Player Discussion Jeff Petry

[Tighthead]

he always looked better with another puck mover: Markov, Mete, Beaulieu, Reilly; not Emelin, Alzner

Apparently the new tendency is to pair puck movers together. It makes sense.

Every year there is more and more of a requirement for all D to be effective at moving the puck.

 

[Man Purse]

Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

 

[Cobra Commander]

Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

Time to trade him! Can’t miss young gun PMD in return?

 

[PriceIsGod]

Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

Mad lads

 

[Habs Icing]

Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

My high school principle who was a Christian brother had a habit of saying, "Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you read." Berskire falls into the reading half that you don't believe.

 

[DangerDave]

Andrew Berkshire is delusional haha. Petry is great and all but he's nowhere near the top 20, let alone 13th best D in the league

 

[JuicyHam]

Andrew Berkshire is delusional haha. Petry is great and all but he's nowhere near the top 20, let alone 13th best D in the league

Yeah he's definitely had a hard on for Petry since we traded for him. Petry is great but come on now

 

[MXD]

Berkshire uses numbers to come off to these conclusions, and I have no reasons to suspect the numbers are wrong.

I do have every reason to suspect that he chose (and weighted) the numbers in a way that would support his preconceived conclusions though.

And I really like Petry. He's great when in his role -- the key D-Men on the 2nd pairing. He can play above this role, but doing so on the long term would be miscasting him.

 

[Scintillating10]

Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

Wonder if there is another GM who thinks like this?

 

[Dominator13]

Andrew Berkshire is delusional haha. Petry is great and all but he's nowhere near the top 20, let alone 13th best D in the league

Lol

He can't be delusional since his report is 100% number crunching and 0% emotional biased opinions.

If you want to criticize him, let it be about his methodology of getting to those results, or focusing too much on process numbers and less about actual results.

 

[DangerDave]

Lol

He can't be delusional since his report is 100% number crunching and 0% emotional biased opinions.

If you want to criticize him, let it be about his methodology of getting to those results, or focusing too much on process numbers and less about actual results.

Ok well his methodology should certainly not be perceived as the be all end all. Petry is a number 3 dman on a good team. Any one who watches the Habs will tell you the same.

I'll take Parayko, Barrie, Buff, Keith, Werenski, Letang and Lindholm over Petry any day.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Andrew Berkshire is delusional haha. Petry is great and all but he's nowhere near the top 20, let alone 13th best D in the league

Well, he is not just picking random NHL defenseman with his ranking. He is clearly showing a method on how he came to the conclusion. I'm not saying I agree Petry is the 13th best NHL defenseman in the league but I do acknowledge how he came to his conclusions. What stats that he used do you disagree with?

Add this to another example on how Habs fans throw our own assets under the bus. Petry has a lot of value in today's NHL. He has no weakness to his game and he does a lot of things well.

 

[Peanut]

Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

Not a bad article I wonder how many people actually read it or just looked at the ranking and decided to make judgements lol

 

[DangerDave]

Well, he is not just picking random NHL defenseman with his ranking. He is clearly showing a method on how he came to the conclusion. I'm not saying I agree Petry is the 13th best NHL defenseman in the league but I do acknowledge how he came to his conclusions. What stats that he used do you disagree with?

Add this to another example on how Habs fans throw our own assets under the bus. Petry has a lot of value in today's NHL. He has no weakness to his game and he does a lot of things well.

I realize how he ranked it but to call it the "definitive" ranking is ridiculous. Petry is a very good dman but like I said in my previous post, their are guys like Parayko, Buff and Keith who are far better than him. I'm not throwing him under the bus, he's one of my favorites on the team. He's just not the 13th best dman in the league. More like 30th

 

[Habs Halifax]

I realize how he ranked it but to call it the "definitive" ranking is ridiculous. Petry is a very good dman but like I said in my previous post, their are guys like Parayko, Buff and Keith who are far better than him. I'm not throwing him under the bus, he's one of my favorites on the team. He's just not the 13th best dman in the league. More like 30th

I would have Parayko and Buff as better than him on paper. But Keith? I think Petry is better than him at this point. If everybody is so focused at Weber falling in ranking cause he is 33, Keith deserves the same treatment.

I will be honest. I was surprised to see Petry at 13th. I would of had him somewhere around 25-50 ish without looking at production and going with popular trends. But after looking at this report, it's hard to argue against it based on his actual production and how it compares to the best in the game. He has earned it over the last 3 years.

The potential don't equal the actual production on the ice. People fall into this trap so many times.

 

[CDN24]

Berkshire uses numbers to come off to these conclusions, and I have no reasons to suspect the numbers are wrong.

I do have every reason to suspect that he chose (and weighted) the numbers in a way that would support his preconceived conclusions though.

And I really like Petry. He's great when in his role -- the key D-Men on the 2nd pairing. He can play above this role, but doing so on the long term would be miscasting him.

I just ranked all NHL eligible d-men, essentially anyone with an Nhl contract (some are in the NHl, some in the minors and some in junior) I have Jeff Petry at 445th on my list. (its alphabetic). The problem with these lists that propose to be objective and stats based are that the subjective part is which stats to use and at what weighting. Petry is 445th on my list, that part is objective but I wonder if Alphabetic was the way to go. It did have PK Subban at 556 (right behind Jordan) and Shea Weber at 594. Subban only 38 places ahead of Weber, my method probably would probably need some Berkshire tweaking as that gap seems too narrow.

Not sure if Berkshires stats drive is opinions or if his opinions drive his stat selection. Either way I put no value on both is methodologies or his stats.

 

[Adriatic]

I just ranked all NHL eligible d-men, essentially anyone with an Nhl contract (some are in the NHl, some in the minors and some in junior) I have Jeff Petry at 445th on my list. (its alphabetic). The problem with these lists that propose to be objective and stats based are that the subjective part is which stats to use and at what weighting. Petry is 445th on my list, that part is objective but I wonder if Alphabetic was the way to go. It did have PK Subban at 556 (right behind Jordan) and Shea Weber at 594. Subban only 38 places ahead of Weber, my method probably would probably need some Berkshire tweaking as that gap seems too narrow.

Not sure if Berkshires stats drive is opinions or if his opinions drive his stat selection. Either way I put no value on both is methodologies or his stats.

That was golden!!

 

[Habs Halifax]

I just ranked all NHL eligible d-men, essentially anyone with an Nhl contract (some are in the NHl, some in the minors and some in junior) I have Jeff Petry at 445th on my list. (its alphabetic). The problem with these lists that propose to be objective and stats based are that the subjective part is which stats to use and at what weighting. Petry is 445th on my list, that part is objective but I wonder if Alphabetic was the way to go. It did have PK Subban at 556 (right behind Jordan) and Shea Weber at 594. Subban only 38 places ahead of Weber, my method probably would probably need some Berkshire tweaking as that gap seems too narrow.

Not sure if Berkshires stats drive is opinions or if his opinions drive his stat selection. Either way I put no value on both is methodologies or his stats.

In all seriousness, I like to see you come up with a ranking that means anything other than alphabetic? Do you seriously think your alphabetic ranking holds similar value to his ranking? Petry at 13th is an eye opener to some and most don't agree with it. However, he did have Subban, Doughty, and Karlsson in the top 3 using the same system. There are a few head scratchers but I will always respect someone who does their homework. It holds up way more than a popular out of the ass opinion based on flashy players and points or a alphabetic system.

Prior to this, I would have (and have said on the main boards) that Petry is a above average top 4D. I would of had him in the top 50 range. But that was just a gut feel.

This ranking at 13th make a lot of people upset but nobody has their own system to counter it. It's interesting to see how people use popular trends vs actual measurable results. At least there is some form of calculation here.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Berkshire uses numbers to come off to these conclusions, and I have no reasons to suspect the numbers are wrong.

I do have every reason to suspect that he chose (and weighted) the numbers in a way that would support his preconceived conclusions though.

And I really like Petry. He's great when in his role -- the key D-Men on the 2nd pairing. He can play above this role, but doing so on the long term would be miscasting him.

The bolded is the valid argument.

Berkshires inputs are fine. The logic behind the stats he uses is fine. I don't love the weighting in general and don't know the general weighting of the 3 areas.

Berkshire isn't gaming the results to make Petry look good and Weber look bad. There are rankings that he disagrees with.

The best way to look at the articles is to ignore the title (he's not coming up with them) and look at some D that may be over/under valued.

In general the names on his list aren't that different from other ranking models, even if the order is different. And individual number rank is probably unhelpful, the difference in many cases is minuscule.

Petry is good. Not 14th best, but he's really good.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The bolded is the valid argument.

Berkshires inputs are fine. The logic behind the stats he uses is fine. I don't love the weighting in general and don't know the general weighting of the 3 areas.

Berkshire isn't gaming the results to make Petry look good and Weber look bad. There are rankings that he disagrees with.

The best way to look at the articles is to ignore the title (he's not coming up with them) and look at some D that may be over/under valued.

In general the names on his list aren't that different from other ranking models, even if the order is different. And individual number rank is probably unhelpful, the difference in many cases is minuscule.

Petry is good. Not 14th best, but he's really good.

I find it funny how people think the popularity rankings trump Berkshires evaluation system. And I agree with you, there are several who made the list who we all thought would be there. It's very interesting to see Petry fall at 13th. Most would not have him in the top 20 discussion. Hard to pin down how good Petry is. I consider him a very good #3 on a cup contender and on some teams like ours, he is a top pairing guy logging big minutes.

Prior to this article coming out, I would have said top 50 +/- and I suspect some fans out there would of contested this. It should be an eye opener to many with how Petry is handling the top pairing minutes with Weber hurt. He is definitely trending very well. 42 pts with 12 goals last year is very solid. He's off to a great start with 2 assists in 2 games so far this season too.

 

[DAChampion]

Berkshire continuously makes the same mistake in his analyses -- he does not know what a covariance is. When using statistics, you cannot just linearly combine 100 different stats as he did, as many statistics vary together.

I have known that Berkshire does this for years, and sure enough I found it in his article.

For example, he is including both corsi and shot attempts as separate inputs into his model. You cannot do that as you end up including the sane information twice. He does this over and over.

It's a cute little exercise that meets the standards of a blog needing hits, but it would be rejected if he submitted it to a statistics-heavy journal. It would also lose points as an undergraduate homework problem -- covariances are basic stuff.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Berkshire continuously makes the same mistake in his analyses -- he does not know what a covariance is. When using statistics, you cannot just linearly combine 100 different stats as he did, as many statistics vary together.

I have known that Berkshire does this for years, and sure enough I found it in his article.

For example, he is including both corsi and shot attempts as separate inputs into his model. You cannot do that as you end up including the sane information twice. He does this over and over.

It's a cute little exercise that meets the standards of a blog needing hits, but it would be rejected if he submitted it to a statistics-heavy journal. It would also lose points as an undergraduate homework problem -- covariances are basic stuff.

But is he equally applying this to each defenseman? So in effect, whatever approach he takes, it's applied equally? Personally, I would like to see constructive criticism. Do you have the time to do your homework and provide your top 20 guys with your own system? I wonder how much it would vary from his rankings?

It's not like he has garbage in his top 20. Doughty, Subban, Karlsson are the top 3. What guys don't belong? I know I would have Hedman as my #1 guy but that is just the eye test and watching games with no calculated measure.

I actually have no problem with his evaluation. Why 3 years? Not sure. But he clearly breaks down his approach at evaluating Offense, Transition, Defence, and Degree of Difficulty. Seems like a reasonable approach to me. If anyone wants to contest it, stick your neck out, do your own homework, and provide your own ranking and how you came up with it.

Tracking some quick stats over the last 3 years.... I tracked a few stats on Karlsson, Petry, Giordano, and Keith to compare a few. Not sure how he is ranked higher than Keith for example but Petry's stats hold their own. Don't have time to do each player.

1. Karlsson
- 230 games, 0.93 pt/game, 0.31 PP pt/game
- 2.88 shots per game, 0.91 hits per game, 2.16 blocks per game
- 1.25 giveaways per game, 0.76 takeaways per game
- 27.51 TOI, 3.88 PP-TOI, 1.64 SH-TOI
- (-) 17

2. Doughty
3. Subban

4. Giordano
- 245 games, 0.54 pt/game, 0.18 PP pt/game
- 2.36 shots per game, 0.96 hits per game, 2.20 blocks per game
- 0.64 giveaways per game, 0.57 takeaways per game
- 24.39 TOI, 2.97 PP-TOI, 2.91 SH-TOI
- (+) 17

5. Klingberg
6. Fowler
7. Burns
8. Jones
9. Josi
10. OEL
11. Pietrangelo
12. Hedman

13. Petry
- 213 games, 0.40 pt/game, 0.16 PP pt/game
- 2.10 shots per game, 1.99 hits per game, 1.67 blocks per game
- 1.19 giveaways per game, 0.36 takeaways per game
- 22.71 TOI, 2.68 PP-TOI, 2.21 SH-TOI
- (-) 23

14. Letang

15. Keith
- 229 games, 0.56 pt/game, 0.19 PP pt/game
- 2.18 shots per game, 0.35 hits per game, 1.69 blocks per game
- 0.84 giveaways per game, 0.38 takeaways per game
- 24.89 TOI, 2.86 PP-TOI, 2.52 SH-TOI
- (+) 6

16. Werenski
17. Byfuglien
18. Lindholm
19. Barrie
20. Parayko

 

[DAChampion]

But is he equally applying this to each defenseman? So in effect, whatever approach he takes, it's applied equally? Personally, I would like to see constructive criticism. Do you have the time to do your homework and provide your top 20 guys with your own system? I wonder how much it would vary from his rankings?

I just gave constructive criticism -- Berkshire is ignorong covariances.

You probably don't even know what that word means. To be honest I'm not sure that Berkshire does either. It comes up in Statistics 101.

Whether Berkshire is applying fallacies to every player equally is irrelevant -- it is still a fallacy.

 

[MXD]

Berkshire continuously makes the same mistake in his analyses -- he does not know what a covariance is. When using statistics, you cannot just linearly combine 100 different stats as he did, as many statistics vary together.

I have known that Berkshire does this for years, and sure enough I found it in his article.

For example, he is including both corsi and shot attempts as separate inputs into his model. You cannot do that as you end up including the sane information twice. He does this over and over.

It's a cute little exercise that meets the standards of a blog needing hits, but it would be rejected if he submitted it to a statistics-heavy journal. It would also lose points as an undergraduate homework problem -- covariances are basic stuff.

I did Sciences Humaines Pas d'Maths and perfectly understood the point.

 

[DAChampion]

Another fallacy is that Berkshire also fails to describe what statistics he's actually using. For example:

Offence: 5-on-5 and power play goals, primary assists, secondary assists, high danger scoring chances, scoring chances, passes to the slot, scoring chances off the rush, passes off the rush, offensive zone passes, rebound recoveries, scoring chance generating plays, shot attempts, penalties drawn, on-ice goals for relative to teammates (all per 60 minutes), and offensive zone pass completion rate.

That whole thing is worth 25%, but he doesn't say how it's divided up among those subcomponents. How much are penalties drawn worth? He doesn't say.

He is a blogger, he's not a Wall Street trader, he can't have a proprietary probabilistic blend.