Around the NHL: 2018-2019 (Part 2) Off-Season Thread, Arbitration Anyone?

[Icicle]

2018 #RITSAC Slides and Video

For all the stat heads out there.

The Stimson presentation is funny. If 0.03 Rsq is 'measurable' and a 'piece of the puzzle', he needs to go back to the drawing board. I get that it sucks that doing tons of data analysis leads to nowhere.. but you've gotta admit when you have a dud.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

The Stimson presentation is funny. If 0.03 Rsq is 'measurable' and a 'piece of the puzzle', he needs to go back to the drawing board. I get that it sucks that doing tons of data analysis leads to nowhere.. but you've gotta admit when you have a dud.

If every stat analyst did that we wouldn’t have any fancy tables to throw around when it suits an argument

 

[Jim Bob]

I think the history is where we disagree. The history your talking about, I think, are the small adjustments from the clownish Garth Snow lacrosse shoulder pads. The history I’m talking about is goalies wearing pads only marginally bigger than a skaters. And that history is filled with goals.

I honestly want to see the ahl try it out and put goalies in todays tech, but 70s size.

I think a ton of screened shots go in, just slipping thru hips and shoulders, that aren’t feasible now.

I just see a lot of Ovechkin one timers just creasing thru, that now catch a fat pad, despite the goalie never even seeing the puck.

I mean a 100 mph shot coming from 30 ft away is like a mlb catcher reflexively snagging a 130 mph pitch.

There is one big problem with going back to the 70s size: goalies are a lot bigger than they were in the 70s.

Plus, you won't see the NHLPA being OK with rolling back size of gear to the point where it lead to as many injuries as you saw in the 70s.

And it won't change the fact that goalies are better trained both physically and technically than ever before.

Chasing smaller and smaller goalie gear is a red herring.

The bigger issue is all the obstruction that the NHL won't consistently enforce.

 

[Icicle]

If every stat analyst did that we wouldn’t have any fancy tables to throw around when it suits an argument

Well.. these guys are journalists. The shock value is what's worth the money. At least they have the right job title with that level of conclusion ramming.

 

[jc17]

If every stat analyst did that we wouldn’t have any fancy tables to throw around when it suits an argument

I think this is true.

I might be overly cynical about this, but I think at a certain point a couple years ago the analytics went from primarily being a search to better quantify the sport, to a competition of who could come up with the most creative and fancy looking metric in order to get hired by a team or a journalism company.

 

[sabrebuild]

There is one big problem with going back to the 70s size: goalies are a lot bigger than they were in the 70s.

Plus, you won't see the NHLPA being OK with rolling back size of gear to the point where it lead to as many injuries as you saw in the 70s.

And it won't change the fact that goalies are better trained both physically and technically than ever before.

Chasing smaller and smaller goalie gear is a red herring.

The bigger issue is all the obstruction that the NHL won't consistently enforce.

Ya you know I agree about the obstruction being called would be more important. I just can’t square the circle of how many times I see goalies make saves that they never saw the shot on, purely due to pads that are bigger than the players frame.

I think I’d be quite happy with both.

But, I will say, I’m 32, I played growing up right as the super big pads were getting prominent, and when you come in a game situation, you just have to shoot for rebounds, because there is no open net to shoot on. None, of they know what they are doing. So your shooting for a rebound or trying to whistle one by the goalies ear, predicting he will drop into his butterfly.

Even if we stipulate that good goalies will be even better with smaller pads, I would rather watch that, than the crap we usually see.

Like the quote you posted, keeping goalies honest, means a lot of these huge lugs would get exposed. Entertain me with skill rather than positioning behind a shield.

 

[Jim Bob]

Ya you know I agree about the obstruction being called would be more important. I just can’t square the circle of how many times I see goalies make saves that they never saw the shot on, purely due to pads that are bigger than the players frame.

I think I’d be quite happy with both.

But, I will say, I’m 32, I played growing up right as the super big pads were getting prominent, and when you come in a game situation, you just have to shoot for rebounds, because there is no open net to shoot on. None, of they know what they are doing. So your shooting for a rebound or trying to whistle one by the goalies ear, predicting he will drop into his butterfly.

