SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Vlasic or Jones CBO

Created by: AllJonedOut
Team: 2020-21 San Jose Sharks
Initial Creation Date: Apr. 9, 2020
Published: Apr. 9, 2020
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Who gets the CBO.

Vlasic Pros: Longer, More Expensive, Older, declining fast

Vlasic Cons: Better than Jones, basically our only stay at home d-man,

Jones: Worse then Vlasic, Playing below league average, replaceable in FA

Jones Pros: cheaper, younger, less expensive, liked by Doug

I think Vlasic is would bc Jones is a way easier contract to deal or buyout.
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
5$5,000,000
1$700,000
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
4$6,000,000
4$4,500,000
1$2,500,000
1$700,000
1$700,000
1$700,000
1$700,000
1$3,000,000
1$2,000,000
1$1,300,000
Trades
1.
2.
SJS
  1. Domi, Max [RFA Rights]
MTL
  1. Labanc, Kevin [RFA Rights]
  2. 2020 1st round pick (TBL)
  3. 2021 3rd round pick (PIT)
3.
SJS
  1. 2020 4th round pick (NSH)
Additional Details:
Anywhere
Buyouts
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the COL
Logo of the NSH
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the OTT
Logo of the PIT
Logo of the WSH
2021
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the WSH
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
2022
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
22$81,500,000$74,223,333$0$277,500$7,276,667
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$7,000,000$7,000,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 5
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$8,000,000$8,000,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 7
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$3,000,000$3,000,000
LW, RW
UFA - 3
$5,000,000$5,000,000
C, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$5,625,000$5,625,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 2
$3,000,000$3,000,000
RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$768,333$768,333 (Performance Bonus$65,000$65K)
LW, RW
RFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$700,000$700,000
C, LW
UFA - 1
$1,300,000$1,300,000
LW, C
UFA - 3
$700,000$700,000
LW, C
UFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$700,000$700,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$700,000$700,000
C
UFA - 2
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
$4,500,000$4,500,000
LD/RD
UFA - 4
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$10,000,000$10,000,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 7
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$2,250,000$2,250,000
LD/RD
UFA - 4
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$5,280,000$5,280,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 5
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$212,500$212K)
LD
UFA - 2
$2,500,000$2,500,000
RD
UFA - 4
$6,000,000$6,000,000
G
UFA - 5
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$2,000,000$2,000,000
G
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
$700,000$700,000
RD
UFA
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$700,000$700,000
C
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Apr. 9, 2020 at 9:25 p.m.
#1
Brace for the Storm
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 12,840
Likes: 6,647
Easily Vlasic. Thew are other stay at home d-men in FA, Dillon and Edmundson for instance. I like the Edmundson signing btw, but he should have an AAV 700K lower that that
Apr. 9, 2020 at 9:25 p.m.
#2
Brace for the Storm
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 12,840
Likes: 6,647
Domi will ask for at least 6 mil
Apr. 9, 2020 at 9:28 p.m.
#3
What in tarnation
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 32,708
Likes: 31,448
Imo Jones will be bought out. The difference between him and Vlasic is that on ice only one of them causes problems.

Also Domi is underpaid here. The offer is great, probably too much going Habs' way, but I think $6,5M is closer to what he's getting...
Apr. 9, 2020 at 9:31 p.m.
#4
G O S I M E K
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2020
Posts: 930
Likes: 368
Vlasic is and will be a very serviceable dman for a couple more years. Sharks fans tend to forget just how good he has been in the playoffs everytime we’ve been there with him. Jones has been a less than average goalie and in the last two years the worst goalie outside of Schneider. If anyone is bought out it will be Jones. Let’s also not forget that Doug has a huge soft spot for defensemen since he was one. He bought out Paul Martin because he was flat out bad, Vlasic is not bad, he’s just slightly overpaid.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 9:31 p.m.
#5
GM CRIME DAWG
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2019
Posts: 4,926
Likes: 2,687
Maybe both!?
In 2013/14, there was TWO CBOs/Amnesties per club...
AllJonedOut liked this.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:20 p.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 10,970
Likes: 4,542
Edited Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:43 p.m.
Jones is priority one buy out vlasic is a distant 3rd burns falls between them.

The level of play for Jones now vs when he signed
2017/18 30/22 WL 2.55 GAA .915 S%
2019/20 17/22 WL 3.05 GAA .896 S%
And the more detailed stats are worse showing his huge fall from the contract year. He is a liability when he is on the ice.
Vlasic
2017/18 11G 21A+9+- 22:10 min Corsi 48.4
2019/20 5G 10A -10+- 20:18 min Corsi 49.7
His stats have slumped but his value has never been score and plus minus was due to us having a bad team but his Corsi has gone up since his contract showing he is still a decent DMan and not a liability just overpaid.
Burns
2016/17 29G 47A +19+- 24:52 min Corsi 54.7
2019/20 12G 23A -22+- 25:22min Corsi 48.2
While still good numbers he has higher salary older and a huge defensive liability.

I love vlasic and burns but I would prefer a more team friendly number on both but that being said they still provide value over an AHL call up where jones is a liability and there are many AHL goalies who could put up better numbers.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:53 p.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2020
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 696
Honestly, Jones can be dealt, and perhaps the sharks can make a deal with the Seattle team to take Jones off their hands. As for Vlasic, he should be bought out, and IMO, so should burns while CBOs are a thing
AllJonedOut liked this.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:02 p.m.
#8
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Quoting: Lord_Simek
Vlasic is and will be a very serviceable dman for a couple more years. Sharks fans tend to forget just how good he has been in the playoffs everytime we’ve been there with him. Jones has been a less than average goalie and in the last two years the worst goalie outside of Schneider. If anyone is bought out it will be Jones. Let’s also not forget that Doug has a huge soft spot for defensemen since he was one. He bought out Paul Martin because he was flat out bad, Vlasic is not bad, he’s just slightly overpaid.


Vlasic has been a replacement level D man for the last two years... he's done.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:03 p.m.
#9
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Quoting: MMXD
Honestly, Jones can be dealt, and perhaps the sharks can make a deal with the Seattle team to take Jones off their hands. As for Vlasic, he should be bought out, and IMO, so should burns while CBOs are a thing


No one will touch Jones with a 10 foot pole.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:05 p.m.
#10
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2018
Posts: 9,069
Likes: 2,198
Third option.....E. Kane.
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:22 p.m.
#11
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2019
Posts: 8,796
Likes: 3,226
Quoting: draft_em_sign_em_trade_em
Third option.....E. Kane.


Fourth option, your a bad person
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:28 p.m.
#12
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2020
Posts: 2,679
Likes: 696
Quoting: icehawk2006
No one will touch Jones with a 10 foot pole.


I’ll gladly shake his hand
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:41 p.m.
#13
Thread Starter
AllJonedOut
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2019
Posts: 1,463
Likes: 266
Quoting: icehawk2006
No one will touch Jones with a 10 foot pole.


Packaged with the right price someone would gladly take him
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:48 p.m.
#14
Jetsfan
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2017
Posts: 7,974
Likes: 2,585
Vlasic plz....the Jets will then sign himsmile
Apr. 9, 2020 at 11:48 p.m.
#15
G O S I M E K
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2020
Posts: 930
Likes: 368
Quoting: icehawk2006
Vlasic has been a replacement level D man for the last two years... he's done.


And this comment proves to me how little you know about Vlasic.
Apr. 27, 2020 at 7:45 p.m.
#16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Quoting: Lord_Simek
And this comment proves to me how little you know about Vlasic.


And this comment proves how little you know about hockey.
Apr. 27, 2020 at 7:48 p.m.
#17
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Quoting: Ihaveajoner
Packaged with the right price someone would gladly take him


lololol. Yeah, if you want to hand over a first, a roster player and a prospect so they can buy him out. He's been the worst goalie in the NHL the last two years... At $6M per year, no one is going to touch him.
Apr. 27, 2020 at 8:14 p.m.
#18
Bad Take Bot v1.02
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2019
Posts: 2,683
Likes: 1,879
Quoting: icehawk2006
And this comment proves how little you know about hockey.


Marc-Edouard_Vlasic_5v5_Effectivness.png

This model represents a player's effectiveness at 5v5 based off of their CF, CA, oiS%, oiSV%, oZS, Team 5v5 S%, and Team 5v5 SV%, basically if you are positive then you are an effective 5v5 player, you produce more and or better opportunities than you give up. This year (so far) he had a score of +11.62. Far from his career high, but that puts him ahead of defensemen like Letang (+10.70), Erik Karlsson (+10.60), Shea Theodore (+8.87), Ryan McDonagh (+10.94), Erik Johnsson (+6.93), Zach Werenski(+5.57), Oliver Ekman-Larson(+5.02), and you get the point. Out of Sharks players who played most of the season that only puts him behind Hertl, Couture, Marleau(who had a great year according to the model), Goodrow, and Burns. That puts him ahead, of Karlsson, Kane, Dillon, Meier, Labanc, etc.

Over his career he has been a dominant 5v5 player, this is his worst year in a decade (haven't calculated before 09-10), but he is nowhere even close to buyout territory.

If a team doesn't want to acquire Vlasic oh well, the sharks should not move him and ABSOLUTELY should not buy him out.
May 13, 2020 at 12:01 a.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Edited May 13, 2020 at 12:21 a.m.
Quoting: Klara
Marc-Edouard_Vlasic_5v5_Effectivness.png

This model represents a player's effectiveness at 5v5 based off of their CF, CA, oiS%, oiSV%, oZS, Team 5v5 S%, and Team 5v5 SV%, basically if you are positive then you are an effective 5v5 player, you produce more and or better opportunities than you give up. This year (so far) he had a score of +11.62. Far from his career high, but that puts him ahead of defensemen like Letang (+10.70), Erik Karlsson (+10.60), Shea Theodore (+8.87), Ryan McDonagh (+10.94), Erik Johnsson (+6.93), Zach Werenski(+5.57), Oliver Ekman-Larson(+5.02), and you get the point. Out of Sharks players who played most of the season that only puts him behind Hertl, Couture, Marleau(who had a great year according to the model), Goodrow, and Burns. That puts him ahead, of Karlsson, Kane, Dillon, Meier, Labanc, etc.

Over his career he has been a dominant 5v5 player, this is his worst year in a decade (haven't calculated before 09-10), but he is nowhere even close to buyout territory.

If a team doesn't want to acquire Vlasic oh well, the sharks should not move him and ABSOLUTELY should not buy him out.


This is a terrible chart, all the data is wrong, it incorporates stats that shouldnt remotely be included in a player assessment (aka team 5v5 sv%, which is pretty much exclusively a goalie stat) and it doesn't take into account isolated stats. To even remotely think that Vlasic is on the same level as Theodore, Letang, or even Karlsson is sheer insanity. To think he was remotely in the top third of all Sharks players is also insanity, just straight crap.

Speaking of bad data, lets just look at 19-20. 5v5 CF% 49.14 (that's a minus on the chart, relative to the rest of team also bad. He was worse defensively 5v5 than Burns, who isnt even a D man, and thats while being carried by Erik Karlsson, his on ice sv% was lower than anyone but one person with more than 100 min TOI, so that should be a negative on your chart. in fact all of his relative stats are negative. He's at best a third pair defensemen, but yeah, keep trying to fall on that sword...
May 13, 2020 at 12:18 a.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Quoting: Klara
Marc-Edouard_Vlasic_5v5_Effectivness.png

This model represents a player's effectiveness at 5v5 based off of their CF, CA, oiS%, oiSV%, oZS, Team 5v5 S%, and Team 5v5 SV%, basically if you are positive then you are an effective 5v5 player, you produce more and or better opportunities than you give up. This year (so far) he had a score of +11.62. Far from his career high, but that puts him ahead of defensemen like Letang (+10.70), Erik Karlsson (+10.60), Shea Theodore (+8.87), Ryan McDonagh (+10.94), Erik Johnsson (+6.93), Zach Werenski(+5.57), Oliver Ekman-Larson(+5.02), and you get the point. Out of Sharks players who played most of the season that only puts him behind Hertl, Couture, Marleau(who had a great year according to the model), Goodrow, and Burns. That puts him ahead, of Karlsson, Kane, Dillon, Meier, Labanc, etc.

Over his career he has been a dominant 5v5 player, this is his worst year in a decade (haven't calculated before 09-10), but he is nowhere even close to buyout territory.

If a team doesn't want to acquire Vlasic oh well, the sharks should not move him and ABSOLUTELY should not buy him out.


here try an actual good site - hockeyviz.com
May 13, 2020 at 1:33 a.m.
#21
Bad Take Bot v1.02
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2019
Posts: 2,683
Likes: 1,879
Edited May 13, 2020 at 2:07 a.m.
Quoting: icehawk2006
This is a terrible chart, all the data is wrong, it incorporates stats that shouldn't remotely be included in a player assessment (aka team 5v5 sv%, which is pretty much exclusively a goalie stat) and it doesn't take into account isolated stats. To even remotely think that Vlasic is on the same level as Theodore, Letang, or even Karlsson is sheer insanity. To think he was remotely in the top third of all Sharks players is also insanity, just straight crap.

Speaking of bad data, lets just look at 19-20. 5v5 CF% 49.14 (that's a minus on the chart, relative to the rest of team also bad. He was worse defensively 5v5 than Burns, who isnt even a D man, and thats while being carried by Erik Karlsson, his on ice sv% was lower than anyone but one person with more than 100 min TOI, so that should be a negative on your chart. in fact all of his relative stats are negative. He's at best a third pair defense-men, but yeah, keep trying to fall on that sword...


Don't know why you are still here, this is from a while ago.

All of this is stats that I use for myself and is one iteration of many that I created for a University project. oiSV% is compared to team oiSV% as a basic metric of shot quality, everything there is based of of an original CF% metric of 49.14. I am not saying that I would rather have Vlasic over a Karlsson over a Theodore or Letang, I'm using this as a basic metric to see how well the player performs at 5v5. This does not factor in Pk% or PP% and is simply a basis to determine if when the player is on the ice, are they getting more value, I don't care if you don't like it.

For the idea that you are basing everything off of Corsi, that's exactly what this chart is addressing. It factors in other things other than just looking at Corsi (or Fenwick), I just changed it so that >50 is + and <50 is negative purely so that it would be easier to graph. Of course, since this is basic, it does not really address line mates, and a few other extreme errors.

hockeyviz doesn't have what I'm looking for, and honestly, and I don't care for their fancy graphs, unless I can see the numbers and work with them, it isn't useful for me.

Also, the whole point of the stat is to ignore isolated stats and look to see how the team is affected with him on the ice, Corsi is not a personal stat, I could factor in personal stats to create a more advanced metric, but that's not the point of this one.

Please put your own stuff together if you would like to create an argument using numbers rather than looking at a fancy looking graph on a website that really doesn't say much. if you mention xG I might just throw up.
May 13, 2020 at 12:56 p.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 2,240
I don't think Montreal would be interested in that trade. However, we would do it for San Jose's 2021 1st unprotected.
May 13, 2020 at 1:35 p.m.
#23
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 1,769
Likes: 491
Jones and the Blues happily trade you Allen. What do you value Labanc at? Wondering if there’s something of a deal to be made there...
May 20, 2020 at 9:48 a.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 374
Likes: 45
Quoting: Klara
Don't know why you are still here, this is from a while ago.

All of this is stats that I use for myself and is one iteration of many that I created for a University project. oiSV% is compared to team oiSV% as a basic metric of shot quality, everything there is based of of an original CF% metric of 49.14. I am not saying that I would rather have Vlasic over a Karlsson over a Theodore or Letang, I'm using this as a basic metric to see how well the player performs at 5v5. This does not factor in Pk% or PP% and is simply a basis to determine if when the player is on the ice, are they getting more value, I don't care if you don't like it.

For the idea that you are basing everything off of Corsi, that's exactly what this chart is addressing. It factors in other things other than just looking at Corsi (or Fenwick), I just changed it so that >50 is + and <50 is negative purely so that it would be easier to graph. Of course, since this is basic, it does not really address line mates, and a few other extreme errors.

hockeyviz doesn't have what I'm looking for, and honestly, and I don't care for their fancy graphs, unless I can see the numbers and work with them, it isn't useful for me.

Also, the whole point of the stat is to ignore isolated stats and look to see how the team is affected with him on the ice, Corsi is not a personal stat, I could factor in personal stats to create a more advanced metric, but that's not the point of this one.

Please put your own stuff together if you would like to create an argument using numbers rather than looking at a fancy looking graph on a website that really doesn't say much. if you mention xG I might just throw up.


Lololol. You’re taking basic data and manipulating it to fit your own narrative, talk about throwing up. Stats 101: weighting certain statistics to drive a result you want to see, bad. Here’s an idea, also from stats 101, let the data speak for itself. Also stats 101, if your output shows a vastly different picture than what the raw data is telling you, your model has a significant error somewhere. You’re model not only disagrees with the raw data, it disagrees with just about every assessment made by every expert in the field. Also basic research 101, if your model won’t pass peer review, it’s wrong. Your model will not pass peer review.

You really need to give the advanced stats gig up. The fact you don’t understand that corsi is an individual players impact on team shooting rates, same for fenwick, etc is largely hilarious. You even said it in your own words that it’s an individual stat.

Isolated stats are the only way to properly address player performance in comparison to other players! That’s why it’s exceptionally important to NOT include stats like team 5v5 sv%, because the stat is almost exclusively influenced by the goaltenders ability to make a save!! This is not rocket science. Ignoring isolated stats, while ranking Vlasic in comparison to other’s (that’s what we call an isolated comparison by the way)

All of my stats were even strength referenced. You’re telling me just because I don’t like it... while I don’t like or dislike it, it’s just wrong, and comically so, and you don’t like that, based on the basics, I’m telling you it’s entirely wrong. That’s some straight up irony right there.

The reference to hockeyviz was to get you to give up this fool’s errand and go to a proven source. No need to reinvent the wheel. Also saying “it doesn’t have what I want”, bad statistician, basically an admission you’re looking for a specific result. Yikes. Their “fancy” charts, all exclusively numbers based and have numbers based axis, from an experienced statistician, yeah totally not what you need. Yikes.

So I’m not going to put my own stuff together because 1) not rocket science 2) I do this kind of analytics every damn day at work all day 3) there’s no reason to with dozens of sources everywhere 4) the raw data is almost exclusively simple enough and has enough integrity that you don’t need to meld them into a model to get a picture of darn good fidelity.

If this is a university project you will fail. I am not joking, find something else.
May 20, 2020 at 11:43 a.m.
#25
Bad Take Bot v1.02
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2019
Posts: 2,683
Likes: 1,879
Edited May 20, 2020 at 12:26 p.m.
Quoting: icehawk2006
Lololol. You’re taking basic data and manipulating it to fit your own narrative, talk about throwing up. Stats 101: weighting certain statistics to drive a result you want to see, bad. Here’s an idea, also from stats 101, let the data speak for itself. Also stats 101, if your output shows a vastly different picture than what the raw data is telling you, your model has a significant error somewhere. You’re model not only disagrees with the raw data, it disagrees with just about every assessment made by every expert in the field. Also basic research 101, if your model won’t pass peer review, it’s wrong. Your model will not pass peer review.

You really need to give the advanced stats gig up. The fact you don’t understand that corsi is an individual players impact on team shooting rates, same for fenwick, etc is largely hilarious. You even said it in your own words that it’s an individual stat.

Isolated stats are the only way to properly address player performance in comparison to other players! That’s why it’s exceptionally important to NOT include stats like team 5v5 sv%, because the stat is almost exclusively influenced by the goaltenders ability to make a save!! This is not rocket science. Ignoring isolated stats, while ranking Vlasic in comparison to other’s (that’s what we call an isolated comparison by the way)

All of my stats were even strength referenced. You’re telling me just because I don’t like it... while I don’t like or dislike it, it’s just wrong, and comically so, and you don’t like that, based on the basics, I’m telling you it’s entirely wrong. That’s some straight up irony right there.

The reference to hockeyviz was to get you to give up this fool’s errand and go to a proven source. No need to reinvent the wheel. Also saying “it doesn’t have what I want”, bad statistician, basically an admission you’re looking for a specific result. Yikes. Their “fancy” charts, all exclusively numbers based and have numbers based axis, from an experienced statistician, yeah totally not what you need. Yikes.

So I’m not going to put my own stuff together because 1) not rocket science 2) I do this kind of analytics every damn day at work all day 3) there’s no reason to with dozens of sources everywhere 4) the raw data is almost exclusively simple enough and has enough integrity that you don’t need to meld them into a model to get a picture of darn good fidelity.

If this is a university project you will fail. I am not joking, find something else.



1. So you know, since I've continuing to work on this, the fundamental problem was actually that oZS was being drastically over-scaled. That whole point was to remove the correlation between CF% and oZS, which you will be glad to know changes many scores.

2. I have since stoppped using oiS and oiSV and started using SCF% I didn't do this because its relation to the goalie, as both stats were used rel to the team. I changed it because of the low sample size.

3. It was a small project, got an 87% but don't plan to stop working on it.

4. Maybe I was too harsh on hockeyviz, some of their graphs are useful, but I was really wanting to see the actual numbers, because I am interested in creating various metrics, which obviously I can't do by judging the thickness of the bars. There is no me trying to find a specific result, after all, its the same data, Natural stat trick is more of the site I'm looking for, they have both graphics and the actual data to those graphics. Natural stat trick has by game all the data one could ask for. There is some useful visuals on hockeyviz, notably shooting maps, but I don't believe they paint the full picture.

5. I think we are not really connecting on individual stat, my understanding was that you were not referring to on ice stats (CF, FF, etc.), which are usually categorized differently than individual stats (iCF, P, etc).

6. I started this project after getting frustrated with looking at https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_playerusage.php, which seems to be a very helpful tool, but I couldn't stand that there was no scaling on Corsi, which its common sense that if you start in the O zone more you are going to have a higher CF% than if you started more in the D zone. You could also see that for many players their GF% was drastically different than their CF%, even if the goalies are very different. But obviously GF% doesn't really have a very good sample size, especially for players who only played a few games, one of the reasons that I switched away from oiS and oiSV, so I went with SCF% because typically there is around 9x more data.

1.PNG
newScore2 here is very simply CF%*SCF%/50. Obviously there is a small correlation between them, enough to change many scores.

2.PNG
This was my solution, if you can tell me if there is a problem with that, I would actually appreciate it.

the next step would be to scale it by the quality of competition, newScore + sigma[playerScore*TOI]/(Total TOI) - 50.

unknown.png

since this is what this whole deep dive down this stupid ass rabbit hole started from, the point is basically to solve what is wrong with this graph, for example, Thornton has a pretty good 53% CF, but he starts more in the oZone and faces easier competition than the rest of the team, so obviously his score should be worse than that, while Vlasic for example starts with a 49% CF but plays in the Defensive zone more and faces harder competition, and then there is just the fundamental problem of that Corsi (and Fenwick) don't consider the quality of the shots, hence the inclusion of SCF% and previously the rel difference of oiS and oiSV.

still no clue where you got the idea that I'm purposefully weighing things differently to fit a narrative... but you do you.

Unfortunately, I have not seen many things like this, especially with zone start scaling, and surprisingly quality of competition stats (QoC) seems to be hard to come by as well. I'm not re-inventing the wheel, im using it... its not rocket science.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll