Player Discussion: Patrik Laine Part VII: Eliitti! - Mod Warning Post #79

[Ippenator]

Optimal outcome occurring is not always the best measure of a team's/player's efficiency or impact in reaching that optimal outcome.
This is why we look at particular numbers, to remove as many of the layers of fat of outside variables and impacts.

[mod] And still it is only the scored and allowed goals that matter and count in the end...

 

[psycho_dad*]

Why can't people be satisfied that Laine is a great player without expecting him to be better than McDavid? I don't see him as being near McDavid. In the long run I see him as being a Tarasenko, Stamkos, Kovalchuk tier of player, Ovechkin in the best case and that's okay

Why do people need to see the same thing you see?

I have made my point a dozen times about why I see what I see. You don't need to draw same conclusions but why is it always on trial why someone dares to put Laine in that category? Statistics suggest that path, the counter arguments are always subjective..."but come on man McDavid is more hyped and his greatness is agreed by everyone".

I care more about the raw data than what biases and peer pressure suggests. Actual numbers tell me more

He is lightyears away from the guys you mentioned at age 18. Why not see the monster that's coming? He will put ovechkins 20 year old season to shame and that was Ovys rookie season

 

[psycho_dad*]

[mod] And still it is only the scored and allowed goals that matter and count in the end...

These are facts. And goals scored is the most important individual stat.

And guess who is the best on this globe at that?

 

[Ippenator]

Why can't people be satisfied that Laine is a great player without expecting him to be better than McDavid? I don't see him as being near McDavid. In the long run I see him as being a Tarasenko, Stamkos, Kovalchuk tier of player, Ovechkin in the best case and that's okay

Why can't it just be that some people really see way more potential than you see in Laine? I for example like Finnish players in general, and still even when many non Finnish and Finnish fans see Barkov as the greatest talent in Finnish hockey, I don't see him even close to the talent that Laine is. And I'm not either daring to claim that Barkov would ever have any chance of being the same caliber player as McDavid.

But Laine just happens to be really so amazingly raw and physically underdeveloped (mostly because of missing almost three summer training seasons in a row), that what he did last season with his pure skills and hockey IQ is something that I don't believe any other player would have been able to do with lacking as much physical condition that he had last season. And yet he managed to achieve by goals and points one of the best seasons any 18 year olds have ever had in the NHL. Especially era taken into account.

Laine's trainer Hannu Rautala (the most respected Finnish physical trainer for hockey players) said in the middle of last summer that Laine was still extremely raw and physically underdeveloped. But he also said in the same interview that Laine is extremely talented with his motoric skills and that he is also very talented and well motivated in training, and that he sees only the sky as the limit for the physical potential that Laine has.

This summer Rautala has already said that Laine has been making already quite good progress and that he is obviously becoming physically a man.

It is exactly these things that make some of us Finnish fans, who have seen Laine play in about 200 games already (in FEL, Finnish National teams and the NHL), to see his potential in such a different light than quite many other NHL fans might see it at the moment. It hasn't been yet proved if we or you are after all right, so maybe you also don't have to announce it as some kind of a biblical truth, how you happen to see Laine now and in the future. These are just opinions. Only future will after all tell us how things will really go. Lets just wait and see and enjoy excellent hockey while waiting.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

These are facts. And goals scored is the most important individual stat.

And guess who is the best on this globe at that?

I love Laine. Heck, I'm about 1/4 Finn myself, so I have some personal bias.

But I love the Jets more, and I'm most interested in how he contributes to wins for the Jets. His individual stats come second for me. They'll follow anyway: he's too good for them not to.

 

[ijuka]

Define statline. His scoring was better, but his two way numbers were significantly worse.

Goals + assists = points adjusted for 82 games is my definition.

And sure, they were. And it's not that he doesn't have a long way to go to be better overall. But having the better statline is a good start. I guess it depends on your outlook. To me him having a superior statline(pre-slump) is remarkable. And is in my eyes grounds for not agreeing with McDavid always being better than Laine to be an absolute truth that'll never change. Especially with everything considered.

The next season should make us all a lot wiser. And by the way, on a topic that's been brought up in this thread...


When you have two players, one with good absolute stats like GF% and goals and points but poor advanced stats and one with worse absolute stats like GF% and points but significantly better advanced stats, which had the better season? Technically, it'd have to be the one with better absolute stats, right? After all, the game of hockey doesn't care whether you take 5 or 500 shots if the end result is you still scoring 5 goals. Hence, the advanced stats would mostly be for predicting the future. Now...

If a player's expected to improve(A young player, a rookie playing for the first year on NA ice) or decline(an old, veteran player who's noticeably slowing down) significantly, does that sort of a prediction for the future carry all that much weight? And if the general landscape never changes for this player's entire career(GF%, point totals stay high, advanced stats stay poor), did the advanced stats actually matter? I guess you could argue that he could have done even better if they had been better, but wouldn't that have been simply reflected by him just having a better GF% and higher points anyway?

Hm...

I understand using them for relatively seasoned players, for instance if one has a "breakout season" but his luck-indicators give out red alerts maybe you shouldn't expect him to actually continue to produce at such a rate. But for young players on their first seasons in the league, I'm really not sure if it makes much sense to use them for predicting the future.

 

[Ippenator]

I love Laine. Heck, I'm about 1/4 Finn myself, so I have some personal bias.

But I love the Jets more, and I'm most interested in how he contributes to wins for the Jets. His individual stats come second for me. They'll follow anyway: he's too good for them not to.

I am a huge Laine fan, but I do still agree with you. After all it doesn't really matter so much how many goals and points Laine scores if he can in general help his team and his teammates get the best possible results.

I in fact think that Laine should very much concentrate in trying to be much more the playmaker than he was last season. I mean really focus more to the playmaking than being a sniper. I think that way he would make his team a lot better, as the opponents would need to be marking several players when he is on the ice and wouldn't be able to concentrate so much in covering him from his scoring chances. I think through taking more of the playmaker role than before, he would after all start getting quite naturally good goal scoring chances for himself too. This way anyway his line could become much harder to contain. But lets see how things go. Laine would anyway have excellent hands, vision and passing skills to take more of the playmaking role. But he will need clear improvement in his first steps to be able to use his playmaking skills for a bigger role in the team's playmaking.

 

[psycho_dad*]

I love Laine. Heck, I'm about 1/4 Finn myself, so I have some personal bias.

But I love the Jets more, and I'm most interested in how he contributes to wins for the Jets. His individual stats come second for me. They'll follow anyway: he's too good for them not to.

Goals scored is the only meaningful stat teamwise. The objective of a hockey game is scoring more goals than opponent. Everything else is supportive toward that goal. Nobody who watched Jets last season can claim that Laine is a defensive liability, he is not. And nobody can say he isn't a brilliant playmaker, can they?

His success is teams success. They are intertwined?

 

[garret9]

[mod] And still it is only the scored and allowed goals that matter and count in the end...

All that counts in the end needs a contextual notation: in determining which team won the game. The very same statement is not true in terms of analysis.

Example:
1) You rank each of the 30 teams from 2007-2008 season to last in terms of goal differential, 5v5 goal differential, standings points, win%, or Corsi (all 5v5 shots: goals, saves, misses, blocks) for the first half of the season.
2) You take the same teams and rank them by goal differential (or win%) for the second half of the season.
Corsi from list number one will align closer to the order of list number two.

Why is that?

A smart person once wrote:

Shot based metrics are typically better than goals

Don't get me wrong, goals are the end objective, and in the very long run it should be worth at least a look, but we also know that sometimes players get lucky bounces, or that goaltenders steal games. This uncertainty means we can't rely on goals for predictivity.

The purpose of analysis is to maximize the probability of future outscoring, and to do this requires looking at those metrics that suggest success is most likely in the future.

Noting who outscored who doesn't really matter if they do not continue outscoring. This is important.

What is most likely to happen in the future is a better measure of who they truly are rather than what happened before.

We're not even limited in shot quantity only in the toolbox anymore either, as shot metrics can now account for shot quality, like with the expected goal (xG) model seen above.

Goals are rare, and with any rare statistical event it becomes easy for the sample to be skewed by outliers and not be indicative of the "true-talent level"Â or population. There are also more confounding variables added with the highly unstable impact that is goaltending performance on both ends while a player is on the ice.

Combining a rare event with highly variable confounding variables and you get a number that takes a very long while to settle. With outscoring, this often means multiple seasons.

Source: https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/11/0...-statistic-in-hockey-and-should-be-abolished/

We didn't start using these stats out of randomness or personal preference. It's because they were useful and tested better. When GF% and CF% tell you different things about a player or team, CF% was right more often than GF% (or you could think of it as wrong less often).

And this is important because that's how we continue to progress.

1) Corsi replaced goals as the go to metric, because it told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
2) Adjusted Corsi replaced Corsi as the go to metric, because you were able to reduce score effects, and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
3) Expected goals replaced Adjusted Corsi as the go to metric, because you were able to introduce shot quality factors, and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
4) XPM replaced Expected goals as the go to metric, because it adjusted for usage factors (like opponents, linemates, zone starts, coaches, and schedule), and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
5) WAR "replaced" XPM as the go to metric, because it added other factors to XPM (scoring, shots penalties, face offs, etc.), and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
The next thing will be right more often than the next. That's the scientific process.
I should also add, that it's good to go back along the different previous statistics when analyzing players that are similarly ranked in WAR and look at the individual inputs for more refined analysis.

Stats only tell you part of the picture. Not the whole thing. But, part of the picture is important and should not then be ignored.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Goals scored is the only meaningful stat teamwise.

It absolutely is not. This person has the right idea:

The objective of a hockey game is scoring more goals than opponent. Everything else is supportive toward that goal.

Goal scoring is very important - it's a good thing the Jets (and Laine in particular) score in droves. Unfortunately, they also give UP a lot of goals. Goal prevention is also important, as you essentially state above. Scoring more goals than the opponent can come from prolific scoring, or decent scoring combined with strong defense.

Nobody who watched Jets last season can claim that Laine is a defensive liability, he is not. And nobody can say he isn't a brilliant playmaker, can they?

Did I say anything of the sort? Nope.

His success is teams success. They are intertwined?

Of course they are. But: I couldn't care less if Laine scored at a reduced rate, as long as we score more than the opponents. Defense or offense - I don't much care what the balance is as long as we come out on the winning side of the equation.

 

[psycho_dad*]

When you deny the objective of the game, I don't know if I can talk to you about the game

 

[Festinator]

All that counts in the end needs a contextual notation: in determining which team won the game. The very same statement is not true in terms of analysis.

Example:
1) You rank each of the 30 teams from 2007-2008 season to last in terms of goal differential, 5v5 goal differential, standings points, win%, or Corsi (all 5v5 shots: goals, saves, misses, blocks) for the first half of the season.
2) You take the same teams and rank them by goal differential (or win%) for the second half of the season.
Corsi from list number one will align closer to the order of list number two.

Why is that?

A smart person once wrote:

Source: https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/11/0...-statistic-in-hockey-and-should-be-abolished/

We didn't start using these stats out of randomness or personal preference. It's because they were useful and tested better. When GF% and CF% tell you different things about a player or team, CF% was right more often than GF% (or you could think of it as wrong less often).

And this is important because that's how we continue to progress.

1) Corsi replaced goals as the go to metric, because it told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
2) Adjusted Corsi replaced Corsi as the go to metric, because you were able to reduce score effects, and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
3) Expected goals replaced Adjusted Corsi as the go to metric, because you were able to introduce shot quality factors, and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
4) XPM replaced Expected goals as the go to metric, because it adjusted for usage factors (like opponents, linemates, zone starts, coaches, and schedule), and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
5) WAR "replaced" XPM as the go to metric, because it added other factors to XPM (scoring, shots penalties, face offs, etc.), and it then told you more about which player was better and was right more often.
The next thing will be right more often than the next. That's the scientific process.
I should also add, that it's good to go back along the different previous statistics when analyzing players that are similarly ranked in WAR and look at the individual inputs for more refined analysis.

Stats only tell you part of the picture. Not the whole thing. But, part of the picture is important and should not then be ignored.

XPM = GAR, correct?

 

[garret9]

XPM = GAR, correct?

XPM is an input into GAR, specifically all of a player's EV Defense, part of their EV Offense, and a sliver of their PP Offense.
XPM is basically Corsi that adjusts for both shot quality (or at least the factors we can account for) and also environmental factors (linemates, linematching, coaches, score, schedule, and zone starts).

GAR * translation factor = WAR

With goal rates fluctuating year to year, the exact number of goals = a win differs.

 

[ijuka]

When you deny the objective of the game, I don't know if I can talk to you about the game

It's more about the roads leading there. They're better at predicting goal scoring than actual goals scored.

However, in an actual match here and now, corsi, WAR and what have you are completely worthless. 90-10 corsi doesn't matter at all if you score less goals than the opponent. Their value is in predicting what might happen in the future.



So we get to the point of "is it smart to try to predict what might happen in the future for rookies who 1) only have a season of sample size and 2) are expected to improve in these aspects anyway? You'd also have to predict the rate of expected improvement. Of course, they can help with establishing current level and the amount required to improve but all sorts of things can factor into that.

For corsi specifically, I see it more as a team stat. There are too many things like simple change timings that can totally game the corsi to be in your favor even if the way you change is completely suboptimal(A simple example would be changing when you should be back checking, removing the corsi against but completely abandoning defense in the process. Or having a terrible change, causing a breakaway, not marking you with negative corsi or GF% but rather the guy who hopped in despite the mistake being yours and only yours).

 

[garret9]

When you deny the objective of the game, I don't know if I can talk to you about the game

No one has denied the object of the game.

"It's not that we do not care about goals. It's that we care about how a player or team WILL perform in goals more than they DID perform in goals." - Tyler Dellow

 

[Festinator]

When you deny the objective of the game, I don't know if I can talk to you about the game

Well, the objective is to win, to be fair, and more goes into winning than just scoring goals.

That being said, while I feel like it is silly to say Laine will be as good as McDavid, I do also remember thinking that 35-40 points would be a good rookie season for Laine, and thinking it silly when the same Finnish posters said he could potentially score that amount of goals in his rookie season alone, and look what happened.

The only thing I'm certain about is that he won't catch up to McDavid anytime soon, considering McDavid will only be getting better as well. But when they're both in their prime, depending on how well Laine develops... who knows

It's crazy to think he's only just turned 19.

 

[Festinator]

XPM is an input into GAR, specifically all of a player's EV Defense, part of their EV Offense, and a sliver of their PP Offense.
XPM is basically Corsi that adjusts for both shot quality (or at least the factors we can account for) and also environmental factors (linemates, linematching, coaches, score, schedule, and zone starts).

GAR * translation factor = WAR

With goal rates fluctuating year to year, the exact number of goals = a win differs.

Ahh, okay thanks.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

When you deny the objective of the game, I don't know if I can talk to you about the game

Re-read my post. I am denying nothing. I agree with you that the goal is to ... score more than the opponent. There are multiple ways to achieve this goal.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Why can't people be satisfied that Laine is a great player without expecting him to be better than McDavid? I don't see him as being near McDavid. In the long run I see him as being a Tarasenko, Stamkos, Kovalchuk tier of player, Ovechkin in the best case and that's okay

I think he has a good shot at being better than Ovechkin - but he still won't be as good as McDavid. Although he just might catch up to McD too. He is both very young and very raw. Stranger things have happened.

 

[ijuka]

"It's not that we do not care about goals. It's that we care about how a player or team WILL perform in goals more than they DID perform in goals." - Tyler Dellow

Yes, that quote specifically, in the case of Laine here...

None of us expects Laine to "be as good as McDavid" by playing the way he played last season. Last season's Laine would certainly be significantly below McDavid.

We expect him to improve a lot, a LOT and at that point to (perhaps) be more valuable to his team. You wouldn't even need to convince me that last season's Laine isn't as good with advanced stats, I clearly recognize it. It's in this expected improvement... That's very difficult to quantify in any manner, really. So certainly, it's easy(and even unnecessary) to prove that McDavid's been the stronger player until now, advanced stats or not. But they don't and cannot address the factor of Laine's expected development.

Of course, one could say that McDavid will improve as well, but to me it's clear that Laine has significantly more room to improve so a 1:1 expectation for improvement isn't entirely fair. And this expectation of "Laine will improve more than McDavid" is at the base of these arguments in general, as well. So it is this area one would have to aim to undermine, not last season's Laine vs current McDavid.

 

[garret9]

And that is fair, although I'm not a believer yet.

It's a very large mountain to try and surmount over. Doesn't mean it's not possible... just really tough.

 

[ps241]

I love Laine. Heck, I'm about 1/4 Finn myself, so I have some personal bias.

But I love the Jets more, and I'm most interested in how he contributes to wins for the Jets. His individual stats come second for me. They'll follow anyway: he's too good for them not to.

Yea I am in a similar camp. I want a cup or more than one perhaps. If we are winning a cup it is my belief Laine will be a major factor since he is an incredible talent and the rest is just noise to me. Individual accomplishment matters not to me except how it feeds into the ultimate team goal. I watch Ovi put up huge goal totals but squander season after season on great teams going cupless because he can't get the Caps over the top. It feels harsh to judge one player like that but he is "the man" bringing down the big money and his team keeps failing at the only thing that matters.

Ovi will go down as one of the greatest PP goal scorers of all time in the regular season....he will also go down as the super star on an excellent team who never got it done when it counted.

I want a different story for Laine.......I want him to be a "champion" with the Jets.

 

[Mud Turtle]

Laine better than McDavid?
When I watched McDavid play in his rookie season I predicted that he would lead the league in points the next year.
From watching Laine last year, I certainly don't expect him to lead the league in scoring in his sophomore year. I don't even expect him to lead his team next year. I think Scheifele will still edge him out.
He's a fantastic talent that will only get better as he grows into his body, but he's not near McDavid level yet.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Yeah I get that it is how you felt.

But I'm just much more convinced by actual numbers.

 

[Bob E]

Have we named GAR after GARret?