Even if we stipulate that good goalies will be even better with smaller pads, I would rather watch that, than the crap we usually see.

Like the quote you posted, keeping goalies honest, means a lot of these huge lugs would get exposed. Entertain me with skill rather than positioning behind a shield.

The bolded is a myth.

Goalies are making saves on shots they don't see not because of the size of the gear but because they are bigger physically and much, much, much better positionally than they were in the 70s.

Most 12yo goalies today have been coached to play the goalie position than any NHL goalie in the 70s.

The development of coaching the position is far and away the #1 reason why goalies don't look like they did in the 70s and not the gear.

Also, the size of the gear isn't as big a factor as all of the tech that makes the gear lighter and allows goalies to drop into the butterfly position.

 

[sabrebuild]

The bolded is a myth.

Goalies are making saves on shots they don't see not because of the size of the gear but because they are bigger physically and much, much, much better positionally than they were in the 70s.

Most 12yo goalies today have been coached to play the goalie position than any NHL goalie in the 70s.

The development of coaching the position is far and away the #1 reason why goalies don't look like they did in the 70s and not the gear.

Also, the size of the gear isn't as big a factor as all of the tech that makes the gear lighter and allows goalies to drop into the butterfly position.

I agree that technique has been huge. But it’s not a myth. It happens all the time. I have goalie friends who will own up to never seeing a shot coming.

I’m not saying pad size is the reason over, technique. Just that they work hand in hand.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I agree that technique has been huge. But it’s not a myth. It happens all the time. I have goalie friends who will own up to never seeing a shot coming.

I’m not saying pad size is the reason over, technique. Just that they work hand in hand.

you specifically said "purely due to pads that are bigger than the players frame."

Ive been a coach at goalie clinics from beginner to D1 CHL hopefuls and fully a third of the time is spent teaching kids how to fan out behind a screen in a way that covers the most net, a lot of goalie instruction is about getting a puck to hit you the more advanced teaching is still about how to get a puck to hit you but they add "and bounce where you want it" on the end

that and the kids coming into the camps at 13 are bigger than I am

 

[sabrebuild]

you specifically said "purely due to pads that are bigger than the players frame."

Ive been a coach at goalie clinics from beginner to D1 CHL hopefuls and fully a third of the time is spent teaching kids how to fan out behind a screen in a way that covers the most net, a lot of goalie instruction is about getting a puck to hit you the more advanced teaching is still about how to get a puck to hit you but they add "and bounce where you want it" on the end

that and the kids coming into the camps at 13 are bigger than I am

Ya that wording is incorrect by me. What I mean is, the technique is there, and I agree I have been to camps and heard or explained the techniques of getting big and covering spots that you can know ahead of time are likely areas to protect.

What I meant was the unnecessary size of the pads, in addition to the foundation of technique, allows saves to be made only because of how big the pads are.

I’m not arguing against there being multiple factors to the difference between now and the 70s for tenders.

I just would need to see all these reflex saves with shoulders and elbows and hands, after a significant pad reduction, to believe these guys are on the whole being hampered by the big gear.

Not to say they couldn’t move faster or be more flexible in the smaller stuff. It just wouldn’t matter, imo, if they are quicker, when a legitimate hole is open for an nhl shooter, just based on pad reduction.

Let’s put it this way, Dryden was a great goalie back in the day and was large. And guys still had the ability to pick corners on him, in a way that just can’t happen today. And that was with wood sticks and far less creative shooters.

Both sides have upped the technique, speed and size quotient. But one side also exponentially got bigger gear.

Idk, honestly I just want to see it at this point, because theoretically everyone can lean on their points. I just think the gear helps the lower tier guys a ton, and the super elite are always pretty great.

Random thought, but who wouldn’t watch a 3v3 off season league with big experiments like that? I would pay to watch a senior league tour of mini tournaments.

 

[Jim Bob]

Again, it's about the technique and the size of the goalies waaaaaaaaay more than the size of the gear.

It is a red herring that some people will never stop chasing.

 

[sabrebuild]

Again, it's about the technique and the size of the goalies waaaaaaaaay more than the size of the gear.

It is a red herring that some people will never stop chasing.

So you claimmmmmmmm.

But you refuse to acknowledge that some of that technique is developed because of the pad size.

Goalies get clowned now when a high skill player gets time and space to make them move. You see guys today, who can go bar down regularly at speed. I agree technical skill and natural size means we are never going back to the 70s or 80s without bigger nets. But an extra 2 inches would also help shooters.

As soon as even 1 guy who plays for a living intentionally switches gear size for the benefit of playing with smaller pads than everyone else in the league, I’m calling BS!!!

 

[Icicle]

Again, it's about the technique and the size of the goalies waaaaaaaaay more than the size of the gear.

It is a red herring that some people will never stop chasing.

If technique was everything - Lehner would've never been in the NHL.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Again, it's about the technique and the size of the goalies waaaaaaaaay more than the size of the gear.

It is a red herring that some people will never stop chasing.

Agree. Goalies using the butterfly, and wider angle in their stance with their pads, low gloves, reverse VH, skate inside the post, and butterfly slides has taken the bottom of the net away.

I've always thought that better zone entries and better offensive zone possession will lead to more scoring and creativity. That's why I think the NHL and IIHF should both go 200 x 85. The width allows for easier zone entries and more space to maintain possession.

 

[5 Minute Major]

Again, it's about the technique and the size of the goalies waaaaaaaaay more than the size of the gear.

It is a red herring that some people will never stop chasing.

I believe that it is more the quality of equipment that makes goalies a lot less fearful and able to play their position better.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

If technique was everything - Lehner would've never been in the NHL.

if technique were everything... there wouldnt be an 'and' in the post

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I think this is true.

I might be overly cynical about this, but I think at a certain point a couple years ago the analytics went from primarily being a search to better quantify the sport, to a competition of who could come up with the most creative and fancy looking metric in order to get hired by a team or a journalism company.

You are.

There’s a parallel to basically every major statistical initiative - xG, WAR, etc - to another major sport.

Beyond whatever personal branding one gets from being the person to bring these stats to the mainstream, there’s value in porting these schools of thought to hockey, even if they end up inferior to something else, or are dependent on proprietary data to truly function.

Additionally, a significant portion of current work includes manual data collection that wouldn’t be available otherwise, like the passing project, or visualizing existing data to make it more digestible.

The regressed impact stuff still isn’t that advanced either, and really just serves to simplify the mental calculations you do while scanning through a player’s WOWY chart into single values.

Hockey analytics are in a good place and headed in the right direction, doubly so when you factor in how dumb the commentary was before corsi became mainstream. And like half the paid professionals in this league are still getting things as fundamental as “aging curves” and “positional value” wrong, so there’s a lot of ground left to cover.

 

[Buttons85]

32 teams.
Assume 4 divisions x 8 teams.
16 teams cross-conference x 2 games home & away = 32 games cross-conference.
15 teams in your conference.
8 teams non-division x 3 games each = 24 games, blend of home & away.
7 teams in-division x 4 games each = 28 games, 2 home & 2 away.
Total 84 games.

I think the only way you can get more in-division-rivalry games is to either:
A. Not play every team in your home arena each season (<32 games cross-conference).
B. Only play more than a home-and-home series within your division. (2 games vs. 24 NHL teams = 48 games. 5 games vs. 7 in-division rivals = 35 games. 83 games total.
If the latter option was chosen, I would NOT want to do within-division playoffs.

I think my ideal alignment would be something like below. 3 home and 3 away games vs. division opponents, 2 home and 2 away games vs. conference opponents, and 1 game against each non-conference opponent. 2 non-conference divisions are home games and 2 are away.

I couldn't think of good conference/division names, so I used, uh, Care Bears (thanks, Wikipedia!).

