Avatar

SupremeBone

Member Since
Jul. 29, 2020
Favourite Team
Edmonton Oilers
Forum Posts
1352
Posts per Day
1.3
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 12:13 p.m.
Thread: Yamamoto Campbell Buyout
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>J_w64</b></div><div>I wouldn't say that Yamamoto and Joseph are really comparable. Yamamoto is an undersized "offensive" forward who doesn't do offence. Joseph is a bottom 6 defensive forward who's great on the pk.</div></div>
Yamamoto also kills penalties and, despite his flaws, plays an important role in puck retrievals on Drai's line. Honestly, the role each would occupy would probably pretty similar: speedy puck-chaser with less-than-ideal puck skills that PKs and chips in some offense. Joseph is certainly better-suited to bottom-6 work in the traditional sense but the move leaves us with a cap inefficiency of similar proportions for an extra two years. The point of buying out Yamo should be expediting the removal of the cap inefficiency, not the extending of it.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 30 at 1:29 p.m.
Thread: Roadmap to the Cup - 4 Line Pressure
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OilednGreasy</b></div><div>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</div></div>
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, &amp; 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?
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 30 at 12:52 p.m.
Thread: Roadmap to the Cup - 4 Line Pressure
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OilednGreasy</b></div><div>Read this please:
<a href="https://www.blueshirtsbreakaway.com/2018/03/09/hockey-lexicon-spotlight-series-teammate-relative-statistics/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">HOCKEY LEXICON SPOTLIGHT SERIES – TEAMMATE RELATIVE STATISTICS</a></div></div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OilednGreasy</b></div><div>Read this please:
<a href="https://www.blueshirtsbreakaway.com/2018/03/09/hockey-lexicon-spotlight-series-teammate-relative-statistics/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">HOCKEY LEXICON SPOTLIGHT SERIES – TEAMMATE RELATIVE STATISTICS</a></div></div>
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!
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 30 at 5:50 a.m.
Thread: Roadmap to the Cup - 4 Line Pressure
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OilednGreasy</b></div><div>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</div></div>
We're either talking past eachother or you don't understand my point.

<em>"The 2 teams are not relative enough for relative comparison."</em>
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.

<em>"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."</em>
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.

<em>"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?"</em>
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.

<em>"Because the contradictions and justifications to explain your opinion are too convoluted to understand here"</em>
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.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 29 at 1:52 p.m.
Thread: Roadmap to the Cup - 4 Line Pressure
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OilednGreasy</b></div><div>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.</div></div>
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 &amp; strictness/rigidness of role). However, we could discuss that for ages and not come to anything conclusive, so I'll refrain from that topic.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 29 at 4:27 a.m.
Thread: Roadmap to the Cup - 4 Line Pressure
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OilednGreasy</b></div><div>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.

<a href="https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playercompare.php?fromseason=20222023&amp;thruseason=20222023&amp;stype=2&amp;sit=5v5&amp;score=all&amp;stdoi=oi&amp;rate=y&amp;p1=8476473&amp;p2=8476879&amp;loc=B&amp;gpfilt=none&amp;fd=&amp;td=&amp;tgp=410&amp;lines=single" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Ceci vs Murphy</a>

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.</div></div>
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 <a href="https://www.naturalstattrick.com/linestats.php?fromseason=20222023&amp;thruseason=20222023&amp;stype=2&amp;sit=5v5&amp;score=all&amp;rate=n&amp;team=EDM&amp;vteam=ALL&amp;view=wowy&amp;loc=B&amp;gpfilt=none&amp;fd=2022-10-07&amp;td=2023-04-14&amp;tgp=2000&amp;strict=incl&amp;p1=8477998&amp;p2=8480802&amp;p3=8478585&amp;p4=0&amp;p5=0" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">together</a> 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.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 28 at 6:40 a.m.