All Purpose Analytics and Extended Stats Discussion

[twabby]

The rookie TOI factoring in PLAYOFF teams, and not rebuild projects, is what I asked about in the first thread. Thanks for looking that up. I wonder how that WAR progress plot looks with just the dozen elite guys

@Langway who are these 32 rookies, and 11 playoff rookies with more ESTOI that you reference? I can look at g00n's request above, I'm just not at my computer now so I don't have the ability to get this list of players on my own.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I feel like rookie top pair D on playoff teams, who last there most of the season and playoffs are likely pretty rare.

Was Ray Bourque on the top pair his rookie season, Coffey, Lidstrom, etc….


I look at this from the opposite angle. Instead of shitting on Lavi and suggesting he sucks, I see a staunchly pro-vet HC choosing to let this rookie guy sink or swim and get invaluable ice time in his first year.

I think he’s at a minimum a very valuable top-4 guy over his career.

 

[Jags]

He did have a bad season though. You can segregate it any way you want but in totality he was below replacement level last season.

lol, it's not segregation to look at a season's worth of data contextually. Applying additional filters by looking at what worked and what didn't helps add clarity to the broader numbers you're perusing. You don't have to ask what the affect of COVID may have been; you can just look at the pre- and post-COVID numbers. You can look at the numbers a bunch of different ways to get more information out of them.

But that's not what you want. Apparently you just want to zoom out, distill everything down to a number that says he had a shit season in your eyes, label him as expendable and the team's reliance on him a mistake, and go back to saying how we need to trade for Mitch Marner or some other never-gonna-happen nonsense that you don't think through.

I think a lot of people are naturally invested in Fehervary and that leads to some wonky evaluations of his game.

I agree with that. And I also think you're unnaturally skeptical of him, and that leads to some wonky evaluations of his game.

Suppose Fehervary was instead an undrafted free agent that Washington signed last offseason at the age of 22, and then he had the season he had. Would you be singing the same praises for his season?

Well, I would because my praise of him has been pretty measured. I think he showed a lot of potential but also swaths of inconsistency and immaturity. And in the proper context of a rookie chewing that many minutes opposite a dynamic partner (much harder to be the sidekick to a D that's as involved in both ends as John is), he performed admirably early on and often looked out of his element toward the end for what could be a multitude of reasons (COVID, conditioning, inexperience dealing with NHL adversity/being able to battle back, etc.).

To be clear, I'm no more sold on the optimistic view of Langway's perspective than your far more negative one. I watched the games, am fully aware of the numbers, know hockey pretty well, and my overall takeaway is that I like the kid and see no reason to spend this much time overthinking it. The team has a lot of issues it needs to address this offseason. Fehervary is not even remotely one of them.

 

[g00n]

I think maybe there's something more obvious here. This is the chart that started the discussion, right?

I didn't read every word of this debate so maybe this was already mentioned: what if the simple explanation is "defense has an advantage", partly owing to the structure of the league and partly due to the fact that most starting goaltenders are NOT rookies.

So any forward coming into the league is going to have to learn some new tricks to adjust from juniors or the AHL or KHL or whatever, while any new defenseman with half a brain and good legs can mostly slot into an already established defensive SYSTEM with one of several *usually* veteran goalies supporting him (along with veteran defensive partners to pick up the slack).

This would explain the early advantage for the defensemen and disadvantage for the forwards.

That doesn't mean all d-men are immediately at their peak out of the box and you can swap them around like army men. It just means on average the NHL favors defensive systemization as described above, with a significant safety net for young d-men, and this will skew the stats accordingly.

The decline sections aren't as anomalous or interesting, imo. And I think the above explains the 19-24 stretch.

 

[twabby]

I think maybe there's something more obvious here. This is the chart that started the discussion, right?

View attachment 554823

I didn't read every word of this debate so maybe this was already mentioned: what if the simple explanation is "defense has an advantage", partly owing to the structure of the league and partly due to the fact that most starting goaltenders are NOT rookies.

So any forward coming into the league is going to have to learn some new tricks to adjust from juniors or the AHL or KHL or whatever, while any new defenseman with half a brain and good legs can mostly slot into an already established defensive SYSTEM with one of several *usually* veteran goalies supporting him (along with veteran defensive partners to pick up the slack).

This would explain the early advantage for the defensemen and disadvantage for the forwards.

That doesn't mean all d-men are immediately at their peak out of the box and you can swap them around like army men. It just means on average the NHL favors defensive systemization as described above, with a significant safety net for young d-men, and this will skew the stats accordingly.

The decline sections aren't as anomalous or interesting, imo. And I think the above explains the 19-24 stretch.

The graph above shows that defensemen don't really get any better from 19-24, not that they start out better or worse than their forward counterparts. Even if defensemen are afforded systemic advantages as you state, the claims being made are that defensemen in general develop and get better through their early 20s and into their late 20s. The data in the graph above runs counter to that claim.

 

[Langway]

The eleven rookies from playoff teams post-lockout are: Heiskanen, Brodin, McAvoy, Bear, Larsson, Zaitsev, Fowler, Carlo, Quinn Hughes, Fabbro & Myers. Zaitsev being on the low-end debuting at age 25. Bear was rushed into a prominent role in EDM and may bounce around. The rest are fairly reliably consistent top 4 D with about half solid top pair (Heiskanen, Brodin, McAvoy, Fowler & Hughes IMO). Aside from Hughes the rest were primarily mature defensively off the bat capable of eating minutes and earning trust. Fabbro is putting it together and may be the best comparable, albeit with only a few seasons of results.

The other 21 include four from the past season or two: Mikey Anderson, K'Andre Miller, Mo Seider & Dysin Mayo. The other 17: Severson, Klingberg, Klefbom, Ekblad, Lindell, Dillon, Schenn, Dahlin, Slavin, Faulk, de Haan, Morrissey, Matheson, Nurse, Gardiner & Everyone's Favorites Jack Johnson & Justin Schultz. Of those I'd say stylistically Fehervary resembles Lindell, Dillon or de Haan. I don't view him as a one-dimensional offensive D. His deployment was not like Schmidt or Djoos. Of this group according to relative SAT% as a rookie Lindell fits best. Is he usually deemed a poor defensive player? His possession stats are historically poor but he seems like one of the league's better more traditional defensive-defensemen.

This also seems in part a process vs. outcome thing. Fehervary was fourth on the team in +/-. He was a slight net positive in EV xGF%. The outcomes were actually pretty decent and presumably what led to the slack he was given. They gave up a lot of shot attempts when he was on the ice and he was helped by a somewhat high EV on-ice SV%. But there's also the possibility he was able to manage situations more passively as an Alzner or more traditional stay-at-home type might in ways that still aren't easily measured. Most analytics seems to devalue that sort of passive approach to defending, figuring the best defense is to simply always have possession. But that's also a collective team approach and a mentality this team overall does not have much. That also only got worse in the second half as Backstrom sauntered around the ice. Many defensive metrics seem to measure convoluted proxies for defensive aptitude in a way that doesn't fully translate. Is a player like Erik Gustafsson judged to be strong defensively primarily based on his possession stats?

Is a better Sekera type 3/4 really optimistic? I'm not saying he's firmly in the same category of a bunch of legit top pair defenders. We'll see about that. He's got some real hurdles to clear to consistently execute at that level. That projection was my sense prior to last season based on his profile and approach at various levels. I do think there are much bigger looming danger signs when it comes to overall team make-up. The weakness of the top six's possession game in general was a big issue, has been for a number of years when it matters most. It's often just Mantha playing around and then whatever anyone else can be bothered to do on a given shift. For a veteran group it's too inconsistent and soft...nowhere close to disciplined enough from a leadership/consistency standpoint. They also didn't have a coherent, effective third line to offset any declines. It was left to the checking line again to be the pulse. It's backwards and unsustainable. The defensive reliability of the team's centers and overall industriousness of the forward group is the #1 issue going forward IMO. It is not close to adequate and I have to wonder how long they'll be able to get away with it without significant changes. If the threshold now is that they need a new possession behemoth on the back-end to dominate and mitigate the forward mix then, sure, Fehervary is likely not the answer. But at the very least his cheap contribution of speed, versatility and edge remains sorely needed in the short-term. There are some underlying warning signs, sure, but the potential pending drop-off from other far more expensive and crucial core players strikes me as far more concerning.

 

[g00n]

The graph above shows that defensemen don't really get any better from 19-24, not that they start out better or worse than their forward counterparts. Even if defensemen are afforded systemic advantages as you state, the claims being made are that defensemen in general develop and get better through their early 20s and into their late 20s. The data in the graph above runs counter to that claim.

When data defies all logic and observation you have to look for other explanations.

The graph isn't showing failure to improve it's showing lack of distinction for several years early in the career based on the metrics of WAR, which may or may not measure comparable ability vs peers, if I understand it right.

So in essence it measures "how common are you", not necessarily "how good are you" or "are you getting better" in a meaningful way. And when it's looking at the league as a whole it's not going to show outliers. It's going to show the effects most prevalent throughout the league.

Again, it may just be that the nature of the stat and the nature of the league make it so systemization & goaltending causes the appearance that veterans and rookies are the same until physical decline starts to set in.

The reality may be that rookies benefit more from veterans & systems & goalies in pairings, and veterans take some kind of performance hit from mentoring rookies. At some point the rookie has matured enough to take on the mentor role and the effect flips.

And again it might just take forwards a little more time to get to the same level of "commonness" because of the deck being stacked in favor of defense.

 

[twabby]

Here is the graph for the average change in WAR/60 for the 11 rookies from playoff teams:

I chose WAR/60 because some player-seasons were shorter than others and didn't want a player who only played 20 games to carry the same weight as a player who played all 82.

As expected with a small sample size of only 11 players, the data is very noisy. Up and down and up and down. It's tough to conclude anything. Of note though, there is no discernible upward trend in these playoff rookies' early to mid/late 20s. There's nothing here to indicate that these playoff rookies follow any different pattern than the one shown in the original article posted.

Below is the raw WAR/60 data, sourced from Evolving Hockey. Feel free to double-check the work if you so please. I anchored the cumulative total at 0 for age 23 since that is what was done in the original article, but the anchor point doesn't really matter. The trends are really the only important thing.

Spoiler: WAR Data

Player

EH_ID

API ID

Season

Team

Position

Shoots

Birthday

Age

Draft Yr

Draft Rd

Draft Ov

GP

TOI_All

EVO_GAR/60

EVD_GAR/60

PPO_GAR/60

SHD_GAR/60

Take_GAR/60

Draw_GAR/60

Off_GAR/60

Def_GAR/60

Pens_GAR/60

GAR/60

WAR/60

SPAR/60

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

12-Nov​

N.J

D

R

11/12/1992​

18​

2011​

1​

4​

65​

1340.3​

0.101​

0.126​

-0.64​

0.848​

0.05​

-0.018​

0.041​

0.143​

0.032​

0.202​

0.035​

0.065​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

13-Dec​

N.J

D

R

11/12/1992​

19​

2011​

1​

4​

37​

669.8​

0.136​

0.018​

-0.455​

-0.109​

0.059​

0.037​

0.13​

0.01​

0.096​

0.227​

0.042​

0.078​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

13-14

N.J

D

R

11/12/1992​

20​

2011​

1​

4​

26​

462.4​

-0.275​

0.298​

-1.394​

0.026​

-0.018​

0.013​

-0.307​

0.284​

-0.005​

-0.02​

-0.004​

-0.007​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

14-15

N.J

D

R

11/12/1992​

21​

2011​

1​

4​

64​

1341.6​

-0.05​

0.239​

-2.492​

0.479​

-0.018​

-0.014​

-0.095​

0.276​

-0.032​

0.157​

0.03​

0.057​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

15-16

N.J

D

R

11/12/1992​

22​

2011​

1​

4​

82​

1846.1​

-0.016​

0.376​

0.202​

0.024​

-0.004​

-0.021​

-0.014​

0.323​

-0.024​

0.277​

0.054​

0.103​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

16-17

EDM

D

R

11/12/1992​

23​

2011​

1​

4​

79​

1591.8​

0.364​

0.032​

-1.174​

-0.169​

-0.037​

-0.018​

0.35​

0.016​

-0.056​

0.276​

0.052​

0.101​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

17-18

EDM

D

R

11/12/1992​

24​

2011​

1​

4​

63​

1381.7​

0.029​

0.04​

-0.68​

0.041​

-0.006​

-0.006​

0.025​

0.04​

-0.012​

0.05​

0.01​

0.019​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

18-19

EDM

D

R

11/12/1992​

25​

2011​

1​

4​

82​

1773.1​

-0.338​

0.04​

1.013​

0.527​

-0.017​

-0.002​

-0.332​

0.086​

-0.018​

-0.231​

-0.043​

-0.081​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

19-20

EDM

D

R

11/12/1992​

26​

2011​

1​

4​

49​

971.7​

-0.11​

0.134​

2.054​

0.545​

-0.012​

-0.024​

-0.104​

0.168​

-0.036​

0.035​

0.006​

0.012​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

20-21

EDM

D

R

11/12/1992​

27​

2011​

1​

4​

56​

1100.2​

-0.159​

0.454​

0.718​

0.112​

0.005​

-0.021​

-0.158​

0.413​

-0.016​

0.251​

0.045​

0.084​

Adam Larsson

ADAM.LARSSON

8476457​

21-22

SEA

D

R

11/12/1992​

28​

2011​

1​

4​

82​

1826.8​

-0.015​

0.017​

-0.054​

0.034​

-0.031​

-0.027​

-0.015​

0.019​

-0.059​

-0.054​

-0.009​

-0.018​

Brandon Carlo

BRANDON.CARLO

8478443​

16-17

BOS

D

R

11/26/1996​

19​

2015​

2​

37​

82​

1706.9​

0.232​

0.056​

1.069​

1.148​

-0.036​

-0.029​

0.237​

0.193​

-0.065​

0.331​

0.062​

0.12​

Brandon Carlo

BRANDON.CARLO

8478443​

17-18

BOS

D

R

11/26/1996​

20​

2015​

2​

37​

76​

1462​

-0.014​

0.09​

1.768​

0.73​

-0.016​

-0.016​

-0.008​

0.182​

-0.032​

0.141​

0.027​

0.052​

Brandon Carlo

BRANDON.CARLO

8478443​

18-19

BOS

D

R

11/26/1996​

21​

2015​

2​

37​

72​

1506.4​

-0.015​

0.389​

0.28​

0.169​

-0.006​

-0.004​

-0.014​

0.359​

-0.011​

0.331​

0.062​

0.116​

Brandon Carlo

BRANDON.CARLO

8478443​

19-20

BOS

D

R

11/26/1996​

22​

2015​

2​

37​

67​

1371.3​

-0.165​

0.116​

-0.783​

0.088​

0.055​

-0.001​

-0.169​

0.112​

0.054​

0.023​

0.004​

0.008​

Brandon Carlo

BRANDON.CARLO

8478443​

20-21

BOS

D

R

11/26/1996​

23​

2015​

2​

37​

27​

505.1​

-0.014​

0.065​

0.107​

0.809​

0.022​

0.006​

-0.013​

0.17​

0.028​

0.183​

0.033​

0.061​

Brandon Carlo

BRANDON.CARLO

8478443​

21-22

BOS

D

R

11/26/1996​

24​

2015​

2​

37​

79​

1556.6​

-0.278​

0.259​

0.888​

1.196​

0.071​

-0.012​

-0.272​

0.391​

0.059​

0.212​

0.037​

0.071​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

11-Oct​

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

18​

2010​

1​

12​

76​

1681.9​

-0.192​

-0.057​

0.761​

-0.383​

0.084​

-0.016​

-0.032​

-0.063​

0.068​

-0.015​

-0.003​

-0.005​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

12-Nov​

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

19​

2010​

1​

12​

82​

1907.4​

-0.027​

0.046​

-0.069​

-0.315​

0.08​

-0.029​

-0.034​

0.033​

0.051​

0.046​

0.008​

0.015​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

13-Dec​

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

20​

2010​

1​

12​

37​

756.2​

-0.235​

0.072​

0.197​

0.802​

0.114​

0.032​

-0.18​

0.091​

0.146​

0.051​

0.009​

0.018​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

13-14

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

21​

2010​

1​

12​

70​

1670.6​

0.056​

0.167​

0.502​

-0.36​

0.08​

-0.038​

0.129​

0.097​

0.043​

0.234​

0.044​

0.083​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

14-15

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

22​

2010​

1​

12​

80​

1690.5​

0.192​

0.024​

0.435​

0.83​

0.068​

-0.028​

0.223​

0.101​

0.04​

0.329​

0.063​

0.12​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

15-16

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

23​

2010​

1​

12​

69​

1571.9​

0.117​

-0.297​

0.938​

-0.601​

0.051​

-0.021​

0.238​

-0.331​

0.03​

-0.04​

-0.008​

-0.015​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

16-17

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

24​

2010​

1​

12​

80​

1987.8​

0.202​

0.082​

0.586​

-0.579​

0.063​

-0.013​

0.257​

-0.002​

0.05​

0.271​

0.051​

0.099​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

17-18

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

25​

2010​

1​

12​

67​

1665.2​

-0.176​

0.1​

-0.168​

-0.448​

0.04​

-0.01​

-0.175​

0.04​

0.03​

-0.089​

-0.017​

-0.033​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

18-19

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

26​

2010​

1​

12​

59​

1378.7​

0.034​

-0.184​

0.48​

0.306​

0.057​

-0.032​

0.084​

-0.149​

0.025​

-0.028​

-0.005​

-0.01​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

19-20

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

27​

2010​

1​

12​

59​

1297.4​

0.17​

0.148​

-0.457​

-0.876​

0.039​

-0.042​

0.093​

0.112​

-0.003​

0.18​

0.032​

0.062​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

20-21

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

28​

2010​

1​

12​

56​

1218.6​

0.327​

0.09​

-0.669​

-0.967​

0.045​

-0.014​

0.238​

-0.015​

0.03​

0.228​

0.041​

0.076​

Cam Fowler

CAM.FOWLER

8475764​

21-22

ANA

D

L

12/5/1991​

29​

2010​

1​

12​

76​

1855.6​

0.221​

0.116​

0.997​

-0.514​

0.079​

-0.026​

0.298​

0.034​

0.053​

0.339​

0.06​

0.113​

Charlie McAvoy

CHARLIE.MCAVOY

8479325​

17-18

BOS

D

R

12/21/1997​

19​

2016​

1​

14​

63​

1395.3​

0.237​

0.249​

0.374​

0.221​

-0.049​

0.029​

0.25​

0.248​

-0.02​

0.438​

0.085​

0.163​

Charlie McAvoy

CHARLIE.MCAVOY

8479325​

18-19

BOS

D

R

12/21/1997​

20​

2016​

1​

14​

54​

1197.3​

0.641​

0.156​

-1.824​

1.61​

-0.033​

0.034​

0.453​

0.248​

0.001​

0.643​

0.12​

0.226​

Charlie McAvoy

CHARLIE.MCAVOY

8479325​

19-20

BOS

D

R

12/21/1997​

21​

2016​

1​

14​

67​

1551.9​

0.329​

0.318​

-0.238​

0.34​

0.006​

0.083​

0.292​

0.319​

0.089​

0.647​

0.115​

0.221​

Charlie McAvoy

CHARLIE.MCAVOY

8479325​

20-21

BOS

D

R

12/21/1997​

22​

2016​

1​

14​

51​

1223.8​

0.415​

0.21​

0.708​

1.272​

-0.033​

0.014​

0.442​

0.325​

-0.019​

0.658​

0.118​

0.22​

Charlie McAvoy

CHARLIE.MCAVOY

8479325​

21-22

BOS

D

R

12/21/1997​

23​

2016​

1​

14​

78​

1923.5​

0.458​

0.368​

0.571​

-0.718​

-0.002​

0.041​

0.474​

0.256​

0.039​

0.67​

0.118​

0.224​

Dante Fabbro

DANTE.FABBRO

8479371​

18-19

NSH

D

R

6/20/1998​

20​

2016​

1​

17​

4​

51​

-0.581​

0.574​

0​

0.535​

0.126​

-0.056​

-0.581​

0.573​

0.07​

0.072​

0.013​

0.025​

Dante Fabbro

DANTE.FABBRO

8479371​

19-20

NSH

D

R

6/20/1998​

21​

2016​

1​

17​

64​

1217.6​

-0.233​

0.145​

-0.664​

1.583​

-0.012​

0.053​

-0.241​

0.184​

0.041​

-0.013​

-0.002​

-0.004​

Dante Fabbro

DANTE.FABBRO

8479371​

20-21

NSH

D

R

6/20/1998​

22​

2016​

1​

17​

40​

772.6​

-0.289​

0.233​

-0.202​

0.352​

-0.006​

-0.006​

-0.287​

0.242​

-0.012​

-0.041​

-0.007​

-0.014​

Dante Fabbro

DANTE.FABBRO

8479371​

21-22

NSH

D

R

6/20/1998​

23​

2016​

1​

17​

66​

1256.9​

0.282​

0.15​

-1.375​

-1.085​

0.025​

0.036​

0.268​

0.087​

0.061​

0.395​

0.07​

0.132​

Ethan Bear

ETHAN.BEAR

8478451​

17-18

EDM

D

R

6/26/1997​

20​

2015​

5​

124​

18​

335.4​

-0.505​

-0.56​

2.235​

-1.077​

-0.033​

0.006​

-0.236​

-0.566​

-0.027​

-0.764​

-0.149​

-0.285​

Ethan Bear

ETHAN.BEAR

8478451​

19-20

EDM

D

R

6/26/1997​

22​

2015​

5​

124​

71​

1559.7​

0.228​

-0.022​

-0.019​

-0.213​

0.005​

0.014​

0.219​

-0.039​

0.018​

0.178​

0.032​

0.061​

Ethan Bear

ETHAN.BEAR

8478451​

20-21

EDM

D

R

6/26/1997​

23​

2015​

5​

124​

43​

772.4​

-0.205​

0.241​

-1.588​

-0.852​

0.031​

0.07​

-0.252​

0.126​

0.1​

-0.002​

0​

-0.001​

Ethan Bear

ETHAN.BEAR

8478451​

21-22

CAR

D

R

6/26/1997​

24​

2015​

5​

124​

58​

932.6​

-0.023​

-0.081​

2.078​

0.769​

0.023​

-0.025​

0.057​

-0.03​

-0.002​

0.022​

0.004​

0.007​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

13-Dec​

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

19​

2011​

1​

10​

45​

1044.6​

-0.044​

0.368​

0.663​

-0.101​

0.085​

-0.032​

0​

0.324​

0.053​

0.355​

0.066​

0.122​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

13-14

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

20​

2011​

1​

10​

79​

1888.2​

-0.225​

0.249​

0.396​

-0.375​

0.067​

0.003​

-0.184​

0.185​

0.07​

0.078​

0.015​

0.028​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

14-15

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

21​

2011​

1​

10​

71​

1715.9​

0.05​

0.335​

0.422​

0.061​

0.106​

-0.029​

0.067​

0.309​

0.077​

0.429​

0.082​

0.156​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

15-16

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

22​

2011​

1​

10​

68​

1388.5​

-0.344​

0.179​

-0.698​

-0.105​

0.053​

-0.029​

-0.346​

0.154​

0.025​

-0.136​

-0.026​

-0.05​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

16-17

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

23​

2011​

1​

10​

68​

1330.6​

0.058​

0.277​

1.021​

0.985​

0.031​

0.005​

0.141​

0.348​

0.036​

0.48​

0.09​

0.175​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

17-18

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

24​

2011​

1​

10​

73​

1577.1​

0.392​

0.059​

1.067​

0.263​

0.028​

0.01​

0.42​

0.082​

0.038​

0.485​

0.094​

0.181​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

18-19

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

25​

2011​

1​

10​

82​

1684.6​

-0.231​

0.34​

1.349​

0.354​

0.025​

0.005​

-0.209​

0.341​

0.03​

0.178​

0.033​

0.062​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

19-20

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

26​

2011​

1​

10​

69​

1487​

0.123​

0.341​

-1.388​

0.511​

0.046​

0.006​

0.09​

0.358​

0.052​

0.478​

0.085​

0.163​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

20-21

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

27​

2011​

1​

10​

53​

1189​

-0.029​

0.122​

0.667​

1​

0.052​

0.008​

0.003​

0.21​

0.06​

0.258​

0.046​

0.086​

Jonas Brodin

JONAS.BRODIN

8476463​

21-22

MIN

D

L

7/12/1993​

28​

2011​

1​

10​

73​

1710.1​

-0.153​

0.317​

0.581​

-0.021​

0.07​

-0.029​

-0.095​

0.276​

0.041​

0.206​

0.036​

0.069​

Miro Heiskanen

MIRO.HEISKANEN

8480036​

18-19

DAL

D

L

7/18/1999​

19​

2017​

1​

3​

82​

1895.3​

0.13​

0.091​

0.116​

0.458​

0.085​

-0.017​

0.129​

0.115​

0.068​

0.29​

0.054​

0.102​

Miro Heiskanen

MIRO.HEISKANEN

8480036​

19-20

DAL

D

L

7/18/1999​

20​

2017​

1​

3​

68​

1615​

0.157​

0.247​

-0.347​

0.37​

0.088​

0.017​

0.102​

0.259​

0.105​

0.42​

0.075​

0.144​

Miro Heiskanen

MIRO.HEISKANEN

8480036​

20-21

DAL

D

L

7/18/1999​

21​

2017​

1​

3​

55​

1372.8​

-0.222​

0.057​

0.127​

0.12​

0.074​

0.08​

-0.181​

0.061​

0.153​

0.042​

0.008​

0.014​

Miro Heiskanen

MIRO.HEISKANEN

8480036​

21-22

DAL

D

L

7/18/1999​

22​

2017​

1​

3​

70​

1742.1​

-0.017​

0.301​

-0.121​

0.604​

0.046​

-0.003​

-0.028​

0.324​

0.043​

0.301​

0.053​

0.1​

Nikita Zaitsev

NIKITA.ZAITSEV

8479458​

16-17

TOR

D

R

10/29/1991​

24​

2010​

NA

NA

82​

1805.5​

-0.005​

-0.183​

1.484​

-0.853​

0.033​

-0.004​

0.143​

-0.242​

0.03​

-0.056​

-0.011​

-0.021​

Nikita Zaitsev

NIKITA.ZAITSEV

8479458​

17-18

TOR

D

R

10/29/1991​

25​

2010​

NA

NA

60​

1333​

0.101​

0.074​

-0.135​

0.124​

0.025​

-0.027​

0.098​

0.081​

-0.002​

0.16​

0.031​

0.059​

Nikita Zaitsev

NIKITA.ZAITSEV

8479458​

18-19

TOR

D

R

10/29/1991​

26​

2010​

NA

NA

81​

1658.4​

-0.329​

0.131​

-0.39​

-0.179​

0.065​

-0.029​

-0.329​

0.087​

0.036​

-0.157​

-0.029​

-0.055​

Nikita Zaitsev

NIKITA.ZAITSEV

8479458​

19-20

OTT

D

R

10/29/1991​

27​

2010​

NA

NA

58​

1284.6​

-0.23​

0.064​

0.343​

-0.657​

0.014​

-0.043​

-0.226​

-0.034​

-0.029​

-0.254​

-0.045​

-0.087​

Nikita Zaitsev

NIKITA.ZAITSEV

8479458​

20-21

OTT

D

R

10/29/1991​

28​

2010​

NA

NA

55​

1250​

-0.185​

0.186​

0.094​

0.332​

0.01​

-0.006​

-0.182​

0.205​

0.004​

0.047​

0.008​

0.016​

Nikita Zaitsev

NIKITA.ZAITSEV

8479458​

21-22

OTT

D

R

10/29/1991​

29​

2010​

NA

NA

62​

1177.4​

-0.015​

-0.075​

-0.255​

-0.096​

-0.016​

-0.061​

-0.016​

-0.078​

-0.077​

-0.168​

-0.03​

-0.056​

Quinn Hughes

QUINN.HUGHES

8480800​

18-19

VAN

D

L

10/14/1999​

18​

2018​

1​

7​

5​

90.4​

-0.566​

0.015​

3.659​

0​

0.02​

0.072​

-0.265​

0.015​

0.092​

-0.157​

-0.029​

-0.055​

Quinn Hughes

QUINN.HUGHES

8480800​

19-20

VAN

D

L

10/14/1999​

19​

2018​

1​

7​

68​

1488.1​

0.27​

0.01​

0.719​

0.461​

0.041​

0.057​

0.35​

0.011​

0.099​

0.447​

0.08​

0.153​

Quinn Hughes

QUINN.HUGHES

8480800​

20-21

VAN

D

L

10/14/1999​

20​

2018​

1​

7​

56​

1277​

-0.035​

-0.067​

0.25​

0.832​

0.027​

0.015​

0.012​

-0.064​

0.041​

0.001​

0​

0​

Quinn Hughes

QUINN.HUGHES

8480800​

21-22

VAN

D

L

10/14/1999​

21​

2018​

1​

7​

76​

1916.7​

0.211​

-0.052​

0.805​

0.251​

0.039​

-0.007​

0.297​

-0.034​

0.031​

0.277​

0.049​

0.092​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

10-Sep​

BUF

D

R

2/1/1990​

19​

2008​

1​

12​

82​

1945.6​

0.312​

-0.043​

0.269​

0.061​

0.077​

0.081​

0.306​

-0.027​

0.157​

0.395​

0.072​

0.138​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

11-Oct​

BUF

D

R

2/1/1990​

20​

2008​

1​

12​

80​

1796.6​

0.231​

-0.006​

0.761​

-0.069​

0.017​

-0.024​

0.306​

-0.015​

-0.007​

0.245​

0.044​

0.084​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

12-Nov​

BUF

D

R

2/1/1990​

21​

2008​

1​

12​

55​

1237​

0.196​

-0.15​

-0.281​

-1.436​

-0.004​

-0.031​

0.139​

-0.286​

-0.035​

-0.163​

-0.028​

-0.053​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

13-Dec​

BUF

D

R

2/1/1990​

22​

2008​

1​

12​

39​

831.2​

-0.085​

0.152​

-0.365​

-0.817​

-0.076​

0.003​

-0.118​

0.038​

-0.074​

-0.145​

-0.027​

-0.05​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

13-14

BUF

D

R

2/1/1990​

23​

2008​

1​

12​

62​

1357.7​

-0.068​

0.012​

-0.182​

-0.409​

-0.067​

0.029​

-0.082​

-0.042​

-0.038​

-0.146​

-0.028​

-0.052​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

14-15

BUF

D

R

2/1/1990​

24​

2008​

1​

12​

47​

1177.8​

-0.02​

-0.039​

0.465​

0.908​

-0.095​

0.019​

0.043​

0.088​

-0.076​

0.038​

0.007​

0.014​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

14-15

WPG

D

R

2/1/1990​

24​

2008​

1​

12​

24​

571.5​

0.517​

0.302​

0.296​

-1.21​

0.042​

-0.001​

0.487​

0.159​

0.041​

0.617​

0.117​

0.224​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

15-16

WPG

D

R

2/1/1990​

25​

2008​

1​

12​

73​

1650.3​

-0.028​

0.102​

-0.788​

-1.021​

-0.025​

0.006​

-0.114​

-0.017​

-0.019​

-0.135​

-0.026​

-0.05​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

16-17

WPG

D

R

2/1/1990​

26​

2008​

1​

12​

11​

244.3​

0.414​

0.19​

-0.892​

-0.771​

-0.104​

0.026​

0.298​

0.056​

-0.079​

0.225​

0.042​

0.082​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

17-18

WPG

D

R

2/1/1990​

27​

2008​

1​

12​

82​

1756.9​

0.023​

-0.128​

0.878​

-0.136​

-0.028​

0.014​

0.119​

-0.129​

-0.014​

-0.026​

-0.005​

-0.01​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

18-19

WPG

D

R

2/1/1990​

28​

2008​

1​

12​

80​

1627.7​

0.054​

-0.166​

1.65​

-0.984​

-0.02​

-0.028​

0.154​

-0.26​

-0.048​

-0.155​

-0.029​

-0.054​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

19-20

VAN

D

R

2/1/1990​

29​

2008​

1​

12​

68​

1462.3​

0.055​

-0.024​

-0.569​

-0.316​

-0.008​

-0.027​

0.013​

-0.047​

-0.035​

-0.067​

-0.012​

-0.023​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

20-21

VAN

D

R

2/1/1990​

30​

2008​

1​

12​

55​

1214​

0.026​

-0.192​

1.235​

0.478​

-0.048​

-0.008​

0.084​

-0.089​

-0.056​

-0.07​

-0.012​

-0.023​

Tyler Myers

TYLER.MYERS

8474574​

21-22

VAN

D

R

2/1/1990​

31​

2008​

1​

12​

82​

1800.7​

0.128​

0.048​

-1.553​

-0.857​

-0.021​

0.008​

0.097​

-0.056​

-0.013​

0.017​

0.003​

0.006​

I don't feel like doing the other 21 players because I am quite confident it's just going to be noisy as well, though a bit less so because the sample would have tripled. But if you want to do the work, I'll at least provide you with the raw data so you don't have to pay for an EH membership. Or if you really bug me enough I'll do it tomorrow.

 

[twabby]

The eleven rookies from playoff teams post-lockout are: Heiskanen, Brodin, McAvoy, Bear, Larsson, Zaitsev, Fowler, Carlo, Quinn Hughes, Fabbro & Myers. Zaitsev being on the low-end debuting at age 25. Bear was rushed into a prominent role in EDM and may bounce around. The rest are fairly reliably consistent top 4 D with about half solid top pair (Heiskanen, Brodin, McAvoy, Fowler & Hughes IMO). Aside from Hughes the rest were primarily mature defensively off the bat capable of eating minutes and earning trust. Fabbro is putting it together and may be the best comparable, albeit with only a few seasons of results.

While most of these guys are indeed consistent top 4 D, they all showed better than Fehervary in their initial seasons. These 11 players have played a combined 74 seasons with 500 minutes TOI or more. Of those 74, only 11 of those player-seasons were worse than Fehervary's past season. Of those 11 player-seasons, 5 of them belong to Tyler Myers, 3 of them belong to Nikita Zaitsev. And then 1 each belong to Larsson, Brodin, and Fowler, which appear to be outlier seasons based on their performance in other years. None were their rookie years.

Basically, there's no comparison for Fehervary to anyone aside from maybe Zaitsev or Myers. Neither are top 4 defensemen in this league. The rest of those guys have performed far and away better than Fehervary.

So again, it boils down to having to rely on this season being an outlier for Fehervary in order to make a compelling argument that Fehervary is going to approach the levels of the non-Myers/Zaitsev players in your list.

Of those I'd say stylistically Fehervary resembles Lindell, Dillon or de Haan. I don't view him as a one-dimensional offensive D. His deployment was not like Schmidt or Djoos. Of this group according to relative SAT% as a rookie Lindell fits best. Is he usually deemed a poor defensive player? His possession stats are historically poor but he seems like one of the league's better more traditional defensive-defensemen.

WAR shows Lindell as a very good defensive player:

He has had some poor possession stats that don't jive with your suspicion of him being a good defensive player, but that is exactly why a WAR calculation is so valuable. It contextualizes his teammates and competition. And especially on a one-line team like Dallas, the teammates he plays with is going to severely impact his performance on traditional possession metrics. Based on these and other factors, it appears your suspicion of him being a good defensive player is in line with the WAR data.

Is a player like Erik Gustafsson judged to be strong defensively primarily based on his possession stats?

No, he has been quite bad:

Likely because of the same contextual reasons mentioned above, WAR doesn't like Gustavsson defensively despite decent possession numbers and decent relative possession numbers.

Is a better Sekera type 3/4 really optimistic? I'm not saying he's firmly in the same category of a bunch of legit top pair defenders. We'll see about that. He's got some real hurdles to clear to consistently execute at that level. That projection was my sense prior to last season based on his profile and approach at various levels. I do think there are much bigger looming danger signs when it comes to overall team make-up. The weakness of the top six's possession game in general was a big issue, has been for a number of years when it matters most. It's often just Mantha playing around and then whatever anyone else can be bothered to do on a given shift. For a veteran group it's too inconsistent and soft...nowhere close to disciplined enough from a leadership/consistency standpoint. They also didn't have a coherent, effective third line to offset any declines. It was left to the checking line again to be the pulse. It's backwards and unsustainable. The defensive reliability of the team's centers and overall industriousness of the forward group is the #1 issue going forward IMO. It is not close to adequate and I have to wonder how long they'll be able to get away with it without significant changes. If the threshold now is that they need a new possession behemoth on the back-end to dominate and mitigate the forward mix then, sure, Fehervary is likely not the answer. But at the very least his cheap contribution of speed, versatility and edge remains sorely needed in the short-term. There are some underlying warning signs, sure, but the potential pending drop-off from other far more expensive and crucial core players strikes me as far more concerning.

Yes, I think it's quite an optimistic outcome at this point. Fehervary put up some pretty bad numbers this year. Andrej Sekera has played 16 seasons in the NHL, and of those he's only put up a worse WAR/60 than Fehervary's 21-22 season twice: in 2012-13 and 2017-18. Those were probably outlier seasons given his career WAR/60 numbers, shown below:

For reference, Fehervary's WAR/60 last year was -0.016.

It could happen, but it would have to rely on this being an outlier season for Fehervary and not his career norm. I'm just not confident that's the case even despite him getting COVID. It just seems like wishful thinking to me that he's going to massively improve next year when substantial improvement simply isn't very common for young defensemen.

Connecting this to my overall point when beginning this discussion, Fehervary is in some unique company when it comes to rookie deployment. He's in the same company as Heiskanen, Larsson, Brodin, McAvoy, Fowler, etc. when it comes to his initial use. Doesn't that at least seem to suggest that Fehervary would have some legitimate, perhaps substantial trade value? Those guys are good to great players.

And on the other hand, if in terms of overall impact Fehervary is closer to Tyler Myers or Nikita Zaitsev what's the real harm in losing him, especially if including him in a legitimate trade could help to plug another substantial hole in the roster? There are always TvRs available for cheap in free agency that could provide the same (or better) impact that Fehervary would provide if he truly was on the same level as a Myers or Zaitsev.

 

[Langway]

Tyler Myers has averaged 22 minute a game over his career. He's not not a top four defenseman. The closest comparables seem to be Damon Severson, Brenden Dillon, Neal Pionk and Ben Hutton based on this lens but these are just faint parallels. Severson I suppose comes closest but we'll see. Fehervary will carve out his path and there's no immutable destiny here. Just probabilties. I do think the rather stark difference in underlying performance pre- and post-COVID can't just be hand-waved away. They're not going to be rushing to judgement on the player at this stage anyway most likely. I doubt he has top pair type trade value. Heiskanen/Brodin/McAvoy were beasts pretty well from the beginning and played far more prominent roles. Fehervary had some highlight goals and hits but not a broad enough body of work suggesting that sort of league-wide notoriety. Nor was he a high pick coming in so the limelight has been relatively minimal. Maybe in a year when he's RFA they could revisit. Maybe they decide to bring in an experienced 3LD on the cheap for additional flexibility but more likely they're pretty well invested in making it work.

Some ironies I see in the Evolving-Hockey modeling is just how poorly Brooks Orpik's '17-18 season grades out. It grades out as the worst season of any Caps defenseman since '07-08 and one of the ten worst overall from any D over that time period. Matt Irwin also takes home the highest WAR/60 among Caps defensemen this past season. He had the highest WAR/60 on the team and ranked 21st league-wide. It was the strongest such season on the team in nine years. Who knew? Forget TVR. There's your solution. Matt Irwin the WAR/60 King.

 

[twabby]

Tyler Myers has averaged 22 minute a game over his career. He's not not a top four defenseman.

By TOI of course he is a top 4 defenseman. By skill level, not so much. That’s kind of the point I was trying to make.

Fehervary will carve out his path and there's no immutable destiny here. Just probabilties. I do think the rather stark difference in underlying performance pre- and post-COVID can't just be hand-waved away.

No one ever said Fehervary’s future is set in stone. And yes, I am making a probabilistic argument. That’s the whole point of doing a statistical analysis. What are his most likely outcomes? Clearly we are in disagreement on this question.

While COVID can’t be hand-waved away, it also can’t be used as the reason Fehervary performed poorly with any real level of certainty. And if it is true that COVID is what caused such a poor January-May then what assurances do we have that Fehervary will be all better in October or even further in the future? After all the whole point of this discussion is to project him as a player going forward.

Some ironies I see in the Evolving-Hockey modeling is just how poorly Brooks Orpik's '17-18 season grades out. It grades out as the worst season of any Caps defenseman since '07-08 and one of the ten worst overall from any D over that time period. Matt Irwin also takes home the highest WAR/60 among Caps defensemen this past season. He had the highest WAR/60 on the team and ranked 21st league-wide. It was the strongest such season on the team in nine years. Who knew? Forget TVR. There's your solution. Matt Irwin the WAR/60 King.

Washington was awful defensively in 2017-18. Just because Orpik (and half the team for that matter) turned around a poor campaign and played lights out in the postseason doesn’t mean they weren’t truly awful that regular season. Bowey was rated even worse than Orpik, and that certainly also passes the sniff test. That pairing was unplayable. Nothing odd or ironic about that result.

Irwin’s results can be explained by the fact that he only played 214 minutes. Any competent NHLer can put together a fantastic 214 minutes of play. Had Irwin played a full season he almost certainly would not have held that pace.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

But Irwin isn’t even a competent NHLer lol….

 

[twabby]

But Irwin isn’t even a competent NHLer lol….

Sure he is. I don’t know why he ever got the reputation of being a scrub. He’s been a mostly competent #5 to #7 guy for most of his career, especially in Nashville and San Jose.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Sure he is. I don’t know why he ever got the reputation of being a scrub. He’s been a mostly competent #5 to #7 guy for most of his career, especially in Nashville and San Jose.

Once again your opinions differ from the HC lol….he’s an extra.

 

[Langway]

My main problem with WAR/60 is that it suggests no meaningful difference this past season, say, between Makar and Alex Goligoski. Or suggesting Rutta is more productive/impactful than Hedman. It's not merely small sample sizes that produce wonky conclusions. Decent third pair defensemen on good teams predictably get boosted. Liljegren grades out as the most efficiently productive defenseman this past season yet he was Toronto's #6 for much of it. They went out and brought in two defenders around the deadline. He only played Toronto's first two playoff games and sat for the rest. It's a somewhat similar deal with Kylington for Calgary. He was their 4/5 (essentially tied with Gudbranson). Fine player, good season but it doesn't stand to reason that his WAR/60 should lead me to believe his performance or output was essentially the same as that of Ekblad or Toews.

I'd be interested in what the aging curve is for defenseman in TOI/game and whether that may be a better indicator of full maturity/peak. That's where I think it stands to reason year-to-year improvement comes from in putting it fully together and being a leader. And those are very significant developments. It's not universal. Some increasingly do step right in and earn a top pair role. But it really isn't universal that whatever a player is in their rookie season is all that they ever become. Even from the standpoint of WAR/60 there are a few dozen somewhat significant cases where that hasn't been the case. Maybe it's not statistically significant or whatever but they're out there, including a number of Norris winners. Development isn't 100% immediate once a player steps on the ice. Zoom out far enough and, I mean, maybe with the right filtering that can appear to be the case. It doesn't really pass the smell test, though, for pretty obvious reasons. Prodigies tend to be the exception and particularly when it comes to 18/19yos the relatively smaller sample sizes there is going to skew things further.

Back to the Caps, WAR/60 would I suppose have me believe that Brian Pothier's 38-game stretch in '07-08 was superior to any of Mike Green's seasons. And that Dillon's season the year prior was better than any of Orlov's.

 

[twabby]

My main problem with WAR/60 is that it suggests no meaningful difference this past season, say, between Makar and Alex Goligoski. Or suggesting Rutta is more productive/impactful than Hedman. It's not merely small sample sizes that produce wonky conclusions. Decent third pair defensemen on good teams predictably get boosted. Liljegren grades out as the most efficiently productive defenseman this past season yet he was Toronto's #6 for much of it. They went out and brought in two defenders around the deadline. He only played Toronto's first two playoff games and sat for the rest. It's a somewhat similar deal with Kylington for Calgary. He was their 4/5 (essentially tied with Gudbranson). Fine player, good season but it doesn't stand to reason that his WAR/60 should lead me to believe his performance or output was essentially the same as that of Ekblad or Toews.

I'd be interested in what the aging curve is for defenseman in TOI/game and whether that may be a better indicator of full maturity/peak. That's where I think it stands to reason year-to-year improvement comes from in putting it fully together and being a leader. And those are very significant developments. It's not universal. Some increasingly do step right in and earn a top pair role. But it really isn't universal that whatever a player is in their rookie season is all that they ever become. Even from the standpoint of WAR/60 there are a few dozen somewhat significant cases where that hasn't been the case. Maybe it's not statistically significant or whatever but they're out there, including a number of Norris winners. Development isn't 100% immediate once a player steps on the ice. Zoom out far enough and, I mean, maybe with the right filtering that can appear to be the case. It doesn't really pass the smell test, though, for pretty obvious reasons. Prodigies tend to be the exception and particularly when it comes to 18/19yos the relatively smaller sample sizes there is going to skew things further.

Back to the Caps, WAR/60 would I suppose have me believe that Brian Pothier's 38-game stretch in '07-08 was superior to any of Mike Green's seasons. And that Dillon's season the year prior was better than any of Orlov's.

It’s hockey and there is going to be randomness and noise in even a whole season’s worth of data. Players are going to have outlier seasons. Goligoski has been a good player for most of his career and this will likely be the best WAR/60 he’ll put up. Same with Jensen, who was way up there this year.

Points and goal scoring works the same way. Some years guys have career years that we know aren’t sustainable. Is Kadri going to put up a 100 point pace next year? Almost surely not. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have a fantastic year, and doesn’t mean he isn’t a good player. But Ovechkin scoring 40+ a year? We know that’s sustainable because the sample size is 15+ seasons. WAR works similarly.

I’ve been careful not to make any statements about Fehervary with any high level of certainty based on one season. Several of his peers with results similar to him went on to have good careers (though many more did not). As you mentioned, it’s all just probabilities. However this season’s results do inform and alter those probabilities. Bad players are more likely to put up the type of season Fehervary did than good ones. Similarly to above, Kadri scoring at a 100 point pace is surprising, Lars Eller scoring 100 points would be unthinkable because Eller isn’t really a good player.

Liljegren is someone I’m keeping an eye on for next year. The numbers are obviously fantastic, but even Leafs fans have loved his game. Many questioned why he wasn’t in the lineup. Though different styles of player, Dmitry Orlov was in a similar boat in 2015-16 as Liljegren was this past year: great rate stats playing third pairing minutes. The next year Orlov was bumped up into the top 4 and he thrived there. I suspect that Liljegren is ready for a top 4 role and would do well in it. His last season was likely an outlier in that he’s likely not the best in the NHL, but limited players don’t put up fantastic performances like that with much frequency, even as outlier seasons. Erik Gudbranson isn’t going to put up that type of season.

The one thing I’d say with development is that while I can buy that leadership and experience matter, so do physical attributes. It’s entirely possible that physical skills like explosive skating, agility, reaction time, etc. peak in one’s early twenties and whatever overall gains are made through practice and experience are canceled out by immediately declining (even if slight) physical skills. It’s also possible these physical skills might matter more for defensemen as in general defense is a more reactive game than a proactive one, and that this explains the different aging curves.

 

[Langway]

Points and goal scoring works the same way. Some years guys have career years that we know aren’t sustainable. Is Kadri going to put up a 100 point pace next year? Almost surely not. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have a fantastic year, and doesn’t mean he isn’t a good player. But Ovechkin scoring 40+ a year? We know that’s sustainable because the sample size is 15+ seasons. WAR works similarly.

But WAR/60 as a consistent baseline in judging a career arc doesn't look to be very robust. It leaves a lot to be desired not just when it comes to comparing two players in a particular season but also in trying to compare season-to-season performance. Take Makar's '21-22 season and put him in Goligoski's '21-22 usage and I doubt it follows that they'd be equally efficient. And vice versa. It glosses over the upstream and also downstream effects of usage. It may attempt to weight it to some extent but it doesn't seem very successful to the point of making it a singularly effective measurement. Go back a season and Adam Fox's defense partner had a higher WAR/60 (as do the likes of Soucy, Dillon and Brendan Smith).

That's not to say there weren't underlying issues in Fehervary's defensive play, particularly in the second half. Had they more often resulted in actually costly outcomes I think the impression, outcomes and usage may have been drastically different. They lived with it largely because they were able to get away with it. It's often been their approach fundamentally in the regular season. It's in part what costs them come playoff time. They need to be more unsparing and disciplined in how they approach the game in adherence to a standard greater than simply what's a goal better on a given night against a given opponent.

I think it was the career arc dWAR chart posted earlier that also suggested experience being a strong factor for defensemen relative to forwards. It's often not so much about peak physical ability as endurance and composure and they're very much mental tools that come with having fully adapted over time to the task at hand. There is something of a mythology about experience helping defensemen and not rushing to judgement that still largely applies today. The barriers are lower than ever but it does take some players time. Erik Karlsson & Drew Doughty didn't step right in and altogether dominate the game in all facets. Roman Josi wasn't THE Roman Josi initially. It took them at least a season and in some cases two. Darnell Nurse, Gustav Forsling, Tony DeAngelo and Noah Dobson are a few of the more noteworthy recent examples both in terms of WAR and WAR/60. That's not to say that Fehervary will be a top pair talent. But I think his rookie season alone doesn't really tell us yet quite what he is as a player. It remains a work in progress.

 

[twabby]

But WAR/60 as a consistent baseline in judging a career arc doesn't look to be very robust. It leaves a lot to be desired not just when it comes to comparing two players in a particular season but also in trying to compare season-to-season performance. Take Makar's '21-22 season and put him in Goligoski's '21-22 usage and I doubt it follows that they'd be equally efficient. And vice versa. It glosses over the upstream and also downstream effects of usage. It may attempt to weight it to some extent but it doesn't seem very successful to the point of making it a singularly effective measurement. Go back a season and Adam Fox's defense partner had a higher WAR/60 (as do the likes of Soucy, Dillon and Brendan Smith).

That's not to say there weren't underlying issues in Fehervary's defensive play, particularly in the second half. Had they more often resulted in actually costly outcomes I think the impression, outcomes and usage may have been drastically different. They lived with it largely because they were able to get away with it. It's often been their approach fundamentally in the regular season. It's in part what costs them come playoff time. They need to be more unsparing and disciplined in how they approach the game in adherence to a standard greater than simply what's a goal better on a given night against a given opponent.

I think it was the career arc dWAR chart posted earlier that also suggested experience being a strong factor for defensemen relative to forwards. It's often not so much about peak physical ability as endurance and composure and they're very much mental tools that come with having fully adapted over time to the task at hand. There is something of a mythology about experience helping defensemen and not rushing to judgement that still largely applies today. The barriers are lower than ever but it does take some players time. Erik Karlsson & Drew Doughty didn't step right in and altogether dominate the game in all facets. Roman Josi wasn't THE Roman Josi initially. It took them at least a season and in some cases two. Darnell Nurse, Gustav Forsling, Tony DeAngelo and Noah Dobson are a few of the more noteworthy recent examples both in terms of WAR and WAR/60. That's not to say that Fehervary will be a top pair talent. But I think his rookie season alone doesn't really tell us yet quite what he is as a player. It remains a work in progress.

Sure. I'm sure there are all sorts of weird results if you hunt for them.

But by and large it seems to do a good enough job establishing at least a neighborhood of where a player is. Lindgren is a perfectly good player, and good players sometimes put up exceptional results. Brendan Smith's season appeared to be an outlier. Those happen, especially in half-season samples like Smith had. Dillon and Soucy have both been perfectly good players of late.

Had Fehervary put up something like a third pairing level of play according to WAR, I'd buy the confidence that most fans have in him. But he didn't, he put up a sub-replacement level performance.

Here are the guys who finished below replacement level this season who played at least 1000 minutes (from best to worst):

Spoiler: List of sub-replacement players 21-22

Matt Benning
Artem Zub
Nate Schmidt
Andrew Peeke
Matt Dumba
Adam Larsson
Vince Dunn
Zdeno Chara
Calvin De Haan
Alex Pietrangelo
Josh Manson
Martin Fehervary
Brenden Dillon
Robert Hagg
Rasmus Dahlin
Nikita Zadorov
Andy Greene
Nikita Zaitsev
Marc-Edouard Vlasic
Nick Leddy
Justin Schultz
Tobias Bjornfot
Dysin Mayo
Jack Johnson
David Savard
Ty Smith
Henri Jokiharju
Erik Brannstrom
Ben Chiarot
Jeremy Lauzon
Patrik Nemeth
Danny Dekeyser
Robert Bortuzzo
Keith Yandle

There are a couple of players there that are usually good and stand out: Pietrangelo and Dumba come to mind, maybe Schmidt (though he's been bad by all accounts since he stopped taking horse steroids). But by and large that is a brutal group of players to share company with.

It's all probabilities, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that these are Fehervary's comparables for this past season. And given that his "rookie" peers (both playoff and non-playoff) generally haven't improved over time, I'm not willing to write off this season or say these are just normal growing pains.

This season needs to have been an outlier, otherwise Fehervary probably just isn't good. If fans want to claim with confidence that this was an outlier season due to him getting COVID and that he will recover by next season, be my guest. I'm just not sold on that.

 

[Kalopsia]

So the Avs signed one sub-replacement level player in the offseason in Jack Johnson, then paid for another in Josh Manson at the deadline? They gotta fire their analytics guy…

 

[Langway]

It's all probabilities, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that these are Fehervary's comparables for this past season. And given that his "rookie" peers (both playoff and non-playoff) generally haven't improved over time, I'm not willing to write off this season or say these are just normal growing pains.

But some of those peers did improve over time by this very metric. Not all but to generalize and suggest it basically doesn't happen is a stretch. Some other sub-replacement level rookie defenders over the years include Darnell Nurse, Andy Greene, Brenden Dillon, Dougie Hamilton, Erik Karlsson, Jay Bouwmeester, Kris Russell, MacKenzie Weegar, ME Vlasic, Marc Staal, Noah Hanifin, Tony DeAngelo & Trevor Daley. Some pretty strong peaks in that group. Some were arguably rushed into the league but then that flies in the face of immediate unconditional readiness. Some were older or needed either the right situation or more time for it to click. Others to be sure started off poorly and never put it together but IMO his season was far more of a mixed bag than this singular assessment would indicate. It's not like he was a -15 instead of a +15, completely overmatched by outcomes, shuffled down the lineup and rotated out. He struggled. They still maintained a pretty high degree of faith in him despite that. Their faith alone will not manufacture him into a strong top 4 defender but it can help.

Others experience dips along the way earlier as they transition up a lineup or depending injuries, D partner, systems, roles, etc. It doesn't mean Fehervary is destined to improve but it also doesn't overwhelmingly suggest he won't. Suggesting that everything from here on out is a constant in terms of how he measures up, that he'll just perhaps at best sustain this underlying level for maybe a few seasons and then start falling off is nothing approaching a mathematical certainty. It could happen. Or his fundamentals could improve further and he could pivot more toward a fully established top four defenseman.

I would guess his trade value is roughly in line with second pair type upside, which is stll fairly modest ultimately. I doubt he has clear-cut #2 type upside value. Trading him is likely only worthwhile were they to believe he's nothing but a fringe defenseman ultimately and that seems unlikely. It would be a stronger conclusion were outcomes to have more closely aligned with the process or there was more data. Were he a more heralded prospect, a former first rounder, someone like a DeAngelo type talent minus character concerns I could see an argument for selling high due to fitness concerns or something. But in this case I don't think the value gulf is likely to be substantial enough or the fit yet so obviously poor that it's likely. Him being cheap for another season given what's likely to still be a pretty big cap crunch is yet another factor in favor of patience.

 

[twabby]

But some of those peers did improve over time by this very metric. Not all but to generalize and suggest it basically doesn't happen is a stretch. Some other sub-replacement level rookie defenders over the years include Darnell Nurse, Andy Greene, Brenden Dillon, Dougie Hamilton, Erik Karlsson, Jay Bouwmeester, Kris Russell, MacKenzie Weegar, ME Vlasic, Marc Staal, Noah Hanifin, Tony DeAngelo & Trevor Daley. Some pretty strong peaks in that group. Some were arguably rushed into the league but then that flies in the face of immediate unconditional readiness. Some were older or needed either the right situation or more time for it to click. Others to be sure started off poorly and never put it together but IMO his season was far more of a mixed bag than this singular assessment would indicate. It's not like he was a -15 instead of a +15, completely overmatched by outcomes, shuffled down the lineup and rotated out. He struggled. They still maintained a pretty high degree of faith in him despite that. Their faith alone will not manufacture him into a strong top 4 defender but it can help.

Beyond those two aforementioned Norris winners Roman Josi wasn't THE Roman Josi immediately either. He wasn't sub-replacement level as a rookie by this metric but he wasn't immediately That Guy either. Others experience dips along the way earlier as they transition up a lineup or depending injuries, D partner, systems, roles, etc. It doesn't mean Fehervary is destined to improve but it also doesn't overwhelmingly suggest he won't. Suggesting that everything from here on out is a constant in terms of how he measures up, that he'll just perhaps at best sustain this underlying level for maybe a few seasons and then start falling off is nothing approaching a mathematical certainty. It could happen. Or his fundamentals could improve further and he could pivot more toward a fully established top four defenseman.

I would guess his trade value is roughly in line with second pair type upside, which is stll fairly modest ultimately. I doubt he has clear-cut #2 type upside value. Trading him is likely only worthwhile were they to believe he's nothing but a fringe defenseman ultimately and that seems unlikely. It would be a stronger conclusion were outcomes to have more closely aligned with the process or there was more data. Were he a more heralded prospect, a former first rounder, someone like a DeAngelo type talent minus character concerns I could see an argument for selling high due to fitness concerns or something. But in this case I don't think the value gulf is likely to be substantial enough or the fit yet so obviously poor that it's likely. Him being cheap for another season given what's likely to still be a pretty big cap crunch is yet another factor in favor of patience.

Right, but again how many of his peers improved substantially vs. not? More importantly, how many improved to the degree necessary for Fehervary to Fehervary to go from sub-replacement to solid top 4 player? It'd need to be something like a +0.045 or more improvement to get him into "good second pairing" level. A slight improvement wouldn't be good enough to get him into being an impact second pairing guy. You have given a list of guys who improved (though I would correct you and say Bouwmeester's rookie year was in 2002-03 so we don't have WAR data for him), but the list of players who haven't improved to any noticeable degree is much larger. And plenty of those who didn't improve probably had more of a mixed bag season rather than just steadily bad play. If you can show that seasons similar to Fehervary's resulted in more successes than the population as a whole, then I'd be willing to change my tune.

Again, all I'm saying is that this season has shifted the probabilities in my eyes. If I didn't want Washington to be incredibly aggressive this offseason I'd be more inclined to just let it play out. But they need impact players. While I'd say it's an uphill battle for Fehervary to become a solid top 4 guy, it's going to be even more difficult for him to develop into a real impact guy like say Dmitry Orlov. Even Fehervary's biggest proponents aren't going to project him becoming the next Orlov.

Obviously the whole discussion is moot if Fehervary carries negligible trade value, but I really suspect that he could be part of a high pick+roster player+prospect deal that could return an impact player. If so, IMO you need to pull that trigger and not look back.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

So the Avs signed one sub-replacement level player in the offseason in Jack Johnson, then paid for another in Josh Manson at the deadline? They gotta fire their analytics guy…

Wasn’t someone just talking up that guy‘s genius?

 

[Langway]

Right, but again how many of his peers improved substantially vs. not? More importantly, how many improved to the degree necessary for Fehervary to Fehervary to go from sub-replacement to solid top 4 player? It'd need to be something like a +0.045 or more improvement to get him into "good second pairing" level. A slight improvement wouldn't be good enough to get him into being an impact second pairing guy. You have given a list of guys who improved (though I would correct you and say Bouwmeester's rookie year was in 2002-03 so we don't have WAR data for him), but the list of players who haven't improved to any noticeable degree is much larger. And plenty of those who didn't improve probably had more of a mixed bag season rather than just steadily bad play. If you can show that seasons similar to Fehervary's resulted in more successes than the population as a whole, then I'd be willing to change my tune.

I don't know the model well enough to speculate exactly how good he needs to become. He needs more play driving...quicker retrievals and outlets. Less camping out in-zone. That may be tough depending on usage, Carlson's play and how the team around him functions. During the regular season that level of day-to-day drive from an aging core isn't there enough when it really comes to methodical discipline beyond the general grind of each game's opponent and basic system stuff. It increasingly has fallen on the supporting cast to be the heartbeat and it's backwards. That more than anything else is very problematic. Largely it's been the fourth line or wingers like Oshie/Wilson but it's not enough. MF needs to bring that type of energy, leadership and hunger but they need more of it throughout. I don't know that I see him as a real solid second pair type. A fair one is more likely. I don't think the expectation has been that he'd be better than Orlov at any point. More that he's fairly mature, has some sound tools and was a safe bet to be an NHLer. That's more of a #4 type barring him popping. He did barely edge out Jensen as their #3D in TOI as a rookie, though. That'a pretty large initial role, as referenced. Abnormally so and it's not like circumstances forced it to happen.

A bit circumstantial but digging through the sub-replacement WAR/60 rookie D that played over 1000 minutes that also managed to somehow pull off a positive +/-: Esa Lindell & Robert Hagg (ever so slightly), K'Andre Miller, Brenden Dillon & Marc Staal. Dillon & Staal had worse WAR/60 as rookies. Radko Gudas's first full season (after a 22 game campaign) also lines up. It's a pretty decidedly stay-at-home group with the possible exception of Miller. He played more as a rookie (nearly 21 minutes) at age 20 and really put it together in this his second season. Hagg is more of a pure PKing limited third pair D and the weakest of the bunch. Honestly it's a better group than I anticipated, albeit largely possession-challenged to be charitable. It's a really freakish season.

Fehervary probably has less value than CMM, Lapierre or the 20th overall pick and more than Iorio or the 46th pick. More than Siegenthaler had after sitting the majority of the season. Maybe early second round value. I don't know what Fehervary, Lapierre and a first rounder gets them. They're probably still going to need to clear out cap space beyond that and I don't think they'd too readily open up the spot alongside Carlson if it can be avoided. Also, I don't know who would really be worth it that may be available. JT Miller probably doesn't cost that much. Is he a worthwhile target compared to a free agent? That should be the calculus for any trade target really and should gear it more toward younger targets.

 

[twabby]

New aging curve research from Micah. Perhaps only interesting to me, hence bumping this thread.

Nothing really too new. Offensive ability peaks a bit earlier and falls quicker. Defensive ability peaks a bit later and falls off more gradually. Defensemen in general peak a bit earlier than forwards. Young forwards generally improve more than young defensemen do.

Offensive impact by age by position:

Defensive impact by age by position:

 

[pman25]

In that same thread from Micah had a few tweets that made a lot of sense. If you have a player that you think will be a star, he probably has the talent to play pretty much immediately.

Like if we think McMichael, Lapierre, and maybe even Iorio are gonna be contributors, they should probably be playing now which is why I'm not opposed to a sell off and immediate promotion of those three if things go downhill further in December.