Funshine Conference
Cheer	Friend	Love-a-Lot	Wish
Boston	Buffalo	Carolina	Columbus
New Jersey	Montreal	Florida	Philadelphia
New York Islanders	Ottawa	Nashville	Pittsburgh
New York Rangers	Toronto	Tampa Bay	Washington
Tenderheart Conference
Bedtime	Birthday	Good Luck	Grumpy
Anaheim	Arizona	Calgary	Chicago
Los Angeles	Colorado	Edmonton	Detroit
San Jose	Dallas	Seattle	Minnesota
Vegas	Winnipeg	Vancouver	St. Louis
Schedule	Division	Conference	Non-Conference
Teams	3	12	16
Games per Team	6	4	1
Total	18	48	16	82

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Retaining a 4 division format, I'd absolutely sacrifice non-conference games for the sake of more in-conference rivalry. Alternate divisions annually for the non-conference games.

Eastern Conference
Metropolitan	Atlantic
Carolina	Boston
Columbus	Buffalo
New Jersey	Detroit
New York Islanders	Florida
New York Rangers	Montreal
Philadelphia	Ottawa
Pittsburgh	Tampa Bay
Washington	Toronto
Western Conference
Pacific	Central
Anaheim	Arizona
Calgary	Chicago
Edmonton	Colorado
Los Angeles	Dallas
San Jose	Minnesota
Seattle	Nashville
Vancouver	St. Louis
Vegas	Winnipeg
Schedule	Division	Conference	Non-Conference
Teams	7	8	8
Games per Team	6	4	1
Total	42	32	8	82

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I do like the symmetry created by adding Seattle to the league.

 

[oldgoalie]

I believe that it is more the quality of equipment that makes goalies a lot less fearful and able to play their position better.

You should have seen my “body armor” back in the 70s. Basically a baseball catchers chest pad and thick felt arm pads. If you bought the best arm pads, you got extra padding on the elbows. With how these guys shoot today, a goalie wearing that padding would be one mass of bruises.
My leg pads were leather stuffed with kapok and deer hair (it was hollow and “light”). When wet, they weighed a ton. And adding inside leg guards were additional parts you had to buy; none of that was integrated into the pad till years later. Add fiberglass/resin face hugging masks that didn’t have throat protection, and skates that used heavy fiber material for protection. Yeah, the quality of today’s gear makes that stuff “antique”.

 

[joshjull]

 

[joshjull]

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

There's a lot of seriously very smart talk on this thread about goaltending technique, size, equipment, etc.. Son #2 in the photo still plays goal. So glad he started playing just at the time that the equipment improvements came on board otherwise, his mom would not have allowed it. Today's graphite sticks and the whip they give a shooter would have likely killed someone wearing Ken Dryden type equipment from the 70's.

Old Goalie and all you other old timer/netminders, my hat's off to you and your generation. Your equipment was crap. But you guys had courage. (Not much in terms of common sense... but lots of courage!!! LoL!)

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I started at 6 in that old stuff as a fill in goalie in Saturday morning league at leisure rinks and decided blocking shots as a defenseman was safer

 

[Icicle]

You are.

There’s a parallel to basically every major statistical initiative - xG, WAR, etc - to another major sport.

Beyond whatever personal branding one gets from being the person to bring these stats to the mainstream, there’s value in porting these schools of thought to hockey, even if they end up inferior to something else, or are dependent on proprietary data to truly function.

Additionally, a significant portion of current work includes manual data collection that wouldn’t be available otherwise, like the passing project, or visualizing existing data to make it more digestible.

The regressed impact stuff still isn’t that advanced either, and really just serves to simplify the mental calculations you do while scanning through a player’s WOWY chart into single values.

Hockey analytics are in a good place and headed in the right direction, doubly so when you factor in how dumb the commentary was before corsi became mainstream. And like half the paid professionals in this league are still getting things as fundamental as “aging curves” and “positional value” wrong, so there’s a lot of ground left to cover.

You can say this, but it’s pure opinion.

The evidence is that paid journalists are spouting off at conferences that Rsq=0.03 fits are ‘measurable’. That’s some embarrassing stuff right there. Don’t get me wrong - I’ve done much professional work with Rsq~.2, and I can believe those are real through noise, but their presentation had not one mention of explaining outliers, which is exactly what you need to be doing when your regressions are such poor fits. That’s just bad stats.

 

[Dreakon13]

Gosh, that sounds familiar.