He's all yours for that price lol

save the money on Brass and bring Koivula up, fire JHS into the sun, and find a way to dump Ladd and we're rocking

Gladly give up 4 late round firsts for the best player on the leafs

One pet peeve. If you are not over the cap you can't use LTIR. They are on IR and count against the cap.

What do you offer Barzal next year?? He is equal to Marner after 2 years and plays center.

Do the Isles really have that cap available? Is that 9m on LTIR just wishful thinking? Because even if one player comes back...the cap is bad for this year and the future,

4 late 1st?
On the isles?
From a team who is headed for 2014 leafs regression?
You just gave us 4 lottery picks bud

sure if that helps you sleep better at night pumpkin, I'm sure with added offense they'll be so much worse....

You need a goal scorer. marner isn't that. You are also overpaying for him so you cripple your ability to fill out your roster.
Once you realize that your whole team overperformed last year to an absurd extent and you regress, even with marner in this scenario, I'll be laughing at everyone who doesn't listen to the stats nerds. They were right all the other times. (The leafs being bad in 2013, the blues being good this year etc.)

this is a very unintelligent statement

that's cool. I'll wait again this season for the shoe to drop... just like all of last season when every analytics nut said the islanders were going to regress. Isles won't have a problem trading for a goal scorer and with addition of marner, Aho, possibly Dobson and improving the third line scoring w the team returning feeling comfortable in the new system, the offense will produce more consistently and at a higher, while maintaining the same defensive commitment

Great argument.
Here is a better one in an easy to digest form (this was as far as I could go back on his twitter as his work is locked behind a paywall).



Ima quote this here too, as this is by far more quality than any thought you have ever come up with

the guy posts 7 times a day, quantity of quality for some people

You know teams can go on a PDO bender for a full season right?
Like, literally the 2013 Leafs. I have seen this movie first hand before

funny considering you are on here spewing **** while I am actually giving evidence and facts but please:

fun fact PDO is one of the worst long run measurements in analytics. also fun Fact: WSH won a stanley cup with the highest PDO in the league. PDO in short run measurements are effective tool to understanding how hot a team is during a given sample. it's meaningless when trying to quantify "puck luck" over an 82 game schedule. their shooting percentage is also largely skewed by the fact that trotz believes in quality over quantity. less shots, higher shooting %

I mean you're trying to cite PDO as a season to season predictor of regression but sure we can call that evidence if it makes you feel like you're smart

1) You have literally just made this up.
2)As you can see, there are multiple types of PDO. Natural and un-natural PDO. You have lots of un-natural PDO (lucky) while WSH had lots of natural PDO. Also, you can be lucky and win the cup you know.
3) absolutely false
4) There is an easy way to test this. The xGF family literally measures the quality of the shot. The isles are sitting slightly above league average in that in all metrics (~12 league wide according to corsica). That is to say you're full of **** as the other teams ahead of you aren't on PDO benders.

For someone who preaches quality, your posts sure are lacking it.

PDO is literally designed to do exactly that.
Just because you don't have a ****ing clue doesn't change that lol

Just because you've gone quiet ima list all the teams with better shooting quality than the Islanders, then you can see where they fall PDO wise on the chart.
CAR
LVK
TOR
SJS
MTL
PIT
CGY
CBJ
STL
NYI <--- this is the highest NYI ever gets in the xGF (shot quality) family of stats


Is that enough QUALITY to stop the bull**** you're spewing?

there is literally no such thing as un-natural and natural PDO. there is such thing a standard deviation from the mean, and outliers, but no such thing as natural and unnatural... Yes I am aware the Islanders out performed their expected goal differential, expected goals also takes into account shot quantity. you cannot conceive a mathematical formula to predict the total expected outcomes of x without incorporating the total amount of attempts.

oh honey. PDO is used to predict future trend, either regression or progression towards the mean (100). PDO from season 1 has absolutely no effect on PDO in season 2. they are two completely different Data Sets

Some teams naturally sit a touch above 100 on PDO due to being an extremely skilled team. This is natural PDO. The Leafs expected natural PDO is 101.3 for example (or it was earlier this season).

The islanders are not that.

xGF does not take into account shot quantity. It literally measures where a shot was taken from and assigns a numerical value to it. If your number is low, you arent taking enough good shots, which is to say your argument about the isles taking fewer but good shots is bull****

If a team is running high on PDO from one season, you can expect them to regress to the mean for the next. The fact that this seems foreign to you is astounding.
Im done wasting my time with your QUALITY posts.
Good night

so you think if team A in game takes 2 rebound wrist shot, 4 point slap shot and 2 snap shot off the rush, the value of the XGF is going to be the same as a team takes 14 rebound shots, 8 point slap shots and 20 snap shots off the rush? lmao how do you think they come up with an xga number without using the quantity.

BTW xGa does not rely on just location dumb dumb. it uses shot type and situation as well the quality of player taking the shot. If you're going to use analytics have an understanding of what they are

This isnt an Essay. I was simplifying. I have a an entire report based on corsi and xGF (xGF is 54.6% predictive of points in players with 20+ games btw. r = 0.739, r^2 = 0.546.), so believe me when I say I know what I am talking about.