The rangers can just trade deangelo for sergachev

Blues wins this, TB can't afford DeAngelo and Dunn shouldn't be even compared to the two.

lol Rangers decline. Deangelo's not going anywhere. You can have Trouba. Though I think Rangers would be open to trading their CAR 1st to get Dunn 

How is Tampa going to afford Tony DeAngelo if they can't afford Mikhail Sergachev? No way Tampa can afford DeAngelo he's easily going to get as much as Sergachev.

Not sure how you figure that. And that doesn't even display how Dunn is easily the best possession quality player of the three AND the best Corsi/Fenwick player of the three (far better than DeAngelo, that's for sure).

Huh. Guess my opinion of him needs some updating. My bad.

I'd still say though that Sergachev and DeAngelo have more value, but not by as much as I previously thought.

(Dunn is the best of the three)

Tampa would be better off keeping Sergachev. Plus DeAngelo is not wanted in Tampa or he would still be with the team... Julien BriseBois was the General Manager of the Syracuse Crunch when DeAngelo got suspended and JBB also benched him twice during that year he was with the Crunch. Then after that first year they traded him. I don't see JBB wants him back, BriseBois doesn't play with guys who have a little bit of an attitude. See DeAngelo, Drouin, Connor Ingram and Jake Dotchin.

Edit: Sorry didnt mean to quote you. I will keep Sergachev I think he has more upside but Dunn is a hell of a player from the games I have seen.

lol.

I wanted to look at what Deangelo would look like without anchors, so I used the environment distiller to try to equate Deangelo's environment to Dunn's. Deangelo has spent time this year with Staal, Fox, Skjei and Hajek. Dunn has spent time with Faulk, Bortuzzo and Pietrangelo. Since Dunn hasn't ever had to drag around partners as bad as Staal and Hajek, let's see how Deangelo's performance without them equates to Dunn's.

It's kinda crazy honestly.







If you put those numbers relative to team as opposed to league it gets even crazier lol.

So relative to league average:
Deangelo (with equal environment) = +30%
Dunn = +13%

Relative to team:
Deangelo (equal environment) = +41%
Dunn = +13%

Kinda crazy.

So if you take away the bad players DeAngelo plays with and only look at the 400 minutes with competent help, he still can't defend his way out of a paper bag.

Lol you mean he’s above average relative to team. Defensive performance is largely tied to coaching and team defense structure. Don’t need to look much further than Pionk and Trouba’s defensive metrics essentially reversing as the switched teams. Fortunately Berube and Yeo are 2 of the better defensive coaches in all of hockey and thus your players have always had that in their favor.

Tampa and New York declines

If half of the rink is dictated by coaching then why look at the charts and lol in the first place? You're basically saying "the things that DeAngelo does well are facts, and the things that he sucks at aren't his fault". I'm sure that's how you managed to convince yourself that TDA >>>>>>> Parayko heh.

haha, Not quite. Offensive tends to follow the individual. Defensive play tends to follow the coaching scheme. You want to look at the Dallas Stars defensive metrics change from 2016-17 to 2017-18 when basically all that changed was their coach?

There are some defensive things that tend to retain regardless of coaching - blue line breakups in particular. But the truth is that in your own zone, it's rarely 1v1 hockey. It's 5v5 hockey, and those 5 players settle into a structure. And that structure is dictated by the coach. And that has a massive effect. Whereas there's rarely a structure in the offensive zone, it's mostly just individuals making plays. This is what the data shows.

The point is that if you put Dunn on the Rangers, his defensive production would go down to reflect the system. Like Trouba's, because Quinn and Ruff are really bad defensive coaches. Dunn's offense would remain the same though.

If you put Deangelo on the Blues, his offense would also remain the same, and his defense would (seemingly magically lol) improve. You'll notice the massive defensive change Neal Pionk had simply by switching schemes.

So with that in mind, Deangelo is going nowhere, it's simply a coaching change that most likely needs to occur for the Rangers.

I mean, Micah has a model for coaching impacts and it affects OZ and DZ... I'm not gonna argue with you about coaching though. Systems and structures are definitely ingrained in all of the descriptive stats, and distilling it out is probably incredibly difficult and not something I would want to do lol. Part of the discussion of player value has to come from scouting/observing talent. What coaches choose to do with that talent can skew on-ice results. If I'm on a soapbox, I'd say that models/stats have gone too far in player valuation these days. Some guys are clearly suppressed by their context and others are inflated, and people dropping RAPM charts and stuff like it's gospel get on my nerves. Guess I'm just turning into an old man yelling at a cloud .

Yeah I agree about the context stuff. I like the visualization factor of the RAPM chart as a just a general indication of whether a player is a play-driver or not. I usually only try and whip them out if a someone is clearly deficient in the on-ice metrics (Kuzy, Lindell) or particularly good (Buchnevich, Bjorkstrand) and don't really bother with too much in the middle because a large portion of this community is kinda oblivious to all that stuff. I appreciate Micah's attempt to try to quantify the coaching effect, but in his models he takes a few variables for granted. Though I think it's very good for showing outliers of particularly good defensive coaches (Cooper, Sullivan, Torts) or particularly bad offensive coaches (Laviolette). The in the middle stuff is too blurry to really draw too many conclusions one way or another.

I'm more curious to see the weighting of shot generation vs. shooting talent. Like high shooting talent players such as Boeser and Debrincat vs. volume shooters such as Toffoli and Gallagher as well as their affect on the team as a whole.

For sure, I'd say the next-gen stats are good to look at (over a 2-3 yr sample size) to justify something that you've been able to pick out from the games, and that's usually restricted to those extreme cases you're talking about.

Another interesting one would be Brady Tkachuk. IIRC his goals have been under his xG by a /huge/ margin. Makes you wonder if his shooting talent is just awful, if in-close shot locations/rebouds/tips (his kitchen) are flawed coming from the NHL data, if the models aren't capturing something right around the crease, etc.

MoneyPuck has done a pretty decent job quantifying Shooting Talent. And yes, Brady gets really poor marks: http://moneypuck.com/stats.htm

only the basement dwellers think deangelo is better than trouba. you chris, are one of those basement dwellers.

st louis fans are truly the worst. i have to get out of this thread before my head explodes. where your masks missouri!

Which st louis fans are the worst?