GDT: Trade Deadline: Tampa won the Jeannot sweepstakes!

[Gurglesons]

That series of events by Jack Johnson is genuinely, no joking around, one of my favorite hockey moments of all time. It's like the Mario goal against the North Stars or Geno's goal against the Canes, but for hockey players with the IQ of a bag of doorknobs who suck absolute shit at hockey to boot. A treasure.

It is probably the highlight of the post cup playoffs outside of Letang tripping someone and Jake scoring a hat trick goal then.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

It is probably the highlight of the post cup playoffs outside of Letang tripping someone and Jake scoring a hat trick goal then.

JR knows the *real* reason JJ was benched, and it wasn't because of his play. Don't you dare question it. Five years, my boy! Welcome aboard!

 

[SEALBound]

Logically, at the end of the day, a team of ZARs should be unbeatable.

I don't know if real life follows the x% trends though.

Moneyball didn't actually work. But teams keep trying.

Nope. Not what those stats say. At all.

 

[Gurglesons]

JR knows the *real* reason JJ was benched, and it wasn't because of his play. Don't you dare question it. Five years, my boy! Welcome aboard!

Spoiler: The real reason was he sucked.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

@Jesse not @JackFr

That's not the tweet I was referring to. It was a JFresh chart where it listed like 10 or 15 defensemen based on their offensive WAR or whatever and Pettersson was ranked like 9th or 10th in the entire league.

In any case, the idea that Pettersson is one of the better defensemen at anything that measures offense is dubious to me.

Think about it logically. If your team is trailing in the third period and badly needs a tying goal and you could, hypothetically speaking, have any defensemen in the NHL on the ice for you, in what world would a guy like Pettersson be the 9th or 10th best choice ahead of actual offensive defensemen who just don't have his "offensive WAR" stat?

I think the problem is instead of interpreting his results as "actually, he's a pretty solid defenseman who isn't going to hurt the creation of offense from the other guys when he's on the ice despite his lackluster offensive totals", it's interpreted as though Pettersson's got a much more direct impact on his team generating offense when he's on the ice.

Anyways, that's my last post on the subject.

 

[SEALBound]

That's not the tweet I was referring to. It was a JFresh chart where it listed like 10 or 15 defensemen based on their offensive WAR or whatever and Pettersson was ranked like 9th or 10th in the entire league.

In any case, the idea that Pettersson is one of the better defensemen at anything that measures offense is dubious to me.

Think about it logically. If your team is trailing in the third period and badly needs a tying goal and you could, hypothetically speaking, have any defensemen in the NHL on the ice for you, in what world would a guy like Pettersson be the 9th or 10th best choice ahead of actual offensive defensemen who just don't have his "offensive WAR" stat?

I think the problem is instead of interpreting his results as "actually, he's a pretty solid defenseman who isn't going to hurt the creation of offense from the other guys when he's on the ice despite his lackluster offensive totals", it's interpreted as though Pettersson's got a much more direct impact on his team generating offense when he's on the ice.

Anyways, that's my last post on the subject.

WAR is not production. It's not Pettersson, it's you misinterpreting what the stats are saying.

But again, and maybe more to your point, there's a balance between adv stats and the eye test. You can't lean too far to one side otherwise you'll miss out on something.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

The problem is people not understanding how those stats are calculated. You don't have to produce the points yourself to be rated high in those categories. The way to look at it is - is your play helping create more shots and more goals on the other team's goalie, yes or no? Say Pettersson gives a good 1st pass and they successfully break it out of the dzone. Then the team spends a full 2 min in the offensive zone while Pettersson mans the point. Even if all he does is pinch a couple of times to keep the play alive, he's still getting the benefit of those created shots, goals, and zone time (that quite honestly are typically the result of the good play of a top 6 scoring line while your Partner is Petry or Letang). That's the way these adv stats work.

If people are hell-bent on production alone, there's a stat for that - goals, assists, points.

Misinterpreting or misrepresenting what those numbers mean because you don't want to believe is not a Pettersson issue, it's an issue for the reader. And Pixie, this obviously isn't solely directed at you, this is for everyone part of the Pettersson adv stat conversation.

Exactly

People conflate having an offensive skill set with generating offense. And then try to shit on analytics because they dont understand them.

A perfect example was ZAR who had consistently impressive defnesive analytics. But a TON of that was because he was legit great at mucking this up in the offensive zone.

Now because he didnt have a ton of offensive skill it didnt translate to offensive oppurtunities but his board work in the O Zone kept the puck away for our end.

Pettersson has very little offensive skill, but his wing span and decent first pass keep the puck away from our net and allows the offensive skilled player to drive opportunities thus his skillset despite limited talent offensively helps generate offense.

Its like electricity, wood doesnt produce or conduct electricity but since most utilities are above ground on poles it allows the oppurtunity for electricity to get to your house

 

[Freeptop]

I just don't think there's a place for analytics in hockey right now, maybe ever. This sport's so f***ing chaotic and impossible to predict as opposed to a relatively neat and tidy sport like baseball, which is prime for analytics. Hockey's got about a billion moving parts and variables at play, all changing throughout the course of a shift, let alone a game or season. Seems like a fruitless endeavor to me, but whatev.

It's very easy to just kinda laugh and roll your eyes whenever something suggests Petts is in the upper elite for anything offensively related, or when some analytic put McCann in the same convo as guys like McDavid, Draisaitl or Barkov a few years ago when he was still with the Pens.

There definitely is a place for analytics in hockey right now, and, in fact, it has already changed the game considerably, despite still being in its infancy. (The type of players valued now, how the game is played; all of this has changed considerably in the last 10-15 years, which is still well after the rule changes coming out of the 2005 lockout).

That said, I think hockey media still doesn't really understand it very well, and therefore doesn't do a good job of explaining it. (Explaining what Corsi is, for example, isn't very useful if you don't understand why it's a useful stat to track in the first place). The actual analysts themselves are so far deep into it they just jump to "the r-values tell us..." without actually tying that in to play on the ice, and why that matters.

All of which results in the average fan only getting "this stat means this player is good/bad", which is often a rather incorrect view of those stats in the first place.

This is not to say that I blame the average fan, either, because the explanations are simply not out there. Again, all the articles I've ever found that "explain analytics" either just give an incredibly basic explanation of the terms without explaining why they matter, or else they turn into arcane statistics terminology without relating it back to how the game is actually played on the ice.

Let's take one basic example: Corsi.
At this point, most people know that "Corsi" is just a term for "shot attempt": it's all the shots, blocked shots, and missed shots taken. But why does it matter? Well, the stats people discovered that it highly correlated with winning. And here's where things start breaking down. See, there's a common saying that very much applies here: "Correlation does not equal Causation." Correlation just means that you see two things often happen together. But that doesn't actually tell you that one caused the other. With Corsi, it's important to understand this basic fact:

Corsi does not cause a team to win.

Corsi correlates with winning teams. That because winning teams tends to create a lot of shot attempts. And that is because winning teams tend to possess the puck more, which leads to them getting more opportunities for shot attempts. But even getting more shot attempts alone isn't enough to cause winning - that's because skill is a factor. If all your shots get blocked, it won't matter if you're getting more attempts than your opponent, if your opponent is able to get shots on net and you aren't.

And that's just one example.

This is also why I don't like attempts to create a "WAR" stat for hockey, or the compression of various stats into some all-encompassing rating of a player. Hockey is chaotic enough that individual skills still matter, and since any given player has to play both offense and defense, any skill they have is going to affect both, and it's important to understand how and not just look at any single individual stat.

 

[The Old Master]

There definitely is a place for analytics in hockey right now, and, in fact, it has already changed the game considerably, despite still being in its infancy. (The type of players valued now, how the game is played; all of this has changed considerably in the last 10-15 years, which is still well after the rule changes coming out of the 2005 lockout).

That said, I think hockey media still doesn't really understand it very well, and therefore doesn't do a good job of explaining it. (Explaining what Corsi is, for example, isn't very useful if you don't understand why it's a useful stat to track in the first place). The actual analysts themselves are so far deep into it they just jump to "the r-values tell us..." without actually tying that in to play on the ice, and why that matters.

All of which results in the average fan only getting "this stat means this player is good/bad", which is often a rather incorrect view of those stats in the first place.

This is not to say that I blame the average fan, either, because the explanations are simply not out there. Again, all the articles I've ever found that "explain analytics" either just give an incredibly basic explanation of the terms without explaining why they matter, or else they turn into arcane statistics terminology without relating it back to how the game is actually played on the ice.

Let's take one basic example: Corsi.
At this point, most people know that "Corsi" is just a term for "shot attempt": it's all the shots, blocked shots, and missed shots taken. But why does it matter? Well, the stats people discovered that it highly correlated with winning. And here's where things start breaking down. See, there's a common saying that very much applies here: "Correlation does not equal Causation." Correlation just means that you see two things often happen together. But that doesn't actually tell you that one caused the other. With Corsi, it's important to understand this basic fact:

Corsi does not cause a team to win.

Corsi correlates with winning teams. That because winning teams tends to create a lot of shot attempts. And that is because winning teams tend to possess the puck more, which leads to them getting more opportunities for shot attempts. But even getting more shot attempts alone isn't enough to cause winning - that's because skill is a factor. If all your shots get blocked, it won't matter if you're getting more attempts than your opponent, if your opponent is able to get shots on net and you aren't.

And that's just one example.

This is also why I don't like attempts to create a "WAR" stat for hockey, or the compression of various stats into some all-encompassing rating of a player. Hockey is chaotic enough that individual skills still matter, and since any given player has to play both offense and defense, any skill they have is going to affect both, and it's important to understand how and not just look at any single individual stat.

with the advancement of AI i could see a big shift in drafting as well.

 

[SEALBound]

with the advancement of AI i could see a big shift in drafting as well.

I would be interesting to run a data set through AI and see what the draft results are but chaos rules our world.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

There definitely is a place for analytics in hockey right now, and, in fact, it has already changed the game considerably, despite still being in its infancy. (The type of players valued now, how the game is played; all of this has changed considerably in the last 10-15 years, which is still well after the rule changes coming out of the 2005 lockout).

That said, I think hockey media still doesn't really understand it very well, and therefore doesn't do a good job of explaining it. (Explaining what Corsi is, for example, isn't very useful if you don't understand why it's a useful stat to track in the first place). The actual analysts themselves are so far deep into it they just jump to "the r-values tell us..." without actually tying that in to play on the ice, and why that matters.

All of which results in the average fan only getting "this stat means this player is good/bad", which is often a rather incorrect view of those stats in the first place.

This is not to say that I blame the average fan, either, because the explanations are simply not out there. Again, all the articles I've ever found that "explain analytics" either just give an incredibly basic explanation of the terms without explaining why they matter, or else they turn into arcane statistics terminology without relating it back to how the game is actually played on the ice.

Let's take one basic example: Corsi.
At this point, most people know that "Corsi" is just a term for "shot attempt": it's all the shots, blocked shots, and missed shots taken. But why does it matter? Well, the stats people discovered that it highly correlated with winning. And here's where things start breaking down. See, there's a common saying that very much applies here: "Correlation does not equal Causation." Correlation just means that you see two things often happen together. But that doesn't actually tell you that one caused the other. With Corsi, it's important to understand this basic fact:

Corsi does not cause a team to win.

Corsi correlates with winning teams. That because winning teams tends to create a lot of shot attempts. And that is because winning teams tend to possess the puck more, which leads to them getting more opportunities for shot attempts. But even getting more shot attempts alone isn't enough to cause winning - that's because skill is a factor. If all your shots get blocked, it won't matter if you're getting more attempts than your opponent, if your opponent is able to get shots on net and you aren't.

And that's just one example.

This is also why I don't like attempts to create a "WAR" stat for hockey, or the compression of various stats into some all-encompassing rating of a player. Hockey is chaotic enough that individual skills still matter, and since any given player has to play both offense and defense, any skill they have is going to affect both, and it's important to understand how and not just look at any single individual stat.

That's a lotta words, and I appreciate your thorough post, but my stance is basically: I just wanna watch hockey, man. It's a dumb, chaotic sport, and I think analytics have a long way to go before they get hammered out to fit the game, if they ever do. The constant player cards, heatmaps, graphs and obscure bullshit of guys being like "no, no, dummy, Pettersson's f***ing *elite*, man" is just so pedantic and tiresome.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

It is probably the highlight of the post cup playoffs outside of Letang tripping someone and Jake scoring a hat trick goal then.

Remember when our team was fun to watch?

Pepperidge Farm does...

 

[Ryder71]

As long as we don't trade our first or second round picks in any foreseeable draft I'm okay with whatever else we might do. But I would prefer we sell them by, although I don't know how likely that is.

 

[Big Friggin Dummy]

The Jake Guentzel that broke onto the scene in his first two playoff appearances was f***ing unreal, man. He's still a PPG player but I don't think he's anywhere near as dangerous or has nearly the predatory instinct as he used to. Very cool of you, Chabot.

 

[K Fleur]

Remember when Pixies used to make fun of how much HOG hated on Sullivan?

L
O
L

 

[3ladesof5teel]

I was one of Petts biggest haters but he has made tremendous strides recently. Hopefully that play is here to stay. think he's a solid 4/5 guy.

That being said, I never trust any analytics never have and never will.

 

[Trade]

Jake’s 8 goals in 7 playoff games last year was truly pathetic. The dude is broken, trade him for Garland. At least he TRIES!!

 

[Victor Z]

Very cool of you, Chabot.

To this day some simps still think Chabot's cheap shot on Jake was totally unintentional, and I'm sorry that nobody has ever made him pay the price (with a similarly dirty hit, not "drop the gloves and hug for 30 seconds"). But then these are the Penguins and accepting unpenalized cheap shots like p***ys is what they do.

Remember when Cam Neely (and occasionally his teammates) made it his life's work to destroy Ulf Samuelsson each and every time they met, because of what Ulfie allegedly did to Cam once? Jake isn't capable of doing anything on the ice like Cam Neely did, but just once one of his teammates ought to have done *something* to show Chabot that what goes around sometimes comes back around.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

WAR is not production. It's not Pettersson, it's you misinterpreting what the stats are saying.

But again, and maybe more to your point, there's a balance between adv stats and the eye test. You can't lean too far to one side otherwise you'll miss out on something.

I didn't say WAR is production? I said (or maybe I'm just not clear enough when I ramble) that anyone interpreting Pettersson's offensive WAR as some sort of indication of his offensive ability or ability to generate offense is using those results improperly if the conclusion is he is "good" offensively.

 

[Gurglesons]

Remember when Pixies used to make fun of how much HOG hated on Sullivan?

L
O
L

Remember when K Fleur posted posts that actually contributed to the board.

 

[K Fleur]

Remember when K Fleur posted posts that actually contributed to the board.

No that never happened.

 

[The Old Master]

I would be interesting to run a data set through AI and see what the draft results are but chaos rules our world.

yeah AI and the jr's of the world don't mix

 

[Gurglesons]

No that never happened.

Good point

 

[HandshakeLine]

To this day some simps still think Chabot's cheap shot on Jake was totally unintentional, and I'm sorry that nobody has ever made him pay the price (with a similarly dirty hit, not "drop the gloves and hug for 30 seconds"). But then these are the Penguins and accepting unpenalized cheap shots like p***ys is what they do.

Remember when Cam Neely (and occasionally his teammates) made it his life's work to destroy Ulf Samuelsson each and every time they met, because of what Ulfie allegedly did to Cam once? Jake isn't capable of doing anything on the ice like Cam Neely did, but just once one of his teammates ought to have done *something* to show Chabot that what goes around sometimes comes back around.

to be fair, Cam couldn't do shit because he was like a one legged man in a three legged race after that.

 

[66-30-33]

Remember when our team was fun to watch?

Pepperidge Farm does...

Ruh was there on the Flyers 1st goal.

WTF m8?