TMLfans.ca

Maple Leafs News and Views => Main Leafs Hockey Talk => Topic started by: louisstamos on October 23, 2020, 03:30:57 PM

Title: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: louisstamos on October 23, 2020, 03:30:57 PM
Title: Dermott signs 1 year extension ($874K)
Post by: Zee on October 23, 2020, 03:31:28 PM
?s=20
Title: Re: Dermott signs 1 year extension
Post by: louisstamos on October 23, 2020, 03:31:43 PM
This is good.
Title: Re: Travis Dermott re-signs 1 year $874,125
Post by: herman on October 23, 2020, 03:32:26 PM
Thanks for the 15k AAV Mikheyev!
Title: Re: Travis Dermott re-signs 1 year $874,125
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 23, 2020, 03:33:06 PM
Thanks for the 15k AAV Mikheyev!

Sucker!
Title: Re: Travis Dermott re-signs 1 year $874,125
Post by: Zee on October 23, 2020, 03:33:58 PM
Thanks for the 15k AAV Mikheyev!

Sucker!

You got some threads to merge
Title: Re: Travis Dermott re-signs 1 year $874,125
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 23, 2020, 03:34:03 PM
This was Dermott's qualifying offer by the way. Guessing he took this instead of something like $1.4mil for 2 years in the hopes he'll have a big season.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Highlander on October 23, 2020, 03:37:48 PM
He has a lot to prove. Hope he can continue to grow, his gap control has always been very good.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 23, 2020, 03:38:30 PM
This gives the Leafs about $500k in cap space with a 21-man roster and Engvall on the Marlies with a Vesey or Barabanov as the 12th forward. If Engvall is still on the team it'll be about $370k in cap space with Robertson/Vesey/Barabanov as the 12th forward.

So still not enough to have a 22 man roster, but it'll be nice to have cap space actually accumulating for once.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Zee on October 23, 2020, 03:42:22 PM
This gives the Leafs about $500k in cap space with a 21-man roster and Engvall on the Marlies with a Vesey or Barabanov as the 12th forward. If Engvall is still on the team it'll be about $370k in cap space with Robertson/Vesey/Barabanov as the 12th forward.

So still not enough to have a 22 man roster, but it'll be nice to have cap space actually accumulating for once.

What about Mr. Anderson?  I heard he's hungry to prove himself, they haven't given him a contract yet.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 23, 2020, 03:42:46 PM
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Frycer14 on October 23, 2020, 03:43:48 PM
It seems borderline unfair to the player.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 23, 2020, 03:45:15 PM
What about Mr. Anderson?  I heard he's hungry to prove himself, they haven't given him a contract yet.

I can't imagine that'll be too difficult to sort out. When I initially read about Anderson it seemed like he was a candidate to make the Leafs but they've obviously added a number of bodies since then. Starting in the AHL, and spending a year in the Leafs development system, is probably ideal for his long-term prospects.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: CarltonTheBear on October 23, 2020, 03:49:45 PM
It seems borderline unfair to the player.

Maybe a bit but it's not as if he's coming off some sort of breakout season though. His scoring and possession numbers were actually worse than the previous 1.5 seasons.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Nik on October 23, 2020, 04:14:03 PM
It seems borderline unfair to the player.

I don't know if I'd go that far, he's penciled in as a 6/7 guy right now with Bogosian and Lehtonen rounding out that bottom pairing and those guys get paid about a million dollars.

I would say though that this is a situation where not having cap space almost certainly prevented the Leafs from signing a longer term thing that could have had real rewards for the Club if Dermott develops into more of a top 4 guy.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: cabber24 on October 23, 2020, 04:18:36 PM
As Burkie would say a "soft skill" guy. Not overly impressed with anything he does and at any higher of cap hit I would pass.

Group 1:
Muzzin/Rielly/Brodie

Group 2:
Holl/Lehtonen/Dermott/Sandin/Bogosian

Of Group 2 I would give Bogosian a roster spot because of the different style of play he brings compared to the rest of the group. The rest of group 2 will have to battle to distinguish themselves from the rest.

I am just glad Marinicin isn't our depth guy anymore.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: disco on October 23, 2020, 04:34:46 PM
A shade over league-min for Dermott, basically making what he's always made since entering the league. The parade of useful lower-class players being slightly underpaid continues for the Leafs! The Big Four need to be buying those team dinners for sure. After gargantuan income taxes, agent fees and other fees, I think they walk away with about 40%.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: L K on October 23, 2020, 04:47:26 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Dappleganger on October 23, 2020, 04:57:09 PM
It seems borderline unfair to the player.

RFA Matt Grzelcyk just signed $14.75M over 4yrs (AAV $3.69 M). Grzelcyk has a career 0.27/points-per-game over 197 games. Dermott has a 0.26/PPG over 151 games.

Obviously Dermott is worth more than his qualifying offer but doesn't have arbitration rights so he's in a tough spot.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Dappleganger on October 23, 2020, 04:59:23 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Bender on October 23, 2020, 06:04:50 PM
As Burkie would say a "soft skill" guy. Not overly impressed with anything he does and at any higher of cap hit I would pass.

Group 1:
Muzzin/Rielly/Brodie

Group 2:
Holl/Lehtonen/Dermott/Sandin/Bogosian

Of Group 2 I would give Bogosian a roster spot because of the different style of play he brings compared to the rest of the group. The rest of group 2 will have to battle to distinguish themselves from the rest.

I am just glad Marinicin isn't our depth guy anymore.
You wouldn't retain a 23 y.o. developing dman for anything more than his minimum q.o.? Really?
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Frycer14 on October 23, 2020, 06:43:24 PM
It seems borderline unfair to the player.

I would say though that this is a situation where not having cap space almost certainly prevented the Leafs from signing a longer term thing that could have had real rewards for the Club if Dermott develops into more of a top 4 guy.

Yeah, I think that's where I'm coming from. This deal for Dermott seems more borne out of cap compliance than it does anything else; it's hard to look at the 2 yr deal Engvall at the same age was given last year on a relatively short sample, and feel good about how Dermott got forced into a "show me" deal.

Maybe I'm just showing a bit of bias for dermott. He seems like a good kid.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Highlander on October 23, 2020, 07:00:12 PM
It seems borderline unfair to the player.

I would say though that this is a situation where not having cap space almost certainly prevented the Leafs from signing a longer term thing that could have had real rewards for the Club if Dermott develops into more of a top 4 guy.

Yeah, I think that's where I'm coming from. This deal for Dermott seems more borne out of cap compliance than it does anything else; it's hard to look at the 2 yr deal Engvall at the same age was given last year on a relatively short sample, and feel good about how Dermott got forced into a "show me" deal.

Maybe I'm just showing a bit of bias for dermott. He seems like a good kid.
You are and he is a nice kid. He's got a lot of time to cash in, in his career.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 23, 2020, 07:11:16 PM
Slightly different market situation when Engvall signed vs Dermott. However, the contract difference is now why Engvall likely gets relegated as a waiver-exempt loan, while Dermott will be involved in the top-7 defensemen.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 23, 2020, 07:20:54 PM
The curiosity with overachieving 3rd pair defenders with good underlying numbers is always going to be whether they can make the shift to top-4. Is Dermott a Nate Schmidt or Colin Miller?
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Guilt Trip on October 23, 2020, 08:08:07 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on October 23, 2020, 08:10:48 PM
I can never remember what "wins over replacement" (that's what WAR is, right?) measures, but what I glean from this table is Rielly is the third most terrible defenseman in the league.  8) :o
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Deebo on October 23, 2020, 08:18:02 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.

I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 23, 2020, 08:43:17 PM
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: caveman on October 23, 2020, 08:45:30 PM
another example of the bloody salary cap... the discussion about paycheques....  >:(
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 23, 2020, 08:45:51 PM
I can never remember what "wins over replacement" (that's what WAR is, right?) measures, but what I glean from this table is Rielly is the third most terrible defenseman in the league.  8) :o

Wins Above Replacement. Composite score of weighted stats as they pertain to contributions to wins.

Rielly had a rough year by his standards; starting the year quite injured and playing high leverage situations having to babysit Barrie or Ceci will do that.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: OldTimeHockey on October 23, 2020, 09:26:20 PM
I still have hope that Dermott can transition into a #3 or 4 Defensemen. To me this is a good signing. As mentioned above, perhaps less than expected.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Dappleganger on October 24, 2020, 12:19:11 AM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.

I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.

Can he though? Dude won 32.6% of his draws in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Frank E on October 24, 2020, 09:30:22 AM
Can't complain about the number, so I'll just complain about the term.

A year too short for my liking, but it looks as though he doesn't have any arbitration rights next off-season.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Joe S. on October 24, 2020, 10:18:54 AM
Can't complain about the number, so I'll just complain about the term.

A year too short for my liking, but it looks as though he doesn't have any arbitration rights next off-season.

Besides that this leaves room for Getzlaf now.

Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Frank E on October 24, 2020, 10:35:20 AM
Can't complain about the number, so I'll just complain about the term.

A year too short for my liking, but it looks as though he doesn't have any arbitration rights next off-season.

Besides that this leaves room for Getzlaf now.

You're pickin up what I'm puttin down, my man.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Joe S. on October 24, 2020, 10:43:04 AM
I?m just trying to re-establish my with-it-ness.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Nik on October 24, 2020, 10:56:39 AM
Yeah, I think that's where I'm coming from. This deal for Dermott seems more borne out of cap compliance than it does anything else; it's hard to look at the 2 yr deal Engvall at the same age was given last year on a relatively short sample, and feel good about how Dermott got forced into a "show me" deal.

Sure but I think people need to come around on the fact that this is what a hard cap is meant to do. Even if people think the Marner or Matthews or Nylander contracts are overpayments the cap isn't designed to only be difficult to manage if you slightly overpay stars. Any good team that pays their better players some semblance of market value will have to make moves that are unmistakably going to be seen as "bad hockey moves" in order to be cap compliant.

NFL fans know that teams have to cut good, in their prime players and replace them with cheap younger alternatives through no fault of their own. The way the cap stagnated this year just accelerated that process for some teams like the Leafs who haven't had the playoff success that, to date, we would associate with having cap problems.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Deebo on October 24, 2020, 11:08:17 AM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.

I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.

Can he though? Dude won 32.6% of his draws in the playoffs.


Yes?

He is close to 50% in his carreer (1300+ face offs), why would you use a sample of 45 faceoffs?
Johnsson has taken under 30 total faceoffs in his carreer.

Besidess, there is more to centre than face offs.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on October 24, 2020, 12:18:57 PM
I can never remember what "wins over replacement" (that's what WAR is, right?) measures, but what I glean from this table is Rielly is the third most terrible defenseman in the league.  8) :o

Wins Above Replacement. Composite score of weighted stats as they pertain to contributions to wins.

Rielly had a rough year by his standards; starting the year quite injured and playing high leverage situations having to babysit Barrie or Ceci will do that.

Thanks herman ? you know this stuff backwards and forwards, if you could only have 3 advanced stats to show a player's (let's limit it to skaters) value what would they be?
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Highlander on October 24, 2020, 12:36:37 PM
another example of the bloody salary cap... the discussion about paycheques....  >:(
Ya when I was a kid, I didn't care if Tim Horton was making $25.00 a game or Dave Keon was making $75 a game, I just didn't care.  ;)
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Nik on October 24, 2020, 01:13:14 PM

Let me go find Robert Reichel and tell him people have started talking about player salaries.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Joe S. on October 24, 2020, 01:28:56 PM

Let me go find Robert Reichel and tell him people have started talking about player salaries.

It is depressing to think back to the non cap era and fans complaining about salaries.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Guilt Trip on October 24, 2020, 01:36:46 PM
Can't complain about the number, so I'll just complain about the term.

A year too short for my liking, but it looks as though he doesn't have any arbitration rights next off-season.
Dermott signed his qualifying offer sheet so it's good for the Leafs, this season. I'm just guessing but I think Dubas offered him something just over 1 mill per for 2 years. Either way, the Leafs don't have to protect him in next year's expansion draft and Dermott has a year to prove himself.
Also, from what I can gather, Dermott has ARB rights after next season as this will be his 4th year of pro hockey and he signed his ELC in the 19-20 year old range.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Guilt Trip on October 24, 2020, 01:39:50 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.

I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.

Can he though? Dude won 32.6% of his draws in the playoffs.


Yes?

He is close to 50% in his carreer (1300+ face offs), why would you use a sample of 45 faceoffs?
Johnsson has taken under 30 total faceoffs in his carreer.

Besidess, there is more to centre than face offs.
Malholtra should help him out in the dot.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Nik on October 24, 2020, 02:17:08 PM
It is depressing to think back to the non cap era and fans complaining about salaries.

I guess but the thing is that pre-cap every team did have a cap to one extent or another. Whether a result of basic economics or an owner's largesse every team still had a budget and guys getting paid a lot did affect what could be spent elsewhere. One of the biggest lies the Pro-Owner folks had during the lockout was that before the lockout big market teams were just spending like crazy and making the game uncompetitive and it's just never been true.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Joe S. on October 24, 2020, 02:27:10 PM
True enough. Even the leafs weren?t immune, stavros nixed a Gretzky deal because Stavros needed the money to support his failing businesses.

Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Dappleganger on October 24, 2020, 03:17:42 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.

I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.

Can he though? Dude won 32.6% of his draws in the playoffs.


Yes?

He is close to 50% in his carreer (1300+ face offs), why would you use a sample of 45 faceoffs?
Johnsson has taken under 30 total faceoffs in his carreer.

Besidess, there is more to centre than face offs.

Let me just say this, I'll be very interested to see where Kerfoot lines up this season, at centre or on the wing.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Deebo on October 24, 2020, 04:22:48 PM
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap.   Colour me impressed

I agree. If they had of dumped Kerfoot instead of Johnsson I'd be really happy, but maybe Anderson will be a good fit.

So are you just happy then? I'm glad they kept Kerfoot over AJ. I think he has more upside and is a lot better defensively. Good signing though with Dermott. Would rather have hom as a 7th then Marincin.

I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.

Can he though? Dude won 32.6% of his draws in the playoffs.


Yes?

He is close to 50% in his carreer (1300+ face offs), why would you use a sample of 45 faceoffs?
Johnsson has taken under 30 total faceoffs in his carreer.

Besidess, there is more to centre than face offs.

Let me just say this, I'll be very interested to see where Kerfoot lines up this season, at centre or on the wing.


I think he'll play both positions at different times thoroughout the season, something Johnsson couldn't do.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Nik on October 24, 2020, 05:22:26 PM

Kerfoot may end up playing a lot of time on the wing now that we have Thornton but it'd be crazy to go into next year without C depth if we're relying on a 41 year old as the #3 guy.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on October 24, 2020, 05:29:49 PM
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 24, 2020, 09:15:53 PM
Thanks herman ? you know this stuff backwards and forwards, if you could only have 3 advanced stats to show a player's (let's limit it to skaters) value what would they be?

It's pretty hard to answer with 3 stats for all skaters so it's going to be long :) different roles and playstyles profiles lend themselves to different emphases. It's kind of why Wins Above Replacement/Goals Above Replacement models are created to try to be profile agnostic.

The basic 'advanced' stats are just a zoom out of the standard shots/goals/points/+- stats.

Consider the sales funnel of a sales organization: at the mouth, the widest portion, you have your passive advertisement, marketing, social engagement efforts; once you get to direct sales you have sales calls, then quotations, then sales that are actually agreed to and delivered on.

In hockey 'advanced stats' you have players' on-ice decisions (and puck bounces) within two competing schemes (and how well executed they are at any given instance) happening; the stats are just results logged of those micro events. At the mouth is having the puck on your team's stick: currently untracked on NHL.com without the chip trackers. Within the funnel proper, you have

More advanced is simply taking those stats and basically doing a +/- for those events, and then calculating it over a rate of time (per 60 min), either isolating to the individual or logging when that individual was on the ice (and with whom). Even more advanced is taking an aggregation of shot metrics crossed with shot locations and developing an Expected Goals model, which applies an average success rate for a shot from any position on the ice given a league average shooter against a league average goaltender. This is the xGF/xGA you might see.

The unfortunate thing is we currently do not have public data on events that lead up to shots (where the passes come from and go to, where the shots target on the net).

Cross-referencing actual goal results against 'effort' results (upstream events) sort of gives a clearer picture of what's happening. Standard shooting percentage is a simplistic version of this (goals/shots on goal for). Auston Matthews, for example, has fairly above average shot attempts share, somewhat average xG, but a GF% that outperforms his xG. This means he controls play decently, takes shots from mid-range, but has either really good shooting talent or very good setups (he has both!). Zach Hyman has great CF%, exceptional xGF, but not the greatest number of goals (historically speaking). As you know from watching him, he frees up pucks for his teammates to get chances, goes hard to the net for rebounds, but his hands are somewhat granitey.

So to finally summarize, the stats that seem most pertinent to me at the moment are the ones that players have direct control over, be it because of their talent, adherence to a good system, or some other micro-decision that yields results (Matthews' toe-drag release). It'll be a bit of a different focus per player type if we also mix in microstats that are currently hand-tracked (zone exits/entries).

Very basic forward stats

Very basic defenseman stats
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on October 24, 2020, 11:43:52 PM
Thanks herman ? you know this stuff backwards and forwards, if you could only have 3 advanced stats to show a player's (let's limit it to skaters) value what would they be?

It's pretty hard to answer with 3 stats for all skaters so it's going to be long :) different roles and playstyles profiles lend themselves to different emphases. It's kind of why Wins Above Replacement/Goals Above Replacement models are created to try to be profile agnostic.

The basic 'advanced' stats are just a zoom out of the standard shots/goals/points/+- stats.

Consider the sales funnel of a sales organization: at the mouth, the widest portion, you have your passive advertisement, marketing, social engagement efforts; once you get to direct sales you have sales calls, then quotations, then sales that are actually agreed to and delivered on.

In hockey 'advanced stats' you have players' on-ice decisions (and puck bounces) within two competing schemes (and how well executed they are at any given instance) happening; the stats are just results logged of those micro events. At the mouth is having the puck on your team's stick: currently untracked on NHL.com without the chip trackers. Within the funnel proper, you have
  • shot attempts (Corsi): CF/CA
  • shot attempts that don't get blocked (Fenwick): FF/FA
  • shot attempts that make it on net (shots): SF/SA
  • shot attempts that make it into the net (goals): GF/GA

More advanced is simply taking those stats and basically doing a +/- for those events, and then calculating it over a rate of time (per 60 min), either isolating to the individual or logging when that individual was on the ice (and with whom). Even more advanced is taking an aggregation of shot metrics crossed with shot locations and developing an Expected Goals model, which applies an average success rate for a shot from any position on the ice given a league average shooter against a league average goaltender. This is the xGF/xGA you might see.

The unfortunate thing is we currently do not have public data on events that lead up to shots (where the passes come from and go to, where the shots target on the net).

Cross-referencing actual goal results against 'effort' results (upstream events) sort of gives a clearer picture of what's happening. Standard shooting percentage is a simplistic version of this (goals/shots on goal for). Auston Matthews, for example, has fairly above average shot attempts share, somewhat average xG, but a GF% that outperforms his xG. This means he controls play decently, takes shots from mid-range, but has either really good shooting talent or very good setups (he has both!). Zach Hyman has great CF%, exceptional xGF, but not the greatest number of goals (historically speaking). As you know from watching him, he frees up pucks for his teammates to get chances, goes hard to the net for rebounds, but his hands are somewhat granitey.

So to finally summarize, the stats that seem most pertinent to me at the moment are the ones that players have direct control over, be it because of their talent, adherence to a good system, or some other micro-decision that yields results (Matthews' toe-drag release). It'll be a bit of a different focus per player type if we also mix in microstats that are currently hand-tracked (zone exits/entries).

Very basic forward stats
  • Shot attempts share (CF%)
  • Expected goals share (xGF%)
  • Goals share (GF%)

Very basic defenseman stats
  • Shot attempts against (CA60): do they give up a lot of shot attempts
  • Expected goals against (xGA60): do they help prevent dangerous chances
  • Zone exits/assists: do they help move the puck out of the zone

Thanks again ? this is super-helpful.  I literally took a screenshot to keep as reference.  And so, by the powers vested in me,* I hereby confer upon herman a Doctorate in Hockimetry, with all the rights and appurtenances thereof.  8) 8) :-* :-* :o :o

I actually sort of followed you.

So here's my 30,000-foot reaction: all these stats measure micro-events, you say.  I would disagree on one count: GF/GA.  That's not a micro-event; it's not even a macro-event.  It is THE macro-event ? the only one that counts, ultimately.  The whole point of this exercise, the reason some of us have spent the better part of our mortal finite lives on this site, is because we are emotionally invested in seeing a particular group of athletes get their names etched onto a trophy.  (Why we are invested is the subject for another dissertation.)

What I don't see, or at least if it's there I don't understand it, is a statistical correlation between all these other advanced stats and GF/GA.  I am skeptical of putting too much weight on a statistic (or bundle of statistics) that can't be shown to have a clear effect on the only statistic that counts. 

More than that, really useful metrics need to be predictive.  Can advance stats, singly or (more likely) in combination predict who is likely to win the most games over the course of the season, in short.  If they can't (yet), they need further development ? in my untutored opinion.  But maybe these formulations exist, and I just don't know about them  ... quite possible.




* I self-vested
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Bender on October 25, 2020, 09:47:05 AM
Thanks herman ? you know this stuff backwards and forwards, if you could only have 3 advanced stats to show a player's (let's limit it to skaters) value what would they be?

It's pretty hard to answer with 3 stats for all skaters so it's going to be long :) different roles and playstyles profiles lend themselves to different emphases. It's kind of why Wins Above Replacement/Goals Above Replacement models are created to try to be profile agnostic.

The basic 'advanced' stats are just a zoom out of the standard shots/goals/points/+- stats.

Consider the sales funnel of a sales organization: at the mouth, the widest portion, you have your passive advertisement, marketing, social engagement efforts; once you get to direct sales you have sales calls, then quotations, then sales that are actually agreed to and delivered on.

In hockey 'advanced stats' you have players' on-ice decisions (and puck bounces) within two competing schemes (and how well executed they are at any given instance) happening; the stats are just results logged of those micro events. At the mouth is having the puck on your team's stick: currently untracked on NHL.com without the chip trackers. Within the funnel proper, you have
  • shot attempts (Corsi): CF/CA
  • shot attempts that don't get blocked (Fenwick): FF/FA
  • shot attempts that make it on net (shots): SF/SA
  • shot attempts that make it into the net (goals): GF/GA

More advanced is simply taking those stats and basically doing a +/- for those events, and then calculating it over a rate of time (per 60 min), either isolating to the individual or logging when that individual was on the ice (and with whom). Even more advanced is taking an aggregation of shot metrics crossed with shot locations and developing an Expected Goals model, which applies an average success rate for a shot from any position on the ice given a league average shooter against a league average goaltender. This is the xGF/xGA you might see.

The unfortunate thing is we currently do not have public data on events that lead up to shots (where the passes come from and go to, where the shots target on the net).

Cross-referencing actual goal results against 'effort' results (upstream events) sort of gives a clearer picture of what's happening. Standard shooting percentage is a simplistic version of this (goals/shots on goal for). Auston Matthews, for example, has fairly above average shot attempts share, somewhat average xG, but a GF% that outperforms his xG. This means he controls play decently, takes shots from mid-range, but has either really good shooting talent or very good setups (he has both!). Zach Hyman has great CF%, exceptional xGF, but not the greatest number of goals (historically speaking). As you know from watching him, he frees up pucks for his teammates to get chances, goes hard to the net for rebounds, but his hands are somewhat granitey.

So to finally summarize, the stats that seem most pertinent to me at the moment are the ones that players have direct control over, be it because of their talent, adherence to a good system, or some other micro-decision that yields results (Matthews' toe-drag release). It'll be a bit of a different focus per player type if we also mix in microstats that are currently hand-tracked (zone exits/entries).

Very basic forward stats
  • Shot attempts share (CF%)
  • Expected goals share (xGF%)
  • Goals share (GF%)

Very basic defenseman stats
  • Shot attempts against (CA60): do they give up a lot of shot attempts
  • Expected goals against (xGA60): do they help prevent dangerous chances
  • Zone exits/assists: do they help move the puck out of the zone

Thanks again ? this is super-helpful.  I literally took a screenshot to keep as reference.  And so, by the powers vested in me,* I hereby confer upon herman a Doctorate in Hockimetry, with all the rights and appurtenances thereof.  8) 8) :-* :-* :o :o

I actually sort of followed you.

So here's my 30,000-foot reaction: all these stats measure micro-events, you say.  I would disagree on one count: GF/GA.  That's not a micro-event; it's not even a macro-event.  It is THE macro-event ? the only one that counts, ultimately.  The whole point of this exercise, the reason some of us have spent the better part of our mortal finite lives on this site, is because we are emotionally invested in seeing a particular group of athletes get their names etched onto a trophy.  (Why we are invested is the subject for another dissertation.)

What I don't see, or at least if it's there I don't understand it, is a statistical correlation between all these other advanced stats and GF/GA.  I am skeptical of putting too much weight on a statistic (or bundle of statistics) that can't be shown to have a clear effect on the only statistic that counts. 

More than that, really useful metrics need to be predictive.  Can advance stats, singly or (more likely) in combination predict who is likely to win the most games over the course of the season, in short.  If they can't (yet), they need further development ? in my untutored opinion.  But maybe these formulations exist, and I just don't know about them  ... quite possible.




* I self-vested
Just thinking out loud here. The predictions that sites like moneypuck have take some advanced stats into account I believe, but because of parity generally you don't see a team with a slam dunk predictive win and because of the random nature of hockey the better team doesn't always win (hot goalie etc.). It doesn't make the stats bad, it just means hockey is a very random sport which is very hard to predict and account for in some way and the league has lots of parity.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 25, 2020, 11:20:12 AM
What I don't see, or at least if it's there I don't understand it, is a statistical correlation between all these other advanced stats and GF/GA.  I am skeptical of putting too much weight on a statistic (or bundle of statistics) that can't be shown to have a clear effect on the only statistic that counts. 

More than that, really useful metrics need to be predictive.  Can advance stats, singly or (more likely) in combination predict who is likely to win the most games over the course of the season, in short.  If they can't (yet), they need further development ? in my untutored opinion.  But maybe these formulations exist, and I just don't know about them  ... quite possible.

GF/GA is extremely co-related to wins :) The other stats that eventually lead to GF/GA are more loose for sure, CF being the furthest. At this point, Corsi is just a proxy for who has the puck enough to direct shots at the net. If anything, the number of shot attempts and the ratio against, is more an indicator of the team system/talent base than it is about individual players. How a line is deployed, who they are matched up against, even how they line change, affects Corsi individually. On a team level, score effects also play a part: teams with big goal leads get turtley, and vice versa.

What data from 2007 to now says, is that Team CF% is pretty stable and consistent year over year provided the core or coaching system doesn't overhaul. Goal events can be very spiky for stretches (goalie goes nuts for 4 wks (https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hammoan01/gamelog/2015), or Mitch Marner/John Tavares/Morgan Rielly shoot ~14% together for 2 months, or the team wins a slew of one-goal games (https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTT/2017.html) in the playoffs) and can skew results enough to change an organization's fortunes even if the team truly is no bueno. Translation: teams with strong CF% but poor results can be expected to get better results without doing too much different; teams with weak CF% but winning can be expected to come back down to earth when their goalie goes back to normal luck in a couple of weeks. It's really just a matter of looking at the underlying foundational elements of the results to see how sustainable the macro results are.

Teams with strong xG% over the season tend to win. As Bender points out though, hockey is randomer than most people are comfortable with. Basketball is pretty random too, but there are soooo many scoring events that it really reveals the good teams over time (like 3 games or week). Take a game of heads or tails. Play 5 rounds and you get wonky ratios like 5-0, 4-1 most of the time. Play 100, and it gets closer to 50-50, unless one side is weighted (talent, skill). GF/GA are rare in hockey (0-8 total goals per game, most commonly 4-6); CF/CA are very frequent (unless it's NYI vs CBJ), thus a much more stable indicator of talent/skill/system efficacy.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on October 25, 2020, 12:26:14 PM
So you're saying, at this stage in stats development, that xG% is currently the best single indicator of success, even though it's far from perfect.  Yes?

Another question: what do you think will be the big breakthrough tech advance that revolutionizes hockey stats?  I think it could be real-time continuous player movement tracking ? both of the player's location on the ice and where his stick is located at any given moment, in relation to the puck.

Side comment about randomness: are some sports really less random than others?  I have my doubts.  All sports have clear rules and result in an artificially binary outcome: W/L rankings over a set time period, the "season" (which assimilate ties in sports that still have that as a game outcome).  Within those boundaries the games can proceed in essentially infinite ways; no two games are ever even close to being exactly the same.  So on the face of it, saying a sport is more or less random than another doesn't say much because the range of possible ways each game can unfold is so large.

Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Bullfrog on October 25, 2020, 12:38:08 PM
Not a lot of randomness in darts.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Highlander on October 25, 2020, 12:47:42 PM
Not a lot of randomness in darts.
or Axe throwing.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 26, 2020, 10:30:58 AM
So you're saying, at this stage in stats development, that xG% is currently the best single indicator of success, even though it's far from perfect.  Yes?

No. It's just a more refined way of looking at the events of a game to see what the teams accomplished than raw shot attempts/shots on goal/final score. It's not the single best indicator of success but it does illuminate whether the game results can be relied on to predict future results to a degree.

Another question: what do you think will be the big breakthrough tech advance that revolutionizes hockey stats?  I think it could be real-time continuous player movement tracking ? both of the player's location on the ice and where his stick is located at any given moment, in relation to the puck.
Player/puck tracking for sure will help, so we'd be able to see and evaluate off-puck play more objectively over large sample sizes. Teams that haven't invested in data scientists, db infrastructure by now will be swamped with waaaaay too much information and have a very hard time discerning any signal in the noise. What they've shown on screen at the all-star game is largely noise: who skates the fastest on any given night, who had the hardest shot, etc.

Side comment about randomness: are some sports really less random than others?

Watch this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNlgISa9Giw) on why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball.

Randomness is inherent to everything that happens (quantum mechanics!) and usually only apparent when zoomed into a small sample of events, but smoothed out on a macro level.

Hockey is more susceptible to the effects of randomness than other sports because
a) there are LOTS of possible interactions at once:
- 10+2 players in a confined space
- puck does not bounce as predictably as a sphere
- boards, stantions, sticks, knobs, legs, skates are all fair game for the puck to bounce off of and into or away from the net
b) goal events are rare, and they're the only thing that matters; like playing heads or tails with a small slice of buttered French bread in the middle of a flock of seagulls, you'll need many, many, many slices of bread just to get a couple of results.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Guilt Trip on October 26, 2020, 11:12:52 AM
What a beauty by Polak lol.
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: herman on October 26, 2020, 11:29:01 AM
That's Marlies assistant coach Rob Davison

This is the same guy:
Title: Re: Dermott Re-Signs
Post by: Guilt Trip on October 26, 2020, 12:55:41 PM
Haha on the CC vids.