Interesting advanced stats on the Flames' Dman passing

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by bax

Yep I agree. I did say that pepsishark was off base but it wasn't because he was new or think that Lance Bouma could be traded. It was because he was using misinformation on his part to back his argument.

In other news these stats are kind of interesting. I'm excited to see how our D core ends up looking with Hamilton added. Personally, I expect Wotherspoon to take a step as well.

I wasn't, actually. $1.5 is the only figure that's been thrown out there. You're being presumptuous to assume Treliving has offered a penny more.

Originally Posted by heep223

Stop whining. You're borderline spamming the threads and it's annoying. What else do you expect.

The same three people are replying to me as fast as I'm replying to them. How is that spamming?

[bax]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

I wasn't, actually. $1.5 is the only figure that's been thrown out there. You're being presumptuous to assume Treliving has offered a penny more.



The same three people are replying to me as fast as I'm replying to them. How is that spamming?

Yeah thrown out there as the flames arbitration number, not a contract offer. Really strange line of thinking. I can't tell if you two actually believe what you are spewing or if you are conducting some weird experiment lol.

Either way it's good entertainment

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

I'm not Mike, but it's funny you should say that they treat other people's opinions that way, because that is kind of what's happening to me right now. I've so far been called a tool and off base - all for being new and simply suggesting that Lance Bouma could be traded, and his value on the market might be higher than it is as a roster player. I've contributed literally nothing else to this forum.

I don't disagree it happens in both sides, but if your putting yourself out there and expect to be listened to as an expert on a subject, act like one.

On your side, while I actually agree with yourc content, sarcastic inflammatory posts will get those responses

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by bax

Yeah thrown out there as the flames arbitration number, not a contract offer. Really strange line of thinking. I can't tell if you two actually believe what you are spewing or if you are conducting some weird experiment lol.

Either way it's good entertainment

IT'S THE ONLY NUMBER THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED. Why are you crucifying me for merely mentioning it?

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't disagree it happens in both sides, but if your putting yourself out there and expect to be listened to as an expert on a subject, act like one.

On your side, while I actually agree with yourc content, sarcastic inflammatory posts will get those responses

Fair enough.

[bax]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

IT'S THE ONLY NUMBER THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED. Why are you crucifying me for merely mentioning it?

Because it's the Flames arbitration number, not the contract discussions they've been having. It's pretty common sense to expect the two parties to meet in the middle. You're ignoring the fact that an arbitration hearing is coming up in order to support your argument. It's just silly is all.

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by bax

Because it's the Flames arbitration number, not the contract discussions they've been having. It's pretty common sense to expect the two parties to meet in the middle. You're ignoring the fact that an arbitration hearing is coming up in order to support your argument. It's just silly is all.

It's silly that you see this as a giant flaw in my argument. All I was saying was if it has to go to arbitration, and all Bouma wants is $2.5, then Treliving probably hasn't offered much more than his arbitration number. Hence why they haven't come to an agreement.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

It's silly that you see this as a giant flaw in my argument. All I was saying was if it has to go to arbitration, and all Bouma wants is $2.5, then Treliving probably hasn't offered much more than his arbitration number. Hence why they haven't come to an agreement.

But that's what arbitration is; One side aims high, one side aims low, the arbitrator comes up with a number.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by flameswin

But that's what arbitration is; One side aims high, one side aims low, the arbitrator comes up with a number.

Right. Moreover, there is no rule saying that either party has to go in with a number taken from their actual negotiations up to that point. The fact that the two parties chose arbitration numbers $1 million apart does not mean that they were $1 million apart in their actual bargaining.

Quite often, it turns out that the difference between the parties is much smaller than the difference between their arbitration numbers, and that difference diminishes to zero before the hearing. Which is why so many cases never actually come to arbitration.

Pepsishark seems to be overlooking this fact.

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by flameswin

But that's what arbitration is; One side aims high, one side aims low, the arbitrator comes up with a number.

Thank you, professor. They're also having said hearing because they can't come to terms on a deal. If Treliving had made him a generous cash offer closer to what the Bouma camp is aiming for in arbitration, as our friend here for some reason seems to think, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The deal would already be done.

It's complete nonsense to argue semantics and talk down to me because I made the safe assumption that Treliving's best offer hasn't been significantly higher than the Flames arbitration number that leaked earlier today. If it had, there'd be a new contract. No thread. Nothing to discuss. Get it?

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Pepsishark seems to be overlooking this fact.

I'm really not. I was citing the only number that has been released thus far. All we know is the sides are apart on a new deal, and that was all I was indicating. If they meet in the middle at $2M, then great. But it's speculative at best to assume Treliving has reached above, or that the Bouma camp has dipped below the line. I was basing my comments on the only facts available at the time, not entering a semantics debate about the arbitration process with a bunch of strangers.

If either side didn't have a hard number or hard line, they wouldn't be willfully subjecting themselves to this process.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

I'm really not. I was citing the only number that has been released thus far.

And you were saying that that was the number that was offered in the actual negotiations, based on no evidence. And furthermore, you were insulting anyone who had the effrontery to disagree with you.

In your brief time here so far, you are coming across as a first-class troll.

[calgarybornnraised]

Man do I ever love CP in the summer. First it was Oiler trolls now it is Corsi and Fenwick trolls.

Never change CP,Never change.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Well there is. If your boxing strategy is to dodge punches all match, you'll lose every time

It's called playing within your capabilities. You don't want Engelland doing more than that because he doesn't have the skills for it. Just have him "dodge punches" until the top 4 are rested up and then we can start "punching" again.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

One thing that drives me insane with 'advanced' stats is the notion that taking a shot and having it blocked is a good thing. Where did this come from? If your shot is blocked that is a giveaway! It ends your possession, it doesn't improve it!

How often does a shot that is blocked result in a scoring chance for the shooting team? Almost never? At best it is like a dump in and leads to a puck battle for the offensive team. More likely, it is just a giveaway. And sometimes it's a giveaway where the shooter has taken himself out of defensive position, which leads to an odd man rush the other way.

This is what happened a ton when Russell and Wideman were on the ice last year. Russell blocks the shot. Wideman or the centre recover the puck. Quick first pass to a winger and the Flames are out of the zone and on the attack. Then this dude checks his spread sheet and says 'Another bad shift for Wideman and Russell! Derp!'

Start scoring shot blocks as take always and getting a shot blocked as a giveaway and maybe some of these 'advanced' stats will begin to pass the eyeball test.

Additionally, once you have blocked a shot you are not likely to be the guy passing the puck out afterwards. Could that be a reason these passing metrics don't favor Russell? I think so. But yes, if you take a shot that gets blocked it does show that you had possession of the puck, but it also shows that you wasted that possession.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If you do that consistently then the other team will get more shoots and you will be a poor corsi player.

Having the puck in your opponents end, and being able to take a shot is better than not having the puck in your opponents end and not being able to take a shot.

Even if it does get blocked.

Have you ever wondered why the Oilers finish so poorly in the standings despite decent possession numbers? Bad shots. You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if you have possession of the puck if you don't do anything useful with it. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the other guy has possession of the puck if you can prevent him from doing anything useful with it (by blocking his shot, for example.)

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

It's called playing within your capabilities. You don't want Engelland doing more than that because he doesn't have the skills for it. Just have him "dodge punches" until the top 4 are rested up and then we can start "punching" again.

If you suck, but minimize damage while you suck, you still suck

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

I think you're not really understanding the point of corsi/fenwick etc. The reason these stats were invented was because there were 0 ways to track possession in the NHL. If you watch a soccer game, where ball possession is tracked very well, you'll notice that possession correlates to winning. Corsi and fenwick are the best indicators of possession that exist for hockey, if you're shooting the puck, you have possession of it (obviously) and if the puck is being shot at your net, you don't. So corsi doesn't treat a bad angle shot, or a blocked shot as a good thing, it's treating it as a single data point where team X had the puck, and team Y didn't.

Yes Corsi is an excellent way to track possession. The problem is that most advanced stats people overemphasize possession as the be all and end all of hockey without taking into account whether the team with the puck did anything useful with it. If your shot gets blocked, that is a wasted possession. If you miss the net, that is a wasted possession. In the end, hockey is about scoring goals and preventing them and the ONLY shots that have a chance to result in a goal are the ones that actually reach the net. I have seen soccer games where a team lost in spite of leading in possession. Generally that happens when they aren't hitting the net with their shots. (Check out the "On target" stat. It also correlates very well to winning.)

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The part is think your missing is one that is at the heart of the whole debate:

How much is skill, and how much luck?

As you've mentioned, PDO is simply shooting % plus save %. Intuitively they should measure skill. However, hockey is a highly random game. A goal comes once in every 8-13 shots on average. Even the greatest of snipers can't score at will or get the same quality chances every time. That then means they're going to be times where a lot more than the players average go in and times where a lot less than average go in.

If you're then looking at a single data set, say one season, there's going to be teams scoring way more than average, and some less. High and low PDO are rarely repeated. That would likely mean then that most high PDO are due to being in a data set that is higher than the team's real average.

There's a problem, however, if you don't take into account when a team has guys like Monahan and Hudler, who consistently have a high Sh% or a goalie like Price, who has a consistently high save %. Montreal's consistently high PDO doesn't regress because Price has a consistently high save %.

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If you suck, but minimize damage while you suck, you still suck

Well sure, but it is damn near impossible to have a team of superstars and you can't have your superstars playing 60 minutes. So minimizing the damage, or suckage while they're not on the ice is a sound tactic.

We can't all be the oilers have 5 or 6 Giordano's.