SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

dylanstoik

dylanstoik
Member Since
Nov. 21, 2018
Favourite Team
Edmonton Oilers
Forum Posts
78
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: NHL SigningsMay 26, 2019 at 2:35 a.m.
Thread: Dallas Stars signed Esa Lindell (6 Years / $5,800,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>Genuinely curious, what defensive rating was he the highest in?



Oops, forgot about these posts lol


Here are the stats for Pesce and Theodore. (All the picks have Theodore as I was making a comparison and these are what I have saved.
<img class="for_img" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5Mvn0EU0AIhlI-.png" alt="D5Mvn0EU0AIhlI-.png">
Here is Giordano
<img class="for_img" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5Mvnz-UwAEx1ft.png" alt="D5Mvnz-UwAEx1ft.png">
Here is a certified OFD for comparison
<img class="for_img" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5Mvn0SUwAAUy8U.png" alt="D5Mvn0SUwAAUy8U.png">
And another one
<img class="for_img" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5Gd20NUcAAkVxE.png" alt="D5Gd20NUcAAkVxE.png">
And here are other underlying metrics
<img class="for_img" src="https://assets1.sportsnet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Defensive-D.png" alt="Defensive-D.png">

Tl;dr
You're wrong.






1) The point is to figure out averages, to roughly predict future play. The numbers can never be accurate down to the individual play as they'd be meaningless as you pointed out, but the numbers essentially count the little plays. If a player is making a lot of little plays that help you win, chances are they are going to continue to do so.

2) The problem with the +/- stat is that it doesn't differentiate between you actually helping to make that stat, or if they are just a passenger on the line watching their team mates do it all. Ron Hainsey is a perfect example of this as he lead the Leafs in +/- this year on a pair with Rielly (who had a Norris calibre offensive season).

3) Blatantly false. To gain a + you don't even have to be in the play, to gain corsi you have to personally take a shot.

4) Sometimes teams win despite players (overcoming a poor goalie or a hot goalie overcoming a lousy team performance being the most common example.

5) Corsi effectively measures possession of the puck (as you said). I can not fathom how you don't see that not allowing the other team to have the puck (in either zone) would help you win. That is literally (&lt;---- used correctly here) saying that shooting more and keeping the other team to fewer shots has no bearing on winning.

6) That is why you use more than one stat. No one is saying to ONLY use corsi to evaluate players. xGF for example measures shot danger by factoring in distance, where it was shot from etc. Also sometimes you get beat by a hot goalie. You can dominate all game but just can't beat him (Kristers Gudlevskis being a somewhat famous example), that doesn't mean you didn't dominate the game and if you play that way 82 games a year + playoffs you are going to win most of them (which is the whole point of tracking the stats, to get players who play better and to make systems that work better).
Additionally shooting % can wildly fluctuate. Sometimes you can take good shot after good shot and just not score (for a variety of reasons). One of the earliest development in the stats community (not even advanced stats, just stats in general) was that shooting % can vary and not to overreact to its variance. Nazem Kadri is a perfect example of this.
Either way none of that discounts corsi or underlying metrics as a legitimate tool to evaluate players.

7) See the above, especially the hot goalie bit.

8) Simply not true. Corsi is a stat used to evaluate possession. It is measured by shots taken, not how long you literally hold the puck for. In order to affect corsi you literally have to have the puck and take a shot. I always find it amusing that those who argue against advanced stats often have a less than full understanding of those stats they so vehemently oppose.

9) That is actually the point. No one (credible) is saying these are the only stats and to not use all others, or forgo the eye test completely. They simply measure other aspects of the game. I always like to put it this way: Normal stats measure outcomes, advanced stats measure the process of getting those outcomes.

10) That is literally what they do. Normal stats measure outcomes, advanced stats measure the process of getting those outcomes. They are the eye test crudely put into numbers.

11) Sometimes you get outplayed and still win. This is the age of parity, it happens. When building a team all you can do is give yourself the best chance to win year after year, and constructing a team that dominates on average is the best way to do it.

12) No one is arguing against that. We are saying that underlying metrics are a tool to be used in conjunction with things like the eye test. You are human and only have two eyes, you're going to miss things. The underlying metrics help to show you what you missed, or even accentuate what you saw.

13) untrue see rest of comment (especially 12).

A side note: You are showing your age here. You double spaced all of your sentences lol (that practice has fallen out of use). Not hating; just find it funny.

Sorry it took so long to get back, I honestly just forgot about this post lol.

Edit for additional notes:

1) +/- is bad because it mashes together a bunch of somewhat random stats (5v5, 5v4 etc). It gives no context to anything (whether the player actually did anything), which is the principle thing you are arguing about here. That is what advanced stats are, some of them are basically +/- (corsi is +/- for shots) but specialized to give you a more detailed look.

2) Funny you mention faceoff% as an important stat. Statistically (not underlying metrics, just plain old % and counting) they are largely unimportant. Thats not to say they are never important, just that they are less important than you would think. You also mention what it should be changed to (which is what underlying metrics are for other stats).</div></div>

Defensive point shares- Hockey Reference
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 24, 2019 at 9:32 p.m.
Thread: 20-21
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wingert41326</b></div><div>You didn't even read the post details. This is 2020-2021 season. projecting moves this off-season as well as breakouts from young guns. FYI Skinner will sign nothing less than 8mil this off-season, check your sources.</div></div>

There is currently 23 players earning 8 million per season or more. So why would any team pay a winger who’s never cracked 70 points and 1 year ago was under fire after a rough season in Carolina 8 million per season? Don’t tell me to check my sources when you all clearly uneducated. For example, Brad Marchand signed a 6.125 million dollar contract recently, he’s on of the best wingers in the NHL. If any team pays Skinner 8 million dollars they are ridiculously stupid, that’s just the way it is.
Forum: NHL SigningsApr. 24, 2019 at 3:15 p.m.
Thread: Pittsburgh Penguins signed Oula Palve (1 Year / $925,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>pharrow</b></div><div>Sure, in your mind he's the better player. Which is why as an undrafted player he wasn't going to apply to the NHL draft and go 2nd overall right?

Your thought process is mind numbing. Both years his play improved due to his linemates. He's not a scorer, he's a "playmaker" which basically says, he passes the puck to someone else capable of putting it in the net and collects a point for doing so.

Which is why everyone looks at him as little more that 4C competition and Kaapo is looked at as a 2nd over all pick and corner stone winger to build around. But hey, clearly he scored more points. *eye roll*</div></div>

You are ridiculously dumb?. Your comment dissing playmakers shows how little you know about hockey. I’ve read scoring reports on Palve, none say his ceiling is a 4C, the reason Kakko is a projected number 2 pick is because he’s producing elite level offense at 17, Palve is 27 so obviously he’s not gonna be as valued. Like i said do at least a bit of research before rambling.