Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2023 Off-season

[CapitalsCupReality]

I usually give mgmt a fairly wide berth and the benefit of the doubt. My concern here is their tendency to reward performance with contract extensions and raises.

The biggest exception isn't even a player, it's a coach: Trotz.

So my fear is they'll do the same for Mantha, thinking he's "seen the light" and the new coach has reached him.

If they go that route they'd better at least avoid any sort of NMC and only offer what they can reasonably trade if Mantha cons them into a deal and then quiet quits again.

That would show me GMBM has lost his objectivity like McPhee did.

No way we can get suckered into believing he’s turned the corner in a contract year.

 

[twabby]

hooray, another all in one stat.

do you honestly, truly believe Mantha was the best player on this team last year? Don't hedge around the question, yes or no: was Anthony Mantha the best Washington Capital last season?

said player, meant forward, so don't get weird about that just to avoid answering.

No. I’d probably go with Strome as their best forward last year.

But I think the numbers are much closer to getting Mantha’s true impact accurate than the fanbase. Fans are notoriously awful in determining how effective skaters are defensively and most of Mantha’s impact comes from his defense:

He also had some of the worst quality of teammates on the team, sharing most of his time with Lars Eller and Evgeny Kuznetsov and rarely seeing the ice with Dylan Strome. This context is often overlooked.

So no I don’t think he was their best forward last year. Other metrics don’t really agree with that conclusion. But he’s closer to the top than the bottom.

 

[twabby]

That's far from the entirely of it, though. It's not analytics categorically that I take issue with but rather the idea of building teams via WAR alone or that the draft essentially is only about spamming attempts at stars. It's not the NBA. Analytics unchecked exceeds its usefulness and oversells. It's a common error outsiders tend to make that are looking to make a name for themselves and be disruptive. But if and when they get their foot in the door their insights need to be more qualified and professional if they're going to be part of something bigger than themselves.

We can discuss theoretical wins but, again, come playoff time would I favor a team built so generically? Very likely not. Areas like coaching, tactics and the finer points of team building end up being just as important. I'm all for building teams backed by targeted microstats, ample analytics research and a truly diverse mix of insights. It's treating WAR or NHLe as gospel that grossly oversimplifies and ignores much of the nuts and bolts of team building. Again, if this was the NBA I'd sooner gravitate toward such a star-centered fixation. But the game still doesn't function that way and there's a great deal such a cookie-cutter approach wouldn't be taking into consideration.

Btw, if anyone wants to join a dynasty hockey league as a replacement manager give me a shout.

The argument above ignores two realities:

1. The hard cap along with the relatively narrow distribution of talent in the NHL (outside of McDavid) doesn’t really enable teams to really get huge edges on other teams.

2. Hockey is incredibly random, and very good teams no matter how they’re built lose all the time.


Is there evidence that star-centered teams don’t win at a frequency in accordance with their strength as measured by WAR and that can’t be explained by the random nature of hockey? I don’t think this evidence exists.

The reason stars win so often in the NBA isn’t due to grit or synergy or whatever, it’s because it’s a higher scoring game and because the talent distribution is much wider. Those two facts reduce variance in outcomes quite a bit.

 

[twabby]

Must be nice to--I guess--have a trust fund or something and be able to smugly denigrate those who have to or choose to work for a living...

But on the last point, speaking for myself, analytics have zero impact on my enjoyment of the game (though they have a big impact on my enjoyment of this board). What I object to about your approach to analytics is the notion that human beings engaged in human activities can be entirely reduced to numbers. Numbers can be part of the picture when evaluating or conducting human endeavors, but understanding them as the entire image dehumanizes and devalues individuals and what they bring to their pursuits.

I don’t have money. I just meant I’m glad I’ve never had to deal with the corporate world in my career. It seems awful and soul-draining.

Again I don’t think numbers explain everything perfectly. But they do a much better job than the status quo. There are certainly elements that numbers don’t and maybe can’t measure, but they still do a better job overall than whatever processes are used right now.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

No. I’d probably go with Strome as their best forward last year.

But I think the numbers are much closer to getting Mantha’s true impact accurate than the fanbase. Fans are notoriously awful in determining how effective skaters are defensively and most of Mantha’s impact comes from his defense:

View attachment 737841

He also had some of the worst quality of teammates on the team, sharing most of his time with Lars Eller and Evgeny Kuznetsov and rarely seeing the ice with Dylan Strome. This context is often overlooked.

So no I don’t think he was their best forward last year. Other metrics don’t really agree with that conclusion. But he’s closer to the top than the bottom.

Sorry man..plenty of other people here were acknowledging Mantha’s underlying numbers were not bad, the shit linemates, etc…DURING the season, so let’s not pretend like you’re shedding some light.

It’s just it’s not enough for his cap hit…and he was just so disengaged otherwise. They needed him to play like a core player and he can’t seem to. Still..nobody who knows the game looks at his video and the numbers and says he was anything close to their best. It’s disingenuous as F…

 

[twabby]

As someone who builds this stuff for a living, something I regularly tell clients is that anyone who tries to reduce things to a single number is a fool. Data and analytics inform the conversation, they aren't the conversation by itself.

Again the question shouldn’t be whether a single number can represent everything perfectly (it can’t). The question should be does the single number do a better job than the status quo?

The logical followup should also be “why the hell don’t these incredibly skilled scouts beat simple point totals” when it comes to drafting? If these point totals are so flawed and imperfect yet they still win out over how teams draft now, what does that say about current scouting methodology?

 

[Langway]

That would show me GMBM has lost his objectivity like McPhee did.

No way we can get suckered into believing he’s turned the corner in a contract year.

Yeah, particularly with some of the wingers they have on the way. Even if he has a breakout year it would need to be short-term and at value. He's got to know the writing is on the wall in DC, likely a mututal decision and his main objective is to just build up his value again. Do that and maybe a desperate team hands him some term and he lucks into the rising cap off-season. But, yeah, very much doubt it's the Caps.

Re: WAR, the thing is that with actual skin in the game one can't afford to have a one-dimensional approach and one still largely backed by theory. It takes True Believer status to enslave decision-making to a model and the results, if unchecked, certainly could result in pure silliness. Need a PKing 4C that wins faceoffs? Nope, sorry. Got to have this soft minute winger instead because WAR. Absurd. Again, there's a place for analytics but in a more helpful functional sense in informing and prioritizing active management decisions. No single value metric is likely to advance to the point of being beyond scrutiny altogether.

 

[twabby]

Sorry man..plenty of other people here were acknowledging Mantha’s underlying numbers were not bad, the shit linemates, etc…DURING the season, so let’s not pretend like you’re shedding some light.

It’s just it’s not enough for his cap hit…and he was just so disengaged otherwise. They needed him to play like a core player and he can’t seem to. Still..nobody who knows the game looks at his video and the numbers and says he was anything close to their best. It’s disingenuous as F…

I agree he doesn’t do enough for his cap hit. But neither do like half of the forwards from last year.

Ovechkin, Kuznetsov, Wilson, Mantha, Backstrom, Oshie, and Eller were all overpaid to various degrees last year. I’m not trying to prop up Mantha more than I’m trying to say Washington has a truly dreadful set of forwards, and by default that means that Mantha’s contributions put him closer to the top than the bottom. I’d say Mantha is a perfectly fine middle six forward. That’s not enough for $5.7 million, but it’s still better than most of the forwards in terms of absolute and relative value.

 

[usiel]

https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/washington-capitals/news/washington-capitals-john-carlson-more-informal-skates

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I’d say it puts him in the middle at best….for last year. The other stuff completely outweighs his positive contributions. For $5.7 he’s basically a flop…..empty production.

 

[g00n]

I'm getting flashbacks to the gaslighting about Kuzy's previous season that one summer. When the player himself says the same shit the coach and GM are saying...f*** that. Don't listen. Twabby will set the record straight.

 

[Calicaps]

I don’t have money. I just meant I’m glad I’ve never had to deal with the corporate world in my career. It seems awful and soul-draining.

Again I don’t think numbers explain everything perfectly. But they do a much better job than the status quo. There are certainly elements that numbers don’t and maybe can’t measure, but they still do a better job overall than whatever processes are used right now.

I didn't say anything about corporate anything. I have not worked in a for-profit setting in decades, but the practice of hiring people you know and respect is a reality in all types of work environments. It's because you have to, you know, work with the people and knowing you get along and work well with them is a valuable part of the calculus.

Applying a model retrospectively is not proof of how it would operate in practice because of all the variables the model doesn't account for, especially setting and fit. It's easy to say that the Caps should have picked kid x or y based on the fact that the model said he would be great and he in fact thrived on another team. But maybe that other team actually had a lot to do with the thriving and the Caps would not have provided a similarly good environment. You consistently ignore this part of the equation.

 

[g00n]

Most people in any industry will tell you relationships matter.

Green idealogues imagine a world where all work and hiring is strictly merit based and transactional.

Which is weird because young people also tend to be drawn to utopian fantasies where everyone is equal regardless of skill, and transactional arrangements are the root of all evil.

IMO it just means they see a club they're not in--derisively referred to as the "status quo"--and they don't like it. So let's just get rid of the club and replace it with another one...coincidentally the one they're in.

 

[Calicaps]

Most people in any industry will tell you relationships matter.

Green idealogues imagine a world where all work and hiring is strictly merit based and transactional.

Which is weird because young people also tend to be drawn to utopian fantasies where everyone is equal regardless of skill, and transactional arrangements are the root of all evil.

IMO it just means they see a club they're not in--derisively referred to as the "status quo"--and they don't like it. So let's just get rid of the club and replace it with another one...coincidentally the one they're in.

LOL! But now that you mention it, this is the core of both issues: the hiring of scouts who you played with years before and the drafting/trading/signing of players. Relationships and environment matter. Getting along with other people and feeling confident etc in your place of work, matter. Cold hard analytics simply can't predict or measure the value of that on either side of the roster-building process (players or scouts/managers)

 

[twabby]

Most people in any industry will tell you relationships matter.

Green idealogues imagine a world where all work and hiring is strictly merit based and transactional.

Which is weird because young people also tend to be drawn to utopian fantasies where everyone is equal regardless of skill, and transactional arrangements are the root of all evil.

IMO it just means they see a club they're not in--derisively referred to as the "status quo"--and they don't like it. So let's just get rid of the club and replace it with another one...coincidentally the one they're in.

 

[usiel]

Most people in any industry will tell you relationships matter.

Green idealogues imagine a world where all work and hiring is strictly merit based and transactional.

Which is weird because young people also tend to be drawn to utopian fantasies where everyone is equal regardless of skill, and transactional arrangements are the root of all evil.

IMO it just means they see a club they're not in--derisively referred to as the "status quo"--and they don't like it. So let's just get rid of the club and replace it with another one...coincidentally the one they're in.

Bolded I sort of half ass call like wishing the Star Trek universe was already here.

 

[g00n]

View attachment 737861

You're right. It's a stupid thing to get upset about. So I don't.

But what I said was true and has been true for centuries...even millenia. Your cause is simply the latest version of "you just hate this because you're old and don't want anything to change" vs "you don't know what you don't know because you lack experience".

Isn't the "status quo" argument equally presumptive and dismissive?

Whatever the level of denial, the one constant in all of this is people. We're talking about humans, not numbers on a spreadsheet, Spock. The digits don't tell the whole story and probably never will.

Emotional intelligence is a form of intelligence. Managing people and understanding relationships and unquantifiable realities is a skill that's as relevant and valuable as creating a pivot table or firing a slapshot, maybe moreso.

The guy with the data and no social skills is not always the guy you want running things.

 

[g00n]

Bolded I sort of half ass call like wishing the Star Trek universe was already here.

Rick Rubin had a great quote in his recent book on creativity, which I would snarkspectfully subtitle "Zen and the Art of Art".

The quote in question may be his or he may have lifted it, because I noticed he quoted some classic rock lyrics and didn't give the source (at least not in the audiobook). I think the gist was:

"Impatience is an argument with reality"

I think this goes beyond just impatence, and I see this every day, especially from 20-30somethings who believe everything they do and say is a revolutionary breakthrough nobody has ever tried before that demands immediate attention, regardless of the circumstances or "realities".

The challenge at the outset is separating reality from fantasy. To some the very notion of reality is the problem. They've been pumped so full of affirmations about their own personal abilities to change the world via a lifetime of recycled graduation speeches they believe reality MUST be totally subjective.

Any reality that challenges that personal or generational flexibility is considered a tool of oppression presumably created arbitrarily by a ruling class for the sole purpose of oppressing them and their "new" ideas, whether or not that's even partly true. "f*** your reality" is then thought to be an actual plan of action.

Yes, to some degree you need to have an outside-the-box mentality to get ahead but again we're talking about recognizing what's real and what isn't. We're also ignoring all the null result experiments where "f*** reality" fails catastrophically.

What's irrefutable is that relationships in business are very real and very important. This is not because of some conspiracy, it's because we're human.

There are some people who can function as robots and they manage to coexist in a workspace with other equally robotic people. But eventually they run into a wall based on their limitations, which are almost always due to a lack of practical knowledge and/or "people skills".

That's when they need outside help from sherpas trained in negotiating the emotional and worldly terrain that spreadsheets and code can't conquer remotely. They also refuse to acknowledge their own realities and relationships, and how much they value those above the data. So they're right back where they started, creating their own albeit stunted "club" that simply looking to replace the one they've targeted for replacement.

Eventually little sips of power turn things rotten and the same old stories of corruption, backbiting, betrayal, abuse, nepotism, etc emerge as is the fate of any idealistic, aspirational power structure seeking to become the new norm.

Everyone knows businesses and cliques that go through this. Few don't. Look at nearly every utopian community, real or virtual, and what always happens (see: the chans, for example).

So whinging about NHL veterans who've dedicated their lives and careers to the game and the league hiring other NHL veterans based on experience is just jealous outsider gutter sniping at worst and ideological naivete at best.

Is that a bit preachy and windy? Probably. But I'm too old to care. Behold my old man strength.

The first step to getting out of the hole is to put down the shovel.

Stop arguing with reality.

 

[YippieKaey]

Rick Rubin had a great quote in his recent book on creativity, which I would snarkspectfully subtitle "Zen and the Art of Art".

The quote in question may be his or he may have lifted it, because I noticed he quoted some classic rock lyrics and didn't give the source (at least not in the audiobook). I think the gist was:

"Impatience is an argument with reality"

I think this goes beyond just impatence, and I see this every day, especially from 20-30somethings who believe everything they do and say is a revolutionary breakthrough nobody has ever tried before that demands immediate attention, regardless of the circumstances or "realities".

The challenge at the outset is separating reality from fantasy. To some the very notion of reality is the problem. They've been pumped so full of affirmations about their own personal abilities to change the world via a lifetime of recycled graduation speeches they believe reality MUST be totally subjective.

Any reality that challenges that personal or generational flexibility is considered a tool of oppression presumably created arbitrarily by a ruling class for the sole purpose of oppressing them and their "new" ideas, whether or not that's even partly true. "f*** your reality" is then thought to be an actual plan of action.

Yes, to some degree you need to have an outside-the-box mentality to get ahead but again we're talking about recognizing what's real and what isn't. We're also ignoring all the null result experiments where "f*** reality" fails catastrophically.

What's irrefutable is that relationships in business are very real and very important. This is not because of some conspiracy, it's because we're human.

There are some people who can function as robots and they manage to coexist in a workspace with other equally robotic people. But eventually they run into a wall based on their limitations, which are almost always due to a lack of practical knowledge and/or "people skills".

That's when they need outside help from sherpas trained in negotiating the emotional and worldly terrain that spreadsheets and code can't conquer remotely. They also refuse to acknowledge their own realities and relationships, and how much they value those above the data. So they're right back where they started, creating their own albeit stunted "club" that simply looking to replace the one they've targeted for replacement.

Eventually little sips of power turn things rotten and the same old stories of corruption, backbiting, betrayal, abuse, nepotism, etc emerge as is the fate of any idealistic, aspirational power structure seeking to become the new norm.

Everyone knows businesses and cliques that go through this. Few don't. Look at nearly every utopian community, real or virtual, and what always happens (see: the chans, for example).

So whinging about NHL veterans who've dedicated their lives and careers to the game and the league hiring other NHL veterans based on experience is just jealous outsider gutter sniping at worst and ideological naivete at best.

Is that a bit preachy and windy? Probably. But I'm too old to care. Behold my old man strength.

