🖋 Putting pen to paper
— Toronto Maple Leafs (@MapleLeafs) October 23, 2020
Travis Dermott has signed a one-year contract extension! #LeafsForever
Details: https://t.co/II8XdVKlPb pic.twitter.com/Mee7gwNCu1
?s=20🖋 Putting pen to paper
— Toronto Maple Leafs (@MapleLeafs) October 23, 2020
Travis Dermott has signed a one-year contract extension! #LeafsForever
Details: https://t.co/II8XdVKlPb pic.twitter.com/Mee7gwNCu1
Thanks for the 15k AAV Mikheyev!
Thanks for the 15k AAV Mikheyev!
Sucker!
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.
Travis Dermott, signed 1x$0.87M, is a top-end bottom pairing defensive defenceman. He's been crushing limited minutes since he entered the NHL. #LeafsForever pic.twitter.com/lhSsFSvyVq
— JFresh (@JFreshHockey) October 23, 2020
What about Mr. Anderson? I heard he's hungry to prove himself, they haven't given him a contract yet.
It seems borderline unfair to the player.
It seems borderline unfair to the player.
It seems borderline unfair to the player.
That?s pretty slick how they rounded out the roster while staying under the cap. Colour me impressed
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.You wouldn't retain a 23 y.o. developing dman for anything more than his minimum q.o.? Really?
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.
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.
You are and he is a nice kid. He's got a lot of time to cash in, in his career.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.
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?Is Travis Dermott on the best value contract in the NHL? Well I did the math... pic.twitter.com/HUDIubAs6F
— Chris Faria (@ChrisFariaTO) October 23, 2020
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.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.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.
Travis Dermott is very good at preventing both shots and quality shots. This may be due to his ability to transition the puck effectively. We have him as adding 3.5 standings points above replacement last season over 56 games which was worth $8.6 million. pic.twitter.com/Ia9oYDCBju
— Evolving-Hockey (@EvolvingHockey) October 24, 2020
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
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.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.
I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
I'd have kept Kerfoot because he can play centre.
Can he though? Dude won 32.6% of his draws in the playoffs.
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.
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. ;)
Let me go find Robert Reichel and tell him people have started talking about player salaries.
Can't complain about the number, so I'll just complain about the term.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.
A year too short for my liking, but it looks as though he doesn't have any arbitration rights next off-season.
Malholtra should help him out in the dot.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.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.
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.
It is depressing to think back to the non cap era and fans complaining about salaries.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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
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.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
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.
Not a lot of randomness in darts.or Axe throwing.
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.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?
THE ENDING OF RAYS-DODGERS IN GAME 4: pic.twitter.com/6vMnHGpYdq
— ESPN (@espn) October 25, 2020
VIDEO: Roman Polak scores his first goal of the season in the luckiest way possible. #TMLtalk @FrankDangelo23 pic.twitter.com/ItELIywZ6r
— NextSportStar.com (@NextSportStar) November 29, 2017
That's Marlies assistant coach Rob DavisonHappy 11th birthday to this 200(ish) foot goal by Rob Davison on Vesa Toskala! #Isles #Leafshttps://t.co/MVG7LYslOc
— LI Hockey History (@LIHockeyHistory) March 18, 2019
CODY CECI 🚨 SHORT HANDED BOMB 1-0 pic.twitter.com/c8PD3D6VOz
— Flintor (@TheFlintor) August 7, 2020
Cody Ceci and Cody Ceci's Shot pic.twitter.com/HqQ7DEOVjb
— Omar (@TicTacTOmar) August 8, 2020