Jets At The World Hockey Championship (Part II)

[teddygmr]

Just, "wow"! Ehlers and Scheifele seem like the perfect complementary players for Laine. Both have great speed and are excellent at gaining the zone and creating space for a player like Laine. I think we'll hear a lot of "Ehlers to Laine".

Put Connor on the 3rd line and the Jets are ready to roll in the next few years.

lots of options.....I'd love to see a training camp line of Laine,
Scheifele and his Barrie OHL teammate Ivan Telegin!
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0008352012.html
What a great combination of size and speed!

 

[Gump Hasek]

In a conversation about Laine, Ray Ferraro stated: "I ran into the Jets scouts a couple of times, and their GM Cheveldayoff was over there, and they were really happy with what they were watching".

https://soundcloud.com/tsn-radio-va...mping-up-and-down-with-what-they-saw-in-laine
The Jets discussion begins just after 9:30

 

[ps241]

In a conversation about Laine, Ray Ferraro stated: "I ran into the Jets scouts a couple of times, and their GM Cheveldayoff was over there, and they were really happy with what they were watching".

https://soundcloud.com/tsn-radio-va...mping-up-and-down-with-what-they-saw-in-laine
The Jets discussion begins just after 9:30

Thanks for this link Gump. He also says great things about Scheifele which is cool.

 

[Channelcat]

Thanks for this link Gump. He also says great things about Scheifele which is cool.

Scheif was the MVP in my mind. How exciting to see him play him play that flawless 200 ft game and with an edge! He was awesome.

 

[Le Golie]

This is silly and makes no sense in the context of the discussion.

Would you have bet on a 20 year old Benn being a super star? If you bet on many similar players would you be right or wrong more often?

You just don't get it. And that's fine.

If there's not a graph or a chart for you, it's lost on you. So call it silly and move on.

 

[Whileee]

1) There is nothing abnormal or late about Scheifele's development post draft - I'd say he is pretty well on trend.
2) I don't assume that I can out-predict the average.

You could probably out-predict the average if you included other pertinent parameters in a statistical model, though.

 

[truck]

You just don't get it. And that's fine.

If there's not a graph or a chart for you, it's lost on you. So call it silly and move on.

Charts and graphs have nothing to do with it. Picking an exception as evidence of a rule doesn't make sense.

If you are going to talk Benn, the question is; Would you have bet on a 20 (or even 22) year old Benn being a super star? If you bet on many similar players would you be right or wrong more often? Saying that he did it, so Scheifele can too isn't more rational that "so you're sayong there's a chance."

Also of note, Benn out-produced Scheifele at 20, 21 and 22. Again, that doesn't mean Scheifele can't be better, it just means that Benn was more proven - thus a better bet.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If you want Scheif for 8 years you have to expect to pay him for his UFA years. Let's not forget Schief is a Free Agent. Sure he is restricted in that the Jets can match any offer, but he is free to talk with other teams come July 1st. His agent will have a real nice handle on what a 23 y/o emerging #1 C is worth. Now it is just a matter of how much that gets pushed in negotiations. Something in the $6 - 6.5 M range is team friendly. That is the money Ladd wanted and Scheif offers way more over the length of his contract. If we want real team friendly then it will be 5-6 years so he can really get paid on his next contract. I'd rather buy those years now on a discount. If Scheif settles for $5.4 AAV over 8 years his agent isn't doing his job.

How about we pay him 9 mil/yr for 4 UFA years? I think that qualifies as 'paying him for his UFA years'. Don't you?

Combined with 4 RFA years at an AAV of 3 mil = 48 mil over 8 years. Maybe you are OK with the 9 mil per for the UFA years but don't think 3 is enough for the RFA years. That's a different argument though.

Why are you trying so hard to justify giving him more money? We should be interested in getting him as cheaply as possible.

Edit: It doesn't compare with Ladd at all. Ladd was a UFA. No RFA years at all.

 

[Whileee]

Charts and graphs have nothing to do with it. Picking an exception as evidence of a rule doesn't make sense.

If you are going to talk Benn, the question is; Would you have bet on a 20 (or even 22) year old Benn being a super star? If you bet on many similar players would you be right or wrong more often? Saying that he did it, so Scheifele can too isn't more rational that "so you're sayong there's a chance."

Also of note, Benn out-produced Scheifele at 20, 21 and 22. Again, that doesn't mean Scheifele can't be better, it just means that Benn was more proven - thus a better bet.

In statistics, there aren't really "rules" when it comes to frequency distributions. "Exceptions" are actually part of the distribution that is summarized by an average. The question is whether the "exceptions" are simply random variations or whether they are part of a different distribution that you would discern if you used more variables in your statistical models. Using age as the only variable to develop a points production curve is pretty much the simplest analysis possible. Just because it creates an "average" curve doesn't mean that it is a good way to predict performance for specific individuals based on that curve.

 

[garret9]

In statistics, there aren't really "rules" when it comes to frequency distributions. "Exceptions" are actually part of the distribution that is summarized by an average. The question is whether the "exceptions" are simply random variations or whether they are part of a different distribution that you would discern if you used more variables in your statistical models. Using age as the only variable to develop a points production curve is pretty much the simplest analysis possible. Just because it creates an "average" curve doesn't mean that it is a good way to predict performance for specific individuals based on that curve.

Exceptions are part of the distribution but they are still a minor part. They are still the unlikely, but possible.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

Exceptions are part of the distribution but they are still a minor part. They are still the unlikely, but possible.

I don't even know why I'm jumping in this, but it seems to me the greatest single anomaly would be for anything to actually fall on the curve itself.

I fully agree with the criticisms to this point of the age curve. Using just one variable doesn't really show us anything.

In reference to Benn, I don't think it's all that unlikely that his progression could be predicted with a decent amount of accuracy. Increases in ice time, being placed on a line with a fellow superstar off the top of my head would be indicators of improved output, I think.

Knowing that Scheif will be lined up with any 2 of Wheeler, Ehlers, Laine and Connor, plus the presumptive promotion to 1C indicates a northward spike impending.

And don't it feeeel goooood!

 

[kelsier]

In a conversation about Laine, Ray Ferraro stated: "I ran into the Jets scouts a couple of times, and their GM Cheveldayoff was over there, and they were really happy with what they were watching".

https://soundcloud.com/tsn-radio-va...mping-up-and-down-with-what-they-saw-in-laine
The Jets discussion begins just after 9:30

Ray Ferraro has been so blinded all the way up until WHC. Prior to the tournament he was sharing tweets about Matthews being dozen tiers above Laine or whatever, with oh so transparent AM man-crush. The only thing you could be absolutely certain about Ferraro is that he hadn't payid much if any attension to FEL and seemed almost as if the first time he ever saw Laine was in the men's world championships. To people and fans who've watched Laine in the Finnish Elite League, know what he is capable when playing on the left wing. Between LW and RW the difference is night and day. People don't really grasp how good he is until they see Laine playing his natural position.

Yet, he won the MVP from the off-wing, broke Jagr's records with ease and managed to turn non-believers into believers. I truly hope he falls into Jets'. Watched Scheifele in the tournament and he looked fantastic. Eventually these two could become the scariest pair in the league. And oh yeah, you could add someone like Ehlers on the other wing and you spice up the world class skill and size with blazing speed.

What a wonderful world we live in.

 

[KingBogo]

How about we pay him 9 mil/yr for 4 UFA years? I think that qualifies as 'paying him for his UFA years'. Don't you?

Combined with 4 RFA years at an AAV of 3 mil = 48 mil over 8 years. Maybe you are OK with the 9 mil per for the UFA years but don't think 3 is enough for the RFA years. That's a different argument though.

Why are you trying so hard to justify giving him more money? We should be interested in getting him as cheaply as possible.

Edit: It doesn't compare with Ladd at all. Ladd was a UFA. No RFA years at all.

First off under the collective agreement you can't have compensation vary by more than 35% from season to season or more than 50% from the highest to lowest paid season.

And I am interested in getting Scheifele at the best possible price I'm just discussing what I believe what it actually will cost. Not just the most team friendly it could be if Mark and his agent loved Winnipeg so much he was willing to forgo millions in career earnings to stay here. There seems to be some belief around here that we will somehow not have to pay the going rate for our top young players. In reality Mark's true value is what he would get offer sheeted at. But players and agents are very reluctant to go down this path for a variety of reasons. However, Chevy does need to balance that value against keeping the cost as low as possible. If we expect Scheif to give up UFA years we will have to pay for them. If Chevy wants to keep AAV in the $5-6 M range expect a 5 or 6 year contract which allows Mark to bargain for a big UFA deal while still in his late 20's. An 8 year deal puts Scheif at 31 y/o where only the very elite can squeeze out big long term money.

I'd prefer paying for the 8 years now rather than saving a bit and having to renegotiate a potential big UFA deal 5 years from now when I believe all our young talent has pushed us up against the cap.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

First off under the collective agreement you can't have compensation vary by more than 35% from season to season or more than 50% from the highest to lowest paid season.

And I am interested in getting Scheifele at the best possible price I'm just discussing what I believe what it actually will cost. Not just the most team friendly it could be if Mark and his agent loved Winnipeg so much he was willing to forgo millions in career earnings to stay here. There seems to be some belief around here that we will somehow not have to pay the going rate for our top young players. In reality Mark's true value is what he would get offer sheeted at. But players and agents are very reluctant to go down this path for a variety of reasons. However, Chevy does need to balance that value against keeping the cost as low as possible. If we expect Scheif to give up UFA years we will have to pay for them. If Chevy wants to keep AAV in the $5-6 M range expect a 5 or 6 year contract which allows Mark to bargain for a big UFA deal while still in his late 20's. An 8 year deal puts Scheif at 31 y/o where only the very elite can squeeze out big long term money.

I'd prefer paying for the 8 years now rather than saving a bit and having to renegotiate a potential big UFA deal 5 years from now when I believe all our young talent has pushed us up against the cap.

The first sentence reveals that you have completely misunderstood. You can plug any number you like into the individual years. It doesn't matter. What matters is the term and the total = the AAV which amounts to what I said to begin with. Which year the money arrives in is irrelevant. Once you have the total and the AAV you can structure it many ways. It doesn't matter.

OK, what it should actually cost then. That is what I'm talking too. I'm looking at the comparables to get something like 6x5.5. We are going 8 years so the AAV goes up so we get to about 8x5.75. Marks agent will push hard for more. He should get more than Barkov because the term is longer etc. etc. We get to 8x6.

The argument then is what do we think the going rate is? You say that is all you are trying to pay. I say I am already paying right at the top end of the range or even above it a bit and you say it is not enough. Then we get back into that endless Barkov argument. Lets find a better comparable.

The long term contract need to have benefits to BOTH sides. If it doesn't save the team money then they aren't going to make that commitment.

How many second contracts in the last 10 years have been for more than $48 million?

 

[Whileee]

Exceptions are part of the distribution but they are still a minor part. They are still the unlikely, but possible.

I think you're missing the point. A distribution has a central tendency ("average"), but it's comprised of a whole distribution of different trajectories. Expecting everyone to follow the "average" trajectory is unnecessarily simplistic. That's different from statistical outliers, which are statistical rarities in relation to the distribution of the sample set. The point remains that comparing two different players with obviously different trajectories by referencing an average curve doesn't follow sound statistical analysis principles.

 

[garret9]

I think you're missing the point. A distribution has a central tendency ("average"), but it's comprised of a whole distribution of different trajectories. Expecting everyone to follow the "average" trajectory is unnecessarily simplistic. That's different from statistical outliers, which are statistical rarities in relation to the distribution of the sample set. The point remains that comparing two different players with obviously different trajectories by referencing an average curve doesn't follow sound statistical analysis principles.

No, I'm pretty sure you are missing the point.

Pointing out that an individual is more likely to fall near the mean of the distribution curve than the tail is not expecting everyone to follow average trajectory.

Scheifele MAY not follow the curve.
Barkov MAY not follow the curve.
Anyone MAY not follow the curve.
Everyone is well aware of those possibilities.

However, there is something to be said about the likelihood of them following it is greater than not.

I mean, maybe Scheifele has peaked and Barkov will peak at 29. Maybe Barkov has already peaked and Scheifele will become the best the new #fancystat favourite for the next decade. Who the hell knows. Anything is possible, but not all is most probable.

 

[Whileee]

No, I'm pretty sure you are missing the point.

Pointing out that an individual is more likely to fall near the mean of the distribution curve than the tail is not expecting everyone to follow average trajectory.

Scheifele MAY not follow the curve.
Barkov MAY not follow the curve.
Anyone MAY not follow the curve.
Everyone is well aware of those possibilities.

However, there is something to be said about the likelihood of them following it is greater than not.

I mean, maybe Scheifele has peaked and Barkov will peak at 29. Who the hell knows. Anything is possible, but not all is most probable.

Sorry, gotta agree to disagree on this. This is an area of expertise for me (advanced statistical analysis, though not applied to hockey), and there are so many things wrong about comparing two individuals based on a population "average" result that I'm not sure where to begin.

Maybe it helps to recognize that it's quite evident that neither Barkov nor Scheifele are strictly "following the curve". It's not very interesting or informative then to compare them in relation to that curve. Clearly, there are variables that are influencing each of the trajectories that are being ignored by simply referencing the curve.

Perhaps if I posed a couple of questions, it would help. What proportion of players that have Scheifele's history and trajectory end up following the average curve? What proportion of players with Barkov's history and trajectory end up following the average curve? Your statement above suggests that you think that it is over 50%. Is there data to support that?

If we combined Scheifele's trajectory and Barkov's trajectory into an "average" curve, should we expect each of them to follow that same "average" curve?

I hope you don't really think that this sort of analysis is valid or sufficient. It's actually not.

But we should probably not belabor this thread with any more of this statistical discussion.

 

[Howard Chuck]

Ray Ferraro has been so blinded all the way up until WHC. Prior to the tournament he was sharing tweets about Matthews being dozen tiers above Laine or whatever, with oh so transparent AM man-crush. The only thing you could be absolutely certain about Ferraro is that he hadn't payid much if any attension to FEL and seemed almost as if the first time he ever saw Laine was in the men's world championships. To people and fans who've watched Laine in the Finnish Elite League, know what he is capable when playing on the left wing. Between LW and RW the difference is night and day. People don't really grasp how good he is until they see Laine playing his natural position.

Yet, he won the MVP from the off-wing, broke Jagr's records with ease and managed to turn non-believers into believers. I truly hope he falls into Jets'. Watched Scheifele in the tournament and he looked fantastic. Eventually these two could become the scariest pair in the league. And oh yeah, you could add someone like Ehlers on the other wing and you spice up the world class skill and size with blazing speed.

What a wonderful world we live in.

I love your glimpse into the future!

 

[garret9]

Sorry, gotta agree to disagree on this. This is an area of expertise for me (advanced statistical analysis, though not applied to hockey), and there are so many things wrong about comparing two individuals based on a population "average" result that I'm not sure where to begin.

Maybe it helps to recognize that it's quite evident that neither Barkov nor Scheifele are strictly "following the curve". It's not very interesting or informative then to compare them in relation to that curve. Clearly, there are variables that are influencing each of the trajectories that are being ignored by simply referencing the curve.

Perhaps if I posed a couple of questions, it would help. What proportion of players that have Scheifele's history and trajectory end up following the average curve? What proportion of players with Barkov's history and trajectory end up following the average curve? Your statement above suggests that you think that it is over 50%. Is there data to support that?

If we combined Scheifele's trajectory and Barkov's trajectory into an "average" curve, should we expect each of them to follow that same "average" curve?

I hope you don't really think that this sort of analysis is valid or sufficient. It's actually not.

But we should probably not belabor this thread with any more of this statistical discussion.

What? No one is doing what you are saying they are doing though. I am not suggesting what you think I'm suggesting.

This isn't something knowledge in advanced statistical analysis is needed.

Some players will peak prior to the average peak. Some will peak after. Most will peak closer than further.... sorta like a skewed normal curve.

No one knows for certain where either of these players will peak. No one can assume where either of these players peak. One can point out where it is historically most likely.

This is less a stats thing than a logic thing.

What we know:
Barkov's results at the same age has been better for every age we can compare.
Scheifele's results heavily accelerated this last season, which could be growth, luck/variance, or combination thereof.
Most players peak around 24-26, but not all do.

That's it.

 

[mcpw]

Which data have been used for this graph?

 

[garret9]

Which data have been used for this graph?

It was a series on growth curves by Eric Tuslky on SBN's defunct blog Outnumbered.

Worth a read. Very good stuff.

 

[mcpw]

It was a series on growth curves by Eric Tuslky on SBN's defunct blog Outnumbered.

Worth a read. Very good stuff.

Thanks. I was worried about what he calls "selection bias", but it seems like it has been covered.

(link1 link2 for those interested).

 

[KingBogo]

The first sentence reveals that you have completely misunderstood. You can plug any number you like into the individual years. It doesn't matter. What matters is the term and the total = the AAV which amounts to what I said to begin with. Which year the money arrives in is irrelevant. Once you have the total and the AAV you can structure it many ways. It doesn't matter.

OK, what it should actually cost then. That is what I'm talking too. I'm looking at the comparables to get something like 6x5.5. We are going 8 years so the AAV goes up so we get to about 8x5.75. Marks agent will push hard for more. He should get more than Barkov because the term is longer etc. etc. We get to 8x6.

The argument then is what do we think the going rate is? You say that is all you are trying to pay. I say I am already paying right at the top end of the range or even above it a bit and you say it is not enough. Then we get back into that endless Barkov argument. Lets find a better comparable.

The long term contract need to have benefits to BOTH sides. If it doesn't save the team money then they aren't going to make that commitment.

How many second contracts in the last 10 years have been for more than $48 million?

Few players and their agents are willing to go the full 8 years for top RFA's to bring it into that range. It really is a bad length for the player. In Scheif's case it takes him out of the range (31 y/o) where he has a reasonable chance of getting a big UFA contract. A lot of the players we are comparing him to signed in the $5-6 M range over 5-6 years putting them at UFA status right at their peak where they can command absolute top dollar for max term. It is not just the extra 2 years it is the extra 5-8 years you can demand top dollar for if you are negotiating in the front end of your prime. To sacrifice that type of career earning power you have to make it really worth while to the player, not just incrementally better.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Few players and their agents are willing to go the full 8 years for top RFA's to bring it into that range. It really is a bad length for the player. In Scheif's case it takes him out of the range (31 y/o) where he has a reasonable chance of getting a big UFA contract. A lot of the players we are comparing him to signed in the $5-6 M range over 5-6 years putting them at UFA status right at their peak where they can command absolute top dollar for max term. It is not just the extra 2 years it is the extra 5-8 years you can demand top dollar for if you are negotiating in the front end of your prime. To sacrifice that type of career earning power you have to make it really worth while to the player, not just incrementally better.

That's a whole 'nother discussion. I don't think anybody in theis situation signs for 5 years. That is terrible for the team. It is either 6+ or a bridge of 1-3, usually 2. I'm well aware of the effect of the 8 years deal but it is not a simple calculation. There are pros and cons for both sides. Very often the agent will want 6 years in order to have a better chance at 1 more big contract and the team will be happy with a shorter commitment. Scheif is the relatively rare player that a team will be anxious to commit to for as long as possible. It will still come down to some give and take. IDK where the term will end up. I'm pretty sure the team will try for 8. It is just a question of how much money it will take to get and whether or not the Jets are willing to go there.

 

[KingBogo]

That's a whole 'nother discussion. I don't think anybody in theis situation signs for 5 years. That is terrible for the team. It is either 6+ or a bridge of 1-3, usually 2. I'm well aware of the effect of the 8 years deal but it is not a simple calculation. There are pros and cons for both sides. Very often the agent will want 6 years in order to have a better chance at 1 more big contract and the team will be happy with a shorter commitment. Scheif is the relatively rare player that a team will be anxious to commit to for as long as possible. It will still come down to some give and take. IDK where the term will end up. I'm pretty sure the team will try for 8. It is just a question of how much money it will take to get and whether or not the Jets are willing to go there.

What ever happens I hope to hell they don't bridge Scheifele. Give him 2 or 3 more years to add to his resume and get him up next to UFA status and we will have to pay through the nose just as we need to resign Little, Ehlers, Connor, Laine and Wheeler. If it is 3 years you are at arbitration and then UFA status at the heat of his prime. This is the path that leads us not being able to hold the young talent together. IMO the Jets need to be very strategic in locking up their young talent and being a little generous upfront may save them a ton of cap space down the line.

BTW I'd lock up Trouba long term under the same premise. He is already a top 4 D-man therefore he will always hold value. You take a bit of a risk and be generous on the front end and it could again save a ton of cap space down the line when we really need it to keep a young blossoming contender together.