Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Ty Emberson

  • 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
bucks_oil said:
No, that is not the argument I am making. If you re-read my post you'll notice two things:
1). I did not wade into the Emberson vs Desharnais debate. I was a Desharnais fan, but I can see that Emberson is growing well into his own role.
2) I very specifically called you out on your disregard for the actual statistics that determine game outcome. And then pointing to on-ice SPCT to disregard his performance... I actually consider on-ice SPCT to be one of the BEST predictors of who is a good defensive defender. If you've played, you know your goalie (and coach) says things like: "let me see the puck, box them out, push them wide, clear the rebounds"... all of that increases save percentage.

Desharnais was a round peg in a round hole in Edmonton, and he performed very well defensively in his role. The stats supported that last year. You can't just disregard them because they don't suit your narrative. When he was in our zone, IMO, by eye test, he was right up there with Ekholm as the best defensively... very active stick, huge wingspan, and people did not camp out in front of our goalies... plenty of shots from the perimeter. It is therefore NOT AT ALL SURPRISING to me that the stats say his goalies had a 930 spct with him on the ice. Heck, I'd probably have an 890.

My commentary on his play last year is not the same as me espousing him as a fully established, consistent year-over-year and in all situations defender. I haven't followed his play in Vancouver this year, I don't know how they are using him and so no... I have no reason to suggest the poor stats this year are lying about his play... maybe they are also true.

One thing to note about Desharnais usage last year is that Knobloch heavily skewed it to in-zone starts, where rushes against were limited. As we know, off the rush, in the neutral zone, that's where Desharnais lack of speed got slaughtered when Woody was coaching.
Click to expand...
Like I said though, if Desharnais’ main strength was raising his goalie’s save percentage, he wouldn’t have by far the worst onSV% on the Canucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks and nabob
McDNicks17 said:
Like I said though, if Desharnais’ main strength was raising his goalie’s save percentage, he wouldn’t have by far the worst onSV% on the Canucks.
Click to expand...
Depends on how the Canucks are using him. The Oilers used him very heavily as an own-zone starter. He also had Kulak as a partner, and he makes all of his partners better. In Vancouver, his partner is Carson Soucy, who has good parts to his game, but I don't think is the kind of guy to anchor a pairing like Kulak does, where he consistently makes his pairing better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vagabond and nabob
Cloned said:
He’s better than Ceci, full stop.

He was shaky to start the year but has been completely solid since about November.

Ceci made at least one WTF play a game, when was the last time you remember Emberson making one?
Click to expand...
I never understand that trade from Sharks side. What was the point of throwing away one of your most promising young Ds? Just weird over all.

But I'll thank them. I think its harder to find Emberson types at D than Broberg types. He will be a great 4-5 D here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks, Vagabond, nabob and 1 other person
SwedishFire said:
I never understand that trade from Sharks side. What was the point of throwing away one of your most promising young Ds? Just weird over all.

But I'll thank them. I think its harder to find Emberson types at D than Broberg types. He will be a great 4-5 D here.
Click to expand...
They grabbed Emberson on waivers, and he played well for them, but they weren't invested in going forward. They got a pick and a player they might be able to move for a pick for a guy they were probably going to walk away from.

Emberson's performance and progression has made the Sharks look bad, but they knew they weren't good, so just acquiring assets to hope these magic beans hit.

Eitherway the Oilers won the trade and Emberson is a far better overall defenseman that Cody Ceci, the team is MUCH better with Emberson in the line up than Ceci.

AND it's NOT Close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oilhawks, yakcity1064, Mr Positive and 4 others
bucks_oil said:
No, that is not the argument I am making. If you re-read my post you'll notice two things:
1). I did not wade into the Emberson vs Desharnais debate. I was a Desharnais fan, but I can see that Emberson is growing well into his own role.
2) I very specifically called you out on your disregard for the actual statistics that determine game outcome. And then pointing to on-ice SPCT to disregard his performance... I actually consider on-ice SPCT to be one of the BEST predictors of who is a good defensive defender. If you've played, you know your goalie (and coach) says things like: "let me see the puck, box them out, push them wide, clear the rebounds"... all of that increases save percentage.

Desharnais was a round peg in a round hole in Edmonton, and he performed very well defensively in his role. The stats supported that last year. You can't just disregard them because they don't suit your narrative. When he was in our zone, IMO, by eye test, he was right up there with Ekholm as the best defensively... very active stick, huge wingspan, and people did not camp out in front of our goalies... plenty of shots from the perimeter. It is therefore NOT AT ALL SURPRISING to me that the stats say his goalies had a 930 spct with him on the ice. Heck, I'd probably have an 890.

My commentary on his play last year is not the same as me espousing him as a fully established, consistent year-over-year and in all situations defender. I haven't followed his play in Vancouver this year, I don't know how they are using him and so no... I have no reason to suggest the poor stats this year are lying about his play... maybe they are also true.

One thing to note about Desharnais usage last year is that Knobloch heavily skewed it to in-zone starts, where rushes against were limited. As we know, off the rush, in the neutral zone, that's where Desharnais lack of speed got slaughtered when Woody was coaching.
Click to expand...
You would need more data to make that assumption. If the Oilers allow more goal crease goals against while Emberson was on the ice and was the guy covering the crease then you’d likely be correct. But then you’d also have to show the same stats in the same scenario for VD.

But if a person is being honest most goals against aren’t scored against the oilers because of the scenarios you’re saying VD is, in your opinion, a superior player. A few goals on a random deflection or a softy by a goalie can greatly skew those percentages.

I think the biggest indicator would be that VD’s save% in Vancouver is the worst on the club, which would then mean he’s actually bad at all things you claim he’s really good at…or it means that the stat is more a reflection of the goalie than it is the Dman.
 
Jimmi McJenkins said:
They grabbed Emberson on waivers, and he played well for them, but they weren't invested in going forward. They got a pick and a player they might be able to move for a pick for a guy they were probably going to walk away from.

Emberson's performance and progression has made the Sharks look bad, but they knew they weren't good, so just acquiring assets to hope these magic beans hit.

Eitherway the Oilers won the trade and Emberson is a far better overall defenseman that Cody Ceci, the team is MUCH better with Emberson in the line up than Ceci.

AND it's NOT Close.
Click to expand...
Ok, I follow your theory, but its just stupid. Throw him away because they grabbed him onw aivers before. Why should that matter, thats history, not present. What matters is how good he is, and wich potential he has, wich is great.
Bo, that trade doesnt make an sense from sharks side. Emberson is not old, hes young, and that is what sharks should had bet on. But okey, I thank them. But me thinks that Grier will be shortlived at his job... with this way of make moves
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vagabond
nabob said:
You would need more data to make that assumption. If the Oilers allow more goal crease goals against while Emberson was on the ice and was the guy covering the crease then you’d likely be correct. But then you’d also have to show the same stats in the same scenario for VD.

But if a person is being honest most goals against aren’t scored against the oilers because of the scenarios you’re saying VD is, in your opinion, a superior player. A few goals on a random deflection or a softy by a goalie can greatly skew those percentages.

I think the biggest indicator would be that VD’s save% in Vancouver is the worst on the club, which would then mean he’s actually bad at all things you claim he’s really good at…or it means that the stat is more a reflection of the goalie than it is the Dman.
Click to expand...

No sorry... I think you've got it a bit wrong.

There are MORE shots against while you are hemmed in your zone than there are off the rush.

A far greater proportion of the "zone shots" are weak, perimeter, from distance, etc.

A far greater proportion of the "rush shots" are high danger, in close, dekes, cross crease, etc.

So if you are (as I argued) a VERY GOOD ZONE DEFENDER and a VERY POOR RUSH DEFENDER... then those relatively low-number events off the rush will significantly skew your stats.

You could quite easily have a year in Edmonton where your utilization showed you to have an on-ice SPCT of 930 and it was TRUE because you spent most of your time: A) defending the high-volume, low-risk situation (in zone) that you are good at, and B) your SPCT-skewing rush chances agasint were limited.

Then the next year you go to Vancouver and they don't quite know how to make proper use of you and you get skewered on rush chances against where you are not strong and now you were not sheltered from them.

Again... I'm not getting into a Desharnais vs Emberson debate. It's pointless, we have one now and we don't have the other... plus they are completely different defenders and being used in completely different roles. If I had to squeeze one into a top-4 role (as we do this year) it's Emberson. If I have the luxury of a sheltered "stay at home" crease clearer, it's Desharnais.

I'm just making these two broad points:
1) Actual goals against over a full season don't lie (in Vinny's case two seasons). And a high on-ice SPCT is a CREDIT TO the defender, not a reason to discount stats. (I mean imagine... the goalie we all criticize had such a good SPCT when Desharnais was on the ice that now we need to use that to discredit Vinny? How does that pass the logic test?)
2) Desharnais' good stats in Edmonton could be true (to my eye they were). And his poor stats in Vancouver could also be true (I can't say, haven't watched enough). Taking his stats in Vancouver as gospel, does not mean that you need to discount his Edmonton stats. The situations and utilization could be playing a big role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fourier and Vagabond
Jimmi McJenkins said:
They grabbed Emberson on waivers, and he played well for them, but they weren't invested in going forward. They got a pick and a player they might be able to move for a pick for a guy they were probably going to walk away from.

Emberson's performance and progression has made the Sharks look bad, but they knew they weren't good, so just acquiring assets to hope these magic beans hit.

Eitherway the Oilers won the trade and Emberson is a far better overall defenseman that Cody Ceci, the team is MUCH better with Emberson in the line up than Ceci.

AND it's NOT Close.
Click to expand...
Plus it stops the coach from forcing ceci with nurse even though it’s never worked.

It’s no surprise that nurse looks better now that ceci is gone
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmi McJenkins
SwedishFire said:
Ok, I follow your theory, but its just stupid. Throw him away because they grabbed him onw aivers before. Why should that matter, thats history, not present. What matters is how good he is, and wich potential he has, wich is great.
Bo, that trade doesnt make an sense from sharks side. Emberson is not old, hes young, and that is what sharks should had bet on. But okey, I thank them. But me thinks that Grier will be shortlived at his job... with this way of make moves
Click to expand...
So you mistake something here, I don't think it's a "good" call by the Sharks, it's just the "logic" they're using. I think they liked what Emberson did last year, but viewed him similarly to how the Oilers viewed Desharnais.

Now Desharnais was a UFA, but the Oilers were only going to pay so much, so he left.

If the Sharks felt Ceci was an improvement, they were getting pick with Ceci and they could "maybe" flip Ceci at the deadline, the deal makes sense for a depth guy who they were likely expecting to be a UFA at the end of the year.

Basically Stan absolutely pulled one over on Grier who was looking past the player he had.
 
bucks_oil said:
No sorry... I think you've got it a bit wrong.

There are MORE shots against while you are hemmed in your zone than there are off the rush.

A far greater proportion of the "zone shots" are weak, perimeter, from distance, etc.

A far greater proportion of the "rush shots" are high danger, in close, dekes, cross crease, etc.

So if you are (as I argued) a VERY GOOD ZONE DEFENDER and a VERY POOR RUSH DEFENDER... then those relatively low-number events off the rush will significantly skew your stats.

You could quite easily have a year in Edmonton where your utilization showed you to have an on-ice SPCT of 930 and it was TRUE because you spent most of your time: A) defending the high-volume, low-risk situation (in zone) that you are good at, and B) your SPCT-skewing rush chances agasint were limited.

Then the next year you go to Vancouver and they don't quite know how to make proper use of you and you get skewered on rush chances against where you are not strong and now you were not sheltered from them.

Again... I'm not getting into a Desharnais vs Emberson debate. It's pointless, we have one now and we don't have the other... plus they are completely different defenders and being used in completely different roles. If I had to squeeze one into a top-4 role (as we do this year) it's Emberson. If I have the luxury of a sheltered "stay at home" crease clearer, it's Desharnais.

I'm just making these two broad points:
1) Actual goals against over a full season don't lie (in Vinny's case two seasons). And a high on-ice SPCT is a CREDIT TO the defender, not a reason to discount stats. (I mean imagine... the goalie we all criticize had such a good SPCT when Desharnais was on the ice that now we need to use that to discredit Vinny? How does that pass the logic test?)
2) Desharnais' good stats in Edmonton could be true (to my eye they were). And his poor stats in Vancouver could also be true (I can't say, haven't watched enough). Taking his stats in Vancouver as gospel, does not mean that you need to discount his Edmonton stats. The situations and utilization could be playing a big role.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what you're doing though haha. You responded to my post where I responded to someone that said Desharnais > Emberson because of goals against. I said raw goals is kind of pointless to look at when comparing two players and, even though you disagreed, I think you're doing a good job adding context to why that's true.

There's so many variables that affect goals against like the ones you mentioned and more, so just using a stat as simple as that makes for a faulty comparison.
 
McDNicks17 said:
That's kind of what you're doing though haha. You responded to my post where I responded to someone that said Desharnais > Emberson because of goals against. I said raw goals is kind of pointless to look at when comparing two players and, even though you disagreed, I think you're doing a good job adding context to why that's true.

There's so many variables that affect goals against like the ones you mentioned and more, so just using a stat as simple as that makes for a faulty comparison.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, your argument was raw goals can’t be trusted because in Desharnais case he had a high on-ice SPCT. Which I reacted strongly to.

I was not (still not) arguing Desh vs Emberson. I was arguing that Desh raw goals stats were real and can’t just be disregarded because you don’t like them, or especially because you thought the exceptional goaltending (har har!) created them.

Of course I agree with you that there are many other factors involved. And yes, I used some of those factors to explain Desh vs Desh in different situations with my point being: both can be true.

Broad point: I agree all stats need context, but of all the stats to call BS on, you better have a really good argument to call BS on raw goals (as you did) over an 82 game sample. Real results matter most regardless how you got there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom