[News] The Athletic releases list of worst contracts (we’re #1!)

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I also don't think another 10 points are a stretch. Weren't 90% of his assists primary? As a little more talent joins the team he might pick up a few more secondary assists.

If Parekh is a star, you could see Huberdeau get 75+

Parekh has a ways to go to be a player like Q Hughes, but L Hutson did it.

Hughes averaged 22 mins a game and had 53 points in 68 games in his 1st year. 25 on the PP.

Parekh is younger, odds are it doesn't happen this year, but it could.

Flames get a bump on the PP and have a dman that is in the play a lot, Huberdeau is someone looking for that trailer that is never there with the Flames so far.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

If Parekh is a star, you could see Huberdeau get 75+

Parekh has a ways to go to be a player like Q Hughes, but L Hutson did it.

Hughes averaged 22 mins a game and had 53 points in 68 games in his 1st year. 25 on the PP.

Parekh is younger, odds are it doesn't happen this year, but it could.

Flames get a bump on the PP and have a dman that is in the play a lot, Huberdeau is someone looking for that trailer that is never there with the Flames so far.

That effect gets over stated.

The average NHL team has 222 powerplay opportunities last year. The Flames were 19th with a 21% rate which would result in 46.6 powerplay goals.

If the Parekh effect improved the Flames powerplay it wouldn't move to 1st in the league so say 14th (move of 5 spots). That gets you 24.8% and 5.5 more powerplay goals.

If Huberdeau is in on all of them it's 5 points.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I for one wasn’t even thinking about the Oilers and didn’t mentioned Nurse. I think “performance” is a flawed stat the way it’s used here. I’d bet Bennett’s post season performance isn’t included. And how is defensive play measured?

Then that's a flaw. I know players aren't technically paid for POs but really, that's not an accurate take.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That effect gets over stated.

The average NHL team has 222 powerplay opportunities last year. The Flames were 19th with a 21% rate which would result in 46.6 powerplay goals.

If the Parekh effect improved the Flames powerplay it wouldn't move to 1st in the league so say 14th (move of 5 spots). That gets you 24.8% and 5.5 more powerplay goals.

If Huberdeau is in on all of them it's 5 points.

But Huberdeau in his last 4 years in Florida was getting about 35 PP points per 82 games. About 19 per 82 games with the Flames.

He was on the ice for 35 PP for last year, top guys in the league were around 50.

If Parekh is a star and Huberdeau is on his PP, would the Flames consider PP1 playing more minutes? I think so. The Flames for the last few years have played PP2 close to PP1 and have shuffled the PP up a ton trying to find combinations that work.

a true #1 PP probably has Huberdeau on it and I bet has more than 5-point impact.

I also said Parekh will have a 5 on 5 impact. He isn't Q Hughes yet, but he is only 5 months younger than Quinn was his rookie year.

22 mins a night and nearly a PPG dman, impact is not overstated. Did I say it was an automatic that Huberdeau gets 75+. no but it is not 100% out of the question either.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I for one wasn’t even thinking about the Oilers and didn’t mentioned Nurse. I think “performance” is a flawed stat the way it’s used here. I’d bet Bennett’s post season performance isn’t included. And how is defensive play measured?

Originally Posted by Macho0978

But Huberdeau in his last 4 years in Florida was getting about 35 PP points per 82 games. About 19 per 82 games with the Flames.

He was on the ice for 35 PP for last year, top guys in the league were around 50.

If Parekh is a star and Huberdeau is on his PP, would the Flames consider PP1 playing more minutes? I think so. The Flames for the last few years have played PP2 close to PP1 and have shuffled the PP up a ton trying to find combinations that work.

a true #1 PP probably has Huberdeau on it and I bet has more than 5-point impact.

I also said Parekh will have a 5 on 5 impact. He isn't Q Hughes yet, but he is only 5 months younger than Quinn was his rookie year.

22 mins a night and nearly a PPG dman, impact is not overstated. Did I say it was an automatic that Huberdeau gets 75+. no but it is not 100% out of the question either.

For a long time Huberdeau wasn't used properly on the PP (and in fact he kind of changed his game just to make it work better). It improved somewhat after Lindholm was traded and the Kadri-Lindholm-Andersson triangle was no longer available.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Then that's a flaw. I know players aren't technically paid for POs but really, that's not an accurate take.

It's not a flaw, it's simply a constraint of the available data.

All NHL teams play 82 games. Not all NHL teams play playoff games, and not all playoff teams play the same number of games.

These models are just numbers, and sometimes you have to make concessions to make the data more consistent across the board.


There will always be players that beat the
projections and there will be players who fall short. The hope with the model is that as you accumulate historical data the variances get smaller and your model works with a higher degree of accuracy.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

For a long time Huberdeau wasn't used properly on the PP (and in fact he kind of changed his game just to make it work better). It improved somewhat after Lindholm was traded and the Kadri-Lindholm-Andersson triangle was no longer available.

Huberdeau was on the ice for 71% of the Flames PP goals. Most #1 PP guys are on the ice for over 80%. Draisaitl was on for 83% and missed 11 games, McDavid was on for 76% and missed 15 games.

The Flames haven't had a true PP1 since Tkachuk and Gaudreau were here.

Parekh could create a true PP1. If Huberdeau is on that PP (#1 in PP ice for forwards) a combination of more time on the ice, higher percent of PP goals scored by that unit and a higher overall percent adds up.

35 a year in Florida vs 19 with the Flames could be 10+ points alone.

[Badgers Nose]

Athletic is mostly garbage and click bait for fans in markets like Calgary. Not worth the $1 month I used to pay for it, IMO.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Their local coverage was better when it was Slavin.
But I largely don't purchase a sub for local stuff. I buy it for other coverage, including the prospect coverage. I really enjoy Wheeler's work.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Huberdeau was on the ice for 71% of the Flames PP goals. Most #1 PP guys are on the ice for over 80%. Draisaitl was on for 83% and missed 11 games, McDavid was on for 76% and missed 15 games.



The Flames haven't had a true PP1 since Tkachuk and Gaudreau were here.



Parekh could create a true PP1. If Huberdeau is on that PP (#1 in PP ice for forwards) a combination of more time on the ice, higher percent of PP goals scored by that unit and a higher overall percent adds up.



35 a year in Florida vs 19 with the Flames could be 10+ points alone.

I'm not sure how a 9-10% increase in goal share would result in 10+ more points for Huberdeau.

Huberdeau had 23 power play points last year. Assuming his goal share increases to the levels you want, that's only 2-3 more points on goal share.

The only way to push it higher is to score a lot more power play goals than we did last year, and I don't see the Flames scoring at a 28-30% clip, which is what it would take to make up the points you're claiming Parekh would contribute to Huberdeaus point totals.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

It's not a flaw, it's simply a constraint of the available data.

All NHL teams play 82 games. Not all NHL teams play playoff games, and not all playoff teams play the same number of games.

These models are just numbers, and sometimes you have to make concessions to make the data more consistent across the board.


There will always be players that beat the
projections and there will be players who fall short. The hope with the model is that as you accumulate historical data the variances get smaller and your model works with a higher degree of accuracy.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

If the constraint results in poor or misleading results, because it is eliminating key or valuable information, then yes, it is a flaw.

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If the constraint results in poor or misleading results, because it is eliminating key or valuable information, then yes, it is a flaw.

He never claims it includes postseason play and the data doesn't include any postseason data.

You have to take the data within the context that it's given. It's just numbers. It is just an approximation of value on regular season results vs factors like salary and term. It doesn't claim to be or need to be a comprehensive coverage of every single factor one can think of.

It is a model, not a declaration of facts.i don't know why people get so bent out of shape on something that the author never once claims to be the definitive answer with no room for interpretation.

Even this author raises concerns about his own model being too high or low on certain things all the time, from player projections to valuations of salary.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Athletic is mostly garbage and click bait for fans in markets like Calgary. Not worth the $1 month I used to pay for it, IMO.

Just cancelled today as my renewal was coming up in September. No beat reporter for the Flames and the other sports coverage is not enough to justify the $72/year they were going to bill me

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

He went from 52 to 62 points based largely on a 18.3 shooting percentage.

To expect another jump of between 13-23 points seems pretty unrealistic.

Especially since the Flames aren't covered with a bunch of offensively gifted players.

If a Marner had joined the team, maybe that would be possible.

But Huberdeau, his most offensively gifted linemate Kadri will be 35 when the season starts.

If they can keep up their existing production I'd be pretty happy.

Huberdeau did re-invent his game but points are often a reflection of a players linemates as well. 75 points is hard when you aren't playing on a gifted scoring line.

Huberdeau doesn't need Marner to increase point production. A full season of Coronato would make a huge difference.

Last season, Huberdeau's top linemate was Kadri and his second most minutes played was with Pospisil (427 minutes). Coronato joined the line later in the season (279 minutes with Huberdeau).

I think it is safe to say that if Huberdeau can keep driving his own play (28 goals) and supporting Kadri's scoring, then the upgrade from Pospisil's 4 goals to Coronato's 20+ goals will help Huberdeau's assist count go up. If things go really well, Coronato could hit 30+ goals and Huberdeau could end up back in the 60+ assist region.

At that point, I think Huberdeau is off of this list.

Interesting that Pettersson and his 15 goal season at $11.6M did not make it on the list. I would have highlighted that collapse before putting Bennett on there.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I think Huberdeau is near the bottom, or perhaps still at the very bottom. It is not a good contract, especially when you consider the buyout on it. This makes it SLIGHTLY worse than the Pettersson deal, though I guess we will see how Pettersson produces this upcoming season. Huberdeau seems stuck in the 60's, but he has also really changed as a player, and plays a style of game that helps Calgary in other areas that aren't captured enough in any valuation. You still get paid to produce in this league, and Huberdeau is paid very handsomely, so there isn't anyway around it.


What I do think, however, is that 2 years have ticked-off this deal, the salary cap is going up dramatically, and in another 2 more season, I bet he isn't in the top 10 worst deals, and maybe won't even be in the top 20 by that time. There is going to be a lot of dumb money thrown around soon, those years will keep ticking off on Huberdeau, and with an injection of youth and skill on this team, Huberdeau might see an uptick himself and end up as a PPG player soon.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

I'm not sure how a 9-10% increase in goal share would result in 10+ more points for Huberdeau.

Huberdeau had 23 power play points last year. Assuming his goal share increases to the levels you want, that's only 2-3 more points on goal share.

The only way to push it higher is to score a lot more power play goals than we did last year, and I don't see the Flames scoring at a 28-30% clip, which is what it would take to make up the points you're claiming Parekh would contribute to Huberdeaus point totals.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

It can be more than 9-10%. Some of the top PP forwards in PP points were on the ice for 85% or higher. Some of these players also played on teams that scored 10 to 20 more PP goals than the Flames did.

Huberdeau used to get 35ish PP points a year (last 4 years in Florida).

PP alone isn't unreasonable to say with Parekh on a true PP1 with increased minutes and increased production that Huberdeau could get 30 PP points next year. 7 points for just the PP puts him at 69 points. It's not possible to get 6 more 5 EV points. his best EV point total with the Flames is 40, he had 35 last year.

Over 20 forwards had 29 PP points last year. 30 is good, but not unrealistic.

[Party Elephant]

I won't be shocked if Huberdeau Hossa's the last few years of this contract.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I think Huberdeau is near the bottom, or perhaps still at the very bottom. It is not a good contract, especially when you consider the buyout on it. This makes it SLIGHTLY worse than the Pettersson deal, though I guess we will see how Pettersson produces this upcoming season. Huberdeau seems stuck in the 60's, but he has also really changed as a player, and plays a style of game that helps Calgary in other areas that aren't captured enough in any valuation. You still get paid to produce in this league, and Huberdeau is paid very handsomely, so there isn't anyway around it.


What I do think, however, is that 2 years have ticked-off this deal, the salary cap is going up dramatically, and in another 2 more season, I bet he isn't in the top 10 worst deals, and maybe won't even be in the top 20 by that time. There is going to be a lot of dumb money thrown around soon, those years will keep ticking off on Huberdeau, and with an injection of youth and skill on this team, Huberdeau might see an uptick himself and end up as a PPG player soon.

The contract is still bad but putting up a 28 goal season certainly turns the Huberdeau conversation around. Just from a goal scoring perspective, he is now in the same club as Horvat, Eichel, DeBrusk, and Hintz.

Giving him Coronato as a linemate will help his assist count go up and should give Huberdeau more space to work with. Other teams will not be able to focus on him so much if there are other goal scoring threats on the ice.

At that point, the only thing missing would be better support from the blue line... which I do not think we are going to see this season.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

He never claims it includes postseason play and the data doesn't include any postseason data.

You have to take the data within the context that it's given. It's just numbers. It is just an approximation of value on regular season results vs factors like salary and term. It doesn't claim to be or need to be a comprehensive coverage of every single factor one can think of.

It is a model, not a declaration of facts.i don't know why people get so bent out of shape on something that the author never once claims to be the definitive answer with no room for interpretation.

Even this author raises concerns about his own model being too high or low on certain things all the time, from player projections to valuations of salary.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

Yes, it's just a model. And a model is just numbers.

And a model can be flawed. Why is that difficult to accept?

[Hockey-and_stuff]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, it's just a model. And a model is just numbers.



And a model can be flawed. Why is that difficult to accept?

It's am imperfect model. I think I've already conceded that point. It will never cover every variable because you can't accurately turn some variances like playoff performance into discrete data points.

I think we're agreeing with each other on everything except some of the vocabulary around the model, and maybe how people should interact with it.

For me, it's an interesting tool that has sparked some debate, which is fun !

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to think the model is worthless because it's missing down factors you find very important. Which is fine, but I'm just seeing things a different way.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk