SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Roadmap to the Cup - 4 Line Pressure

Created by: SupremeBone
Team: 2023-24 Edmonton Oilers
Initial Creation Date: May 15, 2023
Published: May 28, 2023
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$775,000
2$775,000
2$775,000
2$775,000
2$775,000
3$1,750,000
3$4,000,000
1$875,000
1$775,000
1$775,000
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
1$775,000
3$1,000,000
1$1,500,000
Offer Sheets
Offer sheet annual average (AAV) is calculated by dividing the contract value by the lower of: 1. The contract length, or 2. Five years
PLAYERAAVCOMPENSATION
Dunne, Joshua$775,000No Compensation
Laaksonen, Oskari$775,000No Compensation
Gildon, Max$775,000No Compensation
Trades
1.
EDM
  1. 2023 3rd round pick (EDM)
  2. 2023 3rd round pick (WSH)
ARI
  1. 2023 2nd round pick (EDM)
Additional Details:
ARI has so many picks that I imagine they'll be looking to trade up
2.
EDM
  1. Murphy, Connor ($2,200,000 retained)
Additional Details:
A clear upgrade on Ceci for cheap within the current Cup window.
CHI
  1. Petrov, Matvei
  2. Yamamoto, Kailer
  3. 2024 1st round pick (EDM)
  4. 2024 2nd round pick (EDM)
Additional Details:
Given Murphy's injury history, I'd put some kind of condition on dropping the 2nd to a 3rd based on reaching a games played thrsehold.
3.
EDM
  1. 2024 3rd round pick (PIT)
Additional Details:
The lowest of the 3rd round picks
Buyouts
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2023
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the WSH
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
2024
Logo of the PIT
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the NSH
2025
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
22$83,500,000$83,292,500$850,000$1,500,000$207,500
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$5,125,000$5,125,000
LW, RW
NMC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$12,500,000$12,500,000
C
NMC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$5,500,000$5,500,000
RW, LW
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$650,000$650K)
LW, C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$8,500,000$8,500,000
C, LW
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 2
$1,500,000$1,500,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,000,000$1,000,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$5,125,000$5,125,000
LW, C
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$875,000$875,000
LW, RW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,750,000$2,750,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,750,000$1,750,000
C
RFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$775,000$775,000
C, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$775,000$775,000
RW, C
RFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$9,250,000$9,250,000
LD
NMC
UFA - 7
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$2,200,000$2,200,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,600,000$2,600,000
G
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$6,000,000$6,000,000
LD/RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,000,000$4,000,000
RD
RFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$5,000,000$5,000,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$863,333$863,333 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
LD
RFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,750,000$2,750,000
LD/RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$762,500$762,500
RD
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
May 28, 2023 at 2:51 p.m.
#1
Once a Kings Fan Too
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 39,662
Likes: 24,577
Most Edmonton ACGMs I can recall seeing recently have featured Ceci "anywhere for anything," so I'm a little skeptical about that price, but I wholeheartedly agree that Ceci to Anaheim makes sense and is a realistic possibility.
SupremeBone and OilednGreasy liked this.
May 28, 2023 at 2:56 p.m.
#2
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Edited May 28, 2023 at 3:01 p.m.
Quoting: OldNYIfan
Most Edmonton ACGMs I can recall seeing recently have featured Ceci "anywhere for anything," so I'm a little skeptical about that price, but I wholeheartedly agree that Ceci to Anaheim makes sense and is a realistic possibility.

Yeah, this is partly to counter that narrative. Ceci isn't a valueless husk that merely wastes 3.25mil in cap space and treating him like Zaitsev is just wrong IMO. I think a deal to ANA or DET only works if they can't arrange a deal with available other RD options (Dumba, Mayfield, Severson, etc), but I think it's a plausible backup plan for each of them.
OldNYIfan liked this.
May 28, 2023 at 3:04 p.m.
#3
Once a Kings Fan Too
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 39,662
Likes: 24,577
Quoting: SupremeBone
Yeah, this is partly to counter that narrative. Ceci is not a valueless husk that merely wastes 3.25mil in cap space and treating him like Zaitsev is just wrong IMO. I think a deal to ANA or DET only works if they can't arrange a deal with available other RD options (Dumba, Mayfield, Severson, etc), but I think it's a plausible backup plan for each of them.

More than plausible, and more than a backup plan -- this might be on Verbeek's front burner, given that the only RhD we have under contract right now is the recovering Jamie Drysdale.

I'd surely give a fifth, or two of them, for Ceci; I'd almost certainly give a fourth (even our own, which is like a third), and maybe another lower shot, for him; the issue is whether I'd give up that mid-round third. I don't care what people say, at his cap hit and with two seasons left, he has positive value to teams that are thin. Note that we'd be playing him with Cam Fowler, not a stiff.
SupremeBone liked this.
May 28, 2023 at 3:40 p.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2022
Posts: 8,060
Likes: 9,624
Hawks probably consider this without any conditions on the picks. Assuming Edmonton isn't on Murphy's no trade list.
SupremeBone, OldNYIfan, ChiHawk and 1 other person liked this.
May 28, 2023 at 6:33 p.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Edited May 28, 2023 at 7:16 p.m.
I think the Oilers would be better off not signing Janmark or Brown and keep Ceci over Murphy to not lose those picks and prospect.

Ceci vs Murphy

IMO Foegele should be in the top 6 too. He had that level of production 5v5, did a great job helping cover the games Kane was out, and he'll be playing for a new contract next season.
May 29, 2023 at 4:27 a.m.
#6
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Quoting: OilednGreasy
I think the Oilers would be better off not signing Janmark or Brown and keep Ceci over Murphy to not lose those picks and prospect.

Ceci vs Murphy

IMO Foegele should be in the top 6 too. He had that level of production 5v5, did a great job helping cover the games Kane was out, and he'll be playing for a new contract next season.

Change those comparison numbers over to relative numbers and you'll get more of a sense for why I view Murphy as a worthy upgrade- especially at 2.2mil for 3 more years.

I haven't pushed Foegele down out of a lack of faith in him: I'm probably his biggest fan. I just know how successful he and McLeod (and Ryan) have been together and, as such, wanted to do my utmost to set up 4 lines that can be rolled consistently. Given how Foegele has started both seasons as an Oiler, I wouldn't rely on him in the top 6.

Regardless of whether your plan would be to replace them with a league min F or just run a smaller roster, I'll also disagree as I don't think the team can get away with not signing a player of Brown or Janmark's level. If Brown would come for such a discount, EDM should be all over it as a value contract.
May 29, 2023 at 11:28 a.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Quoting: SupremeBone
Change those comparison numbers over to relative numbers and you'll get more of a sense for why I view Murphy as a worthy upgrade- especially at 2.2mil for 3 more years.

I haven't pushed Foegele down out of a lack of faith in him: I'm probably his biggest fan. I just know how successful he and McLeod (and Ryan) have been together and, as such, wanted to do my utmost to set up 4 lines that can be rolled consistently. Given how Foegele has started both seasons as an Oiler, I wouldn't rely on him in the top 6.

Regardless of whether your plan would be to replace them with a league min F or just run a smaller roster, I'll also disagree as I don't think the team can get away with not signing a player of Brown or Janmark's level. If Brown would come for such a discount, EDM should be all over it as a value contract.


I worded it weird, my bad. But not sign one of Janmark or Brown is what I was meant.

I don't think relative stats should be used when comparing a player from the 30th place team to one from the 6th. The good player on bad team is a bad player on a good team kinda thing.
May 29, 2023 at 1:52 p.m.
#8
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Quoting: OilednGreasy
I don't think relative stats should be used when comparing a player from the 30th place team to one from the 6th. The good player on bad team is a bad player on a good team kinda thing.

I'm of the mind that they need both a Janmark and Brown and that neither is easily replaced with a league minimum player (it's more likely to be possible with Janmark, but then you're only saving 225k in cap space).

Yet you're content to compare two players in such situations using rate metrics? Assuming that the player's role is controlled for (I have), I'd argue that rate metrics are more influenced by the quality of the team around a player than relative metrics would be.

If, for example, Murphy manages to keep his head above water (~0 or better in relGA, relGF%, relxGF, relHDCA, etc) in his shutdown role on an atrocious CHI team, then that tells me that, despite most factors being against him, he still played his role effectively. Lehkonen's final year in MTL is a great example of relative metrics revealing a valuable player stuck on a bad team. In comparison, if I read the page you sent, I simply see the rates at which various things happened while Murhpy and Ceci were on the ice without any reflection of what happened on their teams without them- therefore, no baseline by which to compare them. You're just comparing their numbers across two extremely different contexts.

Given the fact that both players played a similar role (primary shutdown RD for ~17mins/night at EV), a comparison using relative metrics is more appropriate than rates because what matters to me is what the player has done in comparison to what his fellow Dmen have done in the same system/circumstances (while factoring in significant differences in deployment).

The reasoning surrounding "good player on a bad team" confusing the data never quite landed with me. Sure, a good player's relative numbers can be inflated when playing on a bad team but it also means he's holding up his end of the bargain despite inoptimal conditions. If this were a sheltered, 3rd pairing Dman (ala Matt Benning in EDM) or a bottom-6 F whose line meshed well then the argument holds more water but such inflation isn't something that commonly occurs in the kind of role that Murphy played. If anything, his role in the one that ought to be among the most negatively influenced by a team-relative comparison.

In my opinion, the best argument against the use of relative metrics in this particular context is that the nature of the shutdown role on a bad team is somewhat different from such a role on a good team (re: expectation of offensive contribution & strictness/rigidness of role). However, we could discuss that for ages and not come to anything conclusive, so I'll refrain from that topic.
May 29, 2023 at 3:33 p.m.
#9
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Edited May 29, 2023 at 5:23 p.m.
Quoting: SupremeBone
I'm of the mind that they need both a Janmark and Brown and that neither is easily replaced with a league minimum player (it's more likely to be possible with Janmark, but then you're only saving 225k in cap space).

Yet you're content to compare two players in such situations using rate metrics? Assuming that the player's role is controlled for (I have), I'd argue that rate metrics are more influenced by the quality of the team around a player than relative metrics would be.

If, for example, Murphy manages to keep his head above water (~0 or better in relGA, relGF%, relxGF, relHDCA, etc) in his shutdown role on an atrocious CHI team, then that tells me that, despite most factors being against him, he still played his role effectively. Lehkonen's final year in MTL is a great example of relative metrics revealing a valuable player stuck on a bad team. In comparison, if I read the page you sent, I simply see the rates at which various things happened while Murhpy and Ceci were on the ice without any reflection of what happened on their teams without them- therefore, no baseline by which to compare them. You're just comparing their numbers across two extremely different contexts.

Given the fact that both players played a similar role (primary shutdown RD for ~17mins/night at EV), a comparison using relative metrics is more appropriate than rates because what matters to me is what the player has done in comparison to what his fellow Dmen have done in the same system/circumstances (while factoring in significant differences in deployment).

The reasoning surrounding "good player on a bad team" confusing the data never quite landed with me. Sure, a good player's relative numbers can be inflated when playing on a bad team but it also means he's holding up his end of the bargain despite inoptimal conditions. If this were a sheltered, 3rd pairing Dman (ala Matt Benning in EDM) or a bottom-6 F whose line meshed well then the argument holds more water but such inflation isn't something that commonly occurs in the kind of role that Murphy played. If anything, his role in the one that ought to be among the most negatively influenced by a team-relative comparison.

In my opinion, the best argument against the use of relative metrics in this particular context is that the nature of the shutdown role on a bad team is somewhat different from such a role on a good team (re: expectation of offensive contribution & strictness/rigidness of role). However, we could discuss that for ages and not come to anything conclusive, so I'll refrain from that topic.


The 2 teams are not relative enough for relative comparison. The Oilers defense allowed 41 less goals against last season than the Blackhawks D. Why invite more possible variables when they play in the same conference, against mostly the same opponents, for a similar amount of time? You're making it too complicated.

Is it possible you went through all the stat options until you found something that supported your opinion but now kinda know it doesn't work?
Because the contradictions and justifications to explain your opinion are too convoluted to understand here
May 30, 2023 at 5:50 a.m.
#10
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Quoting: OilednGreasy
The 2 teams are not relative enough for relative comparison. The Oilers defense allowed 41 less goals against last season than the Blackhawks D. Why invite more possible variables when they play in the same conference, against mostly the same opponents, for a similar amount of time? You're making it too complicated.

Is it possible you went through all the stat options until you found something that supported your opinion but now kinda know it doesn't work?
Because the contradictions and justifications to explain your opinion are too convoluted to understand here

We're either talking past eachother or you don't understand my point.

"The 2 teams are not relative enough for relative comparison."
I don't subscribe to that same belief. So long as it's considered during one's interpretation and reflected in how one presents the data, there's no such thing as NHL teams being too far apart to compare. To reverse your logic, doesn't the fact that Murphy played behind Kane, Toews, and a bunch of tweeners adversely impact his rate numbers to such a point where they're no longer comparable to Ceci's because he played behind among the best forward groups in the league? Or are you of the opinion that systems of play and forwards either don't or only minimally contribute to defensive results? I've encountered this disagreement among people the stats community before.

"Why invite more possible variables when they play in the same conference, against mostly the same opponents, for a similar amount of time? You're making it too complicated."
Because most analyses benefit from the consideration of more variables. In this case, they did so in completely different systems alongside forward groups with extremely different levels of skill- without even considering the psychological toll that playing on a tanking team can have.

"Is it possible you went through all the stat options until you found something that supported your opinion but now kinda know it doesn't work?"
A bold suggestion that borders on insult, but I'll assume you're not suggesting it with ill intent. I assure you that this isn't the case.

"Because the contradictions and justifications to explain your opinion are too convoluted to understand here"
I encourage you to point out any contradiction you think I made and I'll be happy to either clarify it or explain why it isn't a contradiction.

I'll extend an olive branch and state very clearly that no analysis like this is as simple as using either relative or rate metrics and that wasn't the point of my initial response. While I do believe relative metrics have more value in this comparison, my point was less to draw a direct comparison to Ceci and more to simply explain why I valued Murphy enough to pay a significant amount for him (his impacts on defensive results while playing a difficult role with Tinordi and Jack Johnson as his primary partners were impressive and add to his track record of such going back a number of years). Of course, his impacts on offensive results are cause for concern, but I'm less concerned about those as I believe that a top-4 defensive specialist RD (especially one at 2.2mil) to play alongside Nurse is what best helps push the team over the hump.
May 30, 2023 at 9:54 a.m.
#11
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Edited May 30, 2023 at 11:12 a.m.
Quoting: SupremeBone
We're either talking past eachother or you don't understand my point.

"The 2 teams are not relative enough for relative comparison."
I don't subscribe to that same belief. So long as it's considered during one's interpretation and reflected in how one presents the data, there's no such thing as NHL teams being too far apart to compare. To reverse your logic, doesn't the fact that Murphy played behind Kane, Toews, and a bunch of tweeners adversely impact his rate numbers to such a point where they're no longer comparable to Ceci's because he played behind among the best forward groups in the league? Or are you of the opinion that systems of play and forwards either don't or only minimally contribute to defensive results? I've encountered this disagreement among people the stats community before.

"Why invite more possible variables when they play in the same conference, against mostly the same opponents, for a similar amount of time? You're making it too complicated."
Because most analyses benefit from the consideration of more variables. In this case, they did so in completely different systems alongside forward groups with extremely different levels of skill- without even considering the psychological toll that playing on a tanking team can have.

"Is it possible you went through all the stat options until you found something that supported your opinion but now kinda know it doesn't work?"
A bold suggestion that borders on insult, but I'll assume you're not suggesting it with ill intent. I assure you that this isn't the case.

"Because the contradictions and justifications to explain your opinion are too convoluted to understand here"
I encourage you to point out any contradiction you think I made and I'll be happy to either clarify it or explain why it isn't a contradiction.

I'll extend an olive branch and state very clearly that no analysis like this is as simple as using either relative or rate metrics and that wasn't the point of my initial response. While I do believe relative metrics have more value in this comparison, my point was less to draw a direct comparison to Ceci and more to simply explain why I valued Murphy enough to pay a significant amount for him (his impacts on defensive results while playing a difficult role with Tinordi and Jack Johnson as his primary partners were impressive and add to his track record of such going back a number of years). Of course, his impacts on offensive results are cause for concern, but I'm less concerned about those as I believe that a top-4 defensive specialist RD (especially one at 2.2mil) to play alongside Nurse is what best helps push the team over the hump.


Holy hell, you're full of it. I'm done with this.

You wanna use REL for something. Look at Nurse's SA/60 Rel and GA/60 Rel in the playoffs compared to his teammates. Worst of all the Oilers defenseman. The injured Ceci wasn't the problem and in fact was better than Nurse in GA/60 Rel at 5v5 and PK all season. Which was probably the premise for all of this
May 30, 2023 at 12:06 p.m.
#12
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Quoting: OilednGreasy
Holy hell, you're full of it. I'm done with this.

Can't handle a difference of opinion, huh? Good luck tears of joy
May 30, 2023 at 12:21 p.m.
#13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Edited May 30, 2023 at 12:42 p.m.
MB, sorry
May 30, 2023 at 12:33 p.m.
#14
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Quoting: OilednGreasy
You are a different kind of dumb if you think that's what happened there.

You're the definition of the typical internet user, man tears of joy Get stuffed
May 30, 2023 at 12:33 p.m.
#15
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Quoting: OilednGreasy
You are a different kind of dumb if you think that's what happened there.


Quoting: SupremeBone
Can't handle a difference of opinion, huh? Good luck tears of joy


Read this please:
HOCKEY LEXICON SPOTLIGHT SERIES – TEAMMATE RELATIVE STATISTICS
May 30, 2023 at 12:41 p.m.
#16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Quoting: SupremeBone
You're the definition of the typical internet user, man tears of joy Get stuffed


Read this too:
Revisiting Relative Shot Metrics – Part 1
Do the math. Tell me what you come up with
May 30, 2023 at 12:45 p.m.
#17
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Edited May 30, 2023 at 12:52 p.m.
Quoting: SupremeBone
You're the definition of the typical internet user, man tears of joy Get stuffed


That's you buddy. Using things you don't understand to support your opinion. I was doing nothing but trying to remove opinion and bias from the equation.
May 30, 2023 at 12:52 p.m.
#18
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503


In what world do you not start with this? Like "Hey, I think you're wrong in your use of relative statistics and here are some links explaining why. Give 'em a read!". What compels you to jump to insinuating that I'm operating in bad faith and throwing insults? I think it should've been clear that I was operating in good faith when I tried to lay out my case in favour of my position.

I'll give 'em a read and see what I think about them!
May 30, 2023 at 12:58 p.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200


A quote from the article:
"An additional issue pointed out by Luke is that team strength has an impact on both forms of relative statistics. He notes that, “players on the worst teams appear better and players on the best teams appear worse relative to the league."
May 30, 2023 at 1:12 p.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Quoting: SupremeBone
In what world do you not start with this? Like "Hey, I think you're wrong in your use of relative statistics and here are some links explaining why. Give 'em a read!". What compels you to jump to insinuating that I'm operating in bad faith and throwing insults? I think it should've been clear that I was operating in good faith when I tried to lay out my case in favour of my position.

I'll give 'em a read and see what I think about them!


I tried to make it as simple as possible with the good player bad team comment. You came back at me hard, and I thought without logic. So... LOL, things escalated. I'll take half the blame
May 30, 2023 at 1:29 p.m.
#21
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 1,503
Quoting: OilednGreasy
I tried to make it as simple as possible with the good player bad team comment. You came back at me hard, and I thought without logic. So... LOL, things escalated. I'll take half the blame

Hmm, I'm not seeing where I would've come across as "hard" in my reply, but I guess that's the nature of online communication. Best to just chalk it up to misinterpretation or an assumed tone and leave it at that! I'll take my share of the blame and bury the hatchet!

As for the articles, I'm reading them and so far they've mostly pointed to problems with the stat that I'm aware of (I've followed guys like Evolving Hockey, jfresh, & Woodguy for quite some time). Perhaps I've missed something but I'm not seeing where these argue in favour of using rate metrics over relative metrics (the core of the disagreement that I was discussing). The thrust of them has been pointing out the flaws that exist in a raw relative metric and that using a relative metric/model that adjusts for additional factors (e.g. multicollinearity of the results of teammates that spend a lot of time together)- which is a point I agree with. Am I missing something?
May 30, 2023 at 2:11 p.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2022
Posts: 782
Likes: 200
Quoting: SupremeBone
Hmm, I'm not seeing where I would've come across as "hard" in my reply, but I guess that's the nature of online communication. Best to just chalk it up to misinterpretation or an assumed tone and leave it at that! I'll take my share of the blame and bury the hatchet!

As for the articles, I'm reading them and so far they've mostly pointed to problems with the stat that I'm aware of (I've followed guys like Evolving Hockey, jfresh, & Woodguy for quite some time). Perhaps I've missed something but I'm not seeing where these argue in favour of using rate metrics over relative metrics (the core of the disagreement that I was discussing). The thrust of them has been pointing out the flaws that exist in a raw relative metric and that using a relative metric/model that adjusts for additional factors (e.g. multicollinearity of the results of teammates that spend a lot of time together)- which is a point I agree with. Am I missing something?


Pay closer attention to what is said about trying to use Rel to compare players on different teams, and what is involved in adjusting for it. Get off of the argument against the rate metrics, use counts if you like, because as both of us have said already, they played similar roles for similar minutes. The only dissimilar thing is the teams. Use any stats set you like to compare except Rel unless you've done everything to adjust for the team differences like in the articles.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll