July 1st - Free Agent Extravaganza Part III

[Riverdale]

I have a feeling MDZ would not want to come back to NY.

 

[Thirty One]

He had seasons of 37 and 41 points because he was force fed 4 minutes of PP time a game with 4 other forwards because we had no other offensively capable blueliners.

He still had 25 ES points (T16th among defensemen).

 

[Zil]

It would also appear that NHL gm's are not reductionists that think possession stats are the be all end all of hockey. Imagine that.

Stanley Cup Finalists with their CF% 5 on 5, close
2013-14: Kings (57.2%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Rangers (53.2%, 6th in NHL, 3rd in East)
2012-13: Blackhawks (55.4%, 2nd NHL, 2nd West) def. Bruins (55.0%, 4th NHL, 2nd East)
2011-12: Kings (54.9%, 2nd NHL, 1st West) def. Devils (51.0%, 11th NHL, 5th East)
2010-11: Bruins (51.1%, 13th NHL, 5th East) def. Canucks (53.7%, 3rd NHL, 3rd West)
2009-10: Blackhawks (56.9%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Flyers (50.5%, 14th NHL, 7th East)
2008-09: Pittsburgh (49.2%, 16th NHL, 7th East) def. Red Wings (58.4%, 1st NHL, 1st West)
2007-08: Detroit (59.4%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Pittsburgh (45.2%, 27th NHL, 14th East)

Tell me how many of the rosters without Crosby and Malkin made it to the Final with a CF% 5 on 5, close below 50%. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[TheTakedown]

Hahahah exactly what i was thinking.


The Nash is hate is stupid. He was snake bitten in the playoffs. He played hard and elevated his game as the playoffs went deeper. He is going to have a big year for us.

I agree... He actually looked VERY good against LA... Next year will be a good year for him.... I expect 30... But 35-40 is not impossible.

 

[eco's bones]

He had seasons of 37 and 41 points because he was force fed 4 minutes of PP time a game with 4 other forwards because we had no other offensively capable blueliners.

Rozsival, who was not an offensive defenseman put up 37 and 40 under similar circumstances.

Now that we have McDonagh, we don't need to have to put up with a blueliner who can't play defense any more. It's no longer necessary.

It would also appear that NHL gm's are not reductionists that think possession stats are the be all end all of hockey. Imagine that.

Possession stats are not a be all or end all but that's an argument that some are not even going to listen to. I expect a defenseman to defend first--to not be a guy who panics when pressure is on him in his own zone and DZ is a panicker. I can appreciate what Stralman gave to the team and he was capable of stepping up his effort--especially in the playoffs. He was calm in his end and consistently made smart break out plays. That came at the expense of some offense. The Rangers chose Girardi ahead of him. Dan's been a leader on and off the ice. He's always played against the best players the opposition puts out against the Rangers. He's not a guy who takes penalties and he is a guy who can take a hit--block a shot and play 25 minutes a game and hardly ever miss games with injuries. He's done it for years and has more of a pedigree at all of that than Stralman.

 

[Thirty One]

Possession stats are not a be all or end all but that's an argument that some are not even going to listen to.

Actually no one has ever attempted to argue they are the end all be all. Actually.

Stanley Cup Finalists with their CF% 5 on 5, close
2013-14: Kings (57.2%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Rangers (53.2%, 6th in NHL, 3rd in East)
2012-13: Blackhawks (55.4%, 2nd NHL, 2nd West) def. Bruins (55.0%, 4th NHL, 2nd East)
2011-12: Kings (54.9%, 2nd NHL, 1st West) def. Devils (51.0%, 11th NHL, 5th East)
2010-11: Bruins (51.1%, 13th NHL, 5th East) def. Canucks (53.7%, 3rd NHL, 3rd West)
2009-10: Blackhawks (56.9%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Flyers (50.5%, 14th NHL, 7th East)
2008-09: Pittsburgh (49.2%, 16th NHL, 7th East) def. Red Wings (58.4%, 1st NHL, 1st West)
2007-08: Detroit (59.4%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Pittsburgh (45.2%, 27th NHL, 14th East)

Tell me how many of the rosters without Crosby and Malkin made it to the Final with a CF% 5 on 5, close below 50%. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I was working on something today, and this jumped out at me:

Since 2007-08, 7 teams have been 56+ FF%.
4 won the Cup
5 made the Cup Finals
6 made the Conference Finals
7 made the 2nd round

 

[Fitzy]

Stanley Cup Finalists with their CF% 5 on 5, close
2013-14: Kings (57.2%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Rangers (53.2%, 6th in NHL, 3rd in East)
2012-13: Blackhawks (55.4%, 2nd NHL, 2nd West) def. Bruins (55.0%, 4th NHL, 2nd East)
2011-12: Kings (54.9%, 2nd NHL, 1st West) def. Devils (51.0%, 11th NHL, 5th East)
2010-11: Bruins (51.1%, 13th NHL, 5th East) def. Canucks (53.7%, 3rd NHL, 3rd West)
2009-10: Blackhawks (56.9%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Flyers (50.5%, 14th NHL, 7th East)
2008-09: Pittsburgh (49.2%, 16th NHL, 7th East) def. Red Wings (58.4%, 1st NHL, 1st West)
2007-08: Detroit (59.4%, 1st NHL, 1st West) def. Pittsburgh (45.2%, 27th NHL, 14th East)

Tell me how many of the rosters without Crosby and Malkin made it to the Final with a CF% 5 on 5, close below 50%. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Oddly specific parameters.

I see a lot of teams at 50-51%. You would think that even an imperfect measure of efficacy would yield more convincing data than that. Certainly not something that deserves such a cult-like dogmatic following.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Oddly specific parameters.

I see a lot of teams at 50-51%. You would think that even an imperfect measure of efficacy would yield more convincing data than that. Certainly not something that deserves such a cult-like dogmatic following.

Five out of 14 teams had 51% or below. Still a significant majority in favor of those stats.

 

[Zil]

Oddly specific parameters.

I see a lot of teams at 50-51%. You would think that even an imperfect measure of efficacy would yield more convincing data than that.

Yet one of the best two teams in the league by this measurement has won five of the seven Stanley Cups since they started tracking it. And the West, the perceived stronger conference, hasn't been won by a team below 53.7% in this entire span.

Certainly not something that deserves such a cult-like dogmatic following.

What's more cult-like and dogmatic, looking at the data to measure what's going on or insisting that you know better than the actual record of what happened?

 

[Fitzy]

The conflation of a statistical trend with the construction of a roster based on individual stats is silly. It's the kind of thing a stats major does in their first economics course, only to find that nothing works as beautifully and mechanically as they expect it to.

I don't consider it to be an enormous leap to suggest that possession stats represent just one of a million other factors in the efficacy of a hockey team. What I've seen from this particular board contingency with every trade and every roster move has been either lamenting that we replaced a player with one with a worse corsi rating, or the opposite. People still can't grasp, somehow, that the MDZ for Klein trade was a good one.

If I judged every acquisition on plus/minus, and felt we should pursue every top plus/minus player each year, people might want to find a place to put me where I couldn't hurt myself. And yet, there's a statistical correlation between players with a high plus/minus, and their chances of making the playoffs and furthermore, winning a stanley cup. Interesting.

 

[Thirty One]

The conflation of a statistical trend with the construction of a roster based on individual stats is silly.

So adding players who have a history of excelling at driving possession and expecting it to lead to an increase at the team level is silly? Does that logic apply to goals as well? How about save percentage?

 

[Fitzy]

So adding players who have a history of excelling at driving possession and expecting it to lead to an increase at the team level is silly? Does that logic apply to goals as well? How about save percentage?

Assertion A: Teams with more possession tend to do better than teams with less possession. In relative, but not absolute terms.

Assertion B: Player A, who has better possession numbers than player B, is thusly a, unquestionably better player and should be prioritized in roster building.

You don't see the logical jump here? We had Mint here a few months ago lamenting the fact that we traded a "More efficient puck possessor" in Del Zotto for a lesser one in Klein. Context be damned.

I imagine you'd find that teams with a better penalty kill tend to do better than those without. It doesn't make penalty killing efficacy the singular driving force behind building a roster, nor should it.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

The conflation of a statistical trend with the construction of a roster based on individual stats is silly. It's the kind of thing a stats major does in their first economics course, only to find that nothing works as beautifully and mechanically as they expect it to.

I don't consider it to be an enormous leap to suggest that possession stats represent just one of a million other factors in the efficacy of a hockey team. What I've seen from this particular board contingency with every trade and every roster move has been either lamenting that we replaced a player with one with a worse corsi rating, or the opposite. People still can't grasp, somehow, that the MDZ for Klein trade was a good one.

If I judged every acquisition on plus/minus, and felt we should pursue every top plus/minus player each year, people might want to find a place to put me where I couldn't hurt myself. And yet, there's a statistical correlation between players with a high plus/minus, and their chances of making the playoffs and furthermore, winning a stanley cup. Interesting.

Most possession stats are flawed on an individual level, but, team-wise, it's as good of a predictor for success as one will find. I'd say it's better in that sense than most traditional statistics, because they help outline trends.

Personally, I feel most people are too far off on either side of the argument; many are steadfast in their belief that stats like Corsi/Fenwick/etc are mumbo jumbo, and many insist that it is the most important factor in evaluating a player and/or team.

I think there is a solid balance that most need to try and find. Possession is incredibly important, but it is not the only factor in winning a hockey game, or having a good team. It's probably one of the top factors in today's league, though, if not THE top factor. Which is why so many people put so much emphasis on the stats available to them.

 

[Thirty One]

Assertion A: Teams with more possession tend to do better than teams with less possession. In relative, but not absolute terms.

Assertion B: Player A, who has better possession numbers than player B, is thusly a, unquestionably better player and should be prioritized in roster building.

You don't see the logical jump here? We had Mint here a few months ago lamenting the fact that we traded a "More efficient puck possessor" in Del Zotto for a lesser one in Klein. Context be damned.

I imagine you'd find that teams with a better penalty kill tend to do better than those without. It doesn't make penalty killing efficacy the singular driving force behind building a roster, nor should it.

Having seen no one make assertion B, I'm not seeing the relevance.

 

[Zil]

The conflation of a statistical trend with the construction of a roster based on individual stats is silly. It's the kind of thing a stats major does in their first economics course, only to find that nothing works as beautifully and mechanically as they expect it to.

Here's the thing: We're not talking about economics. We're talking about sports. In sports, the teams that embrace advanced metrics tend to win out over time.

Would you agree that the West is the stronger conference? They've won five of the last seven Stanley Cups. The next team that wins the West without being a top five possession team in the league will be the first to do so since they've started tracking possession.

You know what's beautiful and mechanical? The LA Kings. Over the last three years they have the best FF% and CF% in the league. They've won two Cups and 10 out of 12 possible playoff rounds.

I don't consider it to be an enormous leap to suggest that possession stats represent just one of a million other factors in the efficacy of a hockey team. What I've seen from this particular board contingency with every trade and every roster move has been either lamenting that we replaced a player with one with a worse corsi rating, or the opposite.

It's not the only factor, but it is probably the most important. The easiest way to build a contender is to accumulate possession monsters. You can always attempt to stockpile players like Crosby and Malkin to create an otherwise unsustainable, high team shooting percentage, but those guys are in rather short supply.

People still can't grasp, somehow, that the MDZ for Klein trade was a good one.

Why do you think it was a good one? They dealt a mediocre to bad third pairing defender for an atrocious one. The most aesthetically pleasing defense isn't necessarily the most effective defense. A steady looking blue liner like Klein will make you feel safe, but he'll hemorrhage chances even if he rarely makes a glaring gaffe. You're getting burnt on the margins even if you don't realize it. And Del Zotto's no advanced metrics darling either, he's just not an abomination.

If I judged every acquisition on plus/minus, and felt we should pursue every top plus/minus player each year, people might want to find a place to put me where I couldn't hurt myself. And yet, there's a statistical correlation between players with a high plus/minus, and their chances of making the playoffs and furthermore, winning a stanley cup. Interesting.

That might have something to do with the fact that +/- is super random and fluctuates like crazy.

 

[Thirty One]

Why do you think it was a good one?

Because. Despite all the evidence, he just know it is, ok?

Which side is the cult again?

 

[aufheben]

Hahahah exactly what i was thinking.


The Nash is hate is stupid. He was snake bitten in the playoffs. He played hard and elevated his game as the playoffs went deeper. He is going to have a big year for us.

Was he snake bitten last year too? Trying to dance around defenders like it's an All-Star game isn't being snakebitten.

Why shouldn't people hate him? Because he tried? Because he back-checks? What is this, ****ing pee-wee?...

**** his effort, go score a ****ing goal you bum. This guy's entire career has been nothing but excuses.

 

[Thirty One]

Was he snake bitten last year too? Trying to dance around defenders like it's an All-Star game isn't being snakebitten.

Why shouldn't people hate him? Because he tried? Because he back-checks? What is this, ****ing pee-wee?...

**** his effort, go score a ****ing goal you bum. This guy's entire career has been nothing but excuses.

 

[aufheben]

Got me.

 

[Hire Sather]

Nash played about 100 times better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.

If anything his playoffs made me feel much more confident about him going into next season than I was before.

He was engaged, he was going to the net, he was going to the dirty areas that he wouldn't in the regular season.

I just hope he brings that passion next year.

 

[aufheben]

Yeah those 3 goals in 25 games, what a feat.

 

[Hire Sather]

You don't agree that he looked much better in the playoffs?

 

[broadwayblue]

You don't agree that he looked much better in the playoffs?

He's not paid to look good.

 

[aufheben]

Yeah he looked better, except for that whole scoring goals thing. He didn't look so great at that.

 

[Hire Sather]

He needs to produce more, no question. I'm just very encouraged by what I saw in the playoffs. If he plays that way, I have no worries about him getting goals.