[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[burnitdown]

[QUOTE=DeluxeMoustache;6851186]Good for you. I myself watch far and near hockey.

NM

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

There’s a funny irony to a blogger who carved a living being opinionated on the internet looking down his nose at some who dared be opinionated on the internet about him.

[Huntingwhale]

That's one of the best mic drops in CP history.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

That's one of the best mic drops in CP history.

I’d say that was more of a online writer losing his cool over being moderately chirped by someone who had an opinion. Sounded more like a tantrum than a mic drop to me.

And this is coming from someone who more often than not actually really likes a lot of Kent’s stuff for the athletic

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

That's one of the best mic drops in CP history.

Really? It amounted to, "I watch more hockey than you" and "I'm a moderately successful blogger". Always thought it was a little spector-y how Kent Wilson comes in to stop his name from being tarnished.

If you "helped change the way people talk about hockey" (lol), why do you care that people on Calgary puck don't like you? I personally find him mostly unreadable and stopped going to his site after he hired Lambert to get hits.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

My guess is I watch far hockey than you.

I played hockey for eight years as a kid. I coached hockey as a young man. I scouted it. My brother played for the Alberta Selects. My father ran the Bow Valley Hockey Association. I've met with teams regarding my work. I have contemporaries now working for teams in their analytics departments. I built an entire online Flames publication from practically nothing.

I have a particular niche I fill in the hockey publishing/analysis world, so that's the angle I write from. I built that niche from on my own time through more than decade of work, often after or between other jobs I work to pay the bills. I don't think it's unfair to say that the way hockey is talked about and analyzed now in the media in general has changed, in part because of my work.

I'm okay with people not liking the stats angle. Charts and standard deviations aren't for everyone. I accept that I am more about criticism than optimism as well. But I'll be damned if people sitting on a message board who have never meaningfully contributed to hockey thought or analysis get to sneer that I don't watch hockey or that I "don't understand the game."

I'm not perfect but I'll stand behind my long body of work, including many of the predictions I've made over the years. And if anyone would like to engage me in debate over the specifics of my efforts or a particular conclusion, that's great. But the potshots at my effort level, or general knowledge...I put a lot into who I am and what I've built. I'm also proud of it and I do the best work I can.

Kent is easily the major reason I subscribe to the athletic (though there are other great authors too)


What's missed in both this defense and the criticism, is that out of all the early pioneers into data driven conclusions in hockey, Kent is always the most gracious and the most willing to explain his theories without pot shots at those who don't understand

[SportsJunky]

Kent’s articles are great. Love his work. Keep it up buddy.

[Ashasx]

It's pretty clear that I undervalued Lindholm at the time of this trade. The Flames scouts got him right.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

It's pretty clear that I undervalued Lindholm at the time of this trade. The Flames scouts got him right.

At the rate he's putting up points he'll be hit his career high by the end of December.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

Tyler Dellow has a pet theory...

dellowhockey‏Verified account @dellowhockey Oct 3
I have a pet theory that Mark Giordano actually has aged, we just couldn't tell because Hamilton was an upgrade on Brodie.

Giordano is aging better than this theory.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

My guess is I watch far hockey than you.

I played hockey for eight years as a kid. I coached hockey as a young man. I scouted it. My brother played for the Alberta Selects. My father ran the Bow Valley Hockey Association. I've met with teams regarding my work. I have contemporaries now working for teams in their analytics departments. I built an entire online Flames publication from practically nothing.

I have a particular niche I fill in the hockey publishing/analysis world, so that's the angle I write from. I built that niche from on my own time through more than decade of work, often after or between other jobs I work to pay the bills. I don't think it's unfair to say that the way hockey is talked about and analyzed now in the media in general has changed, in part because of my work.

I'm okay with people not liking the stats angle. Charts and standard deviations aren't for everyone. I accept that I am more about criticism than optimism as well. But I'll be damned if people sitting on a message board who have never meaningfully contributed to hockey thought or analysis get to sneer that I don't watch hockey or that I "don't understand the game."

I'm not perfect but I'll stand behind my long body of work, including many of the predictions I've made over the years. And if anyone would like to engage me in debate over the specifics of my efforts or a particular conclusion, that's great. But the potshots at my effort level, or general knowledge...I put a lot into who I am and what I've built. I'm also proud of it and I do the best work I can.

I sincerely hope you meant "my work" as in what you and everyone in the advanced stats community has done and not literally you?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

My guess is I watch far hockey than you.

I played hockey for eight years as a kid. I coached hockey as a young man. I scouted it. My brother played for the Alberta Selects. My father ran the Bow Valley Hockey Association. I've met with teams regarding my work. I have contemporaries now working for teams in their analytics departments. I built an entire online Flames publication from practically nothing.

I have a particular niche I fill in the hockey publishing/analysis world, so that's the angle I write from. I built that niche from on my own time through more than decade of work, often after or between other jobs I work to pay the bills. I don't think it's unfair to say that the way hockey is talked about and analyzed now in the media in general has changed, in part because of my work.

I'm okay with people not liking the stats angle. Charts and standard deviations aren't for everyone. I accept that I am more about criticism than optimism as well. But I'll be damned if people sitting on a message board who have never meaningfully contributed to hockey thought or analysis get to sneer that I don't watch hockey or that I "don't understand the game."

I'm not perfect but I'll stand behind my long body of work, including many of the predictions I've made over the years. And if anyone would like to engage me in debate over the specifics of my efforts or a particular conclusion, that's great. But the potshots at my effort level, or general knowledge...I put a lot into who I am and what I've built. I'm also proud of it and I do the best work I can.

i'm glad to see you say this, it irks me to read critical thinkers write critical pieces all the time and i can appreciate your self awareness.
i'm grateful that you still read the forum and i respect your candor here, although explaining that you write like the smartest guy in the room because you are in fact the smartest guy in the room doesn't exactly win me over either.

i subscribe to the athletic and i will continue to read your work but you do sort of wear the black hat as far as die hards like me see you. i can certainly tell how hard you work and don't mean to be discouraging, but you probably shouldn't engage reader criticism head on anymore, the big journos don't and you're one of them now.

[GullFoss]

The six elements of the trade:

1) Brodano would be comparable to Gio-Hamilton Over the past four games Gio-Brodie >>> Gio-Hamilton!

Gio 17-18 (actual): 13G, 25A, +0
Hamilton 17-18 (actual): 17G, 27A, +1

Vs

Gio 18-19 (projected): 12G, 70A, +59
Brodie 18-19 (projected): 0G, 29A, +35


2) Gio was the dominant partner in Gio-Hamilton Looks like he was...

Gio 17-18: 13G, 25A, +0
Hamilton 17-18: 17G, 27A, +1

Vs

Gio 18-19: 2G, 14 A, +10
Hamilton 18-19: 2G, 3A, +0


3) Lindholm would be a better fit than Ferland with Johnny-Monahan
Looks like a win...

Ferland 17-18 (actual): 21G, 20A, +5

Vs

Lindholm 18-19 (projected): 49G, 43A, +6


4) Hanifin-Hamonic would be a better pairing than Brodie-Hamonic Looks like Hanifin-Hamonic isn't a defensive trainwreck!

Brodie 17-18 (actual): 4G, 28A, -16
Hamonic 17-18 (actual): 1G, 10A, -9

Vs

Hanifin 18-19 (projected): 0G, 18A, +11
Hamonic 18-19 (projected): 10G, 10A, +6


5) Flames get younger - already accomplished

6) Flames get cap certainty for longer - already accomplished

[ShotDownInFlames12]

Originally Posted by Metro Gnome

My guess is I watch far hockey than you.

I played hockey for eight years as a kid. I coached hockey as a young man. I scouted it. My brother played for the Alberta Selects. My father ran the Bow Valley Hockey Association

Weird flex but ok

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The six elements of the trade:

1) Brodano would be comparable to Gio-Hamilton
Over the past four games Gio-Brodie >>> Gio-Hamilton!
Gio 17-18 (actual): 13G, 25A, +0
Hamilton 17-18 (actual): 17G, 27A, +1

Gio 18-19 (projected): 12G, 70A, +59
Brodie 18-19 (projected): 0G, 29A, +35


2) Gio was the dominant partner in Gio-Hamilton

Looks like he was...

Gio 17-18: 13G, 25A, +0
Hamilton 17-18: 17G, 27A, +1

Gio 18-19: 2G, 14 A, +10
Hamilton 18-19: 2G, 3A, +0

This is super interesting topic for me as it cuts to the heart of evaluation of a modern player with the advent of on ice shot metrics and what really matters.

Hamilton and Giordano were certainly a dominant pair. But trying to decide who carried who or if anyone was actually carried is a) difficult to do and b) somewhat dangerous from a homer vs non homer standpoint.

When you look at shot metrics along, that is corsi events I don't think it can be challenged that having Hamilton in the pairing will always drive up the CF and with that the CF% for both he and his partner.

But does that matter? I player like Michael Stone has very low shot metrics for, but also low shot metrics against and certainly low scoring chances against. He's an old school defenseman, but his corsi will always suffer because he contributes nothing to the "for" for himself or his defense partner.

With Hamilton everything is towards the net, much like Frolik up front, who plays a role in driving up the 3M shot metrics every year despite not having a big shot or shooting when he's in a position to actually score.

So we now have three pairings to look at, all using this and last year's data.

Slavin/Hamilton
Giordano/Hamilton
Giordan/Brodie

The Slavin/Hamilton pairing would have most don them the best pairing with a cursory look as they have 63.2 CF% as a pairing, which dwarfs both Hamilton/Giordano 58% and Giordano/Brodie 61.5%.

But what makes that up?

Slavin/Hamilton are 86.4 CF/60 a huge shot for metric, which drives their percentage but they give up more as the Giordano/Brodie pairing is giving up 43.8 shot attempts against per 60 minutes compared to Slavin/Hamilton who give up 50.3 ... Giordano and Brodie are the better "defensive" pairing thus far (early).

Last year the Giordano/Hamilton pairing gave up 51.5 CA/60, so Giordano/Brodie are still the better pairing in prevention.

Simple counting stats has the Slavin/Hamilton pairing -1 on the season, in actual goal production five on five. Last year Giordano/Hamilton finished +5, while the Giordano/Brodie pairing are already +9 this year which is crazy and likely unsustainable.

Is that bad luck for the Carolina pair so far?

Almost need to look at high danger splits for that.

Slavin/Hamilton generate 18 high danger chances per 60 and give up 13, or +5

Giordano/Hamilton had 13.5 for and 8.4 against, or +5

Giordano/Brodie so far are +15 and 12 against, or +3

Really points to the pairing of Giordano/Hamilton last year as being elite, but on what they generated and what they gave up. So far this year Giordano/Brodie are better defensively, and Slavin/Hamilton are off the charts offensively.

Finally ... heat maps. The eye test always said to me (could be biased) that Giordano did more of the work in their own zone.

Last year ... Giordano/Hamilton
Hard not to notice the very blue section on the left side of the zone, and the red section coming off the right half wall. Looks like the Calgary cage is being defended more effectively on Giordano's side.


This year ... Slavin/Hamilton
Less contract this year for Hamilton, as Slavin has a pretty bright red attack spot off his half wall. Hamilton though has more red to the high slot than Slavin, and more red to the right of the net than Slavin to the left


Finally this year ... Giordano/Brodie
Literally the left side (Giordano) is a no fly zone for the opposition with the only shot attempts coming from Brodie's side. Probably the most contrasting of the three with Giordano carrying it.


Giordano carrying Hamilton defensively? Hamilton pushing Gio's offensive numbers up equally?

[Enoch Root]

How can anyone say Hamilton was pushing Gio's offensive numbers up?

The fundamental issue here is: do corsi numbers accurately represent offense? Good article in another thread where Brindamour talks about Carolina's corsi vs their ability to put the puck in the net.

Bottom line for me is that Gio has 15 points and is +10 while Hamilton has 5 points and is even. Despite the fact that Gio plays against top lines, and has way more ice time and more defensive responsibilities.

It's no contest, no matter what the counting stats say.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How can anyone say Hamilton was pushing Gio's offensive numbers up?

The fundamental issue here is: do corsi numbers accurately represent offense? Good article in another thread where Brindamour talks about Carolina's corsi vs their ability to put the puck in the net.

Bottom line for me is that Gio has 15 points and is +10 while Hamilton has 5 points and is even. Despite the fact that Gio plays against top lines, and has way more ice time and more defensive responsibilities.

It's no contest, no matter what the counting stats say.

Not going to argue the counting stats ... 15 points vs 5 points is no contest. And if that continues for sure, the underlying stats mean little. But sample size suggest the Carolina group is doing more offensively right now and will probably be rewarded at some point.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not going to argue the counting stats ... 15 points vs 5 points is no contest. And if that continues for sure, the underlying stats mean little. But sample size suggest the Carolina group is doing more offensively right now and will probably be rewarded at some point.

They put up huge possession numbers last year too, this isn't a small sample size for them.

Possession stats =/= offense (though there is a reasonable - and expected - correlation)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They put up huge possession numbers last year too, this isn't a small sample size for them.

Possession stats =/= offense (though there is a reasonable - and expected - correlation)

Well the whole point of my long post was that Hamilton shoots from everywhere and with that you're going to get an inflated CF and with that CF% when you are paired with him.

So for sure ... I think there's a weaker correlation to offence from any player that puts all pucks towards the net all the time.

But his high danger on ice splits are strong too meaning they're not just muffins, which is proven by actual goals in his last few seasons. The guy generates offence.

Giordano is off to a huge start, but he's not going to get 85 points this year, it's not sustainable.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not going to argue the counting stats ... 15 points vs 5 points is no contest. And if that continues for sure, the underlying stats mean little. But sample size suggest the Carolina group is doing more offensively right now and will probably be rewarded at some point.

Minor quibble... you have pointed out several times in the interest of demystifying 'advanced anaytics' that stats like Corsi are just counting things, so they are all 'counting stats'. I feel like the analytics community (not saying you in particular) uses that label to diminish their importance.