[Signing] Patrick Kane to Detroit

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Pretty forced narrative at this point to continue to rail against Kane.

For the acquisition cost? Worth it every day of the week for the Wings.

The above are things you say about serial (cereal?) point munchers who never come through when it matters like McDavid. We don't fling the same poo at 3x cup winners who've had the cup-clinching play on their stick.

Sustainable or unsustainable, he's walking the walk.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Kane has been far more productive than I expected but his defensive results have been flat-out atrocious of late and he's shooting roughly twice his typical rate at 5-on-5. Unless that metal hip turned him into the Terminator, this run is as unsustainable as it gets. Thoroughly reminiscent of the 2014 Avs or 2015 Flames. Sorry.

Maybe but he seems to be getting better as he goes along, 12 points in his last 8 games. Also the wings didn't sign him for his defense, they signed him to be a game breaker and with 4 GWG's and 7 assists on GWG's he's working out just fine.

[Enoch Root]

wish we had some unsustainable players

[jayswin]

I love Patty Kane

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Really it's no different than CP's favourite argument about how McDavid and Draisaitl are liabilities defensively.

2.75M for a guy putting up a ppg playing 17:46 a night is quite a bit different than that argument. And he's also played like 46 games past the 2nd round in the playoffs compared to the 4 losses for those other guys.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

2.75M for a guy putting up a ppg playing 17:46 a night is quite a bit different than that argument. And he's also played like 46 games past the 2nd round in the playoffs compared to the 4 losses for those other guys.

I get that Kane is not the greatest defensive player now, but playing $2.5M for such an offensive presence who knows what it takes to win down the stretch was really a gift from heaven for the Wings.

[kirant]

Coincidentally, one of those advanced stats posters just weighed in about Kane:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1761956475579019445

(He has a discussion with (I think - let me know if I'm wrong) TheScorpion in the replies. It's an interesting read and, in my mind, highlights some of the advantages and disadvantages of advanced stats.)

[Heavy Jack]

Was so happy to watch that OT live when it happened, the hush of anticipation that fell over the crowd when Kaner got the break was epic. What a finish, greatest American born forward hands down.

[Enoch Root]

You're all talking about Detroit. I'd say it was a pretty good signing.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Here’s the issue, Scorp.

You celebrated how right you were when Detroit was 1-6 and Kane started slow. You got everyone over the head with it on all platforms.

You can’t use that as evidence and scoreboard, then ignore when they are winning and he’ getting more points than anyone on the team.

It’s shows your bias, appears arrogant, and unwilling to engage in balanced conversation. It’s a turn off, and why 95% of the people will mock you for it.

Fwiw, I agree with most of what you are saying on the topic, but I’d recommend a fundamental change in conversation approach if you want to enjoy two way dialogue with other community members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

If you're covering sports as a profession, well im no expert but it appears to me as an outsider that has listened to many hours of media back and forth that being able to eat crow is pretty essential.

There will be many more instances when you'll be wrong (any one in sports for that matter). The more gracefully you can take the lumps and chuckle at it & yourself the better things will go imo.

In this industry where people make glorified guesses all the time, being gung ho about being right is a futile thing to cling on to. You'll fall on either side of that battle no matter how good your insights are.

It's all fun and games at the end of the day.

[TheScorpion]

For me, it's not so much about wanting to cling to being proven right, because there are so many more numbers at play than goals and points and I don't view the current proceedings as sustainable. I still feel a great degree of conviction about my original take. And — quite frankly — to me, having conversations with multiple people who disagree with a specific take isn't the same as repeating the same take over and over again. It's just the nature of discourse.

I thought Kane wouldn't be productive. Dead wrong, guilty as charged. I thought he wouldn't be effective. I still don't think he is. If that's arrogant of me, well, there's not much I can do about that.

[Matt Reeeeead]

To me it was arrogant to point to the initial 1-6 record and 2 points in 7 games as being justification. That you were correct, and then when the same metrics became opposite, and no longer align with your take, it’s painted as luck and unsustainable.

You can’t just pick and choose when the same data points are valid and when they can be written off as noise. It proves your bias, and underlying motive. Consistency is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

It’s shows your bias, appears arrogant, and unwilling to engage in balanced conversation. It’s a turn off, and why 95% of the people will mock you for it.

Fwiw, I agree with most of what you are saying on the topic, but I’d recommend a fundamental change in conversation approach if you want to enjoy two way dialogue with other community members.

Stop. This is corny.

He’s allowed to have a (wrong) opinion on a player that he backs up outside of basic counting stats. It’s not like he’s unwilling to have a conversation about it or that the conversation isn’t “balanced.”

Scorp is the last guy I’d call arrogant.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

To me it was arrogant to point to the initial 1-6 record and 2 points in 7 games as being justification. That you were correct, and then when the same metrics became opposite, and no longer align with your take, it’s painted as luck and unsustainable.

You can’t just pick and choose when the same data points are valid and when they can be written off as noise. It proves your bias, and underlying motive. Consistency is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well… they are 7-2-1 in their last 10 (Kane with 12pts in 8games) and he’s still calling him ineffective. That’s pretty consistent.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

To me it was arrogant to point to the initial 1-6 record and 2 points in 7 games as being justification. That you were correct, and then when the same metrics became opposite, and no longer align with your take, it’s painted as luck and unsustainable.

You can’t just pick and choose when the same data points are valid and when they can be written off as noise. It proves your bias, and underlying motive. Consistency is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right ... except the posters in favour of the Kane signing have done the same thing but in reverse. There are people who had a preconceived notion of the player being effective who didn't buy the early results and have jumped in on the more recent ones. That's just how the ballgame works. Feels like a bit of a double standard.

To me, my perspective hasn't changed because the only demonstrable difference with Kane of late is his shooting percentage. The rest is much like the last 5-ish years of his tenure in Chicago. If anything, I feel like I would be betraying my own integrity to change my opinion at this point in the face of the underlying results.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I get this side of the argument but I have to say — there is seldom a night that I don't watch hockey. I watch so much! A hilarious amount. And I'd be willing to bet you also haven't watched every one of Detroit's recent games and are relying on stats as well — namely, goals and points — for your argument. Which is fine! And I'm not even saying Kane hasn't been a great player. One of the best offensive wingers of all time.

It is easy to get caught up in the goals and assists, and it's understandable when DET is winning, but the numbers that I'm citing are predictive. When you're constantly being outshot against the weakest opponents in the league, you're probably going to start losing. That's not exactly a new idea. And with Kane on the ice in his latter years in Chicago, that's what happened. He scored a ton and gave up a ton more. And I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that it'll happen in Detroit, too.

At some point the actual results are what matters though. You can say it was luck or whatever, but the wins and making the playoffs count. Just like the Flames and Avs or whoever back then... it may have been a huge fluke that they had the season they had, but it happened.

[TheScorpion]

Yes, no doubt about it. Detroit is highly likely to make the playoffs and it's largely because they got hot and managed to find a bunch of saves and timely goals despite being outplayed consistently. That's just pure hockey. But it doesn't mean that I don't regard it is a cosmic outlier — and I think they're in for a rude awakening down the stretch, whether it's in March or if and when they do reach that first round.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

To me it was arrogant to point to the initial 1-6 record and 2 points in 7 games as being justification. That you were correct, and then when the same metrics became opposite, and no longer align with your take, it’s painted as luck and unsustainable.

You can’t just pick and choose when the same data points are valid and when they can be written off as noise. It proves your bias, and underlying motive. Consistency is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hot take: Kane won't help the Red Wings.

Detroit goes 1 and 6, and Kane only has 2 points.

"See? I told you!"

Detroit then goes 17, 9 and 2 with Kane getting 11 goals and 26 points in 21 games. 4 game winners, with 2 coming in OT.

"I'm still right!"

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Yes, no doubt about it. Detroit is highly likely to make the playoffs and it's largely because they got hot and managed to find a bunch of saves and timely goals despite being outplayed consistently. That's just pure hockey. But it doesn't mean that I don't regard it is a cosmic outlier — and I think they're in for a rude awakening down the stretch, whether it's in March or if and when they do reach that first round.

To me, there are two issues at hand:

1. You can't use a small sample of counting stats to prove yourself right, only to try to stop people from using a larger sample of counting stats to prove you wrong.

2. Advanced stats go out the window when it comes down to actual on-ice results. I don't know Kane's CORSI/Fenwick or his xGF%, but I do know that 26 points in 21 games is just what Detroit needed, and that his 4 GWGs alone equate to 8 points in the standings. He may regress, he may not regress. He may even get better, but the current takeaway is that he's already helped them all but secure a playoff spot.