2017-2018 NHL Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
herman
Well-known member
https://hockeypdocast.com/2017/09/20/ep-193-back-and-better-than-ever/
Dimitri Filopovic and Jonathan Willis with a wonderfully fun off-season idea to get the hockey-madness going again.
Drop everything. You're the new GM of the __________. Rank your preferences from 1-31 as to which teams you'd like to take over as of today.
Dimitri Filopovic and Jonathan Willis with a wonderfully fun off-season idea to get the hockey-madness going again.
Drop everything. You're the new GM of the __________. Rank your preferences from 1-31 as to which teams you'd like to take over as of today.
L K
Active member
herman said:
What is more offensive to me is that both Bettman and the team are making the "if you don't respect the team maybe it has to move" statements to a fanbase that comes out and supports the team. How insulting is that to Calgary fans that Phoenix gets to have 10,000 people show up to games and have the league bend over backwards to "make it work" but the NHL will be flippant with a reliable fanbase.
L K said:
I liked how their ad called themselves a "small market" team. Calgary's consistently in the top-10 in attendance every single year and they have the 4th largest metropolitan population in Canada.
Kin
New member
herman said:
1. Leafs
2. Knights
3. Rangers
4. Islanders
5. Preds
6. Habs
7. Canucks
8. Avs
9. Flyers
10. Panthers
11. Sharks
12. Hurricanes
13. Penguins
14. Blackhawks
15. Ducks
16. Stars
17. Sabres
18. Wild
19. Capitals
20. Kings
21. Blues
22. Bruins
23. Devils
24. Blue Jackets
25. Flames
26. Jets
27. Red Wings
28. Oilers
29. Sens
30. Coyotes
31. Lightning
Full disclosure "where would you like to live" played a role here.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
It's true in terms of market size compared to the rest of the league but in terms of generating revenue they're fairly middle of the pack. The real point here is that market size isn't all that relevant.
Or, more to the point, market size is actually a better argument for why a smaller city like Calgary shouldn't be expected to chip in hundreds of millions of dollars.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
herman said:
1. Leafs
2. San Jose
3. LA
4. Anaheim
5. Vegas
6. Arizona
7. Colorado
8. Nashville
9. Dallas
10. Blues
11. Vancouver
12. Chicago
13. Rangers
14. Islanders
15. Tampa
16. Florida
17. Washington
18. Pittsburgh
19. Philly
20. New Jersey
21. Columbus
22. Carolina
23. Buffalo
24. Boston
25. Detroit
26. Minnesota
27. Montreal
28. Winnipeg
29. Calgary
30. Edmonton
31. Ottawa
herman
Well-known member
herman said:
The PDOCast looked at it more along the lines of their current salary commitments, talent level, prospect pipeline, and general likelihood of Stanley Cups in the next handful of years, not so much where the living is (but they should have).
I can only think up to 5.
1. Leafs
2. Predators
3. Lightning
4. Oilers
5. Penguins
Kin
New member
herman said:
Maybe it's the ego in me but taking over the Preds or Lightning or Oilers based on the idea of cup winning in the near future seems like wanting to take credit for work that's already been done(or "work" in the Oilers case).
In the case of, say, the Knights you'd get the chance to build from scratch. I was always a Lego kid.
Kin
New member
In the article I think Eberle makes a good point and it's similar to one I've made over the years. I'm not anti-Corsi but I do think it would be a good addition to the discussion to grade "responsibility" for goals the way defensive metrics are often the result of grading fielders on plays.
Nik the Trik said:
It's a good idea in theory yeah but that's a lot easier in baseball where every play can be looked at from an individual perspective. I mean we've all had arguments in GDTs about who should have been blamed for goals before and there's rarely an agreement. So how the league would determine guidelines to establish responsibility would be beyond me.
Say the Leafs have the puck in the offensive zone and Gardiner pinches and coughs up the puck and Marner doesn't back him up. The other team gets a 2-on-1 against Zaitsev and he doesn't really take the pass or the shot and the other team scores off a shot that even though it was an odd-man rush was weak enough that Andersen should have probably saved it. Who gets blamed?
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Well, first of all, the league wouldn't have anything to do with it just like MLB doesn't have much of anything to do with advanced defensive metrics over there.
Second of all if your point is that it would be hard to reach a consensus on what the best measurement is or standards for judging responsibility....again, welcome to the world of defensive metrics in Baseball.
CarltonTheBear said:
Well, the idea isn't that you'd "blame" any one person. The idea is that everyone involved would get a grade on the play. Gardiner getting a bad grade wouldn't mean Zaitsev and Marner(and Andersen) wouldn't also.
Again, it would be supplemental information and not definitive(although this is where I'd say it would resemble every single other hockey metric in that regard) but I think a smart group of people doing it well with a good methodology could come up with some useful numbers.
herman
Well-known member
This is what Roger Nielson's Scoring Chances (that a lot of NHL coaches love) attempts to do. It has its own flaws too (data binning), along with attribution subjectivity ("consistent subjectivity is objective" right? lol).
Corsi just flattens everything to equivalent value to let the much larger sample size normalize a lot of the more nuanced plays. It certainly won't paint a complete picture, but over a large enough span of time with the right context adjustments (score effects), it has accurately shown which players and systems drive play. Fenwick, etc. just build context on that simple shot measure.
I get why NHL players and coaches might not care for Corsi or Fenwick (their names are inherently meaningless), but care about scoring chances and high danger shot differentials. It's just that no one has explained it properly to them and the marketing of deeper statistical analysis has been rife with infighting, misuse, and poor nomenclature.
I'm pretty excited about the Expected Goals/Saves models, provided the league starts capturing data with RFID/video technology instead of manually.
Corsi just flattens everything to equivalent value to let the much larger sample size normalize a lot of the more nuanced plays. It certainly won't paint a complete picture, but over a large enough span of time with the right context adjustments (score effects), it has accurately shown which players and systems drive play. Fenwick, etc. just build context on that simple shot measure.
I get why NHL players and coaches might not care for Corsi or Fenwick (their names are inherently meaningless), but care about scoring chances and high danger shot differentials. It's just that no one has explained it properly to them and the marketing of deeper statistical analysis has been rife with infighting, misuse, and poor nomenclature.
I'm pretty excited about the Expected Goals/Saves models, provided the league starts capturing data with RFID/video technology instead of manually.
herman
Well-known member
As for Kane's remark that players try to game Corsi by firing pot shots to up their numbers, the much larger sample size of measuring shots will account for all those pot shots being turned into kick-out rebound transitions or whatever turnovers leading to zone time in the defensive end.
Kin
New member
herman said:
But that's sort of my point. Nothing does paint a complete picture so any decent supplemental information is good provided there's a good theory/methodology to it. DRS in Baseball doesn't eliminate raw chance totals, it just adds something to consider.
I'm not going to get into my own thoughts about Corsi but I do understand why, to players, it's largely a meaningless number when there's really nothing more instructive to it other than a generalized "be gooder at hockey" message to take from it.