The Columbus Dispatch: Umberger wants out (Dispatch link post #276)

[major major]

He's a 20 goal scorer. The Jackets must meet those 20 goals in any trade. Otherwise it's a bad trade. You can't just give 20 goals away.

Baloney. Per minute, and per opportunity with good linemates, RJ scores very little. You subtract him in favor of a statistically average player and you will score more.

 

[blahblah]

Cleary you want to replace the 20 or so goals he's score. That doesn't have to come in the trade with him obviously. Those goals could certainly come organically as well.

 

[Doug19]

Lets stop calling Umberger a 20 goal scorer, he is not a 20 goal scorer. Was he at one point in his career? Yes, but he isn't any more. He's looked a terrible for a few years now and only looked decent for a small part of this year where he looked fast and re-energized, sadly that was a mirage and not the real Umberger. We don't have to replace Umberger's goals at all, any of our other players can be put into Umberger's role along side Johansen and pick up those points. Hell we have Horton coming back, his production should more than makeup any production loss from Umberger alone.

 

[blahblah]

Lets stop calling Umberger a 20 goal scorer,

For goodness sake, 18 is pretty damn close to 20. He missed 8 games, there was a reasonable chance that he would have picked up the other 2.

We could still use more goal scoring, I allotted for organic - which would have included Horton. You still want another 20 goals on top of whatever Horton gives you.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

18 goals....8 on the PP scored at a rate of over double his normal production rate. So the reasonably expected number of goals going forward with similar PP would be 4.

His 10 ES goals were scored with the benefit of a lot of first line play. He ranked 8th among forwards in goals per 60 minutes. He was above Dubinski-which surprised me, but had he been slotted (3rd or 4th line) where he belonged, he might have scored 7 or 8 goals.

So his realistic goal production going forward based on his last 2 season's goal scoring rates is roughly 4PP + 8 ES=approximately 12 goals.

It's a level of production that is so easily replaceable that a reasonably talented AHLer could replace RJUs goal scoring at a league minimum contract.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

18 goals....8 on the PP scored at a rate of over double his normal production rate. So the reasonably expected number of goals going forward with similar PP would be 4.

His 10 ES goals were scored with the benefit of a lot of first line play. He ranked 8th among forwards in goals per 60 minutes. He was above Dubinski-which surprised me, but had he been slotted (3rd or 4th line) where he belonged, he might have scored 7 or 8 goals.

So his realistic goal production going forward based on his last 2 season's goal scoring rates is roughly 4PP + 8 ES=approximately 12 goals.

It's a level of production that is so easily replaceable that a reasonably talented AHLer could replace RJUs goal scoring at a league minimum contract.

Isn't this basically the same argument someone wanted to make regarding Wisniewski's production? That his production isn't due to his talent but to the high quantity of ice time?

 

[major major]

Isn't this basically the same argument someone wanted to make regarding Wisniewski's production? That his production isn't due to his talent but to the high quantity of ice time?

Except its true in Umberger's case, and not in Wisniewski's.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Except its true in Umberger's case, and not in Wisniewski's.

Oh, well then. If you say so.

 

[cslebn]

Isn't this basically the same argument someone wanted to make regarding Wisniewski's production? That his production isn't due to his talent but to the high quantity of ice time?

shhhhh

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

 

[major major]

Oh, well then. If you say so.

No, seriously. Umberger was dead last among forwards on the team in points per 60 minutes 5 on 5. He had a lot of opportunities and didn't do much with them.

We had someone arguing that Wiz only scored so much because of his powerplay minutes, but Wiz actually scored at a higher per minute rate on the Powerplay than any other quarterback in the league except for Shea Weber.

You remembered the critique against Wiz without remembering that it was just a series of falsehoods. The case against Umberger, though, is pretty solid.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

No, seriously. Umberger was dead last among forwards on the team in points per 60 minutes 5 on 5. He had a lot of opportunities and didn't do much with them.

We had someone arguing that Wiz only scored so much because of his powerplay minutes, but Wiz actually scored at a higher per minute rate on the Powerplay than any other quarterback in the league except for Shea Weber.

You remembered the critique against Wiz without remembering that it was just a series of falsehoods. The case against Umberger, though, is pretty solid.

Not true. I remember damn well it was a load of crap. Which was my point. And is still. We're still cherrypicking stat category comparisons.

I'm not trying to prove RJ's worth. I'm not trying to refute what was posted. But there's a habit of "proving" something by using a stat that "proves" it to the exclusion of all others. Let's level the playing field so we can really see what's up.

 

[major major]

Not true. I remember damn well it was a load of crap. Which was my point. And is still. We're still cherrypicking stat category comparisons.

I'm not trying to prove RJ's worth. I'm not trying to refute what was posted. But there's a habit of "proving" something by using a stat that "proves" it to the exclusion of all others. Let's level the playing field so we can really see what's up.

My mistake, I misread you.

 

[Jackets16]

Not true. I remember damn well it was a load of crap. Which was my point. And is still. We're still cherrypicking stat category comparisons.

I'm not trying to prove RJ's worth. I'm not trying to refute what was posted. But there's a habit of "proving" something by using a stat that "proves" it to the exclusion of all others. Let's level the playing field so we can really see what's up.

So, what are we supposed to use to prove his worth or lack there of? I watch him and I think he is bad and replaceable. I look at his stats and think he is bad and replaceable. So, if we can't use those 2 things, what should we use?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

So, what are we supposed to use to prove his worth or lack there of? I wash him and I think he is bad and replaceable. I look at his stats and think he is bad and replaceable. So, if we can't use those 2 things, what should we use?

The point is we're using "some" categories to "prove" RJ is worthless and "some" categories to "prove" Wiz is valuable. Strikes me that this could be construed as picking and choosing to support a pre-existing position rather than using stats objectively to reach a position.

That's all.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Isn't this basically the same argument someone wanted to make regarding Wisniewski's production? That his production isn't due to his talent but to the high quantity of ice time?

I've posted ad nauseum the stats.My arguments have always centered around pts or goals/60 min and quality of linemates with regard to RJU. Once again:

Points per minute 5v5:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...RW&f5=CBJ&f7=60-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20#




Goals per minute 5v5:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=60-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20


PP production 5v4: 13-14, 12-13, 11-12 (3 years shown to demonstrate last season's PP goal production aberration.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20#


http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=40-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=60-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Buyout window opens 48 or 72 hours after the conclusion of the SC Finals.

If Kings sweep, RJU could be an ex CBJ via amnesty buyout as early as Saturday.

 

[Samkow]

Buyout window opens 48 or 72 hours after the conclusion of the SC Finals.

If Kings sweep, RJU could be an ex CBJ via amnesty buyout as early as Saturday.

It's the latter of the 15th or 48 hours after the final game.

RJ won't be bought out till the very end of the window if that's the path they take.

 

[EspenK]

It's the latter of the 15th or 48 hours after the final game.

RJ won't be bought out till the very end of the window if that's the path they take.

I agree it won't happen until very close to the end if it happens. I can't for the life of me seeing it not happening if he is not traded by that time. Just too many guys waiting in the wings over the next two years to allow a guy who wants out to stick around and risk having to absorb the cap hit for no good reason. I'll take a couple of 2nds or thirds for him.

 

[Jackets16]

The point is we're using "some" categories to "prove" RJ is worthless and "some" categories to "prove" Wiz is valuable. Strikes me that this could be construed as picking and choosing to support a pre-existing position rather than using stats objectively to reach a position.

That's all.

Okay. I don't agree though. IMO, that is the best way to use stats. To prove or disprove something you think you are seeing while watching the game.

 

[thebus2288*]

So, what are we supposed to use to prove his worth or lack there of? I wash him

Watch them? Our eyes tell us the truth. You guys turn every thread into a Wiz thread though, my god. But ok. This Umberger thing is going to be exactly what happens to Wiz in regards to perception on this board. Umberger is way less valuable than Wiz at this point I'll admit, but I'm glad some of you now see the comparisons of the situation the players are in along with the arguments people are giving for and against each guy.

For you stat guys against Umby and probably for Wiz( advanced, corsi, hard, whatever). If he scored 2 more goals and got to 20 this past year, HOW could you say he's not a 20 goal scorer and valuable to this team? By simply watching a large enough sample of CBJ games this past year it was easy to see what guy didn't belong in the top 9 or on the powerplay, let along top line on both for most of the year. To MOST of you, early in the year and even still some now believe that Umberger was/is our most effective guy on the PP because of his PP stats even though it was clear(to some) that it's absolutely not true. How can people have such different ideas? Sound familiar? Stats only go so far, really.

Some guys are effective at both ends of the ice. Some guys are effective at both even strength and special teams. Some are very effective shorthanded. Some are only(or mainly) effective on the PP. This last group of people is where Wisniewski lands, and they are the least important people on a hockey team. It's just as important to not let the other team score as it is TO SCORE. Some guys' games are more suited for the PP yes, BUT IN NO WAY is it harder to get points on the PP than at even strength. Look no further than the numbers for RJ to prove that fact. Also, again we have people claiming that Wiz is top-5 (actually TOP 2) in production(per 60 min) for PP D-men. You don't have to look anywhere else to realize that these "numbers" don't always tell the whole story. There's easily 15 or more defensemen in the league that are better offensively on the PP. The stats from the past year might not show that, but what's been essentially proven in here is that stats don't always prove everything....sorry blame yourselves I couldn't hold back.

And please, show me the "falsehoods" other than saying Wiz is a top 5 offensive d man. Because if anything is false its that.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Okay. I don't agree though. IMO, that is the best way to use stats. To prove or disprove something you think you are seeing while watching the game.

As long as it's not an exercise in "affirmation bias" stats, I'm good with it. The point is, I don't trust people who appear to be using only stats that support a position when there might be stats that counter the same thing. People don't seem to like to be "disproven" by stats.

I should add that the idea that people don't like to be "disproven" by stats and leads folks to ignore them altogether, you know, in the interest of not being wrong even when they might be.

 

[thebus2288*]

Okay. I don't agree though. IMO, that is the best way to use stats. To prove or disprove something you think you are seeing while watching the game.

That's what everybody does though. But when it goes against what others think, then it just turns into the "I know more than you" or "you think you know more than me" stuff.

But really, other than loving hockey and the CBJ, isn't that why we're here? To give our opinions, defend them, and possibly change them or others.

 

[Jackets16]

Watch them?

Did you even read my post you just quoted?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

That's what everybody does though. But when it goes against what others think, then it just turns into the "I know more than you" or "you think you know more than me" stuff.

This is true. And we should always make sure to use language like "everyone around here" or "you guys all" and the like so as to accentuate the fact that we think people who disagree with us are just damn stupid people.

But really, other than loving hockey and the CBJ, isn't that why we're here? To give our opinions, defend them, and possibly change them or others.

This is true also (not to diminish "loving hockey and the CBJ," mind you).

 

[db2011]

I'm going to be a bit of a heretic here and say I don't think there's any such thing as "proof", via stats, to support performance arguments. I guess there's probabilities based on past performance, but to insist you can win an argument because you can offer proof of a player's true value will only ever get you within a neighborhood of accuracy. Maybe that's what a lot of people are expecting, but I don't think it'll ever be "proof".

Back on topic, what will it take for the return on an Umberger trade to be considered a better trade than the return on the Gabby trade? New pucks?