Player Discussion Thomas Chabot (D) Part 2

[DrEasy]

I think we need to not get hung up on Roy. He is the belle of the ball. He’s not choosing Ottawa.

Are you saying he's the prom queen, and we're not winners?

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

I think we need to not get hung up on Roy. He is the belle of the ball. He’s not choosing Ottawa.

There are many good RHD coming up as FA but there's a good chance for any given guy to stay where they are.

Montour, DeMelo, Roy, Tanev, Pesce, Carrier and Walker could all extend. If Tanev doesn't extend, Hakanpää likely will and if Pesce doesn't, Chatfield is a lock to extend (maybe even if he does tbh). Even Myers seems likely to extend. Hronek is RFA, might be available for trade but highly unlikely.

If you whittle the list down to only guys who are almost definitely going to FA, the list is pretty skimpy. Ranked by ATOI:
- Klingberg
- Dumba
- Barrie
- Stetcher
- Lyubushkin
- J. Schultz
- Zaitsev
- C. Miller
- Shattenkirk
- Desharnais
- J. Brown
- E. Johnson
- Tony Deangelo
- Nick DeSimone
- Chad Ruhwedel

And that's the list.

Unless a large portion of those top guys hit FA, we will be one of many teams competing to give a big contract to a mediocre player

 

[Hale The Villain]

There are many good RHD coming up as FA but there's a good chance for any given guy to stay where they are.

Montour, DeMelo, Roy, Tanev, Pesce, Carrier and Walker could all extend. If Tanev doesn't extend, Hakanpää likely will and if Pesce doesn't, Chatfield is a lock to extend (maybe even if he does tbh). Even Myers seems likely to extend. Hronek is RFA, might be available for trade but highly unlikely.

If you whittle the list down to only guys who are almost definitely going to FA, the list is pretty skimpy. Ranked by ATOI:
- Klingberg
- Dumba
- Barrie
- Stetcher
- Lyubushkin
- J. Schultz
- Zaitsev
- C. Miller
- Shattenkirk
- Desharnais
- J. Brown
- E. Johnson
- Tony Deangelo
- Nick DeSimone
- Chad Ruhwedel

And that's the list.

Unless a large portion of those top guys hit FA, we will be one of many teams competing to give a big contract to a mediocre player

Everyone should prepare themselves for the likes of Dumba, Lyubushkin, Miller, etc...

Maybe an outside chance that DeMelo makes it to UFA and agrees to come back here to re-unite with Chabot on our 2nd pairing, but people thinking Americans like Pesce or Roy will come here short of an insane overpayment are kidding themselves.

 

[bicboi64]

There are many good RHD coming up as FA but there's a good chance for any given guy to stay where they are.

Montour, DeMelo, Roy, Tanev, Pesce, Carrier and Walker could all extend. If Tanev doesn't extend, Hakanpää likely will and if Pesce doesn't, Chatfield is a lock to extend (maybe even if he does tbh). Even Myers seems likely to extend. Hronek is RFA, might be available for trade but highly unlikely.

If you whittle the list down to only guys who are almost definitely going to FA, the list is pretty skimpy. Ranked by ATOI:
- Klingberg
- Dumba
- Barrie
- Stetcher
- Lyubushkin
- J. Schultz
- Zaitsev
- C. Miller
- Shattenkirk
- Desharnais
- J. Brown
- E. Johnson
- Tony Deangelo
- Nick DeSimone
- Chad Ruhwedel

And that's the list.

Unless a large portion of those top guys hit FA, we will be one of many teams competing to give a big contract to a mediocre player

Wouldn't mind Lyubushkin or Miller out of that list.

Dallas won't have enough capspace to extend both Tanev and Hakanpaa, especially with Harley, Lundqvist, and Dellandrea. I hope we can prioritize one of those guys.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Wouldn't mind Lyubushkin or Miller out of that list.

Dallas won't have enough capspace to extend both Tanev and Hakanpaa, especially with Harley, Lundqvist, and Dellandrea. I hope we can prioritize one of those guys.

The list has some really solid 3rd pairing options but no one who has much place in the top 4 beyond fill-in/spot duty

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Yup. I also believe Chabot can easily rekindle and find his game again as a top D. But we would be best with Chychrun moving forward just from a structural standpoint as well.

Can also see Chychrun signing 1.5-2 mil less as well.

I think if Chych signs for anywhere under 6.5 long term you flip Chabot for whatever the hell anyone will give up for him. It might not be a great return . . . but a legit guy who can anchor a top pair should at least bring back a good pick and prospect.

Might not be a high first, or a A+ prospect. But something that makes up the value of a mid to late first, and a B prospect seems reasonable.

Of course I thought Tarasenko would get a second and change. So wtf do I know.

 

[Loach]

I think if Chych signs for anywhere under 6.5 long term you flip Chabot for whatever the hell anyone will give up for him. It might not be a great return . . . but a legit guy who can anchor a top pair should at least bring back a good pick and prospect.

Might not be a high first, or a A+ prospect. But something that makes up the value of a mid to late first, and a B prospect seems reasonable.

Of course I thought Tarasenko would get a second and change. So wtf do I know.

Chabot can anchor a top pair? Since when?

 

[JD1]

So do you think going forward he's only going to play 51-68 games a season? Because that's essentially what you've now re-framed it as. I don't think that's realistic either tbh but hey, maybe it happens. He's had a rough go of late, broke his leg this year in a freak accident, came back to early and aggravated it. I don't know if that's indicative of future injuries to come, but I suppose we'll see.

For Brannstrom to score thirty though, well lets just say he'd need to earn the coaches confidence first, and as a guy that every year continues to get sheltered mins and being one of the guys that gets considered for the next healthy scratch he's got some work to do. Even when he has been on the PP hasn't produced, with only 11 PP pts in ~300 mins over his career, I just don't see it. You add his career pp production to this years pts and he still comes up short. The reality is that's just not his game, his offence tends to come from exiting the zone efficiently, not from making plays in the OZ once they are set up, and he's never getting first unit mins with Sanderson, and Chychrun ahead of him.

You said Chabot is probably giving you 70 games. He hasn't done that in a long time. His recent history is relevant

You mentioned Brannstrom at 60 games. I think that was being disingenious. He's averaged 75 the past two years assuming he finishes the year and the year prior he was 22 and occasionally scratched. The past 3 years he has played over 210 pro games and spent some time as a healthy scratch as a 22 year old. Averaging over 70.

Brannstrom being effective on a PP isn't an off the wall the idea. Jason York was talking about this earlier this week if the team gets rid of one of the LHDs. In fact the discussion was he'd be good in this role but we just don't currently have the role to give him.

 

[JD1]

Idk if that's actually true, he's certainly getting less OZ starts, and QOC appears to be a big difference too. Now, playing on the right side, JBD does typically play with more offensive minded partners while Brannstrom has played both sides, so more of a mixed bag in terms of linemates I suspect.

View attachment 845982

What's the definition of OZ starts

On hockey reference for example, the definition of OZ starts is
Oz starts/(oz starts+dz starts)

So if you had 20 oz starts and 10 dz starts, you oz start percentage would be 66%.

But that doesn't account for what actually happens while you're on the ice.

So typically how it's used isn't really appropriate

 

[Micklebot]

Chabot can anchor a top pair? Since when?

Well, for better or worse, he's been doing it here up until this year, and our top pair was good when he was with Zub, and before that with DeMelo.

He's certainly not perfect, but he's still a legit top pair Dman.

You said Chabot is probably giving you 70 games. He hasn't done that in a long time. His recent history is relevant

You mentioned Brannstrom at 60 games. I think that was being disingenious. He's averaged 75 the past two years assuming he finishes the year and the year prior he was 22 and occasionally scratched. The past 3 years he has played over 210 pro games and spent some time as a healthy scratch as a 22 year old. Averaging over 70.

Brannstrom being effective on a PP isn't an off the wall the idea. Jason York was talking about this earlier this week if the team gets rid of one of the LHDs. In fact the discussion was he'd be good in this role but we just don't currently have the role to give him.

If we're being honest, trying to guess future injuries when those in the past are completely unrelated tends to be a bit of a fools errand. If you think him breaking his tibia this year is predictive of future injuries, more power to you I guess. If Chabot had recurring injuries, like Norris' shoulder or Ryan's hands, I'd be more inclined to agree, but a broken hand, a concussion, and a broken tibia are his last injuries, they are unrelated and more likely bad luck then indicative of how long his future injuries may be.

Idk, I think you're being guilty as seeing the grass as greener on the other side, there's a reason Brannstrom gets the softest deployment on the team, there's a reason he averages the least icetime and there's a reason he gets healthy scratched. He's the definition of a tweener, not good enough to be a top 4 guy on a good team and doesn't fit the roles available to bottom pair guys, if we trade Chych or Chabot, there still isn't a realistic spot for him in the top 4.

As for the 60 games, I was being flippant, not taking into account context of his early season they way you ignored covid shortened seasons when listing the number of times chabot hit 40 pts

 

[JD1]

I wouldn't put much stock in the Q o C thing with Brannstrom either.

When Chabot is healthy, Brannstrom is playing 3rd pair with the weakest RD dressed that night. Of course he's getting the weakest opposition. You've got a stud in Sanderson and Chabot as an 8 AAV guy.

A better barometer of how he does would be data that includes goals against paired with Q o C data which I don't think is publicly available. If anyone knows where, please let me know

 

[JD1]

Well, for better or worse, he's been doing it here up until this year, and our top pair was good when he was with Zub, and before that with DeMelo.

He's certainly not perfect, but he's still a legit top pair Dman.

If we're being honest, trying to guess future injuries when those in the past are completely unrelated tends to be a bit of a fools errand. If you think him breaking his tibia this year is predictive of future injuries, more power to you I guess. If Chabot had recurring injuries, like Norris' shoulder or Ryan's hands, I'd be more inclined to agree, but a broken hand, a concussion, and a broken tibia are his last injuries, they are unrelated and more likely bad luck then indicative of how long his future injuries may be.

Idk, I think you're being guilty as seeing the grass as greener on the other side, there's a reason Brannstrom gets the softest deployment on the team, there's a reason he averages the least icetime and there's a reason he gets healthy scratched. He's the definition of a tweener, not good enough to be a top 4 guy on a good team and doesn't fit the roles available to bottom pair guys, if we trade Chych or Chabot, there still isn't a realistic spot for him in the top 4.

As for the 60 games, I was being flippant, not taking into account context of his early season they way you ignored covid shortened seasons when listing the number of times chabot hit 40 pts

With Sanderson and Chabot ahead of him, how would you deploy him?

And do you have a definition of OZ starts you used?

Maybe you saw the comment about hockey reference. Here's the definition from natural stat trick

Off. Zone Starts - Number of shifts for the player that started with an offensive zone faceoff.

Completely different definitions

 

[Micklebot]

What's the definition of OZ starts

On hockey reference for example, the definition of OZ starts is
Oz starts/(oz starts+dz starts)

So if you had 20 oz starts and 10 dz starts, you oz start percentage would be 66%.

But that doesn't account for what actually happens while you're on the ice.

So typically how it's used isn't really appropriate

I'm not sure I'm following your concern here, what exactly do you mean by what happens on the ice? Do you just mean it only reflects the first couple seconds after the faceoff? Or that it ignores NZ starts and on the fly shifts?

For what it's worth, OZ start percentage typically isn't going to have a huge impact on the underlying numbers, unless you're comparing extreme cases. That said, they do tend to reflect what the coach feels your strengths and or weaknesses are.

 

[JD1]

I'm not sure I'm following your concern here, what exactly do you mean by what happens on the ice? Do you just mean it only reflects the first couple seconds after the faceoff? Or that it ignores NZ starts and on the fly shifts?

For what it's worth, OZ start percentage typically isn't going to have a huge impact on the underlying numbers, unless you're comparing extreme cases. That said, they do tend to reflect what the coach feels your strengths and or weaknesses are.

What I'm referring to is 2 different sites having a different definition of the term oz start %.

 

[Micklebot]

With Sanderson and Chabot ahead of him, how would you deploy him?

And do you have a definition of OZ starts you used?

Maybe you saw the comment about hockey reference. Here's the definition from natural stat trick

Off. Zone Starts - Number of shifts for the player that started with an offensive zone faceoff.

Completely different definitions

That's kind of the problem, every soft deployment shift he gets is one that our better offensive D doesn't get, so giving him sheltered deployment means less overall team offense. I don't think he's good enough defensively to use in more shutdown shifts like I expect Kleven
to get opening up more offensive shifts for our stronger offensive players.

As for the definition of OZ starts, they are using the same definition, Natural statrick just also gives you the counts and the %

NATURAL STATRICK: Off. Zone Faceoff % - Percentage of faceoffs in the offensive zone for which the player was on the ice, excluding neutral zone faceoffs. Off. Zone Faceoffs*100/(Off. Zone Faceoffs+Def. Zone Faceoffs),

 

[Burrowsaurus]

There are many good RHD coming up as FA but there's a good chance for any given guy to stay where they are.

Montour, DeMelo, Roy, Tanev, Pesce, Carrier and Walker could all extend. If Tanev doesn't extend, Hakanpää likely will and if Pesce doesn't, Chatfield is a lock to extend (maybe even if he does tbh). Even Myers seems likely to extend. Hronek is RFA, might be available for trade but highly unlikely.

If you whittle the list down to only guys who are almost definitely going to FA, the list is pretty skimpy. Ranked by ATOI:
- Klingberg
- Dumba
- Barrie
- Stetcher
- Lyubushkin
- J. Schultz
- Zaitsev
- C. Miller
- Shattenkirk
- Desharnais
- J. Brown
- E. Johnson
- Tony Deangelo
- Nick DeSimone
- Chad Ruhwedel

And that's the list.

Unless a large portion of those top guys hit FA, we will be one of many teams competing to give a big contract to a mediocre player

Well you’re just assuming the best players all re sign which is worst case scenario. So yeah that would obviously narrow down the list

Which would suck.

But if Roy does make it. We’re not signing him.

Demelo we definitely have a shot at.

Tanev I can see because he’s played for two Canadian teams he’s cool with it.

 

[JD1]

That's kind of the problem, every soft deployment shift he gets is one that our better offensive D doesn't get, so giving him sheltered deployment means less overall team offense. I don't think he's good enough defensively to use in more shutdown shifts like I expect Kleven
to get opening up more offensive shifts for our stronger offensive players.

As for the definition of OZ starts, they are using the same definition, Natural statrick just also gives you the counts and the %

NATURAL STATRICK: Off. Zone Faceoff % - Percentage of faceoffs in the offensive zone for which the player was on the ice, excluding neutral zone faceoffs. Off. Zone Faceoffs*100/(Off. Zone Faceoffs+Def. Zone Faceoffs),

The definitions of the stats on those sites isn't the same

On one hand your calling it soft deployment and on the other you're saying

For what it's worth, OZ start percentage typically isn't going to have a huge impact on the underlying numbers

So does this deployment matter or not ?

 

[Micklebot]

The definitions of the stats on those sites isn't the same

They are, look at the definition I posted


NS: Percentage of faceoffs in the offensive zone for which the player was on the ice, excluding neutral zone faceoffs.

HR: Oz starts/(oz starts+dz starts)

They are saying the exact same thing,

On one hand your calling it soft deployment and on the other you're saying

For what it's worth, OZ start percentage typically isn't going to have a huge impact on the underlying numbers

So does this deployment matter or not ?

I'm saying that one element of deployment is not the be all and end all on its own unless you're looking at extremes, like comparing guys getting 10+% differences.

To me, deployment is more about what the coaches think about the players, Brannstrom has consistently gotten sheltered over the years, so one can infer from that the coaches are either trying to take advantage of his offense, they don't trust him defensively or a combination of both.

 

[Alex1234]

His career average is literally 12/g 50pts/82 games.
He’s astonishingly consistent offensively.
Top 20 in the league every single year.

How is he top 20 in the league last season with 50 pts per 82 games?

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Well you’re just assuming the best players all re sign which is worst case scenario. So yeah that would obviously narrow down the list

Sure, at least a few of those guys will definitely make it to market but if the guys that do are Roy, Montour, and Walker, it's pretty likely that we're not getting that top 4 RHD in FA. My point being that the chips will need to fall favourably

 

[redbrick98]

Everyone penciling Chabots name in their lineup - doesn't make sense

Honestly how are you gunna rely on this guy even being available to play?

We *may* finally be playing big games next year and you can't rely he'll be in the lineup!


Staois & Management really need to consider this when including (not including) in defense plans this summer

 

[Wondercarrot]

How is he top 20 in the league last season with 50 pts per 82 games?

For defencemen.

 

[Alex1234]

For defencemen.

I know but its not possible

 

[Micklebot]

I know but its not possible

He's currently 19th in pts per game for D (10 gp). I think he was a touch lower last year, haven't checked, but 50 pts pace is usually right in that 20-30 range.

 

[Alex1234]

He's currently 19th in pts per game for D (10 gp). I think he was a touch lower last year, haven't checked, but 50 pts pace is usually right in that 20-30 range.

Thats why he is not « Top 20 in the league EVERY single year »
Because 20-30 range is not top 20
27th last season
31st the season before
25th the year prior
30th in 2019-20

50 points per 82 games puts him more towards 30th in the league than 20th
Certainly not consistently in the top 20