Proposal: Trouba Mega-Thread Part III

[lomiller1]

You keep saying that the Jets need help everywhere but we absolutely don't need more forwards who would slot in with the bolded. We literally have 7+ lines of forwards and the only player that I would say is a stretch to be ready for an NHL bottom 6 role right now is Roslovic because he's just too young (obviously Laine is younger and Connor is the same draft year, but those guys are absolute blue-chippers).

Ehlers - Scheifele - Wheeler
Laine - Little - Stafford
Connor - Perreault - Armia
Lowry - Matthias - Dano
Tanev - Copp - Burmistrov
Lemieux - Petan - Howden
Peluso - Roslovic - Kosmachuk
Thorburn

Obviously more top-end talent works because we push folks down the depth chart, but the point remains that we have too many forwards!!! Adding more forward prospects in with the bolded players does not help us... at all.

You missed Lipon and obviously weren't even bothering to list the playing in the AHL like Foley, Kraskovsky, Appleton Harkins, Spacek, etc.

We also don't want or need goaltenders unless Montreal is willing to part with Price. Hellebuyck, Comrie, Phillips, Hutchenson, Berdin

 

[gwh]

Yes he does.





http://www.tsn.ca/trouba-has-the-makings-of-a-first-pairing-talent-1.573828
http://jetsnation.ca/2016/6/6/don-t...you-trouba-has-been-getting-better-and-better
http://jetsnation.ca/2016/4/27/why-the-jets-don-t-have-a-left-side-defensive-depth-problem-yet

The goals above replacement is pretty trash metric for a blueliner. Just saying the obvious. Check "goals" in the scoring sheet to know who scores goals.

The 1st tweeter (McCurdy) runs the hockeyviz stat visual site. Lots of stuff there, not sure if any of it correlates to actually winning games.

BTW here are the actually good offensive defensemen (Including Trouba right there in the middle):

http://hockeyviz.com/img/league/recentDescriptive/1516/art-ross-1516-defender.png

 

[lomiller1]

The goals above replacement is pretty trash metric for a blueliner. Just saying the obvious. Check "goals" in the scoring sheet to know who scores goals

Umm, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about. GAR measures the players impact on their teams goal differential. Since the point of the game is to score more goals than the other team, it's the most important stat for every player.

The 1st tweeter (McCurdy) runs the hockeyviz stat visual site.

Yup very respected stats bloggers

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Umm, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about. GAR measures the players impact on their teams goal differential. Since the point of the game is to score more goals than the other team, it's the most important stat for every player.


Yup very respected stats bloggers

Lol! Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. There isn't a stat or a combination of stats out there that measures a players impact on their teams goal differential. To measure the impact a player has on the goals you must actually watch each individual player on each individual goal and figure out what said player did leading up to said goal. All these stats tell you is that said player was on the ice. They don't measure how the player influenced the play whatsoever. Being on the ice doesn't necessarily mean the player influenced the play. There is a reason +\- is a complete joke, which was once praised for its great ability to measure 2way play. All these other "advanced stats" based on being on the ice will be laughed at one day as well.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Umm, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about. GAR measures the players impact on their teams goal differential. Since the point of the game is to score more goals than the other team, it's the most important stat for every player.


Yup very respected stats bloggers

Are we supposed to take that list as definitive proof that John Klingberg or Tyson Barrie is a better defenseman than two time Norris trophy winner Duncan Keith, who isn't on the list? Or that Brian Campbell is the 5th best D in the NHL, and significantly better than Burns and/or Vlasic (both of whom are also not on the list).

And, regardless of how well these blogger manipulate numbers in order to try to find some meaning, they haven't found the magic algorithm yet. So, while I agree that GAR can be a useful metric to judge players, it's not the end all statistic you seem to be claiming it is.

 

[Stej]

You missed Lipon and obviously weren't even bothering to list the playing in the AHL like Foley, Kraskovsky, Appleton Harkins, Spacek, etc.

We also don't want or need goaltenders unless Montreal is willing to part with Price. Hellebuyck, Comrie, Phillips, Hutchenson, Berdin

I was trying to stick to forwards that have a realistic chance of playing an NHL game this season. Roslovic is the only questionable one IMO (depends if he goes to Junior or to the AHL).

But, yes, good catch on Lipon. Was going strictly by memory.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Yup very respected stats bloggers

Because numbers are the be all end all? They can be helpful, but the eye test is the best test there is. I mean unless you actually believe a stat darling like Redmond could play a top 4 role.

 

[irunthepeg]

Because numbers are the be all end all? They can be helpful, but the eye test is the best test there is. I mean unless you actually believe a stat darling like Redmond could play a top 4 role.

I'm neither here nor there on Redmond as a player but pretty much every player starts as someone who's doubted. If the stats (and I don't just mean +/-, G, and A) say Redmond is playing well, maybe he's better than you're giving him credit for.

 

[Ivan13]

I'm neither here nor there on Redmond as a player but pretty much every player starts as someone who's doubted. If the stats (and I don't just mean +/-, G, and A) say Redmond is playing well, maybe he's better than you're giving him credit for.

He is not. He is the worst defenseman the Avs had under Roy and that includes guys like Nate freaking Guenin, who at least knew how to flop around the ice and block a shot on occasion. Redmond on the other hand, does nothing well.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I'm neither here nor there on Redmond as a player but pretty much every player starts as someone who's doubted. If the stats (and I don't just mean +/-, G, and A) say Redmond is playing well, maybe he's better than you're giving him credit for.

Or, maybe he's just as bad as we think he is, but puts up good enough numbers in specific categories that his advanced stats make him seem better than he is.

 

[cneely]

Because numbers are the be all end all? They can be helpful, but the eye test is the best test there is. I mean unless you actually believe a stat darling like Redmond could play a top 4 role.

Problem is that the eye test is always subjective. Numbers are not.

 

[lomiller1]

Or, maybe he's just as bad as we think he is, but puts up good enough numbers in specific categories that his advanced stats make him seem better than he is.

The specific categories that Redmond outperformed most of Colorado’s D are: Shots Against, Shot attempts Against, Scoring Chances Against and Expected Goals Against. (all Per 60 min played)

Those are pretty important categories.

 

[lomiller1]

Problem is that the eye test is always subjective. Numbers are not.

The eye test is also prone to look at the wrong things. Humans are hard wired to spot the unusual and ignore the expected. This causes us to attach too much weight to things like “turnovers†that in realty barely impact the game more than a “safe†chip off the glass into the neutral zone. Conversely things being in the right place to get the puck and executing an effective breakout are things we should expect to see all the time so we mentally skip over them when they happen like they are supposed to.

It turns out being good at the second has a much bigger impact on the result of the game than the first, but if we leave it to the eye test we tend to come to the exact opposite conclusion.

 

[strictlyrandy]

If Redmond was as good as some of you didn't watch him on the Avs think he is...he'd have more than 114 games played in the NHL at age 28.

He's not bad in highly sheltered roles. Guenin was worse than him imo.. but that doesn't make him a quality top 4 defender.

 

[Redline]

Problem is that the eye test is always subjective. Numbers are not.

I think the stats are more important for fans that are uncomfortable with their ability to assess talent.

 

[Paradise*]

I think the stats are more important for fans that are uncomfortable with their ability to assess talent.

Finally someone said it

 

[Avs44]

If Redmond was as good as some of you didn't watch him on the Avs think he is...he'd have more than 114 games played in the NHL at age 28.

He's not bad in highly sheltered roles. Guenin was worse than him imo.. but that doesn't make him a quality top 4 defender.

"Redmond is actually good, you guys are just wrong!"

114 NHL games, 28 years old, currently earning only 612k after hitting free agency.

Tell us more about how great he is, it's a fine case study of why trying to use advanced stats without watching games and pretending you're now an objective know-it-all is akin to stupidity. Apparently 29 NHL teams and the host of professional managers / coaches / scouts and professional advanced stat 'experts' they hire decided they didn't think Redmond was good enough to beat an offer of 612k per year.

 

[lomiller1]

Are we supposed to take that list as definitive proof that John Klingberg or Tyson Barrie is a better defenseman than two time Norris trophy winner Duncan Keith.

Keith didn’t win the Norris last year, Karlsson did. Notice where his GAR ranks. If you didn’t get distracted by Kane’s career year you’d have noticed that the Hawks were not particularly good last year. I have no problem believing Klingberg and Barrie did more.

Or that Brian Campbell...

Had an outstanding year last year.

Burns and/or Vlasic.

Burns finishes near the top of the offence only GAR, Vlasic near the top of the defence only GAR just as you would expect.

So, while I agree that GAR can be a useful metric to judge players, it's not the end all statistic you seem to be claiming it is.

I never claimed it was an end all statistic. In fact it was just one of a number of statistics referenced in the links I provided in my post. They all pointed to similar conclusions.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The specific categories that Redmond outperformed most of Colorado’s D are: Shots Against, Shot attempts Against, Scoring Chances Against and Expected Goals Against. (all Per 60 min played)

Those are pretty important categories.

Redmond only played 435 minutes last year, and had the third highest Off Zone Start % of any D (only Gelinas and Bigras were higher), and the second worst Off Zone Finish % (behind only Gelinas). I wonder if his smaller sample size and all those offensive zone starts might have skewed the number of shots/chances/goals the other team had against him. Or if being on the ice for that many times when the puck ended up out of the zone has any relevance to why Avs fans think he's bad.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Keith didn’t win the Norris last year, Karlsson did. Notice where his GAR ranks. If you didn’t get distracted by Kane’s career year you’d have noticed that the Hawks were not particularly good last year. I have no problem believing Klingberg and Barrie did more.


Had an outstanding year last year.


Burns finishes near the top of the offence only GAR, Vlasic near the top of the defence only GAR just as you would expect.



I never claimed it was an end all statistic. In fact it was just one of a number of statistics referenced in the links I provided in my post. They all pointed to similar conclusions.

There is absolutely no chance that Klingberg or Barrie is a better defenseman than Duncan Keith. They might have had a better year if you look at specific metrics, but neither one of them is a 1D. Keith is a 2 time Norris trophy winning 1D. Klingberg and Barrie are sheltered offensive D who aren't expected to play the tough defensive minutes.

Vlasic outscored Campbell last year and played more minutes in tougher situations. If your statistic says Campbell is better than Vlasic, I question the validity of your statistic.

 

[lomiller1]

Redmond only played 435 minutes last year, and had the third highest Off Zone Start % of any D

Both already accounted for. I’m using rates and zone start adjusted numbers.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Trouba is probably better off sticking with Winnipeg for these next 4 years. And then leave as a UFA free to sign with any team of his choice.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Both already accounted for. I’m using rates and zone start adjusted numbers.

If you think Redmond is good enough to be a top 4 D, I think your numbers need more adjusting.

 

[Mr Positive]

Trouba is probably better off sticking with Winnipeg for these next 4 years. And then leave as a UFA free to sign with any team of his choice.

not really, considering that he wants out of Winnipeg because of how they use him. If he stays for an extended period, his value as a player will decrease, and he may not develop into the player he wants to be.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Problem is that the eye test is always subjective. Numbers are not.

What you stat whackers read into them sure is subjective though.

I think the stats are more important for fans that are uncomfortable with their ability to assess talent.

love it

The specific categories that Redmond outperformed most of Colorado’s D are: Shots Against, Shot attempts Against, Scoring Chances Against and Expected Goals Against. (all Per 60 min played)

Those are pretty important categories.

And he led in doing something stupid which leads directly to a goal. But, that's not put on a sheet of paper, so I guess that doesn't matter