Francis: Backlund contract talks heating up. Ask is around $5 mil x 5 or 6 years

[Poe969]

No, I didn't ask what his fancy stats were I asked you to tell me about the fancy stats. I've asked a lot of people about corsi and fenwick and all these other things and the most common answer is "it's complicated" followed by "I don't really know everything about it..."

To me, fancy stats are about as useful as +/- I'm sure they're not completely useless but I don't think they really matter much at all. A lot of hockey was played before the introduction of fancy stats and I'm sure a lot of teams still don't really care too much about those fancy stats...except maybe the coyotes! Being a fancy stat master GM is really helping that team make huge strides!

Some stats that are more important than +/- or all the fancy stats in the world are goals & assists and wins & losses. Backlund had a really good year last year and I know people are saying that he's on pace for about the same but I don't think he'll get there. He seems to have cooled off a lot and his play just isn't as good as it was last year. But again, that's just my opinion (and some others too I guess). My whole point is that having Backlund as the team's second best center isn't going to get the team far. Management has to find a way to either add someone who can help drive this team or replace Backlund with someone who can.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Poe969

No, I didn't ask what his fancy stats were I asked you to tell me about the fancy stats. I've asked a lot of people about corsi and fenwick and all these other things and the most common answer is "it's complicated" followed by "I don't really know everything about it..."

To me, fancy stats are about as useful as +/- I'm sure they're not completely useless but I don't think they really matter much at all. A lot of hockey was played before the introduction of fancy stats and I'm sure a lot of teams still don't really care too much about those fancy stats...except maybe the coyotes! Being a fancy stat master GM is really helping that team make huge strides!

Some stats that are more important than +/- or all the fancy stats in the world are goals & assists and wins & losses. Backlund had a really good year last year and I know people are saying that he's on pace for about the same but I don't think he'll get there. He seems to have cooled off a lot and his play just isn't as good as it was last year. But again, that's just my opinion (and some others too I guess). My whole point is that having Backlund as the team's second best center isn't going to get the team far. Management has to find a way to either add someone who can help drive this team or replace Backlund with someone who can.

It’s not that complicated. Corsi is a measure of shots/shot attempts while you’re on ice versus shots/shot attempts against. Fenwick is similar except in how it counts some of it. It’s really not that complicated. Offensive zone starts are pretty simple. On ice shooting percentage is pretty simple. If you want a more detailed explanation then go ahead and use that search bar and find out, something you clearly have never done or you wouldn’t make up something about people saying ‘it’s complicated’.

And ‘people are saying he is on pace for about the same’ points as last year is hilarious. No one is ‘saying’ it like it’s some opinion. He is on pace, objectively. Any mental wrangling you do to convince yourself otherwise is your own problem.

What a ridiculous statement.

[jonkaupp]

Corsi and Fenwick are far from perfect but a big strength they have is determining who is having a positive effect on a game, and when you contrast them with zone starts you can really start to point out defensive stars. Backlund is still an elite level defensive player with a pretty good offensive game. People saying his offensive game is down are objectively wrong, the only thing that is down is his shooting percentage which, as most know involves some luck. If his shooting percentage had been the same this year as the last couple then he’d be on pace for a career year offensively. Instead he’s just gonna end up around where he did last year. People saying his defensive game is down simply have no way to back that up other using a garbage stat. He’s a no brainer signing at 5m.

[bubbsy]

If we are to assume last year was Backlund's offensive peak, and agree he is elite defensively.

What is a comparable player that got paid for defensive prowess that is about a 0.5 pts/gm offensively?

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

If we are to assume last year was Backlund's offensive peak, and agree he is elite defensively.

What is a comparable player that got paid for defensive prowess that is about a 0.5 pts/gm offensively?

Frolik?

Give Backs an additional 500k because he is a C?

5 years at $4.8M?

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Frolik?

Give Backs an additional 500k because he is a C?

5 years at $4.8M?

Well his offensive peak is also higher and he’s a better player defensively as well (not a shot at Frolik), and then a center as you pointed out. I bet Backlund would approach 30m/5 years on the open market, so 5m would be a hometown discount that we should be estatic about.

He’s also better than a .6 pt/game player for two years now, not a half a point

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

If we are to assume last year was Backlund's offensive peak, and agree he is elite defensively.

What is a comparable player that got paid for defensive prowess that is about a 0.5 pts/gm offensively?

Jordan Staal? He's the first line C on Carolina but he is about the same production wise as Backlund and his advanced stats are similar over his career. He's being paid $6M, but I suppose it's a bit skewed because of his ranking on his own team.

Derek Stepan gets $6.5 and his strengths are similar to Backlund. Once again, though, he is a 1C on his team.

Maybe Anisimov? A 2C who is great defensively and not bad offensively. $4.5M

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

It’s not that complicated. Corsi is a measure of shots/shot attempts while you’re on ice versus shots/shot attempts against. Fenwick is similar except in how it counts some of it. It’s really not that complicated. Offensive zone starts are pretty simple. On ice shooting percentage is pretty simple. If you want a more detailed explanation then go ahead and use that search bar and find out, something you clearly have never done or you wouldn’t make up something about people saying ‘it’s complicated’.

And ‘people are saying he is on pace for about the same’ points as last year is hilarious. No one is ‘saying’ it like it’s some opinion. He is on pace, objectively. Any mental wrangling you do to convince yourself otherwise is your own problem.

What a ridiculous statement.

Ok great, now this is one of the big things that gets me about fancy stats people; they usually say that +/- is a terrible stat that should be banished because it's not good. Corsi measures shots instead of goals doesn't it? It's pretty much the same thing isn't it? shot attempts against vs. goals against. When you strip them down to their bare bones, they're very close to each other and they're both about as useful as the other (not very). Fenwick, as you said, is similar except how it counts some of it. Offensive zone starts, shooting percentage..it's pretty simiple right? Well how is it really that different from Fenwick or +/-? They're all pretty garbage but because one is a more complicated garbage it's supposed to be better?

As for Backlund being on pace for 50 points being fact, I guess you're right because right now he is. The thing is that he has started looking more and more like the Backlund of 2 years ago instead of last year's Backlund. Every game that goes by where he isn't scoring or putting up points his average goes down. So as time goes on and he keeps putting up less and less points his average will go down. Now you could say he may increase his scoring and someone else will say he'll decrease his scoring. One will raise his average and one will lower his average, it's not that complicated. That's not "mental wrangling" or anyone's problem. You're right about his point totals right now and no one is debating that but some of us are doubting he keeps up that pace. For the past almost month or so, he's looked slower and less effective so I think he won't score as much.

I don't know why you're taking things so personal and making snide remarks, it really isn't called for. You have your opinion and I have mine. You seem to think that he's amazing and I think he's good. If you can't have a conversation with people about different points of view and you're going to get defensive about things, maybe a forum where people express their different points of view isn't a great place for you.

I don't think anyone here is saying Backlund is garbage, we can all agree that he's good. I'd love to keep him on the team but I think that the team needs to improve to make the playoffs and go on a run.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Tell me you did not just claim +/- is a garbage stat while laying your defense of that statement with “fancy stats” as a basis? +/- is a pretty concrete stat, open to little interpretation. You were either on the ice for a goal scored for or against, or you were not. It is an absolute measure not open to interpretation. Conversely, many of those fancy stats are based on unrelated events, events that are extremely subjective and inconsistent in collection method. All it takes is one group of off ice officials to incorrectly report data - hello Edmonton and Boston - and the data becomes useless. The fact that they link two unrelated events is problematic enough, but the impurity of the data brings the validity of any findings into serious question.

I get why people don’t like +/-. At times it is unfair because a guy gets dinged during a line change. But it is very useful in looking at a team and discovering who is consistently on the ice for more goals against on a consistent basis. It is the batting strikeouts stat of hockey.

The ditch to ditch mentality on this site just kills me some days.

It's not a useless stat, I like to know when players are on the ice for goals against then goals for.

However it's not the best stat available anymore because it doesn't take into account save percentage or shooting percentage of the players on the ice. You can get outplayed often but for whatever reason get lucky with your goaltender bailing you out and have a decent plus minus.

If that player has a bad corsi number you wonder, but even that in the Kris Russell defense could mean they are weak shots.

Then you go to scoring chances, where it's pretty hard to hide. If you get owned in scoring chance splits you have to be at least part of the problem.

Backlund is consistently top five on the team in CF% and HDCF% splits.

[jonkaupp]

Not gonna quote all that crap but... Backlund has 7 points in his last ten games, meanwhile you say that every game he’s playing is chipping away at his pace. You say I can’t handle the conversation, ya maybe this one is getting to me because it is so full of objectively foolish ####. I do find things like that pretty annoying. You know how long it took to disprove your latest claim? Like come on, maybe put a little thought into what you’re posting and I won’t have to quickly tear it apart.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Ok great, now this is one of the big things that gets me about fancy stats people; they usually say that +/- is a terrible stat that should be banished because it's not good. Corsi measures shots instead of goals doesn't it? It's pretty much the same thing isn't it? shot attempts against vs. goals against. When you strip them down to their bare bones, they're very close to each other and they're both about as useful as the other (not very). Fenwick, as you said, is similar except how it counts some of it. Offensive zone starts, shooting percentage..it's pretty simiple right? Well how is it really that different from Fenwick or +/-? They're all pretty garbage but because one is a more complicated garbage it's supposed to be better?

Well, no. Goals against can reflect poor goaltending, unlucky plays, stuff like last night's last two goals.

Whereas shots and shot attempts aren't a measure of offensive end success - they are a measure of how much time is being spent in the offensive zone. And therefore not the defensive zone. When you combine them with looking at zone starts, you get a picture of whether a player is transitioning well from defense to offence and then spending time at the right end of the ice.

Over a season you win games by being in the other team's end most of the time.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Poe969

No, I didn't ask what his fancy stats were I asked you to tell me about the fancy stats. I've asked a lot of people about corsi and fenwick and all these other things and the most common answer is "it's complicated" followed by "I don't really know everything about it..."

To me, fancy stats are about as useful as +/- I'm sure they're not completely useless but I don't think they really matter much at all. A lot of hockey was played before the introduction of fancy stats and I'm sure a lot of teams still don't really care too much about those fancy stats...except maybe the coyotes! Being a fancy stat master GM is really helping that team make huge strides!

Just because many don't take the time to understand "fancy stats" doesn't make them any less relevant.

I'd be shocked if every team doesn't look at a whole host of fancy stats, not just the Coyotes.

Calgary employs a full time person who in charge of these matters, and others on staff pitch in and help various aspects of those stats.

They matter very much. They can tell you if a team has been getting its fair share of randomness and is likely to get better or worse. Teams seldom get results materially different than their fancy stats suggest for very long, but in an age where teams are so close to each other, and the margins are all so slim, randomness will likely determine at the end of the day who wins the Stanley Cup.

There was a time when certain teams where clearly better than others, and their chances of winning the cup exceeded others by a reasonable margin. Teams like the old Canadians, Islanders, Oilers, even the more recent Hawk teams (first 2 SC's), were better than everyone.

Now, there are many teams who are within spitting distance of each other. The simple bounce of the puck will go along way in determining who advances in the playoffs and who sits at home.

[Sutter4Mayor]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The ditch to ditch mentality on this site just kills me some days.

I agree. And I think you're due for a stick toss.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Ok great, now this is one of the big things that gets me about fancy stats people; they usually say that +/- is a terrible stat that should be banished because it's not good. Corsi measures shots instead of goals doesn't it? It's pretty much the same thing isn't it? shot attempts against vs. goals against. When you strip them down to their bare bones, they're very close to each other and they're both about as useful as the other (not very). Fenwick, as you said, is similar except how it counts some of it. Offensive zone starts, shooting percentage..it's pretty simiple right? Well how is it really that different from Fenwick or +/-? They're all pretty garbage but because one is a more complicated garbage it's supposed to be better?

As for Backlund being on pace for 50 points being fact, I guess you're right because right now he is. The thing is that he has started looking more and more like the Backlund of 2 years ago instead of last year's Backlund. Every game that goes by where he isn't scoring or putting up points his average goes down. So as time goes on and he keeps putting up less and less points his average will go down. Now you could say he may increase his scoring and someone else will say he'll decrease his scoring. One will raise his average and one will lower his average, it's not that complicated. That's not "mental wrangling" or anyone's problem. You're right about his point totals right now and no one is debating that but some of us are doubting he keeps up that pace. For the past almost month or so, he's looked slower and less effective so I think he won't score as much.

I don't know why you're taking things so personal and making snide remarks, it really isn't called for. You have your opinion and I have mine. You seem to think that he's amazing and I think he's good. If you can't have a conversation with people about different points of view and you're going to get defensive about things, maybe a forum where people express their different points of view isn't a great place for you.

I don't think anyone here is saying Backlund is garbage, we can all agree that he's good. I'd love to keep him on the team but I think that the team needs to improve to make the playoffs and go on a run.

There is a lot of luck that goes into hockey. Corsi exists based on the idea that, the more shot attempts you generate when you're on the ice, the better your puck possession, and ultimately, the better it is for your team.

You might argue that not all shot attempts are created equal. That's very true. But over a large sample size, shot quality (that is, how good was that scoring opportunity) normalizes towards a mean, which makes it more reasonable to compare one player to another.

Now, this says nothing about how good the player is at shooting the puck, etc. Typically however, you will see that the best players in the league have a higher on ice shooting percentage. These individual puck skills are why somebody like Backlund isn't a top scorer in the league. But he creates a lot of quality opportunities for himself and his linemates while minimizing opportunities for the other team.

I hope now you can understand why Corsi is still the best predicator of team success and why +/- isn't nearly as valuable.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Well his offensive peak is also higher and he’s a better player defensively as well (not a shot at Frolik), and then a center as you pointed out. I bet Backlund would approach 30m/5 years on the open market, so 5m would be a hometown discount that we should be estatic about.

He’s also better than a .6 pt/game player for two years now, not a half a point

And as for what he would get on the open market, that's not relevant at all. On the open market Brouwer got 4.5 million! If he hits the open market he will likely be over paid like most UFA's who hit free agency.

And over the last 2 years he was better than .6 points per game but the rest of the years he's about a .4 point per game player. You can't really just pick the years you want to take an average of. He hit his offensive peak last year, the year before that was even a bit high for him. He's a .5 point per game player over his career.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Poe969

And as for what he would get on the open market, that's not relevant at all. On the open market Brouwer got 4.5 million! If he hits the open market he will likely be over paid like most UFA's who hit free agency.

And over the last 2 years he was better than .6 points per game but the rest of the years he's about a .4 point per game player. You can't really just pick the years you want to take an average of. He hit his offensive peak last year, the year before that was even a bit high for him. He's a .5 point per game player over his career.

This guy.

I didn’t say we should pay him what he’ll get on the open market. I simply used it as a comparison to highlight how 5m is a hometown discount, because it absolutely is a hometown discount.

And actually, the previous 4 years before these latest two years he’s actually over a .5 Ppg game player, not .4 unless you’re gonna include his first couple years in this league in which he clearly was nowhere near what he is today. And ya, it doesn’t matter anyway, the .6ppg today is what matters because that is the player he is today. Front offices are gonna be looking at the latest two years, it’s this thing called ‘recency bias’

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The ditch to ditch mentality on this site just kills me some days.

It's not a useless stat, I like to know when players are on the ice for goals against then goals for.

However it's not the best stat available anymore because it doesn't take into account save percentage or shooting percentage of the players on the ice. You can get outplayed often but for whatever reason get lucky with your goaltender bailing you out and have a decent plus minus.

If that player has a bad corsi number you wonder, but even that in the Kris Russell defense could mean they are weak shots.

Then you go to scoring chances, where it's pretty hard to hide. If you get owned in scoring chance splits you have to be at least part of the problem.

Backlund is consistently top five on the team in CF% and HDCF% splits.

Except that Corsi and Fenwick are all flawed statistics because data collection is not consistent. If there was some consistency in the way the data was collected I would buy into their use. But when the method varies from barn to barn, the results are highly questionable, and the outcomes don't meet what the stats say, they become more noise to be filtered than useful data. You can use all the ridiculous stats you want to defend player A over player B, like Oiler fans have done for years, but the bottom line is who scores more than they give up. You know, kind of like how hockey games are decided. Frankly, that is the only stat that matters to me. I want guys that outscore the opposition, fancy stats be damned.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except that Corsi and Fenwick are all flawed statistics because data collection is not consistent. If there was some consistency in the way the data was collected I would buy into their use. But when the method varies from barn to barn, the results are highly questionable, and the outcomes don't meet what the stats say, they become more noise to be filtered than useful data. You can use all the ridiculous stats you want to defend player A over player B, like Oiler fans have done for years, but the bottom line is who scores more than they give up. You know, kind of like how hockey games are decided. Frankly, that is the only stat that matters to me. I want guys that outscore the opposition, fancy stats be damned.

This is not a tangible critique of Corsi. Especially in the context by which you're arguing.

If you would have done an iota of research you'd see that arena effects that you're describing might change total shot counts +/- 0.08% for teams and therefore even smaller for individual players.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except that Corsi and Fenwick are all flawed statistics because data collection is not consistent. If there was some consistency in the way the data was collected I would buy into their use. But when the method varies from barn to barn, the results are highly questionable, and the outcomes don't meet what the stats say, they become more noise to be filtered than useful data. You can use all the ridiculous stats you want to defend player A over player B, like Oiler fans have done for years, but the bottom line is who scores more than they give up. You know, kind of like how hockey games are decided. Frankly, that is the only stat that matters to me. I want guys that outscore the opposition, fancy stats be damned.

There's human error in everything, but the method is agreed upon barn to barn. It's not like the Oilers are skipping blocked shots, or not using shots by crappy players on opposing teams.

There are biases, and I think we saw that in Edmonton, but not to the extent you're arguing.

Plus I listed high danger scoring chances as well, which to me is the most important, and their counts are lower and very well defined.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Not gonna quote all that crap but... Backlund has 7 points in his last ten games, meanwhile you say that every game he’s playing is chipping away at his pace. You say I can’t handle the conversation, ya maybe this one is getting to me because it is so full of objectively foolish ####. I do find things like that pretty annoying. You know how long it took to disprove your latest claim? Like come on, maybe put a little thought into what you’re posting and I won’t have to quickly tear it apart.

It’s almost like points don’t tell the full story and some people use their eyes to judge players. Has Backlund been as good defensively as last year? Yes or no?