Player Discussion What do we have in J.T. Miller?

[settinguptheplay]

I could not disagree more. You have to show and prove for debates to go anywhere.

What me2 did by outlining Higgins' EVPs is push to quantify the comparison. He is outlining the importance of EVPs. This shows knowledge with advanced metrics. EVPs are more reliable than total points. The latter includes secondary assists and highly variable PPPs. P/60 is also good.

Can you outline why you think Miller is a better player than Higgins while using the methodology of advanced metrics? I'm curious as to how you would break it down.

Lastly: The effect of a player is more important than the perception of a player.

There is no definitive show and proof that can be had. Proof in this case is in the eye of the reader. What we do know is Miller has had more 50+ point seasons by age 26 than Higgins had in his entire career. He has had more 40+ point season by age 26 than Higgins had in his entire career. When you have to break stats down that far it becomes desperate. Proof is not the requirement. Being objective is. I would willingly give Higgins the edge defensively but the offensive gap is bigger in Miller's favour. Offense > defense. That is why the highest paid players produce better offensive results as opposed to defensive metrics.

I don't need advanced metrics. If advanced analytics was the defining factor for hockey the Panthers would have a Cup. It is a facet in the arsenal used to determine probabilities. The game is still played on the ice.

I agree. The effect of a player is more important than perceptions. I suggest JT Miller will have a greater impact on the game than Higgins did.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Why are we in a heated debate over Higgins vs Miller?

 

[settinguptheplay]

Why are we in a heated debate over Higgins vs Miller?

Summer time. Keeping sharp for the Myers contract meltdown. Only this time I will likely be on the fire Benning side. July 1st has me very worried. It is my birthday on July 1st and my gift is going to be a 6.5 to 7.5m/year Myers contract. With no choice to return it for something I prefer.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I could not disagree more. You have to show and prove for debates to go anywhere.

What me2 did by outlining Higgins' EVPs is push to quantify the comparison. He is outlining the importance of EVPs. This shows knowledge with advanced metrics. EVPs are more reliable than total points. The latter includes secondary assists and highly variable PPPs. P/60 is also good.

Can you outline why you think Miller is a better player than Higgins while using the methodology of advanced metrics? I'm curious as to how you would break it down.

Lastly: The effect of a player is more important than the perception of a player.

The thing with Miller's EVPs is that he doesn't need them to produce solid offensive numbers. In fact, he only really started scoring them once he went to Tampa. The year he went to Tampa he was on pace for 16 PPPs with NYR versus the 26 point pace he was on with TBL. The following year his pace was 22 PPPs even with a drop of 2:21 in TOI/game. So talking about his EV scoring versus his PP scoring needs to take into account his usage and the difference between NYR and TBL as teams.

In his 56 point season with NYR only 4 players who scored between 45 and 60 points scored fewer PPPs than he did. This isn't a player who only puts up special teams points, instead, it's a player that can clearly help a PP function but who can score 45 points at even strength if he has to. That seems like a positive to me.

True but 5v5 Miller has 34, 34, 34 and last year 24. Higgins had basically the same numbers when you adjust for games played/minutes.

Check that math again. Unless he's scoring more points than average at 4v4 your numbers don't add up. In seasons where he's broken the 40 point mark, he's scored 39 of 43, 45 of 56, 40 of 58, and 27 of 47. As noted above his PP points, as a percentage of his total points, only really started to climb in Tampa where his usage changed.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Summer time. Keeping sharp for the Myers contract meltdown. Only this time I will likely be on the fire Benning side. July 1st has me very worried. It is my birthday on July 1st and my gift is going to be a 6.5 to 7.5m/year Myers contract. With no choice to return it for something I prefer.

Fair enough.

 

[sting101]

If someone told you could have 16 tickets of 100 tickets in a draw for a better or similar player to JT Miller would you make that gamble?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

If someone told you could have 16 tickets of 100 tickets in a draw for a better or similar player to JT Miller would you make that gamble?

If you could have an expensive car for 4 years; While knowing during those 4 years you most likely wont be able to drive it anywhere.

Or you could have 16 tickets of 100 tickets in a draw for a cheaper and better/similar car for a time period when you do intend to make a car trip...

Which would you take?

 

[sting101]

If you could have an expensive car for 4 years; While knowing during those 4 years you most likely wont be able to drive it anywhere.

Or you could have 16 tickets of 100 tickets in a draw for a cheaper and better/similar car for a time period when you do intend to make a car trip...

Which would you take?

I guess you just have to ask yourself how old you want Horvat to be before you give him some support and let him drive a nice car vs a bag of bolts

 

[Canucks1096]

3 main reasons why Canucks don't have any cups.

1994, game 6 and game 7 of the finals was changed to two days apart instead of one day apart. If it was one day apart, Canucks win cup

2011, Kesler got hurt on the icing call against Boyle. If there was no touch icing in 2011, Canucks win cup, no way Boston could of won the cup with a healthy Kesler.

Third reason, the windows is always so short, WCE era was only for like 2 yesrs. The Sedins Kesler Luongo era was only for like 3 years. If you just want to depend on the draft, you are looking at maybe 5 years when the Canucks become a great team. Then Horvat will be 29 when we become and Boeser 27. So most likely the window again will only be for a few years.

 

[Peter10]

If you just want to depend on the draft, you are looking at maybe 5 years when the Canucks become a great team. Then Horvat will be 29 when we become and Boeser 27. So most likely the window again will only be for a few years.

If this team hadnt wasted away draft picks for inconsequential fill in players who do nothing for the long term success the window likely would open much earlier. Right now we cant even be sure if there even will be window any time soon.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I guess you just have to ask yourself how old you want Horvat to be before you give him some support and let him drive a nice car vs a bag of bolts

That is putting the cart before the horse. The Canucks don't owe Horvat anything apart from whats in his contract. The goal is not to appease star players, make friends with other GMs, give old players nice contracts as a thank you for their past performance etc.

The goal is and should always be to win the Stanley Cup.


I think, sadly, Bo will be the first casualty of our management mismanaging our window to rebuild properly.

When life gives you aids, make lemonaids.

 

[Scott Stevens]

I don't care what the so-called "experts" around the league are saying about Miller's play in past seasons with the Rangers. Go back and re-read what the guys who watch the Tampa Bay Lightning all season long, game in and game out, were saying about Miller's play..and why John Cooper dropped him down the lineup and basically sidelined him during the playoffs.

If the Canucks Hockey Ops Department were utterly convinced that Brandon Sutter would be a legitimate second line center behind Henrik Sedin, while Bo Horvat had time to mature; and that Eric Gudbranson would immediately jump into their top-four on the blueline, then you'd have to drinking the Canuck cool-aid, to think that somehow they got it right with Miller.

Maybe this time it'll be different. But questioning their assessment on trades isn't 'lazy' just 'healthy skepticism".

I will never defend Benning for anything, but I have to ask why you are ball washing Cooper in Tampa? Guy hasn’t won but two things? Jack and shit, and jack left town.

 

[CanaFan]

3 main reasons why Canucks don't have any cups.

1994, game 6 and game 7 of the finals was changed to two days apart instead of one day apart. If it was one day apart, Canucks win cup

2011, Kesler got hurt on the icing call against Boyle. If there was no touch icing in 2011, Canucks win cup, no way Boston could of won the cup with a healthy Kesler.

Third reason, the windows is always so short, WCE era was only for like 2 yesrs. The Sedins Kesler Luongo era was only for like 3 years. If you just want to depend on the draft, you are looking at maybe 5 years when the Canucks become a great team. Then Horvat will be 29 when we become and Boeser 27. So most likely the window again will only be for a few years.

And it won’t be made any longer trading high picks for 26 year old wingers with 4 years on their contract before they hit UFA.

Do you expect our cup window to occur during those 4 years? If not, how does this move help avoid the “short window” scenario that you are so fearful of?

 

[0din]

It is an odd trade in many ways, the price paid was inexcusable, the cap hit hurts and he is a career center rarely playing the wing.
There are other FA's this year, Anders Lee to name one and numerous for next year.
This deal and the upcoming July 1 deals will handcuff the team for the Seattle expansion deals and FA next year.

There is no justification for this deal right now, the team is still 2 or 3 years out from winning a round in the playoffs and supposedly Benning's great drafting prowess should provide players that can fill this role.

Bah, nothing Benning has done has made much sense or helped the team.

Now this team is just like Buffalo and Edmonton pushing and relying on players with less than 200 NHL games.

Another rebuild is coming in about 4 years, a tear down and rebuild similar to what Colorado did.

How can anyone expect a person with a GED to run a billion dollar team?

 

[Bleach Clean]

There is no definitive show and proof that can be had. Proof in this case is in the eye of the reader. What we do know is Miller has had more 50+ point seasons by age 26 than Higgins had in his entire career. He has had more 40+ point season by age 26 than Higgins had in his entire career. When you have to break stats down that far it becomes desperate. Proof is not the requirement. Being objective is. I would willingly give Higgins the edge defensively but the offensive gap is bigger in Miller's favour. Offense > defense. That is why the highest paid players produce better offensive results as opposed to defensive metrics.

I don't need advanced metrics. If advanced analytics was the defining factor for hockey the Panthers would have a Cup. It is a facet in the arsenal used to determine probabilities. The game is still played on the ice.

I agree. The effect of a player is more important than perceptions. I suggest JT Miller will have a greater impact on the game than Higgins did.

He may, but you are banking on traditional stats only to make that determination. It's a half done analysis. These stats alone are not as predictive or as accurate as they are without analytics added to them.

Player analysis is not wholly subjective. Your position is that because analytics are not definitive, which they were never meant to be, they are as subjective as the eye test. This is completely false. What happens on the ice is measured, analyzed and processed into useful data. This data outlines probability, which then aids in making predictions/projections. By dismissing them, you are moving further away from objectivity, not toward it.

You're saying you're objective because you believe you are being objective... Circular. Ground your assertions in data, as me2 had done and I would agree. Until such time, it wouldn't matter what players you were comparing. You would not be able to define their effect on the game in the most objective way possible.

 

[ChilliBilly]

If someone told you could have 16 tickets of 100 tickets in a draw for a better or similar player to JT Miller would you make that gamble?

Well I guess at the end when you get off your ass fired if you don’t make the playoffs this year

 

[settinguptheplay]

He may, but you are banking on traditional stats only to make that determination. It's a half done analysis. These stats alone are not as predictive or as accurate as they are without analytics added to them.

Player analysis is not wholly subjective. Your position is that because analytics are not definitive, which they were never meant to be, they are as subjective as the eye test. This is completely false. What happens on the ice is measured, analyzed and processed into useful data. This data outlines probability, which then aids in making predictions/projections. By dismissing them, you are moving further away from objectivity, not toward it.

You're saying your objective because you believe you are being objective... Ground your assertions in data, as me2 had, and I would agree. Until such time, it wouldn't matter what players you were comparing. You would not be able to define their effect on the game in the most objective way possible.

Sure. Here is my data. In the last regular season and playoffs lets see where the President Trophy winners and the Cup Champions fall. If analytics are as important as one claims I will assume Tampa Bay and St. Louis would be near the top if not at the top. Lets break it down.

Regular season Corsi- Tamps Bay was easily the best team but ranked 11th in Corsi. Carolina was first.
Regular season Fenwick- Tampa Bay was 10th and again Carolina was first.

Using those metrics Carolina should have been easily the best regular season team but they were 11th. So there must be more to it than just analytics. Which is what I have said all along. Advanced stats tell part of a story but it is not the main driver of success. Now lets do playoffs.

Playoff Corsi- Las Vegas was first while the Cup champions were 10th. Vegas went out first round. 3 of the top 5 Corsi teams were dispatched in the first round.
Playoff Fenwick- Again Las Vegas was first while the Cup Champions were 9th. 4 of the top 5 Fenwick teams went out in the first round.

The Stanley Cup finalists ranked were ranked 5th and 10th out of 16 in Corsi. The SC finalists ranked 6th and 9th out of 16 in Fenwick. How is this possible?

The Cup Champions were in the bottom half of both Corsi and Fenwick. Could it be because advanced stats do not determine Champions? That would appear to be what the advanced stats are saying. It is almost like the game on the ice cares not for advanced metrics.

It appears, at least this last season, that advanced metrics seem to support what I am saying and not support what you are saying. Perhaps I am reading them wrong as I do not claim to fully embrace advanced stats. Can you use advanced stats to explain the last NHL season?

Lets go back further.

2018 SC winners were 4th and 6th in Corsi and Fenwick
2017 SC winners were 10th and 14th in Corsi/Fenwick

One has to go back 4 years to find a top Corsi/Fenwick team that won the Cup. 1 in 4 are not the kind of odds I accept to consider it a determining factor. Almost like the game still needs to be played. At least that is what the advanced stats are telling me.

Players stats become even more jumbled. Only adding evidence to support my argument. Are these the stats you are looking for? Is there an advanced metric I am missing? or do we have to dig even deeper into analytics to find supporting evidence. At that point stats can be used to support almost any argument and lose any real world application.

 

[me2]

Check that math again. Unless he's scoring more points than average at 4v4 your numbers don't add up. In seasons where he's broken the 40 point mark, he's scored 39 of 43, 45 of 56, 40 of 58, and 27 of 47. As noted above his PP points, as a percentage of his total points, only really started to climb in Tampa where his usage changed.

There are more to it than just PP. 5v5 separates out things like EN goals, SHP, OT etc. You might be overlooking that I consider 30-4o 5vs5 points to be solid production.

 

[Tables of Stats]

There are more to it than just PP. 5v5 separates out things like EN goals, SHP, OT etc.

True, but those are also a small fraction of points compared to PPPs. You can get a good idea of a player just by looking at their PP, SHP, and Total Points. In Miller's case, he has 4 career SHP all in one season and doesn't tend to be a massive PP scorer outside of his time in Tampa. Is there some significant fraction of his points that came in OT, 4v4, or into an empty net?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sure. Here is my data. In the last regular season and playoffs lets see where the President Trophy winners and the Cup Champions fall. If analytics are as important as one claims I will assume Tampa Bay and St. Louis would be near the top if not at the top. Lets break it down.

Regular season Corsi- Tamps Bay was easily the best team but ranked 11th in Corsi. Carolina was first.
Regular season Fenwick- Tampa Bay was 10th and again Carolina was first.

Using those metrics Carolina should have been easily the best regular season team but they were 11th. So there must be more to it than just analytics. Which is what I have said all along. Advanced stats tell part of a story but it is not the main driver of success. Now lets do playoffs.

Playoff Corsi- Las Vegas was first while the Cup champions were 10th. Vegas went out first round. 3 of the top 5 Corsi teams were dispatched in the first round.
Playoff Fenwick- Again Las Vegas was first while the Cup Champions were 9th. 4 of the top 5 Fenwick teams went out in the first round.

The Stanley Cup finalists ranked were ranked 5th and 10th out of 16 in Corsi. The SC finalists ranked 6th and 9th out of 16 in Fenwick. How is this possible?

The Cup Champions were in the bottom half of both Corsi and Fenwick. Could it be because advanced stats do not determine Champions? That would appear to be what the advanced stats are saying. It is almost like the game on the ice cares not for advanced metrics.

It appears, at least this last season, that advanced metrics seem to support what I am saying and not support what you are saying. Perhaps I am reading them wrong as I do not claim to fully embrace advanced stats. Can you use advanced stats to explain the last NHL season?

Lets go back further.

2018 SC winners were 4th and 6th in Corsi and Fenwick
2017 SC winners were 10th and 14th in Corsi/Fenwick

One has to go back 4 years to find a top Corsi/Fenwick team that won the Cup. 1 in 4 are not the kind of odds I accept to consider it a determining factor. Almost like the game still needs to be played. At least that is what the advanced stats are telling me.

Players stats become even more jumbled. Only adding evidence to support my argument. Are these the stats you are looking for? Is there an advanced metric I am missing? or do we have to dig even deeper into analytics to find supporting evidence. At that point stats can be used to support almost any argument and lose any real world application.

Amusingly enough, the bold is what you just did here.

Your data is akin to an anecdote. Surface level.

The statement "using those metrics Carolina should have been easily the best regular season team" explains that you still see analytics as a definitive measure. This is not the use of analytics. Analytics are a predictive measure. They project at the margins. Try thinking of it as 'more often than not' instead of 'highest corsi = best'.

There are other factors like, shot conversion rates, high danger scoring chances etc... that also matter. Where we can start is the following: Do you believe that creating a positive shot differential is perhaps the most important aspect in hockey?

 

[Bleach Clean]

The thing with Miller's EVPs is that he doesn't need them to produce solid offensive numbers. In fact, he only really started scoring them once he went to Tampa. The year he went to Tampa he was on pace for 16 PPPs with NYR versus the 26 point pace he was on with TBL. The following year his pace was 22 PPPs even with a drop of 2:21 in TOI/game. So talking about his EV scoring versus his PP scoring needs to take into account his usage and the difference between NYR and TBL as teams.

In his 56 point season with NYR only 4 players who scored between 45 and 60 points scored fewer PPPs than he did. This isn't a player who only puts up special teams points, instead, it's a player that can clearly help a PP function but who can score 45 points at even strength if he has to. That seems like a positive to me.

It is, I agree. Hard to say his past PPPs suggest that he "clearly helps a PP function". PPPs are not taken as a predictive measure. That said, it does bode well in terms of an anecdotal observation. Certainly better that if he was terrible on the PP.

 

[settinguptheplay]

When stats have to be broken down this far it becomes a stretch. Points is not good enough. Pts/60 is not good enough. 5v5 points is not good enough. Do we have to break it down to 5v5 points adjusted for games/minutes played until stats begins to work in ones favour? This is not pointed at you me2 but it is starting to come across as desperation at this point. Miller is a better player than Higgins. That is as far as the debate needs to go.

I could not disagree more. You have to show and prove for debates to go anywhere.

What me2 did by outlining Higgins' EVPs is push to quantify the comparison. He is outlining the importance of EVPs. This shows knowledge with advanced metrics. EVPs are more reliable than total points. The latter includes secondary assists and highly variable PPPs. P/60 is also good.

Can you outline why you think Miller is a better player than Higgins while using the methodology of advanced metrics? I'm curious as to how you would break it down.

Lastly: The effect of a player is more important than the perception of a player.

There is no definitive show and proof that can be had. Proof in this case is in the eye of the reader. What we do know is Miller has had more 50+ point seasons by age 26 than Higgins had in his entire career. He has had more 40+ point season by age 26 than Higgins had in his entire career. When you have to break stats down that far it becomes desperate. Proof is not the requirement. Being objective is. I would willingly give Higgins the edge defensively but the offensive gap is bigger in Miller's favour. Offense > defense. That is why the highest paid players produce better offensive results as opposed to defensive metrics.

I don't need advanced metrics. If advanced analytics was the defining factor for hockey the Panthers would have a Cup. It is a facet in the arsenal used to determine probabilities. The game is still played on the ice.

I agree. The effect of a player is more important than perceptions. I suggest JT Miller will have a greater impact on the game than Higgins did.

He may, but you are banking on traditional stats only to make that determination. It's a half done analysis. These stats alone are not as predictive or as accurate as they are without analytics added to them.

Player analysis is not wholly subjective. Your position is that because analytics are not definitive, which they were never meant to be, they are as subjective as the eye test. This is completely false. What happens on the ice is measured, analyzed and processed into useful data. This data outlines probability, which then aids in making predictions/projections. By dismissing them, you are moving further away from objectivity, not toward it.

You're saying you're objective because you believe you are being objective... Circular. Ground your assertions in data, as me2 had done and I would agree. Until such time, it wouldn't matter what players you were comparing. You would not be able to define their effect on the game in the most objective way possible.

Amusingly enough, the bold is what you just did here.

Your data is akin to an anecdote. Surface level.

The statement "using those metrics Carolina should have been easily the best regular season team" explains that you still see analytics as a definitive measure. This is not the use of analytics. Analytics are a predictive measure. They project at the margins. Try thinking of it as 'more often than not' instead of 'highest corsi = best'.

There are other factors like, shot conversion rates, high danger scoring chances etc... that also matter. Where we can start is the following: Do you believe that creating a positive shot differential is perhaps the most important aspect in hockey?

I have quoted the above to keep context.

My original point was that stats or advanced stats mean only so much when determining positive outcomes. I never said stats of any sort were a definitive measure. In fact I have said the absolute opposite. You asked me to present evidence using stats that they are not a predictive measure. Which I did. Then once I provided evidence that advanced stats were not a good predictive measure of success you come back at me saying that I am advocating advanced stats as a definitive measure. How can I possibly respond to that? I even bolded the above where you said I was wrong to use stats subjectively. Which means you think they should be used objectively. Yes? Then a post or 2 later you are accusing me of using stats objectively and again said I was wrong. So which is it? You have now accused me of both sides and called me wrong both times.

So let me repeat my original point for clarity. Stats and advanced metrics only tell part of a story. There are obviously other factors involved when determining success. You did not agree with this and asked me to use "data" to support my argument. I then showed why advanced stats are not a good predictive measure of success and you turn around and accuse me of using them objectively. You are the one who asked me to do it. I don't believe they can be used objectively. Which was my point from the beginning.

 

[Tables of Stats]

It is, I agree. Hard to say his past PPPs suggest that he "clearly helps a PP function". PPPs are not taken as a predictive measure. That said, it does bode well in terms of an anecdotal observation. Certainly better that if he was terrible on the PP.

Going deeper on his PP ability let's look at Tampa last season.

He was one of five players who broke double digits having 20 PPPs compared to the next nearest player who had 9. This suggests that he was good enough to get first unit PP time on a stacked TBL team. This matches his PP TOI which shows that he wasn't wasting his minutes out there.

Now looking at his PPPs he had 4 goals and 16 assists, that's what we want from a player who'll likely play on a unit with Pettersson and Boeser for most of the season. If last year was anything to go by we may end up seeing Pettersson, Boeser, Hrovat, Miller, and Edler as a top PP unit, assuming we don't get a better point man in free agency. That immediately upgrades our first unit PP who had to rely on Goldobin and Baertschi in that spot last season.

He could fail to find chemistry with that unit but the same could be said for any player we brought in.

 

[VancouverJagger]

Summer time. Keeping sharp for the Myers contract meltdown. Only this time I will likely be on the fire Benning side. July 1st has me very worried. It is my birthday on July 1st and my gift is going to be a 6.5 to 7.5m/year Myers contract. With no choice to return it for something I prefer.

I'm in the same boat (I think the preponderance of this board is at least mildly terrified). I'm resigned to the fact we are signing him but praying for 5 years and 6.5 mill or less..........that's about as good as we can hope for about now I think (I could even stomach that tag - more than that and it really starts to make me feel nauseous).

 

[PecaFan]

Personally, I find it a bit humourous that so many folks are sure Miller will be a big success here. I bet we could find similar statements about Loui Eriksson - "Well, he probably won't get 60 pts again, but 50 is a lock playing with the Sedins..."

I'm expecting closer to the 40 pt mark, rather than the 60. A crappier team than the ones he's been on, west coast travel, likely an injury along the way (possibly due to the travel wearing out players), the vagaries of coaching decisions, etc.

Yes, I'm a cynical old man who's seen the "incoming saviour" fail many many times before. Hell, just the fact that Benning thinks he's the right man for the job tells me he most likely isn't. Because Benning hasn't hit a pro-scouting homerun yet.