The first step to getting out of the hole is to put down the shovel.

Stop arguing with reality.

Arguing with reality is essential to progress. If we hadn't done that we'd still be living in caves covered in our own feces.

And a lot of real nice things (workers right, vacations, voting, laws against violence against women and so forth) are products of "ideological naivete".

Only dead fish go with the flow etc.

 

[g00n]

Arguing with reality is essential to progress. If we hadn't done that we'd still be living in caves covered in our own feces.

And a lot of real nice things (workers right, vacations, voting, laws against violence against women and so forth) are products of "ideological naivete".

Only dead fish go with the flow etc.

You pretty much just exemplified what I was talking about here.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people have trouble separating reality from fantasy based on some notion that "status quo" in all things is always an arbitrary product of an oppressor class.

Fancy stats are not a social crusade. This is not civil rights. It's people thinking spreadsheets should replace NHL veterans, and then lumping that crusade in with all others.

Social progress is not "ideological naivete" but thinking we can just snap our fingers and make it happen instantly IS.

Valuing fancy stats as a tool in a broader toolbox is not "ideological naivete" but thinking we can totally or mostly replace experience and all other tools with spreadsheets IS.

Believing in improving systems is not "ideological naivete" but thinking MY system is uniquely immune to all the other factors that have affected every other system in history IS.

I thought I wrote too much but I guess I didn't write enough.

 

[YippieKaey]

You pretty much just exemplified what I was talking about here.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people have trouble separating reality from fantasy based on some notion that "status quo" in all things is always an arbitrary product of an oppressor class.

Fancy stats are not a social crusade. This is not civil rights. It's people thinking spreadsheets should replace NHL veterans, and then lumping that crusade in with all others.

Social progress is not "ideological naivete" but thinking we can just snap our fingers and make it happen instantly IS.

Valuing fancy stats as a tool in a broader toolbox is not "ideological naivete" but thinking we can totally or mostly replace experience and all other tools with spreadsheets IS.

Believing in improving systems is not "ideological naivete" but thinking MY system is uniquely immune to all the other factors that have affected every other system in history IS.

I thought I wrote too much but I guess I didn't write enough.

Now i understand and agree with your point. Thank you for clarifying!

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

No. I’d probably go with Strome as their best forward last year.

But I think the numbers are much closer to getting Mantha’s true impact accurate than the fanbase. Fans are notoriously awful in determining how effective skaters are defensively and most of Mantha’s impact comes from his defense:

View attachment 737841

He also had some of the worst quality of teammates on the team, sharing most of his time with Lars Eller and Evgeny Kuznetsov and rarely seeing the ice with Dylan Strome. This context is often overlooked.

So no I don’t think he was their best forward last year. Other metrics don’t really agree with that conclusion. But he’s closer to the top than the bottom.

Stop copying me, twab. There’s only enough room on the Mantha bandwagon for me. I and I alone shall be vindicated when he has a good year and brings us a solid return at the deadline.

He is the weirdest player I can recall in terms of fancies vs eye test. The fancies tell us he’s a useful if not good player. The eye test makes most fans (and his last coach) hate him as a player.

 

[itsjustsurvival]

Does anyone have predictions on some specific changes to the system the Capitals will use?

Personally, I'm more excited to see what they implement systems wise than personnel decisions at this point.

 

[Langway]

Carbery discusses Ovechkin, plans for Capitals in Q&A with NHL.com | NHL.com

New coach says forward 'hungry' to get back to Stanley Cup Playoffs

www.nhl.com

Sounds like Pacioretty is expected to start on LTIR, which should help finesse some of their (at least) initial cap considerations.

 

[twabby]

Stop copying me, twab. There’s only enough room on the Mantha bandwagon for me. I and I alone shall be vindicated when he has a good year and brings us a solid return at the deadline.

He is the weirdest player I can recall in terms of fancies vs eye test. The fancies tell us he’s a useful if not good player. The eye test makes most fans (and his last coach) hate him as a player.

He seems like he just has a peculiar personality and that puts some people off. He's awkwardly honest in interviews but I don't hold that against him. Of course he's playing to get a new contract, everyone does! Who cares if he says it out loud? Grow up!