[Signing] Oilers sign Darnell Nurse to extension beginning in 2022 (8 yrs, $9.25 mil AAV)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Just a note for the advanced stat gurus here - you lose people when you jump straight to xGA/60 etc when rating a player. The only thing that matters in ice is actual results, like GA/60, so start there. That’s the fact. Now dig deeper with advanced stats to evaluate the actual number - do they suggest that performance is representative and sustainable or not.

Remember that stats are useful for supporting the drunk but the drunk is the only thing that is real.

The problem with just looking at GA/60 though is that you can't isolate what happens on the ice because the goaltender is a big variable.

xGA60 lets you see what should have happened under the average or normal outcome based on what was given up when player x was on the ice.

If a goalie stands on his head when say Nurse is on the ice he may have a respectable GA60 but playing terribly and getting bailed out by his goaltender.

[GioforPM]

Even points aren't 100% accurate as a picture. A second assist can be critical or it can be a relatively minor part of a play, and perhaps less important than a non-point producing screen, or a great zone entry (followed by three passes). Hell, how many of Neal's goals in Calgary were total fluke bounces?

But in the aggregate all of the stats tend to overcome the noise.

[PepsiFree]

If Darnell Nurse was a winger, it would be like paying a Blake Coleman-type player 9.25M. Considering he's not good at defence... as a defenceman... what's the justification for the extra nearly $5M? Even given the fact that Center and Defence are "premium" positions that call for more salary... $5M? Really?

His career-high is a 50 point pace over 82 games. Every other defenceman with that kind of production and that kind of contract is extremely good defensively. Every other defenceman with that kind of production and that kind of defensive ability is being paid closer to $4-5M.

It's an insane contract. I love it.

[cowtown75]

Seeing this contracts like this helps me respect BT a little bit more.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The problem with just looking at GA/60 though is that you can't isolate what happens on the ice because the goaltender is a big variable.

xGA60 lets you see what should have happened under the average or normal outcome based on what was given up when player x was on the ice.

If a goalie stands on his head when say Nurse is on the ice he may have a respectable GA60 but playing terribly and getting bailed out by his goaltender.

Sure, but IIRC most advanced hockey stats have an r-squared of around 0.3 which is considered a weak correlation statistically, so clearly the models miss a lot of context too. All I’m saying is that these analyses would be more complete if you include the actual results.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Sure, but IIRC most advanced hockey stats have an r-squared of around 0.3 which is considered a weak correlation statistically, so clearly the models miss a lot of context too. All I’m saying is that these analyses would be more complete if you include the actual results.

I think the underlying stats can always improve, and hoping we see more and more of that.

But there just isn't a lot to learn from something like GA60.

I mean sure you want it low, but it's almost impossible to know why it's low. Generally a good defenseman would have good GA60, but it's not a rule.

A good example in Calgary last season. Sean Monahan was 5th on the team in goal prevention (actual) with GA60 in 5th spot. If we just left it there we would make the assumption that Monahan is an excellent defensive player and should be on a shut down line.

His xGA60 though was 13th, which matches the eye test and overall perception much more closely.

If you built a shut down line based on actuals you'd have Derek Ryan (good) with Monahan and Simon. If you built it on underlying data you'd have Derek Ryan with Andrew Mangiapane and Josh Leivo ... which makes way more sense.

At least with Nurse his GA60 and his xGA60 both suck so there's no such analysis issue!

[CNeufeld]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I can't remember where it was, probably the Athletic. But basically he had much better numbers at both ends of the ice with Tyler Myers, which makes no sense because Tyler Myers sucks at both ends of the ice. It was probably just a sample size issue.

Oh boy did they ever.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1371957273237553152

... It's going to be really funny when they give him the same contract as Nurse.

I like that Edmonton has collected 3 of the bottom 11 players on that list... Is that wrong?

C

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Never heard the Oilers heyday referred to as the Jari Kurri days.

The "Doctor Randy Gregg" days sure...

But yeah, multiple people have commented but what an odd expression. Surely it was the Gretzky Era, right?

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think of it as the Craig Muni era personally
EDIT: Holy eff did I hate that guy

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Tons of stuff on this page that isn't just questionable but objectively wrong... why people don't educate themselves a bit before forming strong opinions is always baffling to me. I mean you can have a skeptical viewpoint about what the stats are telling us but if you don't even understand what they're saying it's kind of fruitless.

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Away from Tanev he probably had easier opponents.

Nope, even after you adjust for opponents it was still better. I think Tanev was just done in Vancouver.

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Hughes is bad defensively.

Even worse than Darnell. So hey, the Oiler apologists have that to cling to.

Arguably - if you average out the past 2 years, then Hughes is better defensively. Either way they both come out nearer the bottom of the league than the top, though, so it's not exactly a good argument to win.

Originally Posted by Gordies Elbow

The primary arguments when defending are around assumptions. Some of the assumptions added to these models are subjective (e.g. what constitutes a turnover, what is a proper zone entry.)

True in the case of a turnover. I'm not sure there's much subjectivity in a zone entry. The puck crosses the line or it doesn't.

Some make assumptions about specificity (e.g. shot location makes a shot harder or easier to save.) These may seem obvious, but are they statistically significant given the small numbers of minutes of performance?

As discussed earlier, there are thousands and thousands of shots of data from everywhere in the offensive zone. So the answer is yes - it's very clear that shot location influences save percentage, and by how much.

Descriptive models can be tested against current performance, predictive against future events. In order to be validated, they should be tested. Are any of these?

Yes. Or at least, the guy who created the one we're talking about says he's tested it, and I don't know why he'd lie. Dom L from the Athletic runs his model thousands of times and then evaluates its performance against the results and against other models at the end of the year to determine whether or not it'd make money if you used it as a betting tool.

Originally Posted by Gordies Elbow

As to the shot attempt rates, if the shots aren't converted to goals and by proxy, to wins, does it matter?

The question doesn't make sense. Of course they're converted to goals and goals to wins. We know how often this happens to a high degree of certainty. There is lots of data to support this.

To argue your assumption - are "complete" players better than "incomplete" players in all cases?

No, because the object is still to score and prevent goals. If you can score so much that it doesn't matter that you suck at preventing goals, you'll still be a positive impact player. See: Draisaitl, Leon.

That being said, goal prevention is more valuable than goal scoring because of how the NHL's standings work - the OT point incentivizes prevention. Every analytical model I am aware of overrates the importance of scoring (especially goals) because they're more reliably predictable from year to year. So that needs to be taken into account (and it's acknowledged by the people who do the modeling; the guy who does the model Jfresh uses says his work probably overrates goal scorers and underrates people who make "dangerous passes", which is why MacKinnon is rated below Matthews).

Originally Posted by Shazam

These advanced stats aren’t models. There’s no predictive analysis. People could even take past data and model it forward and match it against past real data but I’ve never seen that done.

It's done all the time. Literally everything in this post is wrong. Amazing.

I’ve seen some terribly naive analysis done (mostly by the Nation) where they attempt to find things out like when players start to decline but it was done all wrong.

Point to it and explain why it's wrong?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

His career-high is a 50 point pace over 82 games. Every other defenceman with that kind of production and that kind of contract is extremely good defensively. Every other defenceman with that kind of production and that kind of defensive ability is being paid closer to $4-5M.

And even then, some of those guys are probably being overpaid because their scoring doesn't offset the plays they allow the other way - scoring gets you paid, being responsible doesn't, even though the opposite is the way it should be in terms of winning. See Adam Pelech.

Originally Posted by edslunch

Sure, but IIRC most advanced hockey stats have an r-squared of around 0.3 which is considered a weak correlation statistically, so clearly the models miss a lot of context too. All I’m saying is that these analyses would be more complete if you include the actual results.

Actually, the model we're talking about has an R2 of .888, although that's at the team level. It's obviously going to be less accurate at the individual player level, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any utility. It just means that if you use it as a predictor of next season, it's going to be close in many players' cases, a bit off on some others, and wildly incorrect on a few.

Originally Posted by CNeufeld

I like that Edmonton has collected 3 of the bottom 11 players on that list... Is that wrong?

C

Gets considerably worse if you take into account the fact that Cody Ceci is probably going to join them now that he's not on the Pens - he was terrible in Ottawa and Toronto. It was posted earlier in the thread, but it's still the projected opening night lineup...

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That defense has more ketchup than the Bobby Nich burger.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Gets considerably worse if you take into account the fact that Cody Ceci is probably going to join them now that he's not on the Pens - he was terrible in Ottawa and Toronto. It was posted earlier in the thread, but it's still the projected opening night lineup...

I'm not sure this is that big of a deal when you consider they have the great and powerful Mike Smith and his 39 year old groin backstopping them. I mean, what difference does it make if they are giving up 100 quality scoring chances a game when you have the master, the brick wall, the incredibly calm Mike Smith back there?

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Whenever you are feeling down, just look at the photo of Smith right at the end of game 4 this year.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And even then, some of those guys are probably being overpaid because their scoring doesn't offset the plays they allow the other way - scoring gets you paid, being responsible doesn't, even though the opposite is the way it should be in terms of winning. See Adam Pelech.

Exactly right. That was my point.... the models favor what the the modeler thinks are overall good aspects of the game, things that win hockey games, and goals do that... it also records stats that can be recorded easily and not subjective - like you were on the ice when a goal was scored against. It also misses things that are very hard to record (subjective), like a players positioning while defending, or their ability of predicting the play - hopefully these things are translated into other stats and recorded that way, but they aren't always captured properly.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Whenever you are feeling down, just look at the photo of Smith right at the end of game 4 this year.

Would you happen to have this photo?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

It also misses things that are very hard to record (subjective), like a players positioning while defending, or their ability of predicting the play

Not really. These things are only useful to the extent they a) decrease the amount of shots taken, or b) cause the shots that are taken to be taken in a less dangerous fashion. That's why we have shot heat maps (and obviously the shot location data that allows those maps to be created):



Incidentally, Dom Luszczyszyn came out with his top 10 worst contracts in the NHL today. Nurse didn't feature, because according to Dom the article was written before the deal was signed, but in the comments he said it probably would be somewhere in the 5-8 "worst" range.

Originally Posted by Dom Luszczyszyn

Actual negative value was around $42M (screwed up the chart in the tweet). Model views him a *little* better than Jones at the moment due to his last season being good and because he doesn't have many comps, his age curve is a bit more generous than it probably should be. I didn't really have time for a proper write-up before my vacation started, but I would reckon he's around the 5-8 range.

Fantastic stuff.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PegCityFlamesFan

Whenever you are feeling down, just look at the photo of Smith right at the end of game 4 this year.

For those of you living in Winnipeg, do they just project this image perpetually into everyone's brain to keep the population from killing themselves?

[CNeufeld]

Gets considerably worse if you take into account the fact that Cody Ceci is probably going to join them now that he's not on the Pens - he was terrible in Ottawa and Toronto. It was posted earlier in the thread, but it's still the projected opening night lineup...
[/QUOTE]

My heart swells with happiness...

C

[CaptainCrunch]

Da Futa

Spoiler!

Next season

New Coach to New GM - "We've got a lot of holes to fill after last years debacle. We need a new starting goalie, revamp the defense, probably prepare for the day coming soon that McDavid does his crying press conference and says that he promised Drai that he wouldn't do this"

GM - "Yup, lots of work to do and the sad thing is there isn't much in the farm that can help us."

Coach - "Yup, I took this job because my wire is addicted to handbags"

GM - "You know what would make my job easier? If the last idiot hadn't signed Nurse to a 9 million dollar 8 year untradible contract where he controls the movement"

Coach - "Yeah that'd be nice"

GM - "I frackin quit"

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You don't have to like xGA ... honestly I think it's a stat that will continue to evolve (definitions, weightings etc changing)

But it's hard to look past basic shot metrics and counting. There isn't anything wrong with a "model" that says you'd like your defenseman not to be at the bottom of the pile for giving up shots on goal (or shot attempts, or scoring chances).

Who you play with is part of it.

I think some felt that Tanev had his wheels come off, but it could be that his numbers were hurt carrying Hughes. I guess this year will help solve some of that.

Well, Nurse's XGA/60 numbers were middle of the pack the first year he played on the top pairing with Larsson.

The last three years his partners were Russell, Bear, and Barrie.

Russell, and Barrie in particular are beloved by the analytics community.


Why does Tanev get a rationalization and Nurse doesn't? I mean you admit yourself that XGA/60 is affected by teammates and situation. If we have to do a tonne of groundwork to explain why a stat is valid in certain cases then I don't see it as being that valid.

It's basically plus/minus at that point which has been dumped on for years.