[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blender

Why do we always have to take away the outlier season?
Good players make other good players even better. He was burying pucks from the slot every game. It's not like JG was banking them in off Lindholms ass! How many less assists do JG and MT have without him?
We don't need to make #### up.

lol exactly.

“If you take out this one players highest season, he’s not even on the list!!”

Like… no ####, that is true for almost everyone on that list. Players don’t look as good when you start removing stats where they’re at their best. Imagine that.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by blender

Why do we always have to take away the outlier season?
Good players make other good players even better. He was burying pucks from the slot every game. It's not like JG was banking them in off Lindholms ass! How many less assists do JG and MT have without him?
We don't need to make #### up.

It’s just a more measured way to do a statistical analysis so you can reasonably forecast what to expect from the player moving forward.

+61 skews the data pretty significantly, and those players are obviously long gone.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

It’s just a more measured way to do a statistical analysis so you can reasonably forecast what to expect from the player moving forward.

+61 skews the data pretty significantly, and those players are obviously long gone.

and Gaudreau was -33 without Lindholm

all the other guys on the list played with good players...most of them more often than Lindholm did

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by blender

Why do we always have to take away the outlier season?
Good players make other good players even better. He was burying pucks from the slot every game. It's not like JG was banking them in off Lindholms ass! How many less assists do JG and MT have without him?
We don't need to make #### up.

You don’t have to “take it away” but you should consider that in the full context of offering him $72mm carrying him into his mid to late 30s over 8 years and exiting a season with a notably worse performance than the one when those players were on his line. Because, you know, those players don’t play here anymore.

Seems kinda obvious to pay for anticipated future performance, which was my point you all intentionally missed in your eagerness to defend everything Flames, otherwise why not go offer Wayne Gretzky a contract?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by dino7c

and Gaudreau was -33 without Lindholm

all the other guys on the list played with good players...most of them more often than Lindholm did

I’m sorry are we signing Gaudreau?

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Speaking of narrative.

Take away the one outlier season Lindholm played with Gaudreau and Tkachuk, where he was +61, and his 5-year +/- is +30, and nowhere near the list you've laid out.

Gaudreau is - 21 in that same span. Tkachuk is + 43. Lindholm is pretty close to Tkachuk in that regard.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m sorry are we signing Gaudreau?

No, but the line comparison was made so it's relevant.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

It’s just a more measured way to do a statistical analysis so you can reasonably forecast what to expect from the player moving forward.

+61 skews the data pretty significantly, and those players are obviously long gone.

Removing one player’s best season, leaving everyone else’s alone, and leaving their worst season is not in any way a more measured approach to statistical analysis.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m sorry are we signing Gaudreau?

no but you acting like Gaudreau/Tkachuk are the only reason he put up those stats is totally flawed

By this logic the Flames should never sign anyone again because Gaudreau and Tkachuk won't be here

Bergeron: 134
D. Toews: 128
McAvoy: 120
Marchand: 109
MacKinnon: 106
Slavin: 105
Grzelcyk: 103
Tkachuk: 101
Lindholm:99
Makar: 93 (4 years)

Look at this list, which of these guys played with bad players again?
surely the intention would be to surround Lindholm with other quality players

[PepsiFree]

Have to take Bergeron/Marchand/McAvoy and MacKinnon/Makar/Toews off the list since they all played together so it’s statistically impossible to tell which of them wasn’t just benefitting from a better player.

[dino7c]

If anything Lindholm has played on worse teams and with worse linemates than anyone else on that list over the last 5 years

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

No, but the line comparison was made so it's relevant.

It’s not relevant because we aren’t signing him. The discussion at hand is whether we sign Lindholm and people are using 5 year old metrics with far different circumstances to justify it. So, no, not relevant at all.

[blender]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

It’s just a more measured way to do a statistical analysis so you can reasonably forecast what to expect from the player moving forward.

+61 skews the data pretty significantly, and those players are obviously long gone.

"More measured"
I love it. Nice work. Performance is what is measurable.
Good players have good games and bad games. Good seasons and bad seasons. We all know what Lindholm is. It's been discussed here at length.
He's a top 30 player at his position in the world for easily the next 5 years barring injury. Why wouldn't you want to sign him, especially if there is a soft trade market for him?
I'm not a fan of 8 years as a term, and if I was Conroy I'd pay more dollars for less term. I'm of the mind that Lindholm @ 9x5 is a valuable asset for winning hockey games.
If it has to be 8 years, I'm glad it's not my call. Some team will give him 8x8, not because GMs are idiots, which people love to say, but isnt true, but because that is market value for his services.

Would Lindholm be into 9.5 or even 10 on a 1-year or 2-year deal? Playing with Huberdeau in an offense built around them might be a good opportunity

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Have to take Bergeron/Marchand/McAvoy and MacKinnon/Makar/Toews off the list since they all played together so it’s statistically impossible to tell which of them wasn’t just benefitting from a better player.

Actually the point is that using 5 year history of plus minus just isn’t a good way to evaluate a player when it comes down to signing them for the next 8 years.

Should the Bruins sign Bergeron for an 8 year contract because his last 5 years plus minus was the best?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It’s not relevant because we aren’t signing him. The discussion at hand is whether we sign Lindholm and people are using 5 year old metrics with far different circumstances to justify it. So, no, not relevant at all.

lol this is the worst argument ever

add any player on that list to the current Flames and they will have worse plus minus numbers. Does that mean they are worse players and worth less?

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m sorry are we signing Gaudreau?

Maybe Huberdeau for Gaudreau one for one?

[Mr.Coffee]

I’m not sure why you keep intentionally missing the point.

LOL

how about reading what I’m saying? Should we sign all those guys to 8 year deals??????? That is the ####ing question. LOL.

[Sandman]

Lindy would've had a lot more points this season if dumb-ass Sutter wasn't hooked on making the Kadri-Huberdeau experiment work, when there clearly wasn't any chemistry there.

With the cap situation going forward, a Selke-quality Center who can put up the offence that Lindholm can is worth $9 mil per year. I don't think it would even be a debate if we didn't have the Huby and Kadri contracts on the books.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It’s not relevant because we aren’t signing him. The discussion at hand is whether we sign Lindholm and people are using 5 year old metrics with far different circumstances to justify it. So, no, not relevant at all.

Then posters shouldn't try downplay the contribution he made to hockeys best line in 21-22.

He's better then what he showed last year, I know that much for sure. Pretty sure he was disgruntled to start the year. He was terrible for the first 20 games or so.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Actually the point is that using 5 year history of plus minus just isn’t a good way to evaluate a player when it comes down to signing them for the next 8 years.

Should the Bruins sign Bergeron for an 8 year contract because his last 5 years plus minus was the best?

No, but it would have been fine when Bergeron was 29.