Drew Stafford

[jetman]

And I get what your saying, but what I'm saying is that the fact that Perrault missed so many games as opposed to say Fro and Staff should have an overall negative effect on how effective he is for the team. Maybe that should be a different stat.

It's all well and good to say that Perrault has X amount of wins in value while he was in the line up...but could the argument not be made that he cost us games by not being in the lineup?

The opposite of what your saying is that if a negative WAR player get's injured and is out of the lineup, you should add value to him since he is now positively contributing to the team by being out of the lineup. I'm expecting my max contract any day now .

The reality is that that negative player isn't positively contributing to the team, he is just not contributing at all, (which results in a net positive, but that is because the replacement player is better than the negative one, not because the negative player is positively contributing.)


So when Perreault gets injured for 20 games, he isn't negatively contributing to the team. He isn't contributing at all. They may lose a game because they don't have Perreault positively contributing, but that is being reflected in the difference between WAR and WAR/82. Remember WAR/82 is what the players WAR would be if he played in all 82 games, it's a projection if they actually didn't play 82 games.

 

[garret9]

And I get what your saying, but what I'm saying is that the fact that Perrault missed so many games as opposed to say Fro and Staff should have an overall negative effect on how effective he is for the team. Maybe that should be a different stat.

It's all well and good to say that Perrault has X amount of wins in value while he was in the line up...but could the argument not be made that he cost us games by not being in the lineup?

YES and that's in the fact that Perreault had a WAR of ~2 instead of 3.

If Perreault played all season, it would have been Perreault ~3, Frolik ~1 (Fro was ~2 season before), and Stafford ~0 (includes BUF and WPG mins). But, Perreault missed some time and only gave WAR of ~2. The opportunity cost was the lost utility of ~1.

 

[Board Bard]

YES and that's in the fact that Perreault had a WAR of ~2 instead of 3.

If Perreault played all season, it would have been Perreault ~3, Frolik ~1 (Fro was ~2 season before), and Stafford ~0 (includes BUF and WPG mins). But, Perreault missed some time and only gave WAR of ~2. The opportunity cost was the lost utility of ~1.

I can see how that accounts for the absence of Perrault, but how does it account for the presence of his crappy substitute?

 

[sully1410]

YES and that's in the fact that Perreault had a WAR of ~2 instead of 3.

If Perreault played all season, it would have been Perreault ~3, Frolik ~1 (Fro was ~2 season before), and Stafford ~0 (includes BUF and WPG mins). But, Perreault missed some time and only gave WAR of ~2. The opportunity cost was the lost utility of ~1.

Why are you saying help? I'm sorry that I'm not grasping this concept fast enough for you, but not all of us are expert in the field of statistics. Don't get me wrong, the stuff you do is fascinating, but you cannot honestly expect none of us to have any questions.

 

[SLAYER]

I can see how that accounts for the absence of Perrault, but how does it account for the presence of his crappy substitute?

It doesn't, nor should it. It's not Perreault's fault or within his control to ensure that they sub in a player that doesn't suck (or is as good as him).

Also, Would like to hear more about a Stafford signing today... getting close to UFA day.

 

[jetman]

It doesn't, nor should it. It's not Perreault's fault or within his control to ensure that they sub in a player that doesn't suck (or is as good as him).

Also, Would like to hear more about a Stafford signing today... getting close to UFA day.

If he doesn't sign with us today, do you think its safe to say we aren't signing him? With the courting period I'd expect him to already know what is out there.

 

[SLAYER]

If he doesn't sign with us today, do you think its safe to say we aren't signing him? With the courting period I'd expect him to already know what is out there.

Unsure. From all indications, it seems like he wants to sign with us.

Never hurts to kick some tires though, see if you can get a better deal? Seems like he would want to play with the Jets considering the direction of the team vs. the Buffalo team he came from.

 

[garret9]

I can see how that accounts for the absence of Perrault, but how does it account for the presence of his crappy substitute?

It doesn't and it shouldn't.
His substitutes aren't Perreault's value. That's on the GM and the coach.
Otherwise Perreault's impact on the team's win differential should differ depending on whether Maurice decides to use Stafford vs Halischuk vs Thorburn vs whomever for his replacement TOI.
That's flawed.

The whole theory behind WAR or GAR is it is relative to what you would expect a team working efficiently in their best interest garners. So, if Perreault missed 82 games and the team used a true-level replacement level player, that replacement level player should contribute a level of 0 Gar or WAR over the duration of that 82 games. The team choosing or having a player below or above replacement level isn't descriptive of the player who is injured, but the team and those players replacing.

Why are you saying help? I'm sorry that I'm not grasping this concept fast enough for you, but not all of us are expert in the field of statistics. Don't get me wrong, the stuff you do is fascinating, but you cannot honestly expect none of us to have any questions.

I have no experience (or skill, IMO haha) as a teacher so the issue is my own self not being able to convey the ideas any better than that.

I'm hoping for help from someone else that can do better job than I.

 

[Board Bard]

It doesn't, nor should it. It's not Perreault's fault or within his control to ensure that they sub in a player that doesn't suck (or is as good as him).

It doesn't and it shouldn't.

His substitutes aren't Perreault's value.

That's on the GM and the coach.

Well, yeah, it wouldn't apply to Perrault's numbers because he's not playing. But having a plug in his place would obviously impact the team negatively (thanks a lot, GM and coach). Any sort of team stat to define those replacement periods? Not that I'm burning with curiosity or anything.

 

[Board Bard]

Otherwise Perreault's impact on the team's win differential should differ depending on whether Maurice decides to use Stafford vs Halischuk vs Thorburn vs whomever for his replacement TOI.
That's flawed.

Okay, that helps some (I think). Are you saying Perrault's measured value is kind of relative to what the team would accomplish without him, and that relative value would differ depending on whether the replacement for him is kind of good or really bad?

 

[garret9]

Okay, that helps some (I think). Are you saying Perrault's measured value is kind of relative to what the team would accomplish without him, and that relative value would differ depending on whether the replacement for him is kind of good or really bad?

It's relative to what is statistically a NHL replacement level player.
This way a 3 win player is worth 3 wins no matter the team behind him in the depth charts.

 

[Aavco Cup]

@SCGscott: Drew Stafford closing in on a deal to remain a Winnipeg Jet

 

[Sweech]

 

[Sweech]

Pleasantly surprised he took that little term, I'm almost okay with any $ on two years.

 

[Rheged]

2 years, like that part.

 

[mcpw]

2 years!!!!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

 

[jetman]

Sweet. 2 years is pretty much perfect

As long as it isn't something like 6mil I'm happy.

 

[Board Bard]

It's relative to what is statistically a NHL replacement level player.
This way a 3 win player is worth 3 wins no matter the team behind him in the depth charts.

Okay, I missed the word "otherwise" in your explanation. Thanks.

 

[Jetabre]

Wow 2 years nice.

 

[bennysflyers16]

Must not have been a ton of interest to only sign 2 years 4.3 per

 

[garret9]

Two years is perfect AAV IMO.

 

[mcpw]

Two years is perfect AAV IMO.

AAV

Go home Garret, you're drunk.

 

[Aavco Cup]

@FriedgeHNIC: Stafford deal in WIN is 2 years, $8.7M

 

[Master Scheif]

Wow. Way better deal than i expected.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

2 years baby! Chevy is a god!