All Ottawa Senators General Manager Dicussions

[slamigo]

The Burrows trade wasn't a bad trade. He really did help in the playoffs last year and that alone made it worthwhile.

The only thing I don't like is the 2nd year on that contract but meh, it's not horrible.

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

Yeah his 0 goals really helped in the playoffs.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

It's also hard to assess Burrows this season in a vacuum given that every single player on our roster has played worse to much worse than we would have wanted/expected. Everyone sucks, why is that?

I guess my point is that Burrows shouldn't be the focus of our anger, our much better players are playing far worse and are far more the cause of our current woes. Someone or something has killed our mojo, THAT is what the problem is this year.

Agreed. There's nobody on the team to be happy with this year other than maybe Stone.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I don't think he had quite the impact you think he had. He would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games last year to make the difference between playoffs and no playoffs. Alex Burrows did not play like an 8-win player in his time here.

Agree to disagree, he absolutely did win us multiple games down the stretch when it looked like we were going to miss out all of a sudden. Pretty sure he had 5 or 6 goals, 11 points in those 20 games so those are at least good numbers, but I have no idea how to dig out game tape to demonstrate his impact.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Burrows was the same pile of trash last season as this one. People were just blinded by that first game and a couple lucky goals against an historically awful team. He was just as slow and useless.

 

[JungleBeat]

Agree to disagree, he absolutely did win us multiple games down the stretch when it looked like we were going to miss out all of a sudden. Pretty sure he had 5 or 6 goals, 11 points in those 20 games so those are at least good numbers, but I have no idea how to dig out game tape to demonstrate his impact.

This biggest Burrows supporter has returned. Do you still think he’s a third liner?

 

[inthewings]

Well, his first game in an obvious. So I guess your argument is that he wasn't a deciding factor in any of the remaining games (11 pts in 20 gms). Not a discussion I want to engage in personally, so we'll agree to disagree.

That’s not how it works. He made some good plays that contributed win probability and some bad plays that would have removed win probability. There’s no way he contributed two wins of value in 20 games though. That type of value would be ridiculously elite.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

This biggest Burrows supporter has returned. Do you still think he’s a third liner?

Literally every single player on this team other than maybe Stone has been terrible this year so I will hold my judgement on just about everyone. I will absolutely admit though that Burrows has not looked good this year and I was wrong that he could reclaim his Van days here. Still, people bitch and moan about that deal way too much and deny his contributions down the stretch only to emphasize their point. At least give the credit where it's due because there's plenty of other legitimate ways to show he's not worth the extension.

 

[Ice-Tray]

That’s not how it works. He made some good plays that contributed win probability and some bad plays that would have removed win probability. There’s no way he contributed two wins of value in 20 games though. That type of value would be ridiculously elite.

What?? Win probability, win value? You were serious? The idea that this post makes little to no sense is overshadowed by how you deliver the information as though it was reasonable and factual.

As I said, I have no interest in debating this issue with you, and even less so given this neat little turn.

Agree to disagree, about your metric, and the player.

 

[JungleBeat]

Literally every single player on this team other than maybe Stone has been terrible this year so I will hold my judgement on just about everyone. I will absolutely admit though that Burrows has not looked good this year and I was wrong that he could reclaim his Van days here.

Everybody and their dog knew he wouldn’t be able to reclaim his glory days. But if his current play still doesn’t convince you that he’s a fourth liner (at best) I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe take those homer goggles off.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Yeah his 0 goals really helped in the playoffs.

But he chipped the puck off the boards once and we ended up scoring so it's all worth it.

Reminds me of when people said the Conacher trade was still a win even after he flopped and Bishop turned into a stud #1 because he tied a playoff game vs Montreal, which we ended up winning.

 

[inthewings]

What?? Win probability, win value? You were serious? The idea that this post makes little to no sense is overshadowed by how you deliver the information as though it was reasonable and factual.

As I said, I have no interest in debating this issue with you, and even less so given this neat little turn.

Agree to disagree, about you metric, and the player.

The idea that Alex Burrows provided two wins of value on his own in 20 games is patently absurd. What was Karlsson worth over that same 20-game stretch? 10?

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Burrows was the same pile of trash last season as this one. People were just blinded by that first game and a couple lucky goals against an historically awful team. He was just as slow and useless.

People remember the impact plays, that's not much of a surprise. Look at how loved Pageau is for his playoff performances when realistically it was a 4 goal game, a 3 goal game, and then 37 other games he was just another guy in a Sens jersey.

 

[Handles1919]

People remember the impact plays, that's not much of a surprise. Look at how loved Pageau is for his playoff performances when realistically it was a 4 goal game, a 3 goal game, and then 37 other games he was just another guy in a Sens jersey.

are you really comparing 7 goals in 2 games, including an OT winner to 5 total assists, including 2 chips in the defensie zone in a who;e playoffs?

lol i cant believe it

 

[Ice-Tray]

The idea that Alex Burrows provided two wins of value on his own in 20 games is patently absurd. What was Karlsson worth over that same 20-game stretch? 10?

I'm sorry, I think I'm having trouble with the idea that you have somehow assigned a numerical value to winning.

I did enjoy the irony of you using the term 'patently absurd' in the post while not referring to your metric.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Everybody and their dog knew he wouldn’t be able to reclaim his glory days. But if his current play still doesn’t convince you that he’s a fourth liner (at best) I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe take those homer goggles off.

Meh there were people on both sides of the argument, we were wrong, you guys were right in this case so have fun on your high horse there bud. I wasn't just a homer, I watched this guy kill it in Van for like 10 years and yes I had thought he could be close to that player here. I just said I appeared to be wrong, and yes I'd wager that he's done based on this season. Am I going to come 100% to a conclusion on anyone and write them off based on this season? No probably not because otherwise I'm trading every player not named Stone, trading captain Karlsson, firing every coach, firing management, hell throw Uncle Eugene in there too. This season has been a farce and nobody in the organization should be happy with their performance to this point, Burrows included.

 

[inthewings]

I'm sorry, I think I'm having trouble with the idea that you have somehow assigned a numerical value to winning.

I did enjoy the irony of you using the term 'patently absurd' in the post while not referring to your metric.

I haven't assigned a value to anything. You've assigned a value to Alex Burrows in claiming that he was worth two wins in his 20 games down the stretch last year. I think you did that because you remember a couple of game winning goals or something. Artem Anisimov has 6 game-winners this year - has he been worth 6 wins to Chicago?

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

are you really comparing 7 goals in 2 games, including an OT winner to 5 total assists, including 2 chips in the defensie zone in a who;e playoffs?

lol i cant believe it

Not directly comparing, just stating that he/she shouldn't be surprised that peoples judgement is often skewed by significant instances over the whole picture and Pageau is the poster child for that. I also wasn't really arguing for Burrows' playoff performance, he had his moments, but it was the last 20 games of the season he came in and contributed that I felt helped save our season. I don't get it, he came in and produced when we needed it but people still wanna slam him and call them "lucky points". I can only wish Duchene could come in and produce like that rather than just looking good out there.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I haven't assigned a value to anything. You've assigned a value to Alex Burrows in claiming that he was worth two wins in his 20 games down the stretch last year. I think you did that because you remember a couple of game winning goals or something. Artem Anisimov has 6 game-winners this year - has he been worth 6 wins to Chicago?

The 'value' stuff is your baby dude, here let me help...

You: "I haven't assigned a value to anything"

BUT

You: "He would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games last year to make the difference between playoffs and no playoffs"

You: "The idea that Alex Burrows provided two wins of value on his own in 20 games is patently absurd"

You: "There’s no way he contributed two wins of value in 20 games though. That type of value would be ridiculously elite."

You: "contributed win probability... removed win probability."

Somehow you have broken games down into how much a player contributed to the win. I assume you have attributed some sort of value to various plays judging by the 'win probability' post. You then go on to argue that Burrows has not provided two wins of value, over and over, so yeah, me thinks you've assigned value (though I have no idea what or how you've gone about it)

Either way, the first game where he scored two goals including the game winner, to me, seems a clear example of him being a significant factor in the win. I'm pretty sure that his remaining 9 points helped out along the way as well. That's solid secondary production for any player on the team.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I haven't assigned a value to anything. You've assigned a value to Alex Burrows in claiming that he was worth two wins in his 20 games down the stretch last year. I think you did that because you remember a couple of game winning goals or something. Artem Anisimov has 6 game-winners this year - has he been worth 6 wins to Chicago?

Game-winners are hard to qualify because of how they're scored, but if the Rangers were down 2-1 and Rick Nash scores the last 2 goals from primarily his effort, would you not say that's a win he got them? Or, does it have to be some absurd advanced stat calculation only to qualify this?

 

[inthewings]

The 'value' stuff is your baby dude, here let me help...

You: "I haven't assigned a value to anything"

BUT

You: "He would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games last year to make the difference between playoffs and no playoffs"

You: "The idea that Alex Burrows provided two wins of value on his own in 20 games is patently absurd"

You: "There’s no way he contributed two wins of value in 20 games though. That type of value would be ridiculously elite."

You: "contributed win probability... removed win probability."

Somehow you have broken games down into how much a player contributed to the win. I assume you have attributed some sort of value to various plays judging by the 'win probability' post. You then go on to argue that Burrows has not provided two wins of value, over and over, so yeah, me thinks you've assigned value (though I have no idea what or how you've gone about it)

Either way, the first game where he scored two goals including the game winner, to me, seems a clear example of him being a significant factor in the win. I'm pretty sure that his remaining 9 points helped out along the way as well. That's solid secondary production for any player on the team.

Of course I believe that good players increase the win probability of their team in a given game. I haven't assigned any such value to Burrows other than to say that the assertion made by you, among other people, that the team would have missed the playoffs without Burrows is exactly such a valuation, and one I find absurd. For that to hold true, Burrows would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games. I think any honest evaluation would lead one to conclude that Alex Burrows doesn't have that kind of impact.

The team won 10 games in their last 20. You're saying they win no more than 8 without Alex Burrows. You're assigning a value of 2 full wins to Alex Burrows, in 20 games.

 

[inthewings]

Game-winners are hard to qualify because of how they're scored, but if the Rangers were down 2-1 and Rick Nash scores the last 2 goals from primarily his effort, would you not say that's a win he got them? Or, does it have to be some absurd advanced stat calculation only to qualify this?

I think Rick Nash is worth some number of wins to his team over the course of a season. Some positive part of that total value would come from the game in question. It wouldn't be a full win though - certainly his goalie would be assigned some credit, and whoever else did positive things in the game.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Of course I believe that good players increase the win probability of their team in a given game. I have assigned any such value to Burrows other than to say that the assertion made by you, among other people, that the team would have missed the playoffs without Burrows is exactly such a valuation, and one I find absurd. For that to hold true, Burrows would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games. I think any honest evaluation would lead one to conclude that Alex Burrows doesn't have that kind of impact.

The team won 10 games in their last 20. You're saying they no more than 8 without Alex Burrows. You're assigning a value of 2 full wins to Alex Burrows, in 20 games.

On a sample size of only 20 games, a ton of otherwise terrible players like say, Brandon Bochenski could come in and produce to get you 2 wins, whatever crazy algorithm you've come up with to decide this is pointless.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Of course I believe that good players increase the win probability of their team in a given game. I have assigned any such value to Burrows other than to say that the assertion made by you, among other people, that the team would have missed the playoffs without Burrows is exactly such a valuation, and one I find absurd. For that to hold true, Burrows would have had to be worth 2 wins in 20 games. I think any honest evaluation would lead one to conclude that Alex Burrows doesn't have that kind of impact.

The team won 10 games in their last 20. You're saying they no more than 8 without Alex Burrows. You're assigning a value of 2 full wins to Alex Burrows, in 20 games.

First, you said you never assigned values, I proved you wrong by reposting quotes where you did exactly that word for word (including this post where I highlighted it for you).

Second, this 'win probability' stuff is your baby. I want nothing to do with these absurd subjective values.

Third, Your metric on the whole is garbage. Burrows doesn't have to have won 2 games on his own to be an important part of the stretch run. He scored two goals, including the game winner, in his first game. He was a significant reason for the win, his remaining 9 points down the stretch, including 4 goals, helped the team win. Without that production replaced by other team mates, or his mystery replacement, we don't make it in.

 

[JungleBeat]

Good to see that some people are still hanging on to those couple of goals Burrows scored against a historically bad Avalanche team lol.