Confirmed with Link: Bouma, Jooris, and Byron file for arbitration. UPDATE: everyone has signed.

[Pirate King Luffy]

Do you even make real posts any more or just jokes focused on brevity?

I miss Star Wars gif Ferkland(RS)

Yeah, I make real posts. Anglesmith knows my opinion on Byron. Just trying get things going.

Well, as Shakespeare said, "brevity is the soul of wit."

10/10

 

[Lunatik]

He also has the best shot-suppression out of any Flame on the PK over those three seasons. PK% with him on the ice is more important, though. I need to find those stats.

But I'm confused by what you mean about a low PK% not making it worth it. Scoring a shorthanded goal is worth just as much as not allowing a PP goal.

Yeah it can be, unless you take too many chances and the PK is ******. The way I see it is PK goals are a bonus and the point of a PK is to stop the other team from scoring. Often teams that have alot of SH goals also take more chances on the PK which leads to more goals against.

 

[Anglesmith]

Yeah it can be, unless you take too many chances and the PK is ******. The way I see it is PK goals are a bonus and the point of a PK is to stop the other team from scoring. Often teams that have alot of SH goals also take more chances on the PK which leads to more goals against.

But if he was letting in a lot of PP goals, he wouldn't be at that 33.3% ratio. So it's a combination of not letting in PP goals while scoring SH goals that gets him to that number.

 

[Lunatik]

But if he was letting in a lot of PP goals, he wouldn't be at that 33.3% ratio. So it's a combination of not letting in PP goals while scoring SH goals that gets him to that number.

didn't realize it was a ratio

 

[Anglesmith]

didn't realize it was a ratio

Well yeah. To clarify: while he's out on the PK, for every two PPGs scored against him, he or his PK-mates score one SHG.

 

[Lunatik]

Well yeah. To clarify: while he's out on the PK, for every two PPGs scored against him, he or his PK-mates score one SHG.

That seems like one of those stats they look for to make a player sound like he is better than he is, like when they say that the Flames are 12-1 on Halloween when it falls on a Tuesday

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Some random Byron 4 vs 5 stats:

Among the 307 NHL players with 70 minutes of PK time in 2014-15, he was:

14th best in corsi for percentage (19.8%) in other words 1 out of 5 shot attempts were going the other way

8th best in shots for percentage (29.2%) in other words just under 1 out of 3 actual shots on goal were on the opponent's goalie. Next highest Flame is TJ Brodie @ 21.7%

Among Flames Forwards he was:

1st in Goals against per 60 minutes at 7.23/60.
Next highest was Mikael Backlund @ 7.29
then Stajan at 7.47
then Bouma at 7.62.

All four Flames defensemen were well ahead of the forwards group (the worse being Brodie @ 6.60), which is probably a sign that most of these goals against happened with Deryk Engelland on the ice (11.12GA/60). Deryk Engelland continues to be brutal, somehow every problem with the Flames comes right back to him.

Every metric reasons that Paul Byron is not just a good PKer, but an elite one.

 

[Lunatik]

saw corsi, eyes glazed over and stopped reading. Crsi is the +/- of the 21 century

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

saw corsi, eyes glazed over and stopped reading. Crsi is the +/- of the 21 century

False. They are more important than +/-. They do show important stats and give you a better idea than +/-.

 

[Lunatik]

False. They are more important than +/-. They do show important stats and give you a better idea than +/-.

Not really "possession" measured in anything but actual time of possession is completely ****ing useless, there is zero context to any of these numbers just like +/-. It doesn't account for where shots are taken, the quality of the opportunity... etc

I repeat useless.

 

[Anglesmith]

Not really "possession" measured in anything but actual time of possession is completely ****ing useless, there is zero context to any of these numbers just like +/-. It doesn't account for where shots are taken, the quality of the opportunity... etc

I repeat useless.

I've personally always wondered why hockey doesn't measure actual possession. I mean, other sports do. Instead they use an indirect method to approximate something that can be measured directly.

That said, in this discussion, if you can just forget the fact that Corsi is being wildly and dubiously interpreted by a great deal of people, it's just information, and there's no such thing as bad information. I would say that the problem with advanced stats is how they're often interpreted, not the stats themselves.

Do you not find it interesting how many shots Byron manages to generate when he's PKing relative to how many he allows?

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Yeah, I make real posts. Anglesmith knows my opinion on Byron. Just trying get things going.

My problem with Corsi is that it simply isn't perfect. A defenseman hiding behind his own net waiting for his linemates to change is counted the same a team cycling it in the offensive zone.

Yes he's possessing it in both but the end result is completely different.

 

[Dertell]

I've personally always wondered why hockey doesn't measure actual possession. I mean, other sports do. Instead they use an indirect method to approximate something that can be measured directly.

Even if they measure actual possession, measuring the ability to make use of said possession and prevent the ability for the opponent to do the same will still be important.

