Discussion in 'Philadelphia Flyers' started by CanadianFlyer88, Apr 26, 2020.
A thread worthy of discussion of the Flyers' saviour, Boss Hagg.
These pictures are basically a summation of the stats Striiker provided. The top is threat and the other 2 are heat maps; one being for offense (production and efficiency) and the other being for defense (suppression).
For offense, you want to be positive. For defense, you want to be negative.
Hagg is a literal black hole offensively speaking providing inadequate shooting places and (according to money puck) only 5.1% of his shots generate a rebound and over 75% are frozen by the goaltender. If you can’t shoot to score from the blue line, at least shoot for a rebound if you can.
I guess the only takeaway you can have that Hagg did well is his play around the net. Surprisingly, he’s quite effective there according to the stats. If he has to touch the puck or track a skater he’s doomed. If he’s signed and brought back, let’s just put a concrete mold of him right in front of the goaltender. That’s as effective as he will be.
other than that... see what else we can use because he’s a net negative. I honestly don’t see an argument for based on merit. Even speaking about being a healthy body and cheap for D depth- from his play anything over what he currently makes is an inefficient use of spending.
I don't get all the energy wasted on Hagg, it's reminiscent of the obsession with Vandervelde.
We're talking the #7 Defenseman, maybe #6 next year if Braun isn't resigned and Friedman doesn't beat him out.
It's not like bottom of the roster defensemen tend to be top 4 talents.
Almost by definition, the bottom roster players will be below average in most metrics (if not, they wouldn't be on the bottom of rosters, since to have an "average," close to half or more of players have to be below average.
So when someone "discovers" that a player who is the bottom tenth of NHL starters has below average metrics, that's akin to noting that the Sun rises in the East.
Theres a huge difference between being 'below average' and 'hagg'. Thats what the commotion is about.
Really? Show me the stats for the bottom 10% of NHL starters.
Yep, that was intentional.
The best way to show how bad Hagg is was to show that it's not just one stat or two stats that suggest he's a failure... it's damn near all of them. Of course stats can lack context and not tell the whole story... but when that many stats are saying the same thing it's prooooobably for a reason. Especially when it's been the same story in previous years. And really, it shouldn't even take any of those stats to know Hagg is bad because he's one of those players who makes it more than clear by eye test alone. He's both a "death by 1000 cuts" and "death by one massive sweeping slash" type guy.
And yeah, my post wasn't to re-open this discussion either. I just thought it would be a funny exclamation point on the end of the sentence, just to further mock that dumb series of tweets. We all know he's horrific, there's no debate, but that list is still funny to look at (in a "laugh so I don't cry" sort of way ).
Another thread about a net negative player.
The Devils chose Zacha.
How about a next season depth chart?
Of guys who are on the NHL roster right now...
Signed for 2020-2021
Bottom 10% is all well below average. That's more like the "outright bad" category.
It's like if you rate someone on a scale of 0-to-10...
Top 10% would be a 9.
Average would be a 5.
Bottom 10% would be a 1.
If you add the next 40% the you get to average. Hagg is the bottom. But hey let’s refute a statement that says hagg is far from average or even below average. Oh really show me the bottom 10% stats.
It’s like a fool who thinks he can constantly fool others. Even though everyone else knows somewhere a village is rejoicing
What do you think the bottom roster players are on almost any team?
The distribution is fat tailed, there are few stars and they're on the "long tail" of the distribution.
The average is in the fat part of the tail, but below average players are bunched to the left of average near replacement level, which is why they normally have short professional lives, any slippage and there's plenty of potential replacement players.
So if you have 155 D-men starting in the top 5, the #6 defensemen are 156-187, but actually out to 200, because a number of better defensemen will get injured each year.
Which means you'd expect Hagg to be around the 175th defenseman if he's a typical #6 D-man.
The median will be 100, but the average will be the 80-90th player (because the above average players are more above average than the below average players are below average).
Calling Hagg "below average" is equivalent to calling Giroux "above average". The stats were already shown in the last thread, and I've no interest in delving further into the topic. Statistically and by the eye test, Hagg is a very bad NHL player.
If you want to say hes a locker room guy, or whatever, go for it. But the idea that hes a good, or even average player, is indefensible by any argument based of logic and reason.
To be fair, Giroux is just a 3rd-liner/PP-specialist who has been rapidly declining since 2015.
Plus he's a bad leader.
It's hard to talk with the statistically illiterate, whether about hockey or plagues.
how many "good lockerroom guys" does this bloody team need..
Its also hard to have conversations when you're on a high horse you have no business being on. And yet, here we are.
Let’s talk politics.
Except, you're on Team Ghost Beer for this argument. That alone should make you re-evaluate your position on this.
No, I'm not suggesting Hagg is good, I'm suggesting that when you get down to #175 or so out of 200, everyone is pretty bad.
The objective in roster building isn't to replace one marginal player with another, it's to find someone better.
If you find someone better, that solves the problem.
Until then, make sure you're not forced to play someone worse (Prosser et al).
Our point is...we have someone better. Several someone better, in fact.
Separate names with a comma.