Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines/etc) | 2023-24 Regular Season Edition

[ClevelandCapsfan]

Sorry for taking off the rose-colored g

Don’t be so simple. Seriously.

I (ME) compared Protas scoring to Tage Thompson’s at their age 23 season. Same age to same age. That’s it. NEVER did anyone say Protas would equal Thompson’s numbers going forward.

And no one has ever compared CMcM to Hughes.

Keep being a harpy for these negative comments. It’s obv more fun for you than anything else.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Sorry for offending everyone’s sensibilities. My whole point, which everyone seems to have conveniently overlooked, is that it’s fine to speculate about a player’s ceiling. But please don’t carelessly toss out names like Tage and Hughes saying if only our guys had their shot and development arc.

Well, then you are now making a new point, as that certainly isn’t what you said earlier. You sarcastically stated something, which was a total leap on your part.

Moving on

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Well, then you are now making a new point, as that certainly isn’t what you said earlier. You sarcastically stated something, which was a total leap on your part.

Moving on

It’s certainly what he said if you read between the lines a little.

Everyone needs to chill!

 

[um]

Sorry for offending everyone’s sensibilities. My whole point, which everyone seems to have conveniently overlooked, is that it’s fine to speculate about a player’s ceiling. But please don’t carelessly toss out names like Tage and Hughes saying if only our guys had their shot and development arc.

People compare prospects to star players because it’s a reference that’s easy for everyone to understand. And It’s a comparison of style of play, not their abilities.

You’re taking the name drops too literally.

 

[twabby]

No one actually said or even implied that Connor McMichael would be in the same galaxy as Jack Hughes if he improved his shot.

 

[Neil Racki]

Congrats Aliaksei on making it!

I imagine hes super relaxed now, earned the childhood dream

If he can continue to be defensively minded, make god decisions on the ice, get near 40-60 pts a season ... that would be a great return.

Congrats young guy, you did it

 

[Ridley Simon]

It’s certainly what he said if you read between the lines a little.

Everyone needs to chill!

This was the quote:

“SMH, posters on this board comparing Protas with Tage and CMM with Hughes.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

I am chill. This guy was trying to mock some posters by creating a fake argument to do so. It was stupid, so some of us called it out.

I’m sure that’s not something that you would *ever* do, right CCR?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This was the quote:

“SMH, posters on this board comparing Protas with Tage and CMM with Hughes.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

I am chill. This guy was trying to mock some posters by creating a fake argument to do so. It was stupid, so some of us called it out.

I’m sure that’s not something that you would *ever* do, right CCR?

Infighting is just silly…everyone so defensive. The only ones “calling it out” the ones who dropped the comparisons lol…all good…just makes me lol.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Infighting is just silly…everyone so defensive. The only ones “calling it out” the ones who dropped the comparisons lol…all good…just makes me lol.

Of course I made a comparison. Their age 23 seasons were (are) extremely similar from a production stand point. That’s simply a fact.

And that’s where it ends. There was no reason for anyone to get all smarmy about it, save trying to be a dick.

Which is fine, but it certainly changes the tone of any response one may get when being said dick. That’s all.

 

[Kalopsia]

Quick GAR/xGAR check-in at the halfway point of the season:

View attachment 807458

View attachment 807459

No significant changes since a month or so ago. I can't for the life of me understand why TVR is getting healthy scratched over Edmundson and Bear.

Does it seem weird to anyone else that these models are really high on Dowd and NAK but at the same time really don't like Malenstyn, considering Beck spends ~80% of his ice time with those two? I wonder what's going on there. I'm pretty sure Beck isn't the 2nd worst skater on the Caps defensively.

 

[Hivemind]

Damn, it's like you didn't read anything about how I said it's not about the player as a comparable and more about the development arc for a recent big man who plays to his skill instead of his size and has tools. The fact that they're virtually equal in their 23 year old season is nothing to sniff at when it comes to talking about development, regardless of who has more top end skill, which was the whole f***ing point.

Like, I thought I already spelled this out in the last post. Also, if I understand it right Tage Thompson (born October) was one of the oldest eligible prospects, so a handful of weeks and maybe he's another low-round tools project. I think it's interesting to ask if Protas might have been a first round pick if his draft year was his 80 in 58 season, though admittedly he's much farther from the cutoff as a January birth, since he looked well beyond 3rd round caliber.

As for the bold it's entirely possible, especially judging by recent top 6 Caps and their defensive impacts. You see many players better on the charts right now as it stands? What kind of hypothetical top 6 are we talking about here because if you stuck Protas in the top 6 right now with Ovechkin and Oshie he'd probably be the best player on the line, the line would just suck.

Do you think he looks overwhelmed or at the brink of his ability right now? If he has another gear to reach, are you confident predicting where it ends?


Lol, one person one time said they should send him to whoever fixed Hughes' shot and now he's a direct comparable... this shit is getting stupid.

It's like people are incapable of parsing out any nuance and demand one-to-one player comparables right now to have this conversation, and to drag on one of the brighter points of the season and future to boot.

I read what you wrote, but the two players do not have the same development arc.

Tage Thompson's development arc has a lot more room to, well, arc upwards. That's the whole point here.

I get what you are saying. I understand the analogy you are trying to make. I just don't agree with it. You're trying to draw comparisons without pulling in the superlative attributes of the comparison. The issue is that the superlative attributes are what makes Tage Thompson stand-out. The superlative attributes are why his development curve had space to play out that way. This doesn't mean I don't like Protas or I think Protas sucks. But just because he put up a similar quantity of points as another big player did at a similar age doesn't mean that he has the same potential for upward growth as that player.

The fact that you're qualifying your top six statement with "what kind of hypothetical top 6 are we talking about" shows that you know what I'm getting at. I think we both agree that it's unlikely Protas will ever be the best player on a viable scoring line.

 

[Kolzilla]

Can't we all just get along...

 

[HTFN]

I read what you wrote, but the two players do not have the same development arc.

Tage Thompson's development arc has a lot more room to, well, arc upwards. That's the whole point here.

I get what you are saying. I understand the analogy you are trying to make. I just don't agree with it. You're trying to draw comparisons without pulling in the superlative attributes of the comparison. The issue is that the superlative attributes are what makes Tage Thompson stand-out. The superlative attributes are why his development curve had space to play out that way. This doesn't mean I don't like Protas or I think Protas sucks. But just because he put up a similar quantity of points as another big player did at a similar age doesn't mean that he has the same potential for upward growth as that player.

The fact that you're qualifying your top six statement with "what kind of hypothetical top 6 are we talking about" shows that you know what I'm getting at. I think we both agree that it's unlikely Protas will ever be the best player on a viable scoring line.

I picked a really easy example to prove the point but in a functioning (and scoring) top 6 it might depend on what you value. Backstrom spent some time being (to us) easily the best player on his line but the league's fans barely noticed because he does things subtly and thrives on passing, puck protection, and defense. I'm comparing their career arcs since that apparently needs to be said, but Protas is strongest at passing, puck protection, and defense. I think there's absolutely a non-zero chance that Protas could be graded the best cumulative player on Twabby's charts in a functional top 6 line if he continues to grow considering he's already grading out as one of the best players over the season.

That the dude keeps coming into leagues, blooming later in the year/his time there, and then displaying a knack for exploiting it is why he's got potential. You reference Tage's visibly obvious shot and tools, and yes, Protas isn't that guy, but he's a cerebral player (clearly) who adapts to his environment and eventually produces. Now we're seeing it at the NHL level, also known as the really important one, and based on what I've seen I'm not comfortable projecting a hard cap on what he can be. Well, he's not likely going to break Thompson's single season record for goals or points but that's you confusing "potential for growth" with "potential ceiling" again so let's get that out of the way.

Looks like two guys the same age at the same point on a development arc, with various strengths and weaknesses but really difficult to explain Protas being notably behind. Is a 50-60 point player with much better defense significantly worse than a guy who looks to tickle a point per game? Like, to the point where we can't entertain the idea that Protas could be an impact guy?

 

[Ridley Simon]

I picked a really easy example to prove the point but in a functioning (and scoring) top 6 it might depend on what you value. Backstrom spent some time being (to us) easily the best player on his line but the league's fans barely noticed because he does things subtly and thrives on passing, puck protection, and defense. I'm comparing their career arcs since that apparently needs to be said, but Protas is strongest at passing, puck protection, and defense. I think there's absolutely a non-zero chance that Protas could be graded the best cumulative player on Twabby's charts in a functional top 6 line if he continues to grow considering he's already grading out as one of the best players over the season.

That the dude keeps coming into leagues, blooming later in the year/his time there, and then displaying a knack for exploiting it is why he's got potential. You reference Tage's visibly obvious shot and tools, and yes, Protas isn't that guy, but he's a cerebral player (clearly) who adapts to his environment and eventually produces. Now we're seeing it at the NHL level, also known as the really important one, and based on what I've seen I'm not comfortable projecting a hard cap on what he can be. Well, he's not likely going to break Thompson's single season record for goals or points but that's you confusing "potential for growth" with "potential ceiling" again so let's get that out of the way.

View attachment 808095

Looks like two guys the same age at the same point on a development arc, with various strengths and weaknesses but really difficult to explain Protas being notably behind. Is a 50-60 point player with much better defense significantly worse than a guy who looks more likely to tickle a point per game than stay a 100 point candidate?

How Dare You!!

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I think there’s absolutely a non—zero chance that the Benji vortex is claiming another poor soul…

 

[um]

Does it seem weird to anyone else that these models are really high on Dowd and NAK but at the same time really don't like Malenstyn, considering Beck spends ~80% of his ice time with those two? I wonder what's going on there. I'm pretty sure Beck isn't the 2nd worst skater on the Caps defensively.

It is odd.

I do get frustrated by Malenstyn having no skills, but it seems like he's decent defensively and keeping the puck in the Ozone.

 

[Hivemind]

I picked a really easy example to prove the point but in a functioning (and scoring) top 6 it might depend on what you value. Backstrom spent some time being (to us) easily the best player on his line but the league's fans barely noticed because he does things subtly and thrives on passing, puck protection, and defense. I'm comparing their career arcs since that apparently needs to be said, but Protas is strongest at passing, puck protection, and defense. I think there's absolutely a non-zero chance that Protas could be graded the best cumulative player on Twabby's charts in a functional top 6 line if he continues to grow considering he's already grading out as one of the best players over the season.

That the dude keeps coming into leagues, blooming later in the year/his time there, and then displaying a knack for exploiting it is why he's got potential. You reference Tage's visibly obvious shot and tools, and yes, Protas isn't that guy, but he's a cerebral player (clearly) who adapts to his environment and eventually produces. Now we're seeing it at the NHL level, also known as the really important one, and based on what I've seen I'm not comfortable projecting a hard cap on what he can be. Well, he's not likely going to break Thompson's single season record for goals or points but that's you confusing "potential for growth" with "potential ceiling" again so let's get that out of the way.

View attachment 808095

Looks like two guys the same age at the same point on a development arc, with various strengths and weaknesses but really difficult to explain Protas being notably behind. Is a 50-60 point player with much better defense significantly worse than a guy who looks to tickle a point per game? Like, to the point where we can't entertain the idea that Protas could be an impact guy?

I'm not confusing Potential Ceiling with Potential for Growth.
Tage Thompson's potential for growth was based off of his incredible tools.
Protas' tools aren't nearly the same level. Can Protas improve some? Sure, but using Tage Thompson as the justification for that is just silly.

 

[Raikkonen]

4% to make playoffs?

TANK!

And then sell obviously.

 

[YippieKaey]

Here's my "if wrong, forgotten in a year, if correct i can come back and edit the post and remind everyone later".

CMM will outscore Hughes by 2026 and Protas will be a 30-70-100 guy with amazing defence.

Im CONVINCED of it.

 

[ClevelandCapsfan]

Here's my "if wrong, forgotten in a year, if correct i can come back and edit the post and remind everyone later".

CMM will outscore Hughes by 2026 and Protas will be a 30-70-100 guy with amazing defence.

Im CONVINCED of it.

 

[ClevelandCapsfan]

4% to make playoffs?

TANK!

And then sell obviously.

 

[twabby]

Does it seem weird to anyone else that these models are really high on Dowd and NAK but at the same time really don't like Malenstyn, considering Beck spends ~80% of his ice time with those two? I wonder what's going on there. I'm pretty sure Beck isn't the 2nd worst skater on the Caps defensively.