 

[Anglesmith]

Even if they measure actual possession, measuring the ability to make use of said possession and prevent the ability for the opponent to do the same will still be important.

But it's clear to see the flaws in the system. Not just shot quality, as everyone points out, but also shot frequency. We saw the ultimate failing of the concept in a few of the games against the Coyotes last year. There were games where we got out-Corsi'd hard all game long, but were clearly in control all night.

Actually, the ultimate failing of advanced stats as it is right now was earlier in the off-season where a main-board user (not an Oilers fan) argued vehemently that the Oilers were a good defensive team last season based on advanced stats.

 

[Dertell]

But it's clear to see the flaws in the system. Not just shot quality, as everyone points out, but also shot frequency. We saw the ultimate failing of the concept in a few of the games against the Coyotes last year. There were games where we got out-Corsi'd hard all game long, but were clearly in control all night.

Actually, the ultimate failing of advanced stats as it is right now was earlier in the off-season where a main-board user (not an Oilers fan) argued vehemently that the Oilers were a good defensive team last season based on advanced stats.

No, possession numbers doesn't guarantee anything but they're the metric that has been the most successful in forecasting future outcomes. Until better metrics come up for fans to see, people will continue to bring up SAT and USAT. Also shot quality is mesured with scoring chances and high-scoring chances.

The Oilers had deplorable possession numbers, I'm not sure why anyone would argue they have defense based on Corsi/Fenwick/you name it.

 

[Anglesmith]

No, possession numbers doesn't guarantee anything but they're the metric that has been the most successful in forecasting future outcomes. Until better metrics come up for fans to see, people will continue to bring up SAT and USAT. Also shot quality is mesured with scoring chances and high-scoring chances.

The Oilers had deplorable possession numbers, I'm not sure why anyone would argue they have defense based on Corsi/Fenwick/you name it.

If I remember correctly, they were looking at some advanced-stats method of breaking down types of shots, and obviously failed miserably.

And that goes down to what you're talking about in the scoring chances/high-scoring chances department. I pressed for answers regarding how these things were calculated. Apparently some algorithm was being used where, for instance, turning a puck over in the neutral zone and lobbing a shot on net from inside the blueline would be counted as a high-danger shot. When you hear things like that from a guy who works for an advanced-stats website, it definitely concerns you.

Another is the fact that Corsi sees teams like last year's Flames as identical to the 2013-14 Avs and Leafs, when there are clear differences in the way they arrived at the numbers they did. However, I know based on the main board discussion with you that this isn't something I'm going to easily convince you of.

At the end of the day, I just don't understand the mantra that goes on right now that the unknown effect of bias is an unacceptable in terms of analysis, but the completely evident and predictable effects of attempting to mathematically simplify an extremely complex game are perfectly acceptable. At the end of the day, if you watch the game, you can tell whether your team was lucky or unlucky.

 

[Dertell]

If I remember correctly, they were looking at some advanced-stats method of breaking down types of shots, and obviously failed miserably.

And that goes down to what you're talking about in the scoring chances/high-scoring chances department. I pressed for answers regarding how these things were calculated. Apparently some algorithm was being used where, for instance, turning a puck over in the neutral zone and lobbing a shot on net from inside the blueline would be counted as a high-danger shot. When you hear things like that from a guy who works for an advanced-stats website, it definitely concerns you.

red = middle-danger chance (except blocked shots iirc), blue = high-danger.

For the Oilers thingy: the oilers were bottom 10 in both allowing scoring and high-scoring chances. Maybe they meant the forwards were bad defensively? Make no sense otherwise. Both coilers' D and goaltending had pathetic advanced numbers.

Another is the fact that Corsi sees teams like last year's Flames as identical to the 2013-14 Avs and Leafs, when there are clear differences in the way they arrived at the numbers they did. However, I know based on the main board discussion with you that this isn't something I'm going to easily convince you of.

You don't need to. Avs decided to punt away their best possession players and decided to replace them with possession killers during the offseason following 2013-14 and they were buyer in the previous deadline (remember reto berra for a 2nd rd pick ). Something similar can be said about the leafs under the Nonis regime. Treliving, putting aside from the Bouma contract, clearly show more regard to possession based on his decision to be seller at the TD and signing Backlund very quickly and getting two possession monsters in Hamilton and Frolik this off-season. They're not the same situation, even if regression is likely for several players.One made overall amazing décisions based on their situation. The other two, lol. And also the flames allowed less shot attempts per game and had more injuries than col and tor, so there's that too.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

But it's clear to see the flaws in the system. Not just shot quality, as everyone points out, but also shot frequency. We saw the ultimate failing of the concept in a few of the games against the Coyotes last year. There were games where we got out-Corsi'd hard all game long, but were clearly in control all night.

Without dragging this thread off topic...

Strong 5vs5 Fenwick / USAT-For% generally leads to a Strong 5vs5 Goals-For percentage. Here are the ten best USAT-For% teams of the 2014-15 season:

1) LA
2) NYI
3) Tampa
4) St. Louis
5) Nashville
6) Pittsburgh
7) Chicago
8) Dallas
9) Carolina
10) Minnesota

and here are the ten best 5 vs 5 Goals-For% teams:

1) Nashville
2) Tampa Bay
3) NYR
4) LA
5) St. Louis
6) Montreal
7) Chicago
8) Winnipeg
9) Minnesota
10) Pittsburgh

You can see that the biggest "difference" between the two statistics, is mostly goaltending. Carolina, Dallas, and the Islanders did not get very good goaltending. Montreal, the Rangers, the Predators, and even the Jets got strong goaltending at even strength.

Special teams also matter. Whether that's Power Play, Penalty Kill, 4 vs 4, or even Shootout. These are things the stats don't measure, and they can greatly influence perception of which team is in control. Score a power play goal, kill a penalty, trade some even strength goals, and you just won 2-1 and looked fine doing it even if the numbers, which only look at 5 vs 5, said the other team was 8-10% more likely to score at 5on5. And that's really how fine the margin might be. A 46-54 disadvantage is not terrible odds, but it's a disadvantage all the same, at the type of hockey that is played the most often.

Where was Calgary in all this? 28th in USAT% but a better 21st in GF%. A high shooting percentage managed to shift the goal scoring, but not significantly so. We were still bottom 10 in even strength goal scoring percentage. It was a legitimate weakness no matter which stat you want to use, the USAT% or the GF%. One stat isolates the variables of individual skater accuracy and individual goaltender ability, so why ignore it? But sure, keep dismissing it as "useless".

 

[Anglesmith]

Again, I'm not advocating ignoring statistics. I'm not arguing that Calgary was the best team in the league either. I'm just arguing against sloppy statistics interpretation.

I do like advanced stats, because they are information. As I said to 100TG, there's no such thing as bad information. I'm much more reliant on advanced stats when it comes to comparing players on the Flames than when comparing teams, because

a) I watch all the Flames games, and can figure out any systematic bias that may affect a player's numbers (ie is he a player who is reluctant to shoot the puck, or is shot-happy, does he prefer to block a shot or prevent it, quality of competition, etc.)

b) when you compare players on the same team, you remove many of the variables that make comparisons dicey between teams, such as system, and

c) the personal bias has a much greater effect with players than it does with teams, and can affect the things you notice from individual players as you watch them play.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I don't think we're on a different page at all.

I'd like to see us improve at the underlying stats but I can't see us being anything but better next season with the sole addition of Sam Bennett - even if the underlying stats improvement is only marginal (which is highly possible when Kris Russell is your #4D, Dougie or no).

In Byron's case though, the stats aren't about possession time. The fact that shot attempts are even making it to the opponent's goaltender at all should make it clear that the puck is all the way in the opponent's zone more often than most other players in the league.

 

[Anglesmith]

With regards to Byron, I love him based on the eye-test because I notice that good things tend to happen with him on the ice much more than bad things, and only found out about the fact that just about every statistic other than his ability to finish last year marks him as a very effective player about two weeks ago.

It's kind of funny. The first time we saw him up with the Flames, I was more-or-less indifferent to him. Then he had that call-up a few seasons ago where he broke his hand in his first game up, but I thought he had great energy in the game up to that point. The next season after that, I was kind of mad at first that he was called up and was slightly fed up with the guy (I think it has to do with Baertschi... maybe he was part of the reason for keeping Sven down in the minors), but holy **** did he ever win me over.

 

[Anglesmith]

Another thing that's kind of funny with Byron is that he is basically the anti-Bouma. It's interesting that they're both up for contract arbitration at the same time. You've got Bouma on one side, a guy with bad possession numbers, but who had what many call an unsustainably high luck factor during the contract year and had everything he touched turn to goals, and then you've got Byron, a guy with great possession numbers, but who had what I would say is an unsustainably low luck factor during the contract year and had everything he touched turn to iron.

 

[DFF]

If Byron has any luck at all, he would be a top 6 player

He made things happened, not sure that was just luck like Jooris or if he can sustain it. The guy has skills.

 

[Johnny GODreau]

If Byron has any luck at all, he would be a top 6 player

He made things happened, not sure that was just luck like Jooris or if he can sustain it. The guy has skills.

If Byron was 6'0 he'd be a top liner.

 

[Pirate King Luffy]

If Byron has any luck at all, he would be a top 6 player

He made things happened, not sure that was just luck like Jooris or if he can sustain it. The guy has skills.

That's a stretch.

If Byron was 6'0 he'd be a top liner.

There is a reason why he is effective at his size. If he was any taller than his gameplay might change the way he plays.