Stamkos: Yea or Nay?

[mr grieves]

I don't disagree with you, a stud defenseman is the next big item on the wish list now that we're going to have Matthews.

But in lieu of Doughty hitting free agency this summer or realistically expecting to snag one, I think they should still be accumulating all the pieces they can. Maybe one day Stamkos gets traded for an elite defenseman. Or he makes another piece available to trade for a defenseman. Just gives us options.

That's where I'm at. It's not Stamkos vs. an elite defenseman, since there's no such defenseman available right now.

But adding Stamkos increases the number of elite pieces the Leafs have. And that makes it easier to acquire an elite D in the way they're most likely to be able to get on, in a trade. Stamkos frees up other players so the Leafs could pull off a trade like Johansen for Seth Jones.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Weber lacks a transition game. He would be a hell of a player alongside someone like Gardiner though, both would compliment the other pefectly.

I still don't think I am ever taking or wanting a player under contract for 10 years, lasting until they are 40. Too much risk on that.

Heres a good read btw: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...edators-shea-weber-really-an-elite-defenseman

That was a good read. Thanks. They might be willing to get out from under that contract. Weber might play 7 more years. Interesting.

 

[Stephen]

Players of Weber's age are beginning to decline quite sharply. Just look at his draft class and you can see where those careers are all arcing towards.

Weber is also signed till he's a fossil, which could be a massive problem. My concern would be giving Nashville assets only to handcuff ourselves with a contract that will soon make Dion Phaneuf's contract look like child's play.

 

[Stand Witness]

Players of Weber's age are beginning to decline quite sharply. Just look at his draft class and you can see where those careers are all arcing towards.

Weber is also signed till he's a fossil, which could be a massive problem. My concern would be giving Nashville assets only to handcuff ourselves with a contract that will soon make Dion Phaneuf's contract look like child's play.

Yup. Can't say much different. Nashville is going to have a hell of a situation on there hands.

I believe next year could be the year we really start to hear about Chicago's long term cap problems starting with Hossa.

I'd also throw Seabrook down as a wildcard as well. Oddly enough there seems to be a split amongst some Chicago fans about what kind of defensemen he really is in terms of #1/#2/#3 etc..

 

[Pookie]

It took you probably 30 seconds start to finish to make that post. I hope it was worth it.

I'm no expert, but I assume that having the puck a lot has some impact on a game where you need the puck to score.

Look into it. It doesn't.

 

[Stand Witness]

Look into it. It doesn't.

Does having the puck in general lead to more shots on net?

What leads to goals? Shots.

Having the puck more generally leads to more success.

 

[Pookie]

Does having the puck in general lead to more shots on net?

What leads to goals? Shots.

Having the puck more generally leads to more success.

Correlation coefficients tell us otherwise. They suggest "weak" correlation to success (approx 0.3 in all measures except actual goals scored).

It's why Toronto and Washington, 2 teams at complete opposite ends of the spectrum had nearly the same Corsi rating.

Here's another interesting fact, more games are won while being outshot.

It's moot.

 

[Stand Witness]

Correlation coefficients tell us otherwise. They suggest "weak" correlation to success (approx 0.3 in all measures except actual goals scored).

It's why Toronto and Washington, 2 teams at complete opposite ends of the spectrum had nearly the same Corsi rating.

Here's another interesting fact, more games are won while being outshot.

It's moot.

So whats the correlation coefficient to having less puck possession and winning? I am willing to bet it is even weaker.

Theres a reason for teams being outshout and winning. As teams take the lead they hold off on the offence and are less inclined to shoot more. The opposing team pushes harder and the team with the lead collapses and takes more shots against to close out the game. I personally believe this is a bad strategy and teams should still be trying to run their opponent into the ground until the game ends, but it works so whatever.

If you really do want to claim that more games are won while being outshot and that it is significant than I would question your knowledge of hockey.

Also I've explain this before about Corsi. Corsi just predict long term sustainability. Its funny you bring up the Caps and Leafs. Almost every statistical model I saw predicting the playoffs had the Caps going out in the first 2 rounds. If they were just a strong team then you would have expected them to win the cup. Corsi suggested otherwise and they are out.

You also can't use Corsi alone to predict future success either. Which team had the highest PDO this season? Washington. Which team 'disappointed' the most? Washington. High PDO predicts regression in ones game.

You kept taking blanket statements and not explaining them or looking at them in depth.

Sure you can say the correlation between X and Y isn't that high but it is the highest correlation we have, meaning it is the best predictor of future success we have.

If you can find something with a higher correlation then by all means introduce it to me. Or better yet take it to an NHL team and get hired on the spot.

 

[saltming]

Your post was just right under mine where i said he could mentor Matthews and Marner and score.

I will quote posters when I'm directly responding to them.
The general consensus of this thread had been about both those things, mentoring and goal scoring, so hence my comment.

 

[Pookie]

^ score effects simply try to explain the anomaly. If outshooting wins games then total shots would result in more goals regardless of what time of the game they were taken.

What happens is that talent (ie conversion and goaltending) erase any impact these metrics have.

If Corsi is a .30 correlation that means that of 10 teams only 3 would demonstrate results you would expect (ie possession, shots etc leading to wins or lack of leading to losses). 7 wouldn't.

If you look at correlation coefficients, you will find it generally ranges from .3-.4. Meaning 3-4 of 10 teams would show results consistent. A couple may be .5 or even .6 in the rare case. Which of course means half the league has results opposite to what you expect (ie bad possession and actually win or good possession and lose... like the leafs).

 

[saltming]

It might have been. I will go look for it and link it for you. Here it is bro.https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/04/14/steven-stamkos-leafs/

Here is the latest on salary cap space projections for the near future:https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

Ya that's the article and it is 10 mil.
Thanks for the link.

 

[Stand Witness]

^ score effects simply try to explain the anomaly. If outshooting wins games then total shots would result in more goals regardless of what time of the game they were taken.

What happens is that talent (ie conversion and goaltending) erase any impact these metrics have.

If Corsi is a .30 correlation that means that of 10 teams only 3 would demonstrate results you would expect (ie possession, shots etc leading to wins or lack of leading to losses). 7 wouldn't.

If you look at correlation coefficients, you will find it generally ranges from .3-.4. Meaning 3-4 of 10 teams would show results consistent. A couple may be .5 or even .6 in the rare case. Which of course means half the league has results opposite to what you expect (ie bad possession and actually win or good possession and lose... like the leafs).

So how about the correlation between the teams in the final 4 right now or previous cup winners? Out of the 3/4 teams you suggest (I wouldn't disagree with that logic, expand to 9-12) how many of them are in the final 4? How many of those teams won in their respective years?

I honestly don't know but I would expect a r value increases closer to .6-.7.

I think again this is when you have to look at each team and explain why they performed how they did.

Regardless of the stats, can we agree that teams should aim to be strong possession teams who win more games?

So now why did the Leafs have a higher Corsi but finish dead last? Was talent the issue? Was PDO the issue?

I'd first look at our PDO. We finishes dead last in the league. We had .904 goaltending. That isn't good enough and we lack talent in the goaltending department (we all acknowledge). How about our shooting percentage? We had a .076 shooting percentage. That also isn't good enough and we didn't have the talent on the roster to score goals (we all acknowledge this).

So now we know the goaltending wasn't good enough and the scoring wasn't good enough BUT we did generate shots and in general we out chancing our opponents. Our coach did his job.

Whats next? Well we know that our coach is going to promote a style that leads to more chances for us and less against. Let's put the talent in the system now. Now we have talented players who are creating more chances while giving up less and a goaltender who is saving more pucks on less chances.

Do you see my POV now of looking at it with a little more context?

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Do we want stamkos as a leader and shelter for the kids? Or do we want stamkos for 40+ goals and to shelter and mentor the kids?
If it's the first choice 10 mil is too much money. If it's the second choice 10 mill will be too much in 3+ years. That's less than half his contract.
Find a number between 8 and 9.5 and I'm ok with it.

Ya that's the article and it is 10 mil.
Thanks for the link.

Yeah no sweat. That cap article is a good perspective too.