No, for the same reason Carl Hagelin rated poorly in his last year in DC despite spending like 90% of his time with Dowd and Hathaway. There are still periods of time where the players are on different lines and some conclusions can be drawn on which players are really the drivers of a line's success based on these differences and how these players perform during these periods of time.

 

[Kalopsia]

No, for the same reason Carl Hagelin rated poorly in his last year in DC despite spending like 90% of his time with Dowd and Hathaway. There are still periods of time where the players are on different lines and some conclusions can be drawn on which players are really the drivers of a line's success based on these differences and how these players perform during these periods of time.

I've been looking into this with naturalstattrick's line combinations tool and I think this is a perfect example of why taking w/ and w/o numbers out of context can be extremely misleading.

Player 1​	Player 2​	Player 3​	GP​	TOI​	xGF​	xGA​	xGF%​	Off. Zone Faceoff %​
Beck Malenstyn​	Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	Nic Dowd​	31​	282.6​	7.42​	11.98​	38.25​	7.72​
Beck Malenstyn​	Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	w/o Nic Dowd​	31​	31.8​	0.99​	1.79​	35.63​	14.29​
Beck Malenstyn​	w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	Nic Dowd​	34​	57.4​	2.58​	3.16​	44.92​	7.69​
Beck Malenstyn​	w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	w/o Nic Dowd​	43​	97.8​	2.75​	6.17​	30.84​	16.13​
w/o Beck Malenstyn​	Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	Nic Dowd​	32​	36.8​	0.97​	1.69​	36.37​	42.86​
w/o Beck Malenstyn​	Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	w/o Nic Dowd​	32​	48.0​	1.86​	1.72​	52.04​	45.45​
w/o Beck Malenstyn​	w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	Nic Dowd​	35​	61.9​	1.23​	1.46​	45.65​	39.13​
w/o Beck Malenstyn​	w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​	w/o Nic Dowd​	44​	1530.2​	66.49​	70.53​	48.52​	61.94​

The thing you notice right away is that clearly in Carbery's eyes, the guy who defines the shutdown line is Malenstyn. When one or both of NAK and Dowd aren't with him he still gets incredibly tough deployments, and when NAK or Dowd are away from Beck, even if they're together, they get very middle of the road deployments. That's gonna skew things when you look at Beck's numbers away from them (tough minutes now with probably less defensively capable linemates) vs NAK and Dowd's numbers away from Beck (easier minutes with more offensively capable line mates). The faith the coaching staff has in him as a defender actually causes with/without stats to think he's bad defensively.

If anything, I think these numbers paint NAK as the passenger on the line. You take him out, and the Dowd-Malentysn line's xGF% goes up nearly 7 points while playing the same brutal deployment. Take Malenstyn out and the Dowd-NAK line's xGF% goes down almost 2 points despite getting significantly easier deployments. I still don't have a lot of faith in that conclusion though because we're looking at very small sample sizes for the play of these guys away from each other and there's still other factors being left out (who exactly these guys are playing with while away from each other, how good/bad are the teams they're playing during these small samples, what's the score situation where Carbery would choose to break up these lines, how does NAK not having to PK while the other two are the top PK unit affect their ES play, etc).

 

[twabby]

I've been looking into this with naturalstattrick's line combinations tool and I think this is a perfect example of why taking w/ and w/o numbers out of context can be extremely misleading.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

Player 1​

[/TD]

[TD]

Player 2​

[/TD]

[TD]

Player 3​

[/TD]

[TD]

GP​

[/TD]

[TD]

TOI​

[/TD]

[TD]

xGF​

[/TD]

[TD]

xGA​

[/TD]

[TD]

xGF%​

[/TD]

[TD]

Off. Zone Faceoff %​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

31​

[/TD]

[TD]

282.6​

[/TD]

[TD]

7.42​

[/TD]

[TD]

11.98​

[/TD]

[TD]

38.25​

[/TD]

[TD]

7.72​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

31​

[/TD]

[TD]

31.8​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.99​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.79​

[/TD]

[TD]

35.63​

[/TD]

[TD]

14.29​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

34​

[/TD]

[TD]

57.4​

[/TD]

[TD]

2.58​

[/TD]

[TD]

3.16​

[/TD]

[TD]

44.92​

[/TD]

[TD]

7.69​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

43​

[/TD]

[TD]

97.8​

[/TD]

[TD]

2.75​

[/TD]

[TD]

6.17​

[/TD]

[TD]

30.84​

[/TD]

[TD]

16.13​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

w/o Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

32​

[/TD]

[TD]

36.8​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.97​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.69​

[/TD]

[TD]

36.37​

[/TD]

[TD]

42.86​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

w/o Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

32​

[/TD]

[TD]

48.0​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.86​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.72​

[/TD]

[TD]

52.04​

[/TD]

[TD]

45.45​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

w/o Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

35​

[/TD]

[TD]

61.9​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.23​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.46​

[/TD]

[TD]

45.65​

[/TD]

[TD]

39.13​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

w/o Beck Malenstyn​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nicolas Aube-Kubel​

[/TD]

[TD]

w/o Nic Dowd​

[/TD]

[TD]

44​

[/TD]

[TD]

1530.2​

[/TD]

[TD]

66.49​

[/TD]

[TD]

70.53​

[/TD]

[TD]

48.52​

[/TD]

[TD]

61.94​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The thing you notice right away is that clearly in Carbery's eyes, the guy who defines the shutdown line is Malenstyn. When one or both of NAK and Dowd aren't with him he still gets incredibly tough deployments, and when NAK or Dowd are away from Beck, even if they're together, they get very middle of the road deployments. That's gonna skew things when you look at Beck's numbers away from them (tough minutes now with probably less defensively capable linemates) vs NAK and Dowd's numbers away from Beck (easier minutes with more offensively capable line mates). The faith the coaching staff has in him as a defender actually causes with/without stats to think he's bad defensively.

If anything, I think these numbers paint NAK as the passenger on the line. You take him out, and the Dowd-Malentysn line's xGF% goes up nearly 7 points while playing the same brutal deployment. Take Malenstyn out and the Dowd-NAK line's xGF% goes down almost 2 points despite getting significantly easier deployments. I still don't have a lot of faith in that conclusion though because we're looking at very small sample sizes for the play of these guys away from each other and there's still other factors being left out (who exactly these guys are playing with while away from each other, how good/bad are the teams they're playing during these small samples, what's the score situation where Carbery would choose to break up these lines, how does NAK not having to PK while the other two are the top PK unit affect their ES play, etc).

I agree the sample size of Malenstyn away from Dowd and NAK gives me a little less confidence in those numbers truly reflecting how well they are playing individually.

But I think the WOWY numbers for these three alone don't really paint a full picture. NAK for instance has played a decent amount opposite Ovechkin, with Ovechkin experiencing a bump in his xG during this time. The model is going to give NAK some credit for this bump. And there are dozens of other interactions like this that get measured and aggregated. NAK/Ovechkin, Malenstyn/Carlson, Dowd/Jensen, etc. More than I can list here.

It's why the regression method used by these models is so powerful. It takes all of these interactions, all of the context (teammates, competition, score, zone start, home/away, etc.) and spits out an entire output dataset which best explains the results seen given the massive amount of input data.

It's also why I suspect sites like Evolving Hockey don't let you ask for GAR on a user-requested date range: it would take an expensive computation to run the regression and return a result. It's not just a simple DB query like xGF for the month of January, for example.

 

[Misery74]

I agree the sample size of Malenstyn away from Dowd and NAK gives me a little less confidence in those numbers being accurate.

But I think the WOWY numbers for these three alone don't really paint a full picture. NAK for instance has played a decent amount opposite Ovechkin, with Ovechkin experiencing a bump in his xG during this time. The model is going to give NAK some credit for this bump. And there are dozens of other interactions like this that get measured and aggregated. NAK/Ovechkin, Malenstyn/Carlson, Dowd/Jensen, etc.

It's why the regression method used by these models is so powerful. It takes all of these interactions, all of the context (teammates, competition, score, zone start, home/away, etc.) and spits out an entire output dataset which best explains the results seen given the massive amount of input data.

It's also why I suspect sites like Evolving Hockey don't let you ask for GAR on a user-requested date range: it would take an expensive computation to run the regression and return a result. It's not just a simple DB query like xGF for the month of January, for example.

Where we at with AA? Should be in top 6?

By the eye test, he looks better than 6, 25 and 57.