(Official) Around the NHL Thread 10.0: We're Bad, But So Is The Pacific Division

[Johnny Hoxville]

I don't think you know what fell off a cliff means because that didn't happen until he was injured

People forget how good he was when we acquired him. The Oiler fans were so salty that we got him for peanuts, I was a big Smid fan when he got here. He was very Cory Sarich like.

 

[Lunatik]

People forget how good he was when we acquired him. The Oiler fans were so salty that we got him for peanuts, I was a big Smid fan when he got here. He was very Cory Sarich like.

Agreed, the last year he struggled to start the year and then got hurt. But right after we acquired him he was very solid.

 

[CALVAG]

I don't think you know what fell off a cliff means because that didn't happen until he was injured

You're kidding right? I like the guy. I've had the pleasure of meeting him a couple times. Anecdotally, he's really really funny. But his play definitely dropped off a cliff.

His CorsiRel in the three years before he was traded was 2.3 / -0.6 / -2.8.
In the year he was traded and the two years after it was -15.2 / -10.6 / -3.2.

I'd like to say he has rebounded nicely this year, but his TOI/60 has also dropped considerably for the last three consecutive years.

 

[Lunatik]

You're kidding right? I like the guy. I've had the pleasure of meeting him a couple times. Anecdotally, he's really really funny. But his play definitely dropped off a cliff.

His CorsiRel in the three years before he was traded was 2.3 / -0.6 / -2.8.
In the year he was traded and the two years after it was -15.2 / -10.6 / -3.2.

I'd like to say he has rebounded nicely this year, but his TOI/60 has also dropped considerably for the last three consecutive years.

You 're new here so I will just tell you this.

When you are replying to me and your "proof" is anything corsi related I will just laugh at you because those stats mean nothing at all, they atren't worth the time you spent looking them up.

 

[CALVAG]

You 're new here so I will just tell you this.

When you are replying to me and your "proof" is anything corsi related I will just laugh at you because those stats mean nothing at all, they atren't worth the time you spent looking them up.

Let me guess...you like Smid because he has "truculence" and "gritensity" but because advanced stats don't measure them advanced stats are bad?

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

That was still a good trade for us. Smid was awesome until last season, and his play was really affected due to his injury. That is not something you can account for. He was a good #4/5, the price we paid for him was fine.

Sure, there were people who liked the trade, and I'm mostly indifferent on it, but it had its critics then, too. Those criticisms are looking very accurate right now, here are some snippets from a single post in the original trade thread:

The argument against the trade isn't all that complicated. Basically, it espouses the idea the Flames short-circuited the rebuild by trading prospects away for another veteran.

...

Even though at 27, Smid isn't exactly over-the-hill, by the time the Flames end up being seriously competitive, i.e. three or four years from now, Smid will be over 30 and a UFA. Moreover, Feaster's interview with Millions yesterday suggested the Flames scouting and coaching staff see Smid as more a third pairing defensemen

...

Brossoit was widely considered the Flames second best goaltending prospect at the start of the season (naturally, he's the worst of the bunch after the trade).

....

If Brossoit pans out, the Flames would have given away a starting goaltender for a bottom pairing defensemen, essentially sacrificing the future for a little bit of help in the now.

...

Smid was a pure cap dump

...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1534349&page=8

 

[Snazu]

Let me guess...you like Smid because he has "truculence" and "gritensity" but because advanced stats don't measure them advanced stats are bad?

advanced stats are just very misleading when it comes to a lot of them. Hockey is not a sport that fits advanced stats very well, in my opinion. A game like baseball is suited for them, because its basically a pitcher vs a batter for the most part, but hockey has way too many moving parts to get an accurate picture of what's going on with them.

 

[Lunatik]

Let me guess...you like Smid because he has "truculence" and "gritensity" but because advanced stats don't measure them advanced stats are bad?

advanced stats are bad for many reasons.

1) they aren't advanced in the slightest
2) they don't actually measure possession as they claim
3) they are more or less +/- for shots, which makes them as useless as +/-
4) the tiny bit of value they might have goes out the window because people look at the with no context at all
5) People like you spout them as if they as gospel when the reality is they tell a small fraction of the story

 

[Snazu]

As for the Smid trade, he was supposed to be a place filler until we were farther into the rebuild. And he did a good job doing it. He was playing at or close to 20 minutes a night in that 1st year. Raymond and Engelland are in the same boat as Smid. All 3 were there to just hold a place until their contracts expired and there would be someone ready to step into their spot but our rebuild started to show results a lot quicker than expected and we now don't have room really for any of them. There was alot of question marks in the lineup at the time they were all signed, but now we have players that have pushed them all down the depth chart.

 

[CALVAG]

advanced stats are just very misleading when it comes to a lot of them. Hockey is not a sport that fits advanced stats very well, in my opinion. A game like baseball is suited for them, because its basically a pitcher vs a batter for the most part, but hockey has way too many moving parts to get an accurate picture of what's going on with them.

I totally see where you're coming from. But remember that hockey at its core is about outscoring the opponent. And in order to do this you have to have the puck on your stick. You have to drive the play. So the point of advanced stats is measuring which players (and teams) are best at this.

There's lots of different ways to go about it. Things like CorsiRel, High Danger Scoring Changes For and Against, and WOWY (i.e. with and without you) definitely help. But they also have to be given in context with things like TOI and QoC.

Advanced stats don't tell the whole story that is for sure. But they help.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

advanced stats are just very misleading when it comes to a lot of them. Hockey is not a sport that fits advanced stats very well, in my opinion. A game like baseball is suited for them, because its basically a pitcher vs a batter for the most part, but hockey has way too many moving parts to get an accurate picture of what's going on with them.

While it's true that whenever you look at underlying stats you're looking at a team stat, it's also true that if you look deeply enough into underlying stats you can in fact identify players who have a persistent positive impact, negative impact, or non-impact and it's also true that anyone who writes off underlying stats is living in a stone age where Joe Colborne and Kris Russell and the like are better players than Josh Jooris and David Schlemko or the like. Strong underlying stats tend to produce strong end-results and poor underlying stats tend to produce poor end-results. The people who are still denying these facts with weak deflection arguments such as "they don't actually measure possession" are becoming fewer and fewer but they will still persist, just as people who deny evolution and climate change still persist.

 

[CALVAG]

advanced stats are bad for many reasons.

1) they aren't advanced in the slightest
2) they don't actually measure possession as they claim
3) they are more or less +/- for shots, which makes them as useless as +/-
4) the tiny bit of value they might have goes out the window because people look at the with no context at all
5) People like you spout them as if they as gospel when the reality is they tell a small fraction of the story

1) How so?
2) How so?
3) Somewhat agree. But +/- is very useful information. Teams that consistently outshoot their opponents are good teams. Teams that consistently get outshot by their opponents are bad teams.
4) Definitely agree. Context is everything. That's why TOI or QoC is critical when providing stats. Which is what I did.
5) Definitely agree...with the second part. Not sure why you think I think they're gospel. Maybe because I made one post using them?

EDIT - i think I misunderstood your number 3...do you mean on-ice goal differential? If so, then I'll change my answer to "how so?"

 

[Lunatik]

You don't understand how basically using shots for and against is not advanced? If anything it is over-simplistic and basically saying if you take more shots than you allow you will win.

And how do they not measure possession? Possession is possession not shots, possession to be measured has to be measured in time. That is the only way to measure possession. These stats put more value on a handful of lazy shots from the perimeter then they do from a good cycle that results in just 1 shot that is a good scoring chance.

Even their scoring chances are determined by location on the ice and not the actual quality for the scoring chance.

Like Snazu pointed out, advanced stats do not work well for hockey as there are too many variables.

 

[Dertell]

1) How so?
2) How so?
3) Somewhat agree. But +/- is very useful information. Teams that consistently outshoot their opponents are good teams. Teams that consistently get outshot by their opponents are bad teams.
4) Definitely agree. Context is everything. That's why TOI or QoC is critical when providing stats. Which is what I did.
5) Definitely agree...with the second part. Not sure why you think I think they're gospel. Maybe because I made one post using them?

EDIT - i think I misunderstood your number 3...do you mean on-ice goal differential? If so, then I'll change my answer to "how so?"

lol don't waste your time with him.

 

[CALVAG]

You don't understand how basically using shots for and against is not advanced? If anything it is over-simplistic and basically saying if you take more shots than you allow you will win.

And how do they not measure possession? Possession is possession not shots, possession to be measured has to be measured in time. That is the only way to measure possession. These stats put more value on a handful of lazy shots from the perimeter then they do from a good cycle that results in just 1 shot that is a good scoring chance.

Even their scoring chances are determined by location on the ice and not the actual quality for the scoring chance.

Like Snazu pointed out, advanced stats do not work well for hockey as there are too many variables.

I think measuring things like High Danger Scoring Changes For and Against is quite advanced actually. Or things like With and Without You. Or Quality of Competition.

In order to take shots you have to have possession. Not sure where the disconnect is here? If you think advanced stats measure shots from the perimeter, then you don't know what High Danger means. Hint - it's not the perimeter.

Read my reply to Snazu. Hockey is dynamic yes. But the point of hockey is simple...outscore your opponent. And to outscore you have to have the puck. Advanced stats tell us which players and which teams are best at this. Simple as.