Confirmed with Link: Logan Stanley 2 years 1.25 million

[Buffdog]

The differences between the pro Stanley guys and the con Stanley guys are pretty slim. You say he is a capable 6-7 guy. I say he is a capable #7. Or I even agree that he is a capable 6-7. So where is the difference? The difference is that you want to keep playing him as a #5 (because that is how he is being played) and I want him in the PB on a contending team.

Next step in the debate is whether or not we have better options. IMO Fleury has been better on the 3rd pair. His numbers may have taken a hit when he was playing 2nd pair. Unfortunately, he is even less physical than Stanley, in spite of having pretty good size.

Then we have Heinola. He was getting better steadily when he was being played, even switching sides fairly well. He doesn't have the size/physicality tool in his box but he does have mobility. Would he be an upgrade on Stan? Maybe. He was progressing in that direction before he was consigned to the PB again.

If neither Fleury nor Heinola can supplant Stanley then, FCS get someone who can! We are only asking for a decent 3rd pair LHD with some physicality and mobility. Just a little less flawed than Stan. People keep saying that those are a dime a dozen in other contexts. Yet we can't have one.

Statistically speaking, Fleury hasn't been better than Stanley, depending on the stats you're looking at

CF% - Fleury 48% Stanley 45%
XGF% - Fleury 44.6% Stanley 48.7%
GF% - Fleury 40.7% Stanley 63.3%

Plus Stanley - Miller has outperformed Fleury - Miller in both xGF% and GF% (but not CF%)

So I guess if you value shot attempts over all else (which the stats guys will here because it proves their position), then yeah Fleury has performed better... but not in any other metric

Edit: but I'm in the same boat as you... Stan is fine as the 3LD for now, but we need an upgrade for the playoffs

Not sure why the anti-Stanley guys can't see that

 

[Gm0ney]

The differences between the pro Stanley guys and the con Stanley guys are pretty slim. You say he is a capable 6-7 guy. I say he is a capable #7. Or I even agree that he is a capable 6-7. So where is the difference? The difference is that you want to keep playing him as a #5 (because that is how he is being played) and I want him in the PB on a contending team.

Next step in the debate is whether or not we have better options. IMO Fleury has been better on the 3rd pair. His numbers may have taken a hit when he was playing 2nd pair. Unfortunately, he is even less physical than Stanley, in spite of having pretty good size.

Then we have Heinola. He was getting better steadily when he was being played, even switching sides fairly well. He doesn't have the size/physicality tool in his box but he does have mobility. Would he be an upgrade on Stan? Maybe. He was progressing in that direction before he was consigned to the PB again.

If neither Fleury nor Heinola can supplant Stanley then, FCS get someone who can! We are only asking for a decent 3rd pair LHD with some physicality and mobility. Just a little less flawed than Stan. People keep saying that those are a dime a dozen in other contexts. Yet we can't have one.

Yes, everyone seems to agree that Stanley is a borderline bottom pairing guy and there's not much of an expectation that he'll ever be more than that.

 

[jokesondee]

Yes, everyone seems to agree that Stanley is a borderline bottom pairing guy and there's not much of an expectation that he'll ever be more than that.

On a shitty team. Jets need to aim higher.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Statistically speaking, Fleury hasn't been better than Stanley, depending on the stats you're looking at

CF% - Fleury 48% Stanley 45%
XGF% - Fleury 44.6% Stanley 48.7%
GF% - Fleury 40.7% Stanley 63.3%

Plus Stanley - Miller has outperformed Fleury - Miller in both xGF% and GF% (but not CF%)

So I guess if you value shot attempts over all else (which the stats guys will here because it proves their position), then yeah Fleury has performed better... but not in any other metric

Edit: but I'm in the same boat as you... Stan is fine as the 3LD for now, but we need an upgrade for the playoffs

Not sure why the anti-Stanley guys can't see that

I think the anti-Stanley guys can. They/we are getting a little testy is all. This has been going on for 8.5 years now. It is getting frustrating. Stanley is never going to be the player they hoped he would be. Move on Chevy!

I'm going by my eye-test. I concede it is not the best, but I think the stats are failing to find the correct picture. Maybe the sample sizes are all too small.

But like I said before, if Fleury is not an upgrade, then get someone else who is. It is way past due.

 

[Buffdog]

I think the anti-Stanley guys can. They/we are getting a little testy is all. This has been going on for 8.5 years now. It is getting frustrating. Stanley is never going to be the player they hoped he would be. Move on Chevy!

I'm going by my eye-test. I concede it is not the best, but I think the stats are failing to find the correct picture. Maybe the sample sizes are all too small.

But like I said before, if Fleury is not an upgrade, then get someone else who is. It is way past due.

I also agree that Fleury looks better than Stan via the eye test. He has lots of tools, including a great stride. Stans the opposite... even the things he does well, he looks like a big goof while he's doing them lol

As for stats "failing to find the correct picture"... that's the issue I'm having with the stats guys. You can't just form an opinion then ignore the data. In science, the opinion is formed FROM the data... doing it the other way around isn't science, and anyone who embraces analytics and stats in hockey needs to know and follow that

 

[Jet]

Do you mean "Logang"? It's a good nickname - not offensive or derogatory or anything. If you're on board with the Stanley Project, you should embrace it!

I wouldn't say I'm 'on board' with the Stanley project. I just happen to believe he's not as bad as you're saying.

Once there were three boats
Two were lost
Ahoy, Good Ship Stanley!



Dime-a-dozen --
Where are they?
When the Jets come bearing dimes

I'd be willing to bet is the Jets picked someone up, he would quickly become the guy that everybody shits on.

I think the core issue is people expect too much from bottom pair/pb tweeners. It's been that way forever on this forum.

 

[Gm0ney]

I think the anti-Stanley guys can. They/we are getting a little testy is all. This has been going on for 8.5 years now. It is getting frustrating. Stanley is never going to be the player they hoped he would be. Move on Chevy!

I'm going by my eye-test. I concede it is not the best, but I think the stats are failing to find the correct picture. Maybe the sample sizes are all too small.

But like I said before, if Fleury is not an upgrade, then get someone else who is. It is way past due.

The Stanley Project as a whole is the problem. Why expend all this time and effort when they picked up a better 3rd pairing defenseman in Colin Miller at the deadline for a 4th last year? Taking a flyer on Fleury cost nothing. Same with Coghlan. Dime a dozen indeed.

Trading up for a higher 1st round pick, 8 years of development, 180 mostly unearned NHL games, blocking other (possibly better) prospects...it's mindboggling.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I also agree that Fleury looks better than Stan via the eye test. He has lots of tools, including a great stride. Stans the opposite... even the things he does well, he looks like a big goof while he's doing them lol

As for stats "failing to find the correct picture"... that's the issue I'm having with the stats guys. You can't just form an opinion then ignore the data. In science, the opinion is formed FROM the data... doing it the other way around isn't science, and anyone who embraces analytics and stats in hockey needs to know and follow that

We have several stats available that ALL require large data sets for them to be truly useful. For example, people keep looking at goalie sv% game by game. It takes about 3k shots for sv% to become valid. That is 2 seasons worth for a starter. Yet people who are quite aware of that still look at it game by game. Any stat based on shot attempts, or Corsi has a similar requirement. I don't know how much data is required for GF% to become a useful predictor. And I am skeptical of any of the stats with an X in the name. They are all derived stats using models that all have differing strengths and weaknesses. Anecdotally, it seems to me that people are always trying to explain why they didn't quite work. I like the idea, but I think they are not yet ready for prime time.

Then there is the quality of the analysis. We have some posters here who I think are quite good at the analysis and some others who are less good at it. A lot of it flies over my head and I am just not prepared to put in the effort to learn to understand the subject better.

If I can understand a persons explanation I tend to think he must be a pretty smart guy and I accept his opinion. If I can't understand him, he is clearly not as smart as he thinks he is.

If the stats contradict my eye-test I want to know why. I am quite prepared to surrender to a good argument. I don't know hockey as well as some here and I'm not the best observer either. I don't change my opinion just because someone throws a bunch of numbers at me. Back up the numbers with good analysis.

I think Stan is better than he used to be but I still think he is below replacement level. Despite those numbers that seem to say otherwise. By themselves, they don't convince me. The sample sizes are small enough that random variation in Helle's sv% behind him can possibly account for them. Someone posted just a while ago that Helle is saving .985 behind him. Is that because Stan does a good job in front of Helle? Not impossible, but I can't see that. I think it is more likely just that Stan has been lucky, like he was against Carolina on Tues in front of Comrie. Not saying he had a bad game there BTW. It was one giveaway. Other than that play I thought he had a decent game.

 

[DRW204]

The Stanley Project as a whole is the problem. Why expend all this time and effort when they picked up a better 3rd pairing defenseman in Colin Miller at the deadline for a 4th last year? Taking a flyer on Fleury cost nothing. Same with Coghlan. Dime a dozen indeed.

Trading up for a higher 1st round pick, 8 years of development, 180 mostly unearned NHL games, blocking other (possibly better) prospects...it's mindboggling.

The true mental gymnastics should be done on how Stanley avoids being scratched after brutal showings meanwhile heinola after arguably his best best stretch is sequestered to the PB. And I'm not really even high on Heinola.

 

[Buffdog]

We have several stats available that ALL require large data sets for them to be truly useful. For example, people keep looking at goalie sv% game by game. It takes about 3k shots for sv% to become valid. That is 2 seasons worth for a starter. Yet people who are quite aware of that still look at it game by game. Any stat based on shot attempts, or Corsi has a similar requirement. I don't know how much data is required for GF% to become a useful predictor. And I am skeptical of any of the stats with an X in the name. They are all derived stats using models that all have differing strengths and weaknesses. Anecdotally, it seems to me that people are always trying to explain why they didn't quite work. I like the idea, but I think they are not yet ready for prime time.

Then there is the quality of the analysis. We have some posters here who I think are quite good at the analysis and some others who are less good at it. A lot of it flies over my head and I am just not prepared to put in the effort to learn to understand the subject better.

If I can understand a persons explanation I tend to think he must be a pretty smart guy and I accept his opinion. If I can't understand him, he is clearly not as smart as he thinks he is.

If the stats contradict my eye-test I want to know why. I am quite prepared to surrender to a good argument. I don't know hockey as well as some here and I'm not the best observer either. I don't change my opinion just because someone throws a bunch of numbers at me. Back up the numbers with good analysis.

I think Stan is better than he used to be but I still think he is below replacement level. Despite those numbers that seem to say otherwise. By themselves, they don't convince me. The sample sizes are small enough that random variation in Helle's sv% behind him can possibly account for them. Someone posted just a while ago that Helle is saving .985 behind him. Is that because Stan does a good job in front of Helle? Not impossible, but I can't see that. I think it is more likely just that Stan has been lucky, like he was against Carolina on Tues in front of Comrie. Not saying he had a bad game there BTW. It was one giveaway. Other than that play I thought he had a decent game.

Please define "lucky"... I'll admit that it really bothers me when someone in an intelligent conversation falls back on that to support their position. After all, you were the person a while ago that told me that "everything shows up in the stats" (or something along those lines)... but with Stanley, it doesn't?

As for sample size, Stan's 500+ minutes of icetime this season is MUCH larger than (for example) ESV's run last season that the same stats people used as proof that that line should play ahead of CSV (that's not a strawman - it's pointing out an inconsistancy). What IS an adequate sample size to draw conclusions from? Because it seems to me that "small sample size" is just another way of someone dismissing a stat that doesn't back up their narrative

In terms of Helle's save percentage behind Stanley... Given that only a tiny fraction of the shot attempts with him on the ice (the best percentage on the team) are high danger, I don't think it's "luck"... unless you want it to be, I suppose

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The Stanley Project as a whole is the problem. Why expend all this time and effort when they picked up a better 3rd pairing defenseman in Colin Miller at the deadline for a 4th last year? Taking a flyer on Fleury cost nothing. Same with Coghlan. Dime a dozen indeed.

Trading up for a higher 1st round pick, 8 years of development, 180 mostly unearned NHL games, blocking other (possibly better) prospects...it's mindboggling.

Exactly my point.
It is not that Stanley is so very much worse than a typical #6 on a contending team. It is that he is clearly at least a little worse and we should be able to do better with very little effort. Seeing this drag on and on is frustrating. The frustration leads to expending way too much cyber effort complaining about it.

 

[Buffdog]

Exactly my point.
It is not that Stanley is so very much worse than a typical #6 on a contending team. It is that he is clearly at least a little worse and we should be able to do better with very little effort. Seeing this drag on and on is frustrating. The frustration leads to expending way too much cyber effort complaining about it.

Could be as simple as that he fits in the room

He's also been a good soldier and done everything that the org has asked of him since being drafted. I've heard multiple times about how hard he works off the ice

TNSE is nothing if not loyal. They aren't f*** Vegas... I don't think they'd toss aside a guy like that for a minor upgrade on the ice

OR maybe Chevy lurks here and gets a kick out of reading the constant lamentations of the anti-Stanley crowd lol