Confirmed with Link: NYR acquire Adam McQuaid from Bruins for Kampfer, and 4th round pick

[silverfish]

*by a single set of criteria

Could be a potentially interesting discussion.

By what criteria would you say that McQuaid had a good, or maybe not good, but "not bad" season last year? Let's see if we can build a bridge here, or find a way to combine 'advanced stats' with a more traditional method, and get a full picture of the player.

 

[aufheben]

Pedigree matters.

He has it, Holden didn’t.

I’m not sure I’d totally agree with that.

 

[Tawnos]

Could be a potentially interesting discussion.

By what criteria would you say that McQuaid had a good, or maybe not good, but "not bad" season last year? Let's see if we can build a bridge here, or find a way to combine 'advanced stats' with a more traditional method, and get a full picture of the player.

I’ll hit you back on this later on. Really need to stay focused at work today

I will say that I enjoy our discussions when I can get you to engage in them.

 

[NYR Viper]

Getting back on topic, someone showed a chart a few pages ago that showed McQuaid was very good at defending in front of his own net. To me, that is a place that has been far too easy of an area to attack the Rangers and in a season where the team will most likely struggle, I'm okay with Gorton and Quinn getting a guy like McQuaid. I have a feeling this system will be more aggressive in the defensive zone so I am okay with others chasing (or McQuaid's partner chasing) and him defending the front and battling with some of the bigger power forwards.

 

[kovazub94]

Getting back on topic, someone showed a chart a few pages ago that showed McQuaid was very good at defending in front of his own net. To me, that is a place that has been far too easy of an area to attack the Rangers and in a season where the team will most likely struggle, I'm okay with Gorton and Quinn getting a guy like McQuaid. I have a feeling this system will be more aggressive in the defensive zone so I am okay with others chasing (or McQuaid's partner chasing) and him defending the front and battling with some of the bigger power forwards.

Was going to say exactly this.

 

[silverfish]

Getting back on topic, someone showed a chart a few pages ago that showed McQuaid was very good at defending in front of his own net. To me, that is a place that has been far too easy of an area to attack the Rangers and in a season where the team will most likely struggle, I'm okay with Gorton and Quinn getting a guy like McQuaid. I have a feeling this system will be more aggressive in the defensive zone so I am okay with others chasing (or McQuaid's partner chasing) and him defending the front and battling with some of the bigger power forwards.

Definitely true. What we need to remember about those charts though is that it's not McQuaid isolated, there are four other skaters on the ice with him. They are also extremely suceptible to systems. An interesting thing to look at would be, how does McQuiads chart compare with the rest of the Bruins? Here's a link to the Bruins as a team, and McQuaid:

Bruins, total: BOS 1718 5v5 Shot Locations (Against)
w/ McQuaid: HV
w/o McQuiad: HV

So the question becomes, how much of it is McQuaid, and how much of it is the Bruins system? This is where the use of something like a relative to teammates metric will come in handy. But I'll pause here, and see what you guys think so far!

At the very least, it doesn't look like McQuaid was hurting the team in terms of net-front shots, which is encouraging.

Well, that's a bit unfair.

I mean, you'd think they could've at least allowed the rest of us to sign some kind of petition or declaration. It could really help bring the board together like never before.

We've been talking about trading you and one or two other posters for a member prospect we like over on the Canucks' board.

(I kid, I kid.)

Just get good value, that's all I've ever wanted.

 

[Edge]

Definitely true. What we need to remember about those charts though is that it's not McQuaid isolated, there are four other skaters on the ice with him. They are also extremely suceptible to systems. An interesting thing to look at would be, how does McQuiads chart compare with the rest of the Bruins? Here's a link to the Bruins as a team, and McQuaid:

Bruins, total: BOS 1718 5v5 Shot Locations (Against)
w/ McQuaid: HV
w/o McQuiad: HV

So the question becomes, how much of it is McQuaid, and how much of it is the Bruins system? This is where the use of something like a relative to teammates metric will come in handy. But I'll pause here, and see what you guys think so far!


Just get good value, that's all I've ever wanted.

Knowing our luck, we'd end up Pasha version 2.0.

 

[kovazub94]

If we can get a 1st for him,ill include Pionk with him

I didn't know we have a poster @pionk . Is he on my ignore list already?

 

[mrmovies779]

I didn't know we have a poster @pionk . Is he on my ignore list already?

 

[kovazub94]

I'd trade his ass for Nakladal.

Overpayment. We could easily get Nakladal for @Machinehead

 

[Machinehead]

Overpayment. We could easily get Nakladal for @Machinehead

I always wanted to see Europe

 

[kovazub94]

I always wanted to see Europe

You'd enjoy Yaroslav but it's barely Europe.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Overpayment. We could easily get Nakladal for @Machinehead

Well obviously if that's an option, then of course we should. I take it the Edmonton or Ottawa board currently has Nakladal's rights in this case?

 

[Machinehead]

Well obviously if that's an option, then of course we should. I take it the Edmonton or Ottawa board currently has Nakladal's rights in this case?

Not going to Edmonton or Ottawa

 

[NYR Viper]

Definitely true. What we need to remember about those charts though is that it's not McQuaid isolated, there are four other skaters on the ice with him. They are also extremely suceptible to systems. An interesting thing to look at would be, how does McQuiads chart compare with the rest of the Bruins? Here's a link to the Bruins as a team, and McQuaid:

Bruins, total: BOS 1718 5v5 Shot Locations (Against)
w/ McQuaid: HV
w/o McQuiad: HV

So the question becomes, how much of it is McQuaid, and how much of it is the Bruins system? This is where the use of something like a relative to teammates metric will come in handy. But I'll pause here, and see what you guys think so far!

At the very least, it doesn't look like McQuaid was hurting the team in terms of net-front shots, which is encouraging.


Just get good value, that's all I've ever wanted.

What I find interesting is that the central slot that shows red on those charts is the same for most of the team, so that would seem to be a system issue. The team as a whole, does seem to concentrate more closely on the front of the net

 

[Harbour Dog]

Not going to Edmonton or Ottawa

Fair enough. It's crazy how many NTCs the HFNYR admin have handed out.

 

[silverfish]

What I find interesting is that the central slot that shows red on those charts is the same for most of the team, so that would seem to be a system issue. The team as a whole, does seem to concentrate more closely on the front of the net

Right. There's no denying that McQuaid seemed to "give up" (for lack of a better term) the high-slot to protect the front of the net. However, this doesn't necessarily seem to be a McQuaid weakness and strength, but more of a Bruins system weakness and strength.

 

[NYR Viper]

Right. There's no denying that McQuaid seemed to "give up" (for lack of a better term) the high-slot to protect the front of the net. However, this doesn't necessarily seem to be a McQuaid weakness and strength, but more of a Bruins system weakness and strength.

Solid point, from the eye test, I remember him being a keep-it-simple, RD. I know he makes life a bit more miserable for the forwards who go to the front of the net and he is the type of guy who relishes battling any power forward that comes to the front of the net. I am guessing his other stats don't show a positive picture but how do they compare to the rest of his team last year? What sites are you using to find these? I used to use the HERO charts which were very easy to read and understand.

 

[silverfish]

Solid point, from the eye test, I remember him being a keep-it-simple, RD. I know he makes life a bit more miserable for the forwards who go to the front of the net and he is the type of guy who relishes battling any power forward that comes to the front of the net. I am guessing his other stats don't show a positive picture but how do they compare to the rest of his team last year? What sites are you using to find these? I used to use the HERO charts which were very easy to read and understand.

My go to is Corsica.Hockey.

When I want to understand how a player is impacting his team, I immediately look at their relT metrics. There are two similar metrics that are relative that will show very different things. Relative to team is just the player on the ice versus when he's off the ice. Relative to teammates, however, is the player relative to his on-ice teammates when they are on the ice without him. I like using relative to teammate because relative to team can be subject to quality of teammate noise.

For example, if you're playing with Kreider, who is a ****ing shot attempt machine, your relative to team metric might be very strong just because you're on the ice with Kreider. When analyzing a player, I like to remove teammate impact as much as possible, and using relT helps, but does not solve completely.

Generally, what I want to know about a player is whether or not they're driving play in the right direction. A positive relTCF60 metric will say that the player is providing more offense, and generally giving a boost to his teammates. A negative relTCA60 metric will say that the player is allowing less shot attempts against, generally being a boost to team defense (at least in the specific department).

Good or bad, however, context is always important. A guy may have nice numbers for reasons that aren't always readily apparent. Just like a guy may have ugly numbers for reasons that aren't always readily apparent.

 

[Tawnos]

Definitely true. What we need to remember about those charts though is that it's not McQuaid isolated, there are four other skaters on the ice with him. They are also extremely suceptible to systems. An interesting thing to look at would be, how does McQuiads chart compare with the rest of the Bruins? Here's a link to the Bruins as a team, and McQuaid:

Bruins, total: BOS 1718 5v5 Shot Locations (Against)
w/ McQuaid: HV
w/o McQuiad: HV

So the question becomes, how much of it is McQuaid, and how much of it is the Bruins system? This is where the use of something like a relative to teammates metric will come in handy. But I'll pause here, and see what you guys think so far!

At the very least, it doesn't look like McQuaid was hurting the team in terms of net-front shots, which is encouraging.

There's a piece of this kind of thing that'd I'd like to talk about, which is role and expectation. McQuaid averaged 13:38 ES per game. For right handed D, that was below McAvoy, Carlo and Miller. Someone is playing the left side if all 4 of those guys are in the lineup, but either way, that means his role was to be a 3rd pairing defenseman. What should we expect out of a 3rd pairing defenseman? Should we expect that his numbers look as good as the guys above him in the lineup? Players become 3rd pairing D because they aren't as good and, if McQuaid's numbers were as good as his colleagues, he'd likely be in line for 2nd pairing duty. It looks to me like McQuaid was about on par with his teammates in terms of net-front presence, but didn't do as good of a job elsewhere. That sounds to me like a guy who is being slotted properly in terms of merit.

This isn't to say those numbers aren't valuable. They are, but what they do is explain why McQuaid wasn't utilized more against a baseline, rather than how he was filling his role. I really wanted to jump on this earlier. The things I'm most interested, if we're talking about numbers for McQuaid, is how the team played with him in the lineup vs without. What was their W/L record? How was their GA, SA, & PK% without him in the lineup? Did they play more or less disciplined? If McQuaid's leadership had an effect on the team, even if marginal, these things should be better.

Anyway, the game is about to start, so I won't be digging into this until maybe tomorrow.

 

[silverfish]

There's a piece of this kind of thing that'd I'd like to talk about, which is role and expectation. McQuaid averaged 13:38 ES per game. For right handed D, that was below McAvoy, Carlo and Miller. Someone is playing the left side if all 4 of those guys are in the lineup, but either way, that means his role was to be a 3rd pairing defenseman. What should we expect out of a 3rd pairing defenseman? Should we expect that his numbers look as good as the guys above him in the lineup? Players become 3rd pairing D because they aren't as good and, if McQuaid's numbers were as good as his colleagues, he'd likely be in line for 2nd pairing duty. It looks to me like McQuaid was about on par with his teammates in terms of net-front presence, but didn't do as good of a job elsewhere. That sounds to me like a guy who is being slotted properly in terms of merit.

This isn't to say those numbers aren't valuable. They are, but what they do is explain why McQuaid wasn't utilized more against a baseline, rather than how he was filling his role. I really wanted to jump on this earlier. The things I'm most interested, if we're talking about numbers for McQuaid, is how the team played with him in the lineup vs without. What was their W/L record? How was their GA, SA, & PK% without him in the lineup? Did they play more or less disciplined? If McQuaid's leadership had an effect on the team, even if marginal, these things should be better.

Anyway, the game is about to start, so I won't be digging into this until maybe tomorrow.

Sorry, saw this right before the game started...

So I guess my viewpoint here is that third-pairing or top-pairing, I can't have anyone hurting my team. But we also have to keep in mind that third-pairing usage means that all-around. His zone starts probably weren't abysmal. He was probably playing against mediocre competition. And most importantly, he was probably playing with poor teammates. All of that needs to go into account.

But, the splits are damning. In my opinion, if your relative shot attempt metrics are very, very poor, you're hurting your team. With McQuaid on the ice, the Bruins allowed 8.15 more shot attempts per 60 than they did with McQuaid off the ice. And I know what you're thinking, 8 attempts per 60. The guy plays 13 minutes a game, that's like 2 extra attempts every game. But if you put that into context with the rest of the league, that -8 number that McQuaid has in his relative metric was 14th worst among d-men who appeared in 15 games last year. And that 15 games is a really generous cutoff for McQuaid, because of the 13 players who were worse than him, 9 of them had less TOI.

Personally, what I expect out of a third-pairing d-man is the same thing I expect out of all my players. Drive play in the right direction, and don't hurt the team.

I'll also say that it's not a bad thing that McQuaid is tough. That he'll clear in front of Hank. That his teammates liked having him around. It's tough to measure that impact, but it's the things you want to hear about a player. However these guys exist who can also still play effectively. Was it worth it to target McQuaid for these characteristics and overlook his declining play? I'm of the opinion that it wasn't.

 

[Tawnos]

Sorry, saw this right before the game started...

So I guess my viewpoint here is that third-pairing or top-pairing, I can't have anyone hurting my team. But we also have to keep in mind that third-pairing usage means that all-around. His zone starts probably weren't abysmal. He was probably playing against mediocre competition. And most importantly, he was probably playing with poor teammates. All of that needs to go into account.

But, the splits are damning. In my opinion, if your relative shot attempt metrics are very, very poor, you're hurting your team. With McQuaid on the ice, the Bruins allowed 8.15 more shot attempts per 60 than they did with McQuaid off the ice. And I know what you're thinking, 8 attempts per 60. The guy plays 13 minutes a game, that's like 2 extra attempts every game. But if you put that into context with the rest of the league, that -8 number that McQuaid has in his relative metric was 14th worst among d-men who appeared in 15 games last year. And that 15 games is a really generous cutoff for McQuaid, because of the 13 players who were worse than him, 9 of them had less TOI.

Personally, what I expect out of a third-pairing d-man is the same thing I expect out of all my players. Drive play in the right direction, and don't hurt the team.

I'll also say that it's not a bad thing that McQuaid is tough. That he'll clear in front of Hank. That his teammates liked having him around. It's tough to measure that impact, but it's the things you want to hear about a player. However these guys exist who can also still play effectively. Was it worth it to target McQuaid for these characteristics and overlook his declining play? I'm of the opinion that it wasn't.

I'm less concerned with how McQuaid ranks in these things in the entire league than I am with what kind of variance you see between him and his peers, which are the rest of the 3rd pairing RDs in the league. The problem is, though, that relative numbers work both ways. It's not just how much worse McQuaid is than other Bruins players, it's how much better they are than him too. In the end, it's hard to draw a conclusion comparing his relative numbers to other players in the league. Because the gap between the quality of McQuaid compared to McAvoy is different than the gap between the quality of Matt Irwin and Roman Josi, right?

He also didn't play a lot last year. I would point out that the relCA/60 number you are referencing is a wild aberration from his previous 4 seasons, which hovered around even. He broke his leg at a time where the entire Bruins team was struggling defensively and who knows how long it took him to truly regain his form... if he ever even did. It's likely he came back too early, resulting in that healthy scratch. Has he really declined? Or did he have a bad year where he struggled with an injury issue? Will that injury issue affect him going forward? We don't really know the answer to these things yet.

You're right that it's hard to measure the impact of his positives. Even the numbers when he's in the lineup vs when he's not won't really tell us the story (I haven't looked at them, so I'm saying that without knowing if they're good or bad). But I'm glad you see what those positives are.

Lastly, I want to essentially reiterate something I've basically said in this thread before. I'm not sure you could find another player over the summer who meets all 4 of the following criteria:
1.) Is tough, will clear the front of the net, is well-liked
2.) Is effective by your standards
3.) Is a 3rd pairing D (mostly because if 1 and 2 were both true, he wouldn't be a 3rd pairing D)
4.) Was available

And sure, you can say, "well don't bring in anyone then" and that's a perfectly fair thing to say, but I dispute what you said about those players existing.

 

[silverfish]

I'm less concerned with how McQuaid ranks in these things in the entire league than I am with what kind of variance you see between him and his peers, which are the rest of the 3rd pairing RDs in the league. The problem is, though, that relative numbers work both ways. It's not just how much worse McQuaid is than other Bruins players, it's how much better they are than him too. In the end, it's hard to draw a conclusion comparing his relative numbers to other players in the league. Because the gap between the quality of McQuaid compared to McAvoy is different than the gap between the quality of Matt Irwin and Roman Josi, right?

He also didn't play a lot last year. I would point out that the relCA/60 number you are referencing is a wild aberration from his previous 4 seasons, which hovered around even. He broke his leg at a time where the entire Bruins team was struggling defensively and who knows how long it took him to truly regain his form... if he ever even did. It's likely he came back too early, resulting in that healthy scratch. Has he really declined? Or did he have a bad year where he struggled with an injury issue? Will that injury issue affect him going forward? We don't really know the answer to these things yet.

You're right that it's hard to measure the impact of his positives. Even the numbers when he's in the lineup vs when he's not won't really tell us the story (I haven't looked at them, so I'm saying that without knowing if they're good or bad). But I'm glad you see what those positives are.

Lastly, I want to essentially reiterate something I've basically said in this thread before. I'm not sure you could find another player over the summer who meets all 4 of the following criteria:
1.) Is tough, will clear the front of the net, is well-liked
2.) Is effective by your standards
3.) Is a 3rd pairing D (mostly because if 1 and 2 were both true, he wouldn't be a 3rd pairing D)
4.) Was available

And sure, you can say, "well don't bring in anyone then" and that's a perfectly fair thing to say, but I dispute what you said about those players existing.

But that's sort of the point. The difference between Roman Josi and Matt Irwin is smaller than the difference between McAvoy and McQuaid because Josi and Irwin are better than the peers you're comparing them to. McQuaid being so much worse than McAvoy is exactly the problem.

You are right to point out that McQuaid was far worse last year than years before, but I'm not banking on a 31 year-old who suffered a broken leg to improve upon his numbers. It's totally possible, but not something I'd bank on.

In regards to your four criteria, I go back to my original argument as well. Why is #1 on this list the #1 priority? Why are we weighing that more than "effective"? And I think that was the initial prompt, as well. How can we bridge that gap between what we weigh more between "this guy is tough" and "this guy is effective". They aren't mutually exclusive.

[also McIlrath was exactly that guy in 15-16 but I'm afraid if I say this it's the only thing people will focus on but he waaaaaaaaaaaaaas]

 

[Tawnos]

But that's sort of the point. The difference between Roman Josi and Matt Irwin is smaller than the difference between McAvoy and McQuaid because Josi and Irwin are better than the peers you're comparing them to. McQuaid being so much worse than McAvoy is exactly the problem.

You are right to point out that McQuaid was far worse last year than years before, but I'm not banking on a 31 year-old who suffered a broken leg to improve upon his numbers. It's totally possible, but not something I'd bank on.

In regards to your four criteria, I go back to my original argument as well. Why is #1 on this list the #1 priority? Why are we weighing that more than "effective"?

We aren’t. In the last 18 months, the Rangers have acquired 11 defensemen that either already were NHL players or it was reasonable to think could be. They are Smith, Pionk, Bereglazov, DeAngelo, Shattenkirk, O’Gara, Lindgren, Hajek, Rykov, Claesson, and McQuaid. Show me the commonality that shows that, as an organization, we prioritize the things in #1 over your definition of effectiveness? For that matter, show me the commonality that the team is looking for a single type of player of any stripe.

I think you missed my point about the gap between top and bottom. The relative numbers basically compare McQuaid to McAvoy, but they don’t compare him to Josi... and by putting McQuaid’s numbers up against Irwin’s, you’re making a false comparison. Not that this is the case and it’s oversimplified to the extreme, but if the raw numbers have McQuaid and Irwin as at 20, while McAvoy is at 10 and Josi is at 12, Irwin looks like he’s a better player when you compare relative numbers while in reality he’s the same. It just doesn’t work as a comparison across teams.

 

[silverfish]

We aren’t. In the last 18 months, the Rangers have acquired 11 defensemen that either already were NHL players or it was reasonable to think could be. They are Smith, Pionk, Bereglazov, DeAngelo, Shattenkirk, O’Gara, Lindgren, Hajek, Rykov, Claesson, and McQuaid. Show me the commonality that shows that, as an organization, we prioritize the things in #1 over your definition of effectiveness? For that matter, show me the commonality that the team is looking for a single type of player of any stripe.

I think you missed my point about the gap between top and bottom. The relative numbers basically compare McQuaid to McAvoy, but they don’t compare him to Josi... and by putting McQuaid’s numbers up against Irwin’s, you’re making a false comparison. Not that this is the case and it’s oversimplified to the extreme, but if the raw numbers have McQuaid and Irwin as at 20, while McAvoy is at 10 and Josi is at 12, Irwin looks like he’s a better player when you compare relative numbers while in reality he’s the same. It just doesn’t work as a comparison across teams.

Hm.

Let me stew on this and see if I can come up with a response that doesn't derail the conversation, but I think we may be at an impasse... for now.

So I'm not sure if there's a way to answer the question that you're asking. You want to see how McQuaid compares to Josi, but the best way to make that comparison is relative to team metrics, otherwise, you're including noise from whether this player is on a good team or a bad team.

The analysis is that McQuaid hurts the Bruins more than Irwin hurts the Predators. Your contention to this analysis is that it only appears that way because McQuaid is much worse than McAvoy than Irwin is than Josi. My contention to that point is that's because Irwin is better than McQuaid.

But you have to use relative to team, by team, to get rid of the quality noise. For example, you could look at McQuaid's raw shot attempt % and see that it's 51.31% last year 5v5. But then you could look at Skjei's, and it's 46.91%. Is McQuaid better than Skjei? Of course not. Did the team Skjei played for last year suck a lot more than the team McQuaid played for? You betcha.

So I guess my response is... how would you go about leveling the playing field to compare a player like McQuaid to Irwin without using rel team metrics?