Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Robo]

Lucic may not be showing up on the score sheet but he has been the main reason for a couple goals and our pp2 being so successful this year. He has also won more board battles alone this year then our entire forward group all last year.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I hear what you are saying. I guess at what point was Neal a totally sunk cost? He certainly wouldn't be the first player whose request for a trade was not granted. Could you have gotten more for him if he shows up in shape and ready to play? At what point last year did you realize the mistake and could have gotten something for him? Honestly thinking about it just kind of pisses me off.

The wins and goals vs. replacement I guess are indicative of Neal's shooting percentage. Presumably his PP goals have actually helped the team win. Wins that are in the bank now and can't be disputed. But even so, can't say I miss the guy.

If you see a negative overall impact then it's a good move to move him no? Peters was clearly not impressed. Comments like Tkachuk's "glad we have everyone back" was telling to me.

So no I don't think you keep a guy if you have to have him gone. And if he sputters again then it's a bigger sample size and maybe even Edmonton doesn't bite on the "only one year, he'll bounce back" conclusion.

The numbers take his powerplay impact into consideration. He's a +1.1 in powerplay offence to Lucic's +0.3.

But that positive impact hasn't been enough to offset his offensive help five on five which is -1.8

Five on five defense actually has him at a +0.4 which is interesting. Lucic is +0.6

So yeah it's taken into account and it's still not enough to push him below replacement level player.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you see a negative overall impact then it's a good move to move him no? Peters was clearly not impressed. Comments like Tkachuk's "glad we have everyone back" was telling to me.

So no I don't think you keep a guy if you have to have him gone. And if he sputters again then it's a bigger sample size and maybe even Edmonton doesn't bite on the "only one year, he'll bounce back" conclusion.

The numbers take his powerplay impact into consideration. He's a +1.1 in powerplay offence to Lucic's +0.3.

But that positive impact hasn't been enough to offset his offensive help five on five which is -1.8

Five on five defense actually has him at a +0.4 which is interesting. Lucic is +0.6

So yeah it's taken into account and it's still not enough to push him below replacement level player.

Aren't all these numbers based on expected production vs. actual production? And therefore meant for predicting future performance vs. evaluating past performance?

Point being, if I'm correct in that understanding, is that they predict Lucic will have a better impact on winning going forward. Not that he has had a bigger impact than the guy with 12 goals?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Aren't all these numbers based on expected production vs. actual production? And therefore meant for predicting future performance vs. evaluating past performance?

Point being, if I'm correct in that understanding, is that they predict Lucic will have a better impact on winning going forward. Not that he has had a bigger impact than the guy with 12 goals?

Correct.

I was just pointing out that the data would be derived from action on the ice that has seen Neal score 8 powerplay goals to date, and 12 overall. You'd think he'd have a tonne of positive impact measures with those results, but he doesn't.

It's shooting percentage, and with that their model summarizes him as a sub replacement level player.

So yeah it's predictive, and that suggests a tough road.

[stang]

And this is why I hate these fancy stats.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by stang

And this is why I hate these fancy stats.

Why is that?

I think they're great for at least narrowing in on what we see on the ice.

I don't watch every Oiler game, but assuming the guy hasn't changed greatly, seeing that he's not a good five on five player, and that his powerplay contribution has come with a clearly unsustainable shooting percentage it makes sense that the guy comes out negative no?

I've been saying this for four months now. All Neal can do is score. If he's not scoring he's negative value and a boat anchor.

An independent model seems to be drilling down to that same result.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I hear what you are saying. I guess at what point was Neal a totally sunk cost? He certainly wouldn't be the first player whose request for a trade was not granted. Could you have gotten more for him if he shows up in shape and ready to play? At what point last year did you realize the mistake and could have gotten something for him? Honestly thinking about it just kind of pisses me off.

The wins and goals vs. replacement I guess are indicative of Neal's shooting percentage. Presumably his PP goals have actually helped the team win. Wins that are in the bank now and can't be disputed. But even so, can't say I miss the guy.

It seems like they wanted him gone and didn’t even want to give him a chance to rebound

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It seems like they wanted him gone and didn’t even want to give him a chance to rebound

They wanted him gone by Christmas.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It seems like they wanted him gone and didn’t even want to give him a chance to rebound

The entirety of last year was his chance to rebound. The entirety of last season was Neal’s chance to salvage his trade value.

He very rightly was not given another chance because he had showed zero indication during his time here that “rebounding” was even a possibility.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Why is that?

I think they're great for at least narrowing in on what we see on the ice.

I don't watch every Oiler game, but assuming the guy hasn't changed greatly, seeing that he's not a good five on five player, and that his powerplay contribution has come with a clearly unsustainable shooting percentage it makes sense that the guy comes out negative no?

I've been saying this for four months now. All Neal can do is score. If he's not scoring he's negative value and a boat anchor.

An independent model seems to be drilling down to that same result.

Cause it seems like you can fancy stat anything. You have coaches playing for the Corsi win. You are arguing Lucic is a better player based on predictive stats. Seems hokey to me.

I tend to watch the games as a whole and not really focus on individual players. However I was at the game last night and tried to focus on Neal and his 5v5 was fine. Maybe his give a sheet factor was running high, but he was coming back, covering his man in the D zone, and battled the puck out against the walls. Again that’s watching only a handful of shifts closely, but he did what was expected defensively. I get that he’s was better on the power play then 5v5, but those goals help win games as well.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Correct.

I was just pointing out that the data would be derived from action on the ice that has seen Neal score 8 powerplay goals to date, and 12 overall. You'd think he'd have a tonne of positive impact measures with those results, but he doesn't.

It's shooting percentage, and with that their model summarizes him as a sub replacement level player.

So yeah it's predictive, and that suggests a tough road.

That makes sense. So the way I think of it, if you flip a coin 82 times, you should get 41 heads and and 41 tails.

But if you get 12 heads in the first 18 trys, you no longer expect a 50/50 result for the full population. Only for your remaining flips. So you'd expect 44 heads and 38 tails now.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Does anyone actually watch him play? He’s not good. He’s benefiting from being around two elite superstars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by stang

Cause it seems like you can fancy stat anything. You have coaches playing for the Corsi win. You are arguing Lucic is a better player based on predictive stats. Seems hokey to me.

I tend to watch the games as a whole and not really focus on individual players. However I was at the game last night and tried to focus on Neal and his 5v5 was fine. Maybe his give a sheet factor was running high, but he was coming back, covering his man in the D zone, and battled the puck out against the walls. Again that’s watching only a handful of shifts closely, but he did what was expected defensively. I get that he’s was better on the power play then 5v5, but those goals help win games as well.

I don't agree with your top paragraph at all.

These are simple counts of instances and they are weighted. It isn't magic or spin at all. There are jumps or inferences that can be challenged, but I tend to doubt a player can be out shot, out chanced, out attempted for too long before things adding up to a bad player.

Certainly don't think you coach for a corsi win. How would that go? Put everything on net isn't a Corsi design it's hockey.

And no I'm not arguing Lucic much at all. The bottom line is they are both on the cusp of replacement level player. I was hoping Lucic would be a smidge better and bring physical play. He's done that to date, which is a better fit for the bottom six.

For the record last night's game was one of Neal's better games in terms of numbers so you may have been right in what you saw.

[The Cobra]

Neal is a horrible player.

Lucic is a horrible player.

I think each team got a horrible player which fit their team better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The entirety of last year was his chance to rebound. The entirety of last season was Neal’s chance to salvage his trade value.

He very rightly was not given another chance because he had showed zero indication during his time here that “rebounding” was even a possibility.

There may have been other factors. There was some mention that he was not seeing eye to eye with the coach. This is not helpful to the coach and a distraction to getting the team on the same page... "if one guy is deliberately showing his disapproval on and off the ice". I don't think it was just a matter of him not playing in the top six but the added philosophical differences with the coach. An interesting question, Did the "Neal factor" affect the teams performance during the playoffs? I am guessing it was more of a wedge and factor. Hard for the team to sustain momentum if certain players are unhinged, coasting and being a distraction.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

There may have been other factors. There was some mention that he was not seeing eye to eye with the coach. This is not helpful to the coach and a distraction to getting the team on the same page... "if one guy is deliberately showing his disapproval on and off the ice". I don't think it was just a matter of him not playing in the top six but the added philosophical differences with the coach. An interesting question, Did the "Neal factor" affect the teams performance during the playoffs? I am guessing it was more of a wedge and factor. Hard for the team to sustain momentum if certain players are unhinged, coasting and being a distraction.

In other words the coach wanted him to do SOMETHING useful and he disagreed that he should have to do that. If Neal's salary was zero he still had a negative impact on the team. Not to say that BT isn't to blame. I do the trade every single time even without the retained salary and possible 3rd(unfortunately another 1st OA for the Oilers is more likely than us getting a 3rd). But the signing is a big black mark that he should definitely be held accountable for.

[Galakanokis]

All I know is I will take what Lucic has provided this team this over what Neal provided this team last year. I don't give two rats asses about what Neal is doing in Edmonton. They're off to a hot start and putting up points and Neal is benefiting from that. Neal did nothing last year to help the Flames win. Lucic has had an impact on a number of games now and worse case scenario is he's not doing anything to adversely impact the team.

[GioforPM]

Funny, Neal gets his first point in something like 2 weeks and this thread goes nuts. Erase his hot start and we’d be 100% of the same mind on this trade.

[direwolf]

Why are we still talking about this? The guy could score 50 for the Oilers, and I honestly wouldn't give a flying f---. Dude is clearly a whiny, lazy, locker room cancer. I'm thankful to be rid of him, no matter how many points he picks up elsewhere.

[stang]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Funny, Neal gets his first point in something like 2 weeks and this thread goes nuts. Erase his hot start and we’d be 100% of the same mind on this trade.

I love this. Just take out this and he’s this. If you took out all the games he didn’t score last year, he’d be a goal per game scorer!