.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Random or not, QoC and severity of turnover need to be taken into account before any of this begins to be meaningful beyond +\-.

Stooooooopppp.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Stooooooopppp.

I’m going to need you to ask me to stop more before I’m able consider it an acceptable sample size. Until then, I can’t accurately assess what you are wanting me to do.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I’m not having the “What even are stats” discussion with you again brother. I’m just reporting what the stats say. The presence of random error (within a certain level of course) doesn’t make a data set any less valuable, especially if every “test subject” is subject to the same random error

I was mostly making an observation that I have literally no idea what the criteria is for a play to be counted for these stats. I know some of what sort of plays aren't, and I know their exclusion doesn't necessarily make sense to me given what the names of the stats imply. I also know that the numbers that I would name for a player after watching a game are rarely the same as what actually appears in the box score, and I have no idea why. I know this because I actually tried tracking the stat for awhile in an attempt to "calibrate" my judgment.

Maybe you don't have that problem, but for me it's simply hard to put much stock into numbers that I can't replicate even semi-reliably through my own personal observations, and that I have no clear understanding of how they are generated.

<shrug>