Player Discussion: Danny DeKeyser

[BinCookin]

I admire BC for his effort, but it's nothing more than super novice armchair stuff.

First off let me say I totally agree with you . Let me see if I can explain this is a way you will like: I am performing a very informal method of attributing some "math" (counting) on the eye test. I have NEVER claimed it is "unbiased". I "attempt" to be as fair as possible, but realize that is "impossible" (human nature). That being said. My primary goal has been to attribute a + and - number to the general feeling towards a player. Obviously that "feeling" is completely subjective. But I have now attributed a numerical value to that "feeling".

Ways I could help make the scoring accurate:
Game measured this way by 100's of people: (Good luck, i have trouble getting a 2nd person to do this).
People have suggested I count more specific items: Trouble is, what does this accomplish? If we go to the right website, they already do this. Which leads me into the realm of advanced stats. Which I am NOT TRYING TO REPLACE with my measurement.

One positive to my scoring method is that it is all-encompassing. It includes passing ability, turnovers, defensive awareness, solid body play, offensive rushes, good shots on goal, basically everything you want to measure rolled into one stat. In this way the overall score should approximate the overall impressions of the player.




I am not trying to "compete" with "advanced analytics". But as with all math, there are issues with counting. And You appear to be an expert in the fact that numbers can be used inappropriately when they are poorly understood.

Advanced analytics are the definition of neutrality, dude. Honestly, I enjoy your work, and the effort you put in... but to claim you're unbiased is a lie. We are all biased, no shame in it. Thus, the system you set up is biased. The advanced analytics most commonly used eliminate much of the bias, light years ahead of the system that you use. Again, your system has value, just not as much. Not trying to hate, just sharing my opinion.

I feel I've addressed the bias issue above. Thank you for saying you appreciate what I am doing. I only do it to "add" to discussion.

This does open up for me the question of advanced stats. And why I am not just quoting Corsi/Fenwicks to explain the DRW Defensemen.

I understand these metrics. You have to realize EXACTLY what they measure to determine their usefulness. Corsi/Fenwick and shot metric stats are based around this general principal: Counting the shots directed at the net, doesn't matter if the shot misses, or is blocked, or whether or not the shot is a goal or save. Just shots. Count the shots.

This metric is supposed to go beyond scoring an IMPLY several things. If you are attempting more shots than your opponent, you probably have the puck more often, so you are controlling play (have more possession)
If you are attempting more shots than your opponent you should over time score more goals.
Thus this stat defines the style of play of the team and their chances of winning.

BUT what if you have a player who shoots / attempts to shoot EVERYTIME he touches the puck (Pulkkinen). He will score well in this category, assuming he isnt a complete black hole defensively. I find this metric for this type of player to be (inaccurate). Because my "eye" test can tell you that Pulkkinen misses the net more often than not. He also doesn't score much, has a low shooting %... etc etc. I think he is mostly ineffective. But Corsi/Fenwick measures him to be useful.

What about a player like Smith. Supposedly good with Shot metrics? (I actually dont the answer to this, which is why i asked OBEY to list our 8 D men)(If i wanted to do the research myself I wouldnt have bothered asking)(because i dont use these stats much, so i dont even know which websites to use). Well anyway according to the Hero Charts Dekeyser is bad at this, and Smith is great (Am I reading this right?).
But I know for a fact, by watching every game, that when Smith turns over the puck, it usually leads directly to a very dangerous scoring chance against. And Dekeyser not so much. Smith is much more of a liability by my eye test. So is Smith excelling in Corsi helping the team at all? I don't know. It doesn't "feel" like it. Someone show me some numbers to prove this.
The giveaway stats you posted state Smith / Green both have 18 giveaways. What counts as a giveaway. Flipping the puck out of the zone high in the air which turns over possession but not a scoring chance against = 1? And Smith turning the puck over leading to a 2on1 against = 1?

What I am saying is that these "neutral" "unbiased" "accurate" stats, when seperating the subjective outcome loses something. It loses the context of how "bad" or "good" that event was in the course of the game. My stats state Smith is making nearly double the number of mistakes vs ANY OTHER of our D men. This is a big number. Could i have miscounted his mistakes? Sure. Did I miscount by DOUBLE? (because I hate him?) NO. I don't hate the guy, and I seriously doubt I am counting 2x as many mistakes for him than for anyone else. This is why I have been posting my scores and time stamps so other people could check out what i have done. (of course no one does, so whatever).

I guess my point is: Corsi Fenwick does NOT take into account:

high quality scoring chances VS shots that have nearly NO chance of scoring. This is a problem if you are going to say 1 player is amazing and 1 is crap based on these "irrefutable numbers". IMO it is a flawed statistic. As are almost all statistics. BUT I appreciate what the statistic is implyingg. Dekeyser doesn't help our offense much, he doesnt help control possession or help us get shots on net. Smith apparently does this better, and helps us get shots on net. The fact Dekeyser blocks lots of shots in this metric is a negative. He shouldn't have "not had the puck" in order to block the shots in the first place. But he is stopping those possible shots from hitting the net.

I would like a more SUBJECTIVE stat.

Like Scoring chances for and against when Smith is on the ice. I feel this is a more direct measurement that implies his worth better than Corsi.

Scoring chances are hard to define though, so they are subjective. And prone to error in counting. But I like the conclussion from those stats more than simply shot differentials.

I understand that a team outshot by 10 shots a game is going to lose more often than not. But a player who shoots a lot, and is crap defensively will sneak through this stat and appear good when he is NOT.

So in a long winded way... What are the SIMPLE shot metrics on our 8 D men? What are the scoring chances for and against for them?

Oh one other thing. The video you posted, to me is an example of dekeyser doing the boring play off the boards and out turnover. I consider this play to be neutral. He isn't drastically hurting the team, but he sure as heck isn't helping it. He wouldnt score a minus by me on the play. But we both know, maybe another D man, in that position, could have done something else to score a + on the play. And Dekeyser just isn't going to be that guy. I think we overpaid Dekeyser a lot for what he brings. Do not think I am defending or promoting any of our D men under my scoring system, I am just counting plays in 3 categories (Good, Relatively Neutral, Bad). Turns out according to ME, Smith makes a lot of Bad plays. Also Dekeyser is kinda neutral (1 good play for each of his bad plays). And Ericsson has been making a lot more good plays than expected this year. And these measurements seem to go hand in hand with the general feeling on the board. Ericsson has not been the dumpster fire we expected.. thats good. Dekeyser has not done anything impressive... thats bad considering his salary.

 

[14ari13]

This enters a much bigger area really. Since the question of this thread boils down to value, we really can't have the conversation without talking about organizational management (or mismanagement). The ELC topic is huge in this respect. One look at the modern NHL and we know why. I suppose we can talk about that some other time.

So as for the "report", let's start with exiting the zone. That is one of the first things that jumps off the page for me watching DeKeyser as he struggles out there. As a beer league defenseman myself, I cringe every-time I see him fire it to nobody... I cringe harder when it's a pass to the other team.

Here is a 3rd party, sample size, report on zone exits... where DeKeyser leads the team in in all the wrong areas:

Outside of that, I don't know what to "report" on given some of the conclusions. These stats seem to go away from my eye test on Smith, but maybe I'm wrong on him. His errors are pretty big, but from my seat, they seem to be done with a purpose, not out of fear or lack of imagination, like DeKeyser.


So we could compare the whipping boys and debate the merit of the stats:

We might look at Trouba and have a good laugh over those that said we shouldn't trade DeKeyser for him, or laugh at that after looking at the Smith chart:

We could look at what the Devils paid 1/3 less than Ken Holland would have offered (a guy that makes 4 times less than DeKeyser):

We could look at what a different 2016 FA that now makes $.5 million more could have brought:

We might paint the numbers and say that DeKeyser should be a 30 point guy based on one season, or we could paint the numbers to say this was a fluke:

We can talk about givaways:

In the video below, instead of trying to work it back to Green, dude forces it up the boards after a quick silent prayer that a winger would be there to handle some hot garbage. I can't find other examples loaded up, but this has happened in every game I've watched. This pass is pretty mild compared to some that I've seen, and if I had my own scoring system for "super-ultra-mega-crappy plays" at -50 point deductions, dude would be deep in the red!

I get it... guy gets put in more rough spots than most... but I think it's time they put someone else in that spot. If the replacement then ranks in the bottom 2% of the league in areas of efficiency, roll the dice again, move em back, have a fire sale, I don't really care. This team is sad to watch, so they might as well spice it up after the contract blunder and seemingly failed top pairing experiment.





I know this is sorta all over, but we could talk about a whole host of items. Perhaps you could answer back with captures of your stats as they correspond? Obey86 already brought up some of the numbers, but I haven't seen a very pointed reply to counter. What do your stats say about his contention?

The numbers I read paint DeKeyser as a negative impact player by a large margin in big areas. The adjusted Corsi For% has DeKeyser almost dead last in the league among defensemen.

I like Paul Coffey's take on defense... they can't score if they don't have the puck. Designating defensemen as offensive or defensive is useless in this respect. Sure, you can use a guy that's big and can kill penalties, but what cap can he feasibly take up, and do you dare roll him in your top 4? How much worse would Sproul or Smith be up there (in terms of offensive generation and all that CF for stuff)? Every game that gets played is making it more clear that DeKeyser doesn't belong in the top 4, and probably never will. Just because Holland went hog wild with Danny doesn't justify his usage, and will do nothing but hurt negotiations with guys like Sproul and outside FA's in the future. Polishing this turd is gona be difficult for anyone not in the PR HoF.

IMO, Quincey is the bottom paring guy you want to kill PIMS and play where the Wings 'should' have DeKeyser slotted. You obviously don't lock him in at (the non-Holland 1 year price of) $1.25 million for term, but he's not a $5 million guy either. That makes it easier for the club to spend on top 4, or lock up futures that might project better along those lines. Danny is three months away from 27 and 29 is the average peak for NHL defenseman performance. Quincey turned 31 three months ago (still well within peak), and NHL defenseman decline slowest of the group (happening largely after 34). Quincey doesn't fill a top 4 void, but at the projected numbers, he isn't a cap black-hole like DeKeyser either.

Hate to say it, but this all goes back to Holland. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Holland didn't spend big, then try to fit that expensive square peg in a round top 4 hole. Not to blame KH for 9/11, but he's made some pretty unjustifiable moves in the past several years. So why might he have done this?

It's easy to click on anything Red Wings and see the Michigan narrative. Just go to their NHL site, or look at the feeder ads on the side of your pages, the Michigan stuff is pretty obvious. The only way the DeKeyser deal makes sense is through Michigan marketing lenses, so chalk it up to that, not building a winner. Basic psychology teaches us that humans are pretty good at addressing current threats, but have almost no ability to focus on future threats. So the conclusion for me is pretty clear: KH passed the buck to focus on short term survival and organizational profitability. DeKeyser never projected as a top guy, and the projections seem to be correct. A terrible gamble at the least, a move to sell tix and merch at worst.

Why would you care? It is not your money. But the Ilitches care about every penny as they should.

I strongly doubt you understand what a sheltered role means, or sheltered min.
We see it right now with Howard and Mrazek. When Mrazek got the clear #1 his play went dramatically down while Howard's up.
Is it really so difficult to understand?
I feel like I have to repeat 100 times 2+2 is 4.
This is beyond unbelievable.

 

[avssuc]

Why would you care? It is not your money. But the Ilitches care about every penny as they should.

I strongly doubt you understand what a sheltered role means, or sheltered min.
We see it right now with Howard and Mrazek. When Mrazek got the clear #1 his play went dramatically down while Howard's up.
Is it really so difficult to understand?
I feel like I have to repeat 100 times 2+2 is 4.
This is beyond unbelievable.

You're right, I don't pay taxes in Michigan, so there no investment outside of emotional.

Guess I better learn how to math.

 

[Frk It]

I strongly doubt you understand what a sheltered role means, or sheltered min.
We see it right now with Howard and Mrazek. When Mrazek got the clear #1 his play went dramatically down while Howard's up.
Is it really so difficult to understand?
I feel like I have to repeat 100 times 2+2 is 4.
This is beyond unbelievable.

Maybe help us understand your point? Cause I have no idea how Howard or Mrazek have literally anything to do with this.

 

[avssuc]

First off let me say I totally agree with you

Don't get me wrong, I wish I had the time and patience to do what you're doing, and I do value the innovation, but people tiptoe too much on these forums for my liking. I've probably been too harsh, but my main reason for that comes from the advanced stats hate. I don't think it's wise to put too much stock in them (see The Smith Hero), but it feels like fans and management here seem to value them too little. I feel compelled to scream about some of this stuff before the Wings are forced to go through a decade of despair or more. I might be off on some of my content, but I'll only see that by being showed the virtue of different perspective.

In terms of new systems like yours, they all had a start, and there were certainly jerks like me busy hating them on the rise. Our society breeds innovation out, so what you're trying to do is certainty worth more than my comments may let on. Takes some serious guts on top of the time and effort.

You had too much content there for me to give a detailed reply from my phone, just wanted to clarify a bit. Keep on keeping on, BC!

 

[obey86]

First off let me say I totally agree with you . Let me see if I can explain this is a way you will like: I am performing a very informal method of attributing some "math" (counting) on the eye test. I have NEVER claimed it is "unbiased". I "attempt" to be as fair as possible, but realize that is "impossible" (human nature). That being said. My primary goal has been to attribute a + and - number to the general feeling towards a player. Obviously that "feeling" is completely subjective. But I have now attributed a numerical value to that "feeling".

Ways I could help make the scoring accurate:
Game measured this way by 100's of people: (Good luck, i have trouble getting a 2nd person to do this).
People have suggested I count more specific items: Trouble is, what does this accomplish? If we go to the right website, they already do this. Which leads me into the realm of advanced stats. Which I am NOT TRYING TO REPLACE with my measurement.

One positive to my scoring method is that it is all-encompassing. It includes passing ability, turnovers, defensive awareness, solid body play, offensive rushes, good shots on goal, basically everything you want to measure rolled into one stat. In this way the overall score should approximate the overall impressions of the player.




I am not trying to "compete" with "advanced analytics". But as with all math, there are issues with counting. And You appear to be an expert in the fact that numbers can be used inappropriately when they are poorly understood.




I feel I've addressed the bias issue above. Thank you for saying you appreciate what I am doing. I only do it to "add" to discussion.

This does open up for me the question of advanced stats. And why I am not just quoting Corsi/Fenwicks to explain the DRW Defensemen.

I understand these metrics. You have to realize EXACTLY what they measure to determine their usefulness. Corsi/Fenwick and shot metric stats are based around this general principal: Counting the shots directed at the net, doesn't matter if the shot misses, or is blocked, or whether or not the shot is a goal or save. Just shots. Count the shots.

This metric is supposed to go beyond scoring an IMPLY several things. If you are attempting more shots than your opponent, you probably have the puck more often, so you are controlling play (have more possession)
If you are attempting more shots than your opponent you should over time score more goals.
Thus this stat defines the style of play of the team and their chances of winning.

BUT what if you have a player who shoots / attempts to shoot EVERYTIME he touches the puck (Pulkkinen). He will score well in this category, assuming he isnt a complete black hole defensively. I find this metric for this type of player to be (inaccurate). Because my "eye" test can tell you that Pulkkinen misses the net more often than not. He also doesn't score much, has a low shooting %... etc etc. I think he is mostly ineffective. But Corsi/Fenwick measures him to be useful.

What about a player like Smith. Supposedly good with Shot metrics? (I actually dont the answer to this, which is why i asked OBEY to list our 8 D men)(If i wanted to do the research myself I wouldnt have bothered asking)(because i dont use these stats much, so i dont even know which websites to use). Well anyway according to the Hero Charts Dekeyser is bad at this, and Smith is great (Am I reading this right?).
But I know for a fact, by watching every game, that when Smith turns over the puck, it usually leads directly to a very dangerous scoring chance against. And Dekeyser not so much. Smith is much more of a liability by my eye test. So is Smith excelling in Corsi helping the team at all? I don't know. It doesn't "feel" like it. Someone show me some numbers to prove this.
The giveaway stats you posted state Smith / Green both have 18 giveaways. What counts as a giveaway. Flipping the puck out of the zone high in the air which turns over possession but not a scoring chance against = 1? And Smith turning the puck over leading to a 2on1 against = 1?

What I am saying is that these "neutral" "unbiased" "accurate" stats, when seperating the subjective outcome loses something. It loses the context of how "bad" or "good" that event was in the course of the game. My stats state Smith is making nearly double the number of mistakes vs ANY OTHER of our D men. This is a big number. Could i have miscounted his mistakes? Sure. Did I miscount by DOUBLE? (because I hate him?) NO. I don't hate the guy, and I seriously doubt I am counting 2x as many mistakes for him than for anyone else. This is why I have been posting my scores and time stamps so other people could check out what i have done. (of course no one does, so whatever).

I guess my point is: Corsi Fenwick does NOT take into account:

high quality scoring chances VS shots that have nearly NO chance of scoring. This is a problem if you are going to say 1 player is amazing and 1 is crap based on these "irrefutable numbers". IMO it is a flawed statistic. As are almost all statistics. BUT I appreciate what the statistic is implyingg. Dekeyser doesn't help our offense much, he doesnt help control possession or help us get shots on net. Smith apparently does this better, and helps us get shots on net. The fact Dekeyser blocks lots of shots in this metric is a negative. He shouldn't have "not had the puck" in order to block the shots in the first place. But he is stopping those possible shots from hitting the net.

I would like a more SUBJECTIVE stat.

Like Scoring chances for and against when Smith is on the ice. I feel this is a more direct measurement that implies his worth better than Corsi.

Scoring chances are hard to define though, so they are subjective. And prone to error in counting. But I like the conclussion from those stats more than simply shot differentials.

I understand that a team outshot by 10 shots a game is going to lose more often than not. But a player who shoots a lot, and is crap defensively will sneak through this stat and appear good when he is NOT.

So in a long winded way... What are the SIMPLE shot metrics on our 8 D men? What are the scoring chances for and against for them?

Oh one other thing. The video you posted, to me is an example of dekeyser doing the boring play off the boards and out turnover. I consider this play to be neutral. He isn't drastically hurting the team, but he sure as heck isn't helping it. He wouldnt score a minus by me on the play. But we both know, maybe another D man, in that position, could have done something else to score a + on the play. And Dekeyser just isn't going to be that guy. I think we overpaid Dekeyser a lot for what he brings. Do not think I am defending or promoting any of our D men under my scoring system, I am just counting plays in 3 categories (Good, Relatively Neutral, Bad). Turns out according to ME, Smith makes a lot of Bad plays. Also Dekeyser is kinda neutral (1 good play for each of his bad plays). And Ericsson has been making a lot more good plays than expected this year. And these measurements seem to go hand in hand with the general feeling on the board. Ericsson has not been the dumpster fire we expected.. thats good. Dekeyser has not done anything impressive... thats bad considering his salary.

This isn't true. Hypothetically, a player who is crap defensively will also give up a lot of shot attempts against (CA), negating his CF.

Regardless, if a player is excellent offensively but still crap defensively, he can still have a good CF% because him and his line have the puck so much in the offensive zone...which helps negate some/a lot of his poor defensive abilities. Someone like Patrick Kane, certainly not known as a defensive stalwart has an excellent career CF%. You know why? Because his line always has the puck meaning they don't have to play defense. That's EXTREMELY valuable. Even if Patrick Kane sucks at playing defense, he negates it with how good he is in the offensive zone so it doesn't matter.

As for your Smith question....I think he has been crappy this season and that's what the underlying numbers show. Last season, he was much better however. Players don't play at the same level every season. I thought Smith had turned the corner into a positive player but the way he's played this year so far he's back to the Smith he used to be before last year.

 

[obey86]

Oh one other thing. The video you posted, to me is an example of dekeyser doing the boring play off the boards and out turnover. I consider this play to be neutral. He isn't drastically hurting the team, but he sure as heck isn't helping it. He wouldnt score a minus by me on the play. But we both know, maybe another D man, in that position, could have done something else to score a + on the play. And Dekeyser just isn't going to be that guy. I think we overpaid Dekeyser a lot for what he brings. Do not think I am defending or promoting any of our D men under my scoring system, I am just counting plays in 3 categories (Good, Relatively Neutral, Bad). Turns out according to ME, Smith makes a lot of Bad plays. Also Dekeyser is kinda neutral (1 good play for each of his bad plays). And Ericsson has been making a lot more good plays than expected this year. And these measurements seem to go hand in hand with the general feeling on the board. Ericsson has not been the dumpster fire we expected.. thats good. Dekeyser has not done anything impressive... thats bad considering his salary.

You ignore that play as "neutral" while not realizing constant plays like that by Dekeyser (and other players) are a large reason offense goes to die on this team.

A play like that hurts the team by A) hurting the Red Wings offense and B) helping the opponents offense by giving them the puck back. And when plays like that happen again and again and again and again by players like DeKeyser, it's no wonder this team can't get anything going offensively and is always hemmed in their own zone.

You (and others) considering plays like that as "neutral" is a large part of the problem on this message board when it comes to player evaluation. Offense is 50% of the game and just as important as defense. If you're making consistent boring "neutral" plays that hurt the offense, you're actively hurting the team's chances to win as much as a guy who sucks at defense.

 

[BinCookin]

You ignore that play as "neutral" while not realizing constant plays like that by Dekeyser (and other players) are a large reason offense goes to die on this team.

A play like that hurts the team by A) hurting the Red Wings offense and B) helping the opponents offense by giving them the puck back. And when plays like that happen again and again and again and again by players like DeKeyser, it's no wonder this team can't get anything going offensively and is always hemmed in their own zone.

You (and others) considering plays like that as "neutral" is a large part of the problem on this message board when it comes to player evaluation. Offense is 50% of the game and just as important as defense. If you're making consistent boring "neutral" plays that hurt the offense, you're actively hurting the team's chances to win as much as a guy who sucks at defense.

I agree with you.

"not helping is hurting".

At the same time, if you want to get to "any time a d man banks the pucks off the boards is a bad play". You can count them. LOL

 

[14ari13]

Maybe help us understand your point? Cause I have no idea how Howard or Mrazek have literally anything to do with this.

The bigger the role means a much bigger chance to fail.
The bigger the pressure a much bigger chance to fail.
We see it with Howard Mrazek now, pressure has a lot of to do with confidence. Nyquist. Tatar.
Datsyuk playoffs. Gustavsson Howard. Gustavsson was great till Babcock gave him #1. Legace playoffs.
I list mostly goalies as it is there where you can see the biggest difference.
Kindel. His numbers were great cause he played sheltered min.

 

[14ari13]

And try any other dman instead of Dekeyser and you will see how he will fail.
Replace Dekeyser with any dman we have and that dman will look miserable and in addition Greene will look much worse.

 

[Frk It]

And try any other dman instead of Dekeyser and you will see how he will fail.
Replace Dekeyser with any dman we have and that dman will look miserable and in addition Greene will look much worse.

Sure, but that doesn't mean he isn't failing as well. Which he kinda is.

considering plays like that as "neutral" is a large part of the problem on this message board when it comes to player evaluation. Offense is 50% of the game and just as important as defense. If you're making consistent boring "neutral" plays that hurt the offense, you're actively hurting the team's chances to win as much as a guy who sucks at defense.

I'd upvote this 100 times if I could.

 

[Retire91]

Players that don't regress on a poor team are usually all-star caliber and or destine for the hall of fame. This team really lacks sufficient talent for anyone to succeed. The last player on the team that made those around them significantly better was Daytsuk.

 

[14ari13]

Sure, but that doesn't mean he isn't failing as well. Which he kinda is.



I'd upvote this 100 times if I could.

See Larkin. He did great on Zs wing, but when he tried 2nd line center. He failed. The bigger role and the pressure has a lot to do. A big contract by itself is huge pressure too. Se how both Mrazek and Dekeyser struggle. But if the team can figure it out, we will see much better how they handle their roles.

Players that don't regress on a poor team are usually all-star caliber and or destine for the hall of fame. This team really lacks sufficient talent for anyone to succeed. The last player on the team that made those around them significantly better was Daytsuk.

Forsberg, Crosby, Price ...

 

[ap3x]

As I've said before, there aren't really any alternatives to DDK on that pairing. "Sucking the least" is quite the euphemism though. Not much of a compliment right now. He can do better. And he should do better. But he doesn't. If you guys are fine with it, great. I'm not, 'cause that's not what I expected going into this season.

 

[BinCookin]

Don't get me wrong, I wish I had the time and patience to do what you're doing, and I do value the innovation, but people tiptoe too much on these forums for my liking. I've probably been too harsh, but my main reason for that comes from the advanced stats hate. I don't think it's wise to put too much stock in them (see The Smith Hero), but it feels like fans and management here seem to value them too little. I feel compelled to scream about some of this stuff before the Wings are forced to go through a decade of despair or more. I might be off on some of my content, but I'll only see that by being showed the virtue of different perspective.

In terms of new systems like yours, they all had a start, and there were certainly jerks like me busy hating them on the rise. Our society breeds innovation out, so what you're trying to do is certainty worth more than my comments may let on. Takes some serious guts on top of the time and effort.

You had too much content there for me to give a detailed reply from my phone, just wanted to clarify a bit. Keep on keeping on, BC!

Thanks man, and I do appreciate your feedback, even if some people might look at it as complaining, i dont.

As you say, stats or numbers have to be looked at closely.

I think my "subjective stats" imply that "smith's advanced stats" should be questioned.

Which i tried to do myself http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/
and I get confused. I dont know how his "hero chart looks good" when the base numbers i read look average. This is why i ask for help with advanced stats stuff.

I.e. i think Green's advanced stats make sense.
Smith's dont from me watching him.

For the most part I think Corsi is a great stat overall. If you can change it for the whole team, great. I think when you start parsing it down to the player, then a major concern is "partner" and "starts" and "what pairing they are on". I have yet to come across a stat that seems to try to control for those things. OR maybe they have one, and i dont know how to read it. I need an advanced stats tutor

 

[Frk It]

Thanks man, and I do appreciate your feedback, even if some people might look at it as complaining, i dont.

As you say, stats or numbers have to be looked at closely.

I think my "subjective stats" imply that "smith's advanced stats" should be questioned.

Which i tried to do myself http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/
and I get confused. I dont know how his "hero chart looks good" when the base numbers i read look average. This is why i ask for help with advanced stats stuff.

I.e. i think Green's advanced stats make sense.
Smith's dont from me watching him.

For the most part I think Corsi is a great stat overall. If you can change it for the whole team, great. I think when you start parsing it down to the player, then a major concern is "partner" and "starts" and "what pairing they are on". I have yet to come across a stat that seems to try to control for those things. OR maybe they have one, and i dont know how to read it. I need an advanced stats tutor

I wouldn't even mess around with Hero charts.

Smith's possession stats this year are bad, but he is usually good in that area. His shot differential is the worst of any defenseman on the team, and his CF% is much lower than normal.

He is getting more minutes and tougher assignments than years past, and his numbers have spiked as a result. He can't handle anything other than a bottom pairing guy with sheltered minutes. And he's even inconsistent when used that way.

So your eye test matches pretty well with advanced stats in that case.

 

[chances14]

dekeyser is playing two slots above his capabilities. he should be a #3 normally. The problem is the wings have no one that can do any better than dekeyser has.

kronwall's knees are shot. ericsson was a train wreck last year on the top pair. smith has turned into a joke this year when faced with tougher competition. marchenko has zero offensive ability.

we haven't seen enough from xo to warrant him being thrust into dekeyser's spot. that leaves you with just sproul, whom has shown promise but is still raw with just 12 games of nhl experience

 

[avssuc]

And try any other dman instead of Dekeyser and you will see how he will fail.
Replace Dekeyser with any dman we have and that dman will look miserable and in addition Greene will look much worse.

That tows the company line, I don't like it. Just because he's paid as a #2 doesn't mean that you can't cut your losses and play him where he belongs. If you want to force him to play where he doesn't belong because of money, marketing, and organizational pride, why not re-re-up Glendening for top line money and force that too. Actually, I like his chances more in a top role. At least he doesn't look scared all the time.

Throw stuff at the wall until something sticks. Get Dekeyser treatment for the shell-shock he pretty obviously suffers from, brought on by all of the 1st pairing mins and contract expectations, then send him back to the front lines if you can't stick anything.

 

[Reddwit]

Sure, sometimes the price is out of whack. But I could give you a bunch of reasons why Fowler or Dougie Hamilton are much better than their version of Dekeyser.

Point is, we need to make that kind of addition... I'd say desperately so if we want to extend the streak, or have even a shot at making it past the first round. But if Holland doesn't have the stomach for it, I won't be mad at a high draft pick this year.

There's no way anyone could think our defense is good enough as it stands. I really don't know why we haven't taken a shot on some buy-low opportunities, like Keith Yandle or Goligoski, if we are so averse to ponying up for a good/promising younger guy.

I think the long and short of those guys is that management painted themselves into a corner with the heavy veteran salaries. This off-season, you anticipate a big check for Danny D, two ugly contracts for E and Kronwall, and the Green contract. That puts Kenny in a position where the only way out is to make a trade or finagle a short-term contract for one of those guys, and I don't think hes capable of that. I'm sure if we didn't have Kronwall or Ericsson, we would've gone after Goli, Yandle, or Demers (at least I hope).

You ignore that play as "neutral" while not realizing constant plays like that by Dekeyser (and other players) are a large reason offense goes to die on this team.

A play like that hurts the team by A) hurting the Red Wings offense and B) helping the opponents offense by giving them the puck back. And when plays like that happen again and again and again and again by players like DeKeyser, it's no wonder this team can't get anything going offensively and is always hemmed in their own zone.

You (and others) considering plays like that as "neutral" is a large part of the problem on this message board when it comes to player evaluation. Offense is 50% of the game and just as important as defense. If you're making consistent boring "neutral" plays that hurt the offense, you're actively hurting the team's chances to win as much as a guy who sucks at defense.

That's a really great point. A boring off-the-boards-and-out pass is a neutral - or even a positive - if a guy is put in a bad position by his teammate, the team has a bad line change, or that's his only safe route; its also a terrible move if said player is failing to see that his center is streaking and open and he still goes to the boards for the off-and-out. The safest move can still be the wrong move.

Bin, I really respect what you do, but I think at the end of the day, its just way too much for one person to account for accurately. I don't think you can evaluate 6 players through an entire game and expect results to be on point. In fact, it might even be hard to evaluate one defenseman for an entire game.

The bigger the role means a much bigger chance to fail.
The bigger the pressure a much bigger chance to fail.
We see it with Howard Mrazek now, pressure has a lot of to do with confidence. Nyquist. Tatar.
Datsyuk playoffs. Gustavsson Howard. Gustavsson was great till Babcock gave him #1. Legace playoffs.
I list mostly goalies as it is there where you can see the biggest difference.
Kindel. His numbers were great cause he played sheltered min.

That is a very uncompromising view for something that is so complex. The bigger the role also means a much bigger chance to produce. What you're talking about is the classic hockey argument: Does more ice time mean more production because of increased time and quality of line-mates? Or does it mean decreased production because you're in over your head with players you can't keep up with and a better opponent? That is always a complex question.

Also, I think you mostly mention goalies because goalies are most individually susceptible to team play and also most susceptible to confidence variance, given the position you hold.

 

[Flowah]

The off the glass and out video is exactly what I hate about DK. 99% of the time those "exits" go back to the opposing team and they just transition on us with speed. Sure it's out of our zone. But it's right back in.

I could live with his refusal to take the time and space given to him by opponents in the o-zone. But he can't even do passes most of the time. That is why I prefer even Marchenko or Sproul to be on this team (not instead of DK but in place of others). They always look for that pass. Maybe they mess it up a few times but we need those kinds of players.

 

[HIFE]

...Bin, I really respect what you do, but I think at the end of the day, its just way too much for one person to account for accurately. I don't think you can evaluate 6 players through an entire game and expect results to be on point. In fact, it might even be hard to evaluate one defenseman for an entire game...

It's not difficult, charting JUST the defensemen. Line changes, positioning, all of it. I can personally only do this on a replay it's tedious and very unnatural, but you gain a new appreciation for the game. I'll rewind goals that happen too quickly if unclear but mostly you can zip through in a little over 60 minutes. Following 40 players, coaches, refs, fans, that's much more to take in than 6 D-men.

You can utilize your own method of +/- Most important is to rate fairly. I tend to be very strict which also yields a larger sample. I evaluate details like when a clear pass is in the skates, or if a dump out has successful results. Such a back and forth game you make decisions and move on.

Within hundreds of puck touches I try to mark them all as something though I can understand why BC grades many plays as neutral, you get into the flow and feel you can judge just what stands out. I've only tried this experiment a few times but it was valuable. It's the most valid standard of all, the-eye test, but with the aid of a microscope.

 

[14ari13]

Danny was great vs Stars

I think the long and short of those guys is that management painted themselves into a corner with the heavy veteran salaries. This off-season, you anticipate a big check for Danny D, two ugly contracts for E and Kronwall, and the Green contract. That puts Kenny in a position where the only way out is to make a trade or finagle a short-term contract for one of those guys, and I don't think hes capable of that. I'm sure if we didn't have Kronwall or Ericsson, we would've gone after Goli, Yandle, or Demers (at least I hope).



That's a really great point. A boring off-the-boards-and-out pass is a neutral - or even a positive - if a guy is put in a bad position by his teammate, the team has a bad line change, or that's his only safe route; its also a terrible move if said player is failing to see that his center is streaking and open and he still goes to the boards for the off-and-out. The safest move can still be the wrong move.

Bin, I really respect what you do, but I think at the end of the day, its just way too much for one person to account for accurately. I don't think you can evaluate 6 players through an entire game and expect results to be on point. In fact, it might even be hard to evaluate one defenseman for an entire game.



That is a very uncompromising view for something that is so complex. The bigger the role also means a much bigger chance to produce. What you're talking about is the classic hockey argument: Does more ice time mean more production because of increased time and quality of line-mates? Or does it mean decreased production because you're in over your head with players you can't keep up with and a better opponent? That is always a complex question.

Also, I think you mostly mention goalies because goalies are most individually susceptible to team play and also most susceptible to confidence variance, given the position you hold.

I use goalies for the obvious reason that stats can back it up. For Dmen it is mostly the eye test and then it is very subjective.
What I say is very obvious. If any of us race Usian Bolt he will beat us 1000 out of 1000 even running on one leg.
If we race each other it is 50/50
And if we race a 90 years granny we will beat her 1000 out of 1000.

What you say is if we race Usain Bolt we are going to run 100 m under 10 sec. Negative, no way.

That tows the company line, I don't like it. Just because he's paid as a #2 doesn't mean that you can't cut your losses and play him where he belongs. If you want to force him to play where he doesn't belong because of money, marketing, and organizational pride, why not re-re-up Glendening for top line money and force that too. Actually, I like his chances more in a top role. At least he doesn't look scared all the time.

Throw stuff at the wall until something sticks. Get Dekeyser treatment for the shell-shock he pretty obviously suffers from, brought on by all of the 1st pairing mins and contract expectations, then send him back to the front lines if you can't stick anything.

It is motivation and loyalty. Dekeyser could have signed with any team in the league,he chose wings and even lidstrom had to phone him.
Now they are paying him. If he is overpaid that is because they owe him that money. And maybe they think he is too of a modest guy and the money can make better. I have no idea, I just speculate.

 

[SirloinUB]

It's not difficult, charting JUST the defensemen. Line changes, positioning, all of it. I can personally only do this on a replay it's tedious and very unnatural, but you gain a new appreciation for the game. I'll rewind goals that happen too quickly if unclear but mostly you can zip through in a little over 60 minutes. Following 40 players, coaches, refs, fans, that's much more to take in than 6 D-men.

You can utilize your own method of +/- Most important is to rate fairly. I tend to be very strict which also yields a larger sample. I evaluate details like when a clear pass is in the skates, or if a dump out has successful results. Such a back and forth game you make decisions and move on.

Within hundreds of puck touches I try to mark them all as something though I can understand why BC grades many plays as neutral, you get into the flow and feel you can judge just what stands out. I've only tried this experiment a few times but it was valuable. It's the most valid standard of all, the-eye test, but with the aid of a microscope.

This isn't necessarily directed towards you, but because its being discussed I wanted to add a large appreciation for BinCookin's project. The individual takes time to quantify their "opinions" with respect to specific plays.

The majority of poster's (myself included) share opinions on guys all the time. We should have all have props for an individual who puts the effort into documenting their opinion of a player, whether we agree with those opinions or not. Few individuals provide the same transparency towards their opinions as BC does.

As someone who watches most of our games, I enjoy seeing quantified opinions to compare to my own eye test, even when I disagree.

 

[Henkka]

DeKeyser was definitely great against the Stars. Did play against Seguin at ES and against Benn on the PK. Neutralized both of them. Prevented many many scoring chances, by positioning and with stickplay.

 

[obey86]

Prashanth Iyer ‏@iyer_prashanth 1h1 hour ago
I'm not sure why we aren't fact-checking statements like this one. DeKeyser's 5v5 P60 last year was 0.68, 92nd out of 196 D



blashill is GOAT