Toggle sidebar

Rumor: Rumors & Proposals Thread: Movie Poster Edition VII- "Deadline"

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
foshizzle said:
Have you included the money from expiring retentions/buyouts
Click to expand...

21984195ad4d6a617d3b435e82cdbeca.png


Yes I did. I'm going off what we got right now. Whether we buyout or trade someone is not what I included.
 
McDNicks17 said:
They're just a quick reference for how a guy is playing. Most of us have probably watched a guy like Klingberg play like ten shifts this year and maybe noticed him on three of them. The "eye test" is mostly just what you've heard other people say about a player when it comes to guys who aren't on the team you follow.

The charts give you a rough idea how a player has been doing over the past three seasons.
Click to expand...
The problem with those charts is that the vast majority of stats being used aren't individual statistics. They're events that occur while that particular player is on the ice, making them line-based metrics. And these events don't happen because that player is on the ice. Hockey is a far more complicated sport than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 Mins 4 Ftg and Oilhawks
belair said:
The problem with those charts is that the vast majority of stats being used aren't individual statistics. They're events that occur while that particular player is on the ice, making them line-based metrics. And these events don't happen because that player is on the ice. Hockey is a far more complicated sport than that.
Click to expand...

Which is fine for something as cursory as the charts are.

Bad players don't play on good lines. Good defensemen aren't on the ice while their team puts up generationally bad numbers.

It gives you a rough idea of how a player is playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CycloneSweep
McDNicks17 said:
Which is fine for something as cursory as the charts are.

Bad players don't play on good lines. Good defensemen aren't on the ice while their team puts up generationally bad numbers.

It gives you a rough idea of how a player is playing.
Click to expand...

As do eyeballs.
 
McDNicks17 said:
Teams value analytics for a reason. It makes scouting a lot easier.

You're at a massive disadvantage if you're only using one or the other.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but aren't the analytics used by teams a fair bit different than the stuff we see in the public?
 
Oilhawks said:
I could be wrong, but aren't the analytics used by teams a fair bit different than the stuff we see in the public?
Click to expand...
They have similar models like xG, but yeah, they're mostly using stats that are basically just the eye test quantified.

Stuff like passes into the slot, puck retrievals, passing percentage under pressure, chances after zone entries, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks
McDNicks17 said:
Which is fine for something as cursory as the charts are.

Bad players don't play on good lines. Good defensemen aren't on the ice while their team puts up generationally bad numbers.

It gives you a rough idea of how a player is playing.
Click to expand...
That couldn't be farther from the truth. It's actually very common for below average players to come out smelling like roses because they're fortunate enough to get floated by stronger line support that drive positive results.

I won't say that these stats are completely random. They show trends and line metrics will show that a player is frequently showing up on the negative end of possession and goal differentials. But these conclusions that a depth winger can be perceived as 'elite defensively' or that Klingberg is 'the worst defenseman in the cap era'. They're cringeworthy takes.

The 'elite defensive' winger Rasmus Asplund who received Selke votes last season was just traded to the Predators for a 7th rounder. Teams still realize that these milquetoast players do very little to move the needle.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 Mins 4 Ftg
belair said:
That couldn't be farther from the truth. It's actually very common for below average players to come out smelling like roses because they're fortunate enough to get floated by stronger line support that drive positive results.

I won't say that these stats are completely random. They show trends and line metrics will show that a player is frequently showing up on the negative end of possession and goal differentials. But these conclusions that a depth winger can be perceived as 'elite defensively' or that Klingberg is 'the defenseman in the cap era'. They're cringeworthy takes.

The 'elite defensive' winger Rasmus Asplund who received Selke votes last season was just traded to the Predators for a 7th rounder. Teams still realize that these milquetoast players do very little to move the needle.
Click to expand...
Give one example of guy who had that happen to them for three straight seasons. Bonus points if it doesn't involve McDavid.

Johnny Gaudreau got a Selke vote too haha. Homer 4th place votes aren't saying much. Asplund had good numbers as a rookie and absolutely terrible numbers this year. I don't really see what you're getting at with that example.
 
Jimmi McJenkins said:
Yes, I am suggesting the guy who blew $44B because he's dramatically insecure is not smart. He was just born rich.
Click to expand...
What? He wasn’t born rich at all.

Are you really saying the self made richest person in the world is stupid?

Being insecure has nothing to do with anything.
 
Last edited:
LaGu said:
I am not mad.

Fair enough as reply, my post was not very nice and I generalised too much. Sorry for that.
Click to expand...

Class post, LaGu. I for one definitely appreciate it. Apologies in my behalf for any sarcasm in mine

Paralyzer said:
21984195ad4d6a617d3b435e82cdbeca.png


Yes I did. I'm going off what we got right now. Whether we buyout or trade someone is not what I included.
Click to expand...

Got it. That’s a pretty good situation we are in then. We still have options with Campbell, Yamo, Foegele. Also, if the cap goes up more than a million (Bettman did leave the door open for that) we will be in a great situation to be cup contenders the rest of McDrai’s contracts
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaGu
belair said:
That couldn't be farther from the truth. It's actually very common for below average players to come out smelling like roses because they're fortunate enough to get floated by stronger line support that drive positive results.

I won't say that these stats are completely random. They show trends and line metrics will show that a player is frequently showing up on the negative end of possession and goal differentials. But these conclusions that a depth winger can be perceived as 'elite defensively' or that Klingberg is 'the defenseman in the cap era'. They're cringeworthy takes.

The 'elite defensive' winger Rasmus Asplund who received Selke votes last season was just traded to the Predators for a 7th rounder. Teams still realize that these milquetoast players do very little to move the needle.
Click to expand...
Usually with players like that, you can also look at their stats away from certain players. One of the reason the analytics community liked Pulju so much last year is that McDavid produced more chances and allowed less when Pulju was with him. That wasn’t quite the case this year but just using it for an example.

That’s why looking at trends are so important and often guys like Jfresh base it off a 3 year rolling average.

Klingberg has been bad defensively everywhere and with everyone. That’s a sign that he is in fact, a bad defensive player. It could also be a sign that he plays way more than he should. Klingberg as a top 4 d gets blown up defensively. Now if he was on the third pair with sheltered minutes I’m sure it would go up.

The analytics are good and honestly are better than the eye test for the majority of hockey fans because there is so much that we don’t see or don’t realize it’s effective. Like Ceci. People think Ceci gets blown up against tough competition and is getting wreck d when in fact he isn’t. That’s not an objective thing, it’s the truth.

The eye test says he sucks and allows more goals when he is in the ice but it’s simply not true.

Again these are tools and are based to be a snapshot on how the player is performing. You can then start watching the player to better shape your judgement.

For most analytics the following is true. The guys at the 100% are the best in the league (McDavid is there for example) guys who are at the bottom (Jack Johnson) are bad hockey players. Now guys in the middle for the most part there is tons of nuance and deep dives into their numbers better shape it.

Too many people treat them like they are evil and wrong when it’s a tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmi McJenkins
5 Mins 4 Ftg said:
Yessir I do. They aren’t the absolutes you think they are. But I’ve had this inane conversation a billion times now with the haughty nerds of hockey and it’s like playing chess with a pigeon.
Click to expand...
First point- you completely messed up the playing chess with a pigeon saying. Second, you are the pigeon in this scenario. Analytics, no matter what business or industry- are absolute. A shot on goal is a shot on goal. A high danger chance is a high danger chance. They are simply a record of what happened on the ice.

What you are questioning using previous action to predict future trends- in which case you may have somebody that breaks a trend line.
 
Davo Ikinzom said:
Okay
Click to expand...
That doesn’t sound like billions of dollars that people often imply.

I hate having to defend Musk but his family wasn’t stinking rich. His dad had a minority stake in an emerald mine and good luck finding out how much he made from that investment.

Elon made a series of incredible investments on his own, can’t deny that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harry Curry
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom