[Rumour] Giordano Extension. Kypreos: Starting point is $72 million over 8 years

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, that looked moronic to me as well. But it all makes sense in the light of Lambert's general low opinion of Kris Russell:

From article:

The Flames don't really have any top-tier offensive talents (both Monahan and Gaudreau, and maybe Bennett, might turn into that a year or three down the road, but they're certainly not there yet)

It's mind boggling that he just neglects to mention Hudler (8th in league points). Actually not really - Lambert has the terribly unprofessional habit of cherry picking stats to backup whatever argument he's making. Also considering that Monahan and Gaudreau were 2/3 of the best line in the NHL for the last 25 games or so of the season, it's interesting that they're "certainly" not top-tier offensive talents. 33rd and 41st in points respectively. Monahan 15th in the league for goals.

[FBI]

Let's count how many unnecessary condescending statements he makes about the Flames in one article:

- There was the housekeeping associated with re-signing a few restricted free agents (on contracts that ranged from solid to irresponsible)
- Apart from grabbing Michael Frolik to shore up a not-great forward group on Free Agent Frenzy Day
- Several of those guys you bid adieu without a second thought. Let Jones, Colborne, Byron, Russell, and Ramo go without a second thought
- in addition to the fact that a lot of the guys on the roster are signed to baffling deals.
- but the problems linger into today, when they're more willing to spend because of last year's improbable, unrepeatable performance.
- Indeed, even after all these improvements they're maybe/maybe not a league-average club based on the numbers.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Anyone think Russell would accept #4 D man money to stay in Calgary? I kind of think he would want to try and get 2/3 D man money from someone as a UFA. I don't know if the flames could afford to pay him that.

No one - including Kris Russell - thinks he is a #2 defenseman.

I have little doubt that he will sign a fair-for-both-sides, #4-type deal with the Flames. Something like 3 years at $3.5 - 4.5M (depending on how this season shakes out).

By all accounts, he wants to stay in Calgary.

[Freeway]

They were one of the NHL's worst possession teams last year and made the playoffs on the wings of league-average goaltending and an insane shooting percentage. Admittedly, the additions they made will almost definitely improve their possession numbers from "nearly league worst" into the middle third of the league, probably. But won't their shooting percentages potentially drop into that middle third, too?

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No one - including Kris Russell - thinks he is a #2 defenseman.

I have little doubt that he will sign a fair-for-both-sides, #4-type deal with the Flames. Something like 3 years at $3.5 - 4.5M (depending on how this season shakes out).

By all accounts, he wants to stay in Calgary.

I adore Russell's game, but they cannot afford to give him much more than Matt Stajan money to stay.

[heep223]

The Flames have a top 3 D group in the league, if not the best. Even with an average forward group, how does that make them "maybe/maybe not a league-average club"? What has spawned this guy's hatred of the Flames?

[GioforPM]

I wonder (a) what he thinks a top tier offensive talent is (why do I think he figures Eberle and Hall are in that group) and (b) how many of those guys he thinks good teams usually have. The Ducks have two top tier offensive talents and a bunch of useful guys.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Freeway

They were one of the NHL's worst possession teams last year and made the playoffs on the wings of league-average goaltending and an insane shooting percentage. Admittedly, the additions they made will almost definitely improve their possession numbers from "nearly league worst" into the middle third of the league, probably. But won't their shooting percentages potentially drop into that middle third, too?

Probably. But before just assuming that it will, it is worth asking why it was high.

As has been discussed multiple times on CP, the Flames forego shots in an attempt to garner better scoring chances. In particular, they really seem to favour cross-ice setups. And there have been some good articles recently, showing that not all shots are the same and that some, such as cross-ice setups, result in a much higher shooting percentage than other shots do.

We shall see what this season brings - both in terms of shooting percentages, and in terms of style of play.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I adore Russell's game, but they cannot afford to give him much more than Matt Stajan money to stay.

Who would you compare him to, as a #4, UFA-age defenseman in his prime?

How many of those comparables are only making $3M (on recently signed deals)?

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Probably. But before just assuming that it will, it is worth asking why it was high.

As has been discussed multiple times on CP, the Flames forego shots in an attempt to garner better scoring chances. In particular, they really seem to favour cross-ice setups. And there have been some good articles recently, showing that not all shots are the same and that some, such as cross-ice setups, result in a much higher shooting percentage than other shots do.

We shall see what this season brings - both in terms of shooting percentages, and in terms of style of play.

Definitely. And I don't think anybody can say with certainty (a) how much the Flames shooting percentage will regress or (b) what the impact of adding Dougie Hamilton and balancing the defensive group will have to the team's possession stats.

But historically, teams with shooting percentages as high as the Flames' in 2014-15 typically have seen fairly substantial drops in the next season - even taking into account the tactics that led to those shooting percentages.

It's going to be a fascinating season.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Who would you compare him to, as a #4, UFA-age defenseman in his prime?

How many of those comparables are only making $3M (on recently signed deals)?

I'd compare him to a younger Andrew Ference. He can play for stretches in your top 4 and do ok. But he's more of a good 5.

[Enoch Root]

Bieksa (34) just signed for $4M and Beauchemin (35) just signed for $4.5M

Neither of those guys is more than a #4 at this point (if that)

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Freeway

They were one of the NHL's worst possession teams last year and made the playoffs on the wings of league-average goaltending and an insane shooting percentage. Admittedly, the additions they made will almost definitely improve their possession numbers from "nearly league worst" into the middle third of the league, probably. But won't their shooting percentages potentially drop into that middle third, too?

Potentially. Based on statistics that only show the past and are in no way indicative of future performance, sure. Potentially, maybe the Flames top scorers (Monahan, Hudler and Gaudreau) are just people with accurate shots and opportunistic play styles. Hudler and Gaudreau's ability to transition turnovers into prime scoring opportunities with a guy like Monahan who has an uncanny ability to find the 3 square feet on the ice where he can score from (none of those abilities have any stats that can possibly track them), and then combine that with Hudler/Gaudreau's ridiculous passing ability and vision (another ability that has no stat), I really see no reason why any of those guys should regress much if at all. In fact, it could be argued that the younger two can only improve.

That's with no mention of Hamilton who, like Brodie, Giordano, Wideman and Russell, can be an offensive catalyst as well (that means there will be at least 1 high-end defensemen - regardless of Lambert's ridiculously off-base comments on Russell - on the ice literally every shift). And a full year of Bennett, likely with a veteran winger in Frolik on his side to create space and be a finisher.

[Mattman]

Do we really trust Kypreos?

Like come on this is the guy who confirmed ALL of Calgary's 2015 picks were going one way in return for Hamilton.
Don't get me wrong he's a great mind and is very smart on hockey but when he goes all Daren Dreger trying to break the news, it makes him look like a fool.

But that aside I think Gio can be a force for this team and provide leadership as long as he's here, kinda like Conroy fading out his last couple years. Sign him high for 2-3 years and revisit when its up. Or if he wants long term have the contract drop out the final years.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Potentially. Based on statistics that only show the past and are in no way indicative of future performance, sure. Potentially, maybe the Flames top scorers (Monahan, Hudler and Gaudreau) are just people with accurate shots and opportunistic play styles. Hudler and Gaudreau's ability to transition turnovers into prime scoring opportunities with a guy like Monahan who has an uncanny ability to find the 3 square feet on the ice where he can score from (none of those abilities have any stats that can possibly track them), and then combine that with Hudler/Gaudreau's ridiculous passing ability and vision (another ability that has no stat), I really see no reason why any of those guys should regress much if at all. In fact, it could be argued that the younger two can only improve.

That's with no mention of Hamilton who, like Brodie, Giordano, Wideman and Russell, can be an offensive catalyst as well (that means there will be at least 1 high-end defensemen - regardless of Lambert's ridiculously off-base comments on Russell - on the ice literally every shift). And a full year of Bennett, likely with a veteran winger in Frolik on his side to create space and be a finisher.

True. But at the same time, based on the (admittedly small) historical sample size, you can understand the advanced stats community's hesitance in proclaiming the greatness of the Flames. If history suggested that I had a medical condition that had a 95% chance of impending death, no matter how much I felt I could be the exception or thought the historical sample was flawed or skewed, I'd still hedge my bets a bit.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Mattman

Like come on this is the guy who confirmed ALL of Calgary's 2015 picks were going one way in return for Hamilton.

No.. he confirmed all Calgary was sending was picks, no players.

[Enoch Root]

Shooting percentage is useful, because it helps us assess the number of goals a team might score. But we have to remember that it is only one aspect of that analysis.

After his rookie season, a lot of people were suggesting that Monahan's shooting percentage of 15.7% was likely to drop and, as a result, he would have a tough time replicating his 22-goal rookie season.

I argued that he didn't have to maintain the 15.7% - he simply needed to shoot more (he only had 140 shots as a rookie).

It turns out he did shoot more - 191 to be exact. So he could have replicated the 22 goals with a shooting percentage of 11.5%. (However, he actually improved his shooting percentage at the same time).

Point being, depending on the circumstances, sometimes you can maintain your goal total, despite the shooting percentage dropping.

I believe the Flames as a team are in a similar situation this year. Sure, a few of the guys (like Bouma for instance) may see their percentages drop, but I think - as a team - they are likely to take more shots.

And at the end of the day, I don't care what their shooting percentage is, I care how many goals they score. And IMO, they are set to score more goals than last year (not less).

[FBI]

Anybody playing with Johnny Hockey is going to have a higher shooting percentage I think..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Freeway

True. But at the same time, based on the (admittedly small) historical sample size, you can understand the advanced stats community's hesitance in proclaiming the greatness of the Flames. If history suggested that I had a medical condition that had a 95% chance of impending death, no matter how much I felt I could be the exception or thought the historical sample was flawed or skewed, I'd still hedge my bets a bit.

I would be more inclined to accept their hesitance, and agree with them, if the evidence (the way they play) were more supportive of the conclusion.

I have yet to see any 'advanced stats community' members make any acknowledgement to style of play or the evidence supporting cross-ice plays and such.

All I hear is people bleating on one stat like it is irrefutable gospel. And that shows me that they (at least some of them) don't understand stats at all.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Freeway

True. But at the same time, based on the (admittedly small) historical sample size, you can understand the advanced stats community's hesitance in proclaiming the greatness of the Flames. If history suggested that I had a medical condition that had a 95% chance of impending death, no matter how much I felt I could be the exception or thought the historical sample was flawed or skewed, I'd still hedge my bets a bit.

Sure I can see why the skepticism, but your analogy to a terminal illness is exactly what (IMO) is wrong with a lot of the "advanced stats community". In your situation ALL you can do is hope. There is generally nothing you can do to battle you're way into that 5%. You can't look back at your own case to see where you went wrong and what you can do to improve your chances of being in the 5%.

In sports, you can. You can improve your chances of not regressing by working on the things that had you in those spots in the first place. To be under the assumption that all these statistics will revert back to the mean has you under the assumption that none of the other (pretty much infinite) other factors will change. Only their shooting percentage and, thus, they will score less. A teams combined shooting percentage is pretty useless, because certain players will affect it differently either positively or negatively. This again gets lumped into an average that is just not indicative of the play of the team. There's nothing average about anyone in the NHL. All of them have skills that defy the average, hence why they are top-level athletes. To assume someone like Gaudreau's or Monahan's shooting percentage will regress to an average assumes that they are average shooters, which they are not. It also assumes that they will take no strides to improve this part (and others) of their game, which they do. And then, as mentioned, it doesn't take into account the affect that new team members (positively or negatively) may have on those events. You can't do a bunch of exercises that will potentially improve your terminal illness, but if you spend 2 hours a day taking faceoffs, your faceoff percentage is likely to improve.

The stats are an interesting way to look back at what happened and to tell you what needs to be improved on for sustained success, and that's exactly why they can't predict the future. Because their existence means they can be reacted to and thus the possible outcomes are constantly changing.

Think about the article by Quick about top shooters. Some of them are because they literally power the puck past the goaltender. Some of them are because they can shoot at full (or close to) velocity from different stick positions. Some of them are because they have deceptive body movements and so it makes it difficult to predict where they shoot. We don't even have individual players average shot velocity, and you'd have to combine that with their average shooting percentage, what goalie their facing (and all of their individual averages on how good they are on glove/blocker/low shots, moving sided-to-side), what defenseman (again with their individual stats) they have to shoot through, how much of a threat their teammate is (which at every individual shot will be different depending on who that player is, where he is on the ice, how long theyve been out there, etc) how often they have to face Jonathan Quick vs Ben Scrivens, etc.. And even then, you'd only get an average of what they MIGHT do.