[Rumour] Canadian Division, you say?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Given that small a sample size, it's not something I'd be trotting out as a killer argument.

The sample was not that small – 42 games.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So that .608 winning percentage gets you to a 99.7 point season, if you're calculating it the way I think you did. Given that small a sample size, it's not something I'd be trotting out as a killer argument.

Your point on the IN's and OUT's is a good one. Hard not to see that as an overall upgrade. Of course Valimaki was with the club last year, just injured. Someone could get injured this year too. Would they be an OUT?

He is an 'in' because he didn't play a game last year, so he is an addition to the lineup

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The sample was not that small – 42 games.

A half a season. I would call that small when you talk about career winning percentages.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He is an 'in' because he didn't play a game last year, so he is an addition to the lineup

Thanks for the insight.

There will be 'outs' due to injuries this next year. Yes we should be factoring in Valimaki but I also wouldn't expect fewer man games lost to injury next year, so the net effect of injuries could be negligible.

There is no one definitive way to measure impact of injuries on a team but by many accounts, Flames were impacted less by injuries than most teams. But that might not be a fluke either, as staying on the ice is an important attribute of a pro hockey player.

Here is a site that lets you look at impact of injuries many different ways.

https://nhlinjuryviz.blogspot.com/20...reakdowns.html

[Enoch Root]

Of course there will be injuries. But they are an unknowable variable going forward.

Still, you wanted to question the addition of Valimaki for some reason. Thus the post from me. Having Valimaki on the in list is completely valid and correct, even if the reason he was out last year was an injury.

Brodie and Hamonic out, Tanev and Valimaki in, as the major changes on the blueline.

But whatever.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Of course there will be injuries. But they are an unknowable variable going forward.

Still, you wanted to question the addition of Valimaki for some reason. Thus the post from me. Having Valimaki on the in list is completely valid and correct, even if the reason he was out last year was an injury.

Brodie and Hamonic out, Tanev and Valimaki in, as the major changes on the blueline.

But whatever.

Right. If the Flames suffer an injury to a core guy, yes, the likely numbers change. But it makes no sense to adjust for that now (plus I don't know that the loss of Valimaki last year = a loss of him this year).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

A half a season. I would call that small when you talk about career winning percentages.

‘Career winning percentages’ for coaches are a mirage. It's the players who actually win or lose the games. Todd McLellan had a great career winning percentage before he went to Edmonton.

The point is that THIS TEAM put up a .608 points percentage with this coach, and the changes in this team are generally believed to be a net positive. If you're trying to predict one year ahead for one team, then a 42-game sample with the same coach and three-quarters of the same players is highly significant.

[Bingo]

Strange Brew snapping two wet blankets at once!

(just having fun)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Of course there will be injuries. But they are an unknowable variable going forward.

Still, you wanted to question the addition of Valimaki for some reason. Thus the post from me. Having Valimaki on the in list is completely valid and correct, even if the reason he was out last year was an injury.

Brodie and Hamonic out, Tanev and Valimaki in, as the major changes on the blueline.

But whatever.

I didn’t question the addition of Valimaki. Read my post again, I acknowledged he is an add but I suspect in total, we’re not going to see a net reduction in impact injuries so there will be a mystery ‘out’ somewhere. Will the games gained from Valimaki be a positive? Undoubtedly.

But it’s why I don’t love this IN vs OUT analysis if you only consider injured players who will play more games due to injury.

Frankly when it comes to injury I suspect Flames have more downside risk than upside compared to previous season.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

‘Career winning percentages’ for coaches are a mirage. It's the players who actually win or lose the games. Todd McLellan had a great career winning percentage before he went to Edmonton.

The point is that THIS TEAM put up a .608 points percentage with this coach, and the changes in this team are generally believed to be a net positive. If you're trying to predict one year ahead for one team, then a 42-game sample with the same coach and three-quarters of the same players is highly significant.

We agree on the relevance of coaches win percentage. My take is that a coach who was on track for a 99 point season after only half a season isn’t much evidence of anything.

Look at Peters year over year. Brought back nearly identical team and the win percentage cratered.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Strange Brew snapping two wet blankets at once!

(just having fun)

That’s a nice expression. Can I use it?

[Bingo]

Oh man ...

this reads like a k-tel album of hits

numbers like ...

Canucks Team to Beat in Canadian Division

or who could forget ...

But barring any more major offseason moves, I’d argue that these Canucks would be the team to beat in an all-Canadian division.

or his classic ...

In my opinion, only the Canadiens can match Vancouver’s strength in the top-four on defence. Nate Schmidt, Alexander Edler, Tyler Myers and rising superstar Quinn Hughes round out a solid group.

or the comeback special ...

Vancouver doesn’t have the same level of star power as Edmonton (Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl) Toronto (John Tavares, Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner and William Nylander) or Winnipeg (Mark Scheifele, Patrik Laine, Blake Wheeler, Nikolaj Ehlers and Kyle Connor), but the top-six is still championship-caliber.

one close to his heart ...

The Canucks, quite simply, look like the most complete team in an all-Canadian division. Calgary and Edmonton lack depth in the bottom-six, and the Oilers especially are devoid of grade-A defencemen.

and finally ...

Vancouver isn’t a flawless team by any means. But they don’t have any glaring weaknesses at forward, on defence or in the crease compared to the other six Canadian teams. Add it all up, and the Canucks look like the team to beat in an all-Canadian division.

[Enoch Root]

Staples has got to be feeling pretty impotent after reading that display

[blender]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Staples has got to be feeling pretty impotent after reading that display

Oh, he'll double down I'm sure.

[Doctorfever]

I wonder how it will align. We might see hub cities instead of a Canadian division. Will be interesting to see how the season schedule goes.

[GordonBlue]

cool article from espn
https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...w-nhl-covid-19

discussion with Dr. Isaac Bogoch, who is an infectious diseases physician and scientist with the Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, who has consulted with both the NHL and Major League Soccer players' associations in helping them develop "return to play" protocols for COVID-19.

Love the term "Hygiene Theatre" that they use, i.e. going overboard with the spraying and the disinfecting, sometimes for show.

[MrMike]

NBA today had decided to start their season December 22nd

[the_only_turek_fan]

I am pumped to see the new look team. Hopefully we get a start January 1.

Random question:

Are player salaries prorated?

For instance if they play 41 games instead of 82, does a 10M player get 5M and then 20% goes into escrow so he gets 4M?

Is that correct?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I am pumped to see the new look team. Hopefully we get a start January 1.

Random question:

Are player salaries prorated?

For instance if they play 41 games instead of 82, does a 10M player get 5M and then 20% goes into escrow so he gets 4M?

Is that correct?

I don't think it's been decided yet, but I don't see how the league could go forward with paying full salaries.
It has to be prorated. If I was an owner, I'd rather not play the season if full salaries had to be paid with next to no revenue coming in.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I don't think it's been decided yet, but I don't see how the league could go forward with paying full salaries.
It has to be prorated. If I was an owner, I'd rather not play the season if full salaries had to be paid with next to no revenue coming in.

Second random question: what if revenue falls more than the 20% the players paid in escrow?

Do the owners eat that?