Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign D Ian Cole to 1-Year, $3M Deal

[Fatass]

Cole is a very smart signing. He’s a heavy bodied, defensive minded D who can support Hughes or Hronek 5 on 5. And he will be important to our PK too. Guy is almost always a plus player every year.

 

[Nick Lang]

Cole is a very smart signing. He’s a heavy bodied, defensive minded D who can support Hughes or Hronek 5 on 5. And he will be important to our PK too. Guy is almost always a plus player every year.

Could be a good partner for Hughes. He's got a lot of experience. Hopefully he meshes well with Hughes if he plays with him. On the PK what do we have?

Soucy Cole
Hughes Hronek
Hirose Myers

 

[RobertKron]

still going huh? i see there's been some editing so i can't really answer that particular snark because there is no timeline anymore to show you starting and escalating this. while people cannot see why i was annoyed at you, they can still see your rationalization. i guess they will have to judge how legit it is given that all the posts you were defending as innocent got deleted for violation of various rules.

anyway, why don't we leave it now? bless your heart and such.

Whuh? The quoted post wasn't even directed at me. It's your reply to MS questioning your initial comment in this whole stream. I had nothing to do with that exchange at all.

I want you to know that i have watched every Carolina game for the past 3 years. I will tell you that near every time a goal is scored against them Pesce is on the ice. It amazes me that it would go unnoticed by NHL staff. Thing is that there are so many over rated and over paid players around the league that once they get some ink everyone continues to believe they are great. It is the same in baseball. take Mike Trout for example. He was great when he first arrived and some still speak of him as he is the best player in baseball. Truth is TRout has been striking out more times then he gets a hit for years.

Brett Pesce was on the ice for 66 out of 162 ES goals scored against Carolina last year. Not sure what you were watching.

it takes a true stats guy to confidently contradict someone who has watched a player on another team in every game for three years.

yes his ga/60 at even strength last year is tied with burns and slightly better than skjei, but there may be a "reverse clutch" syndrome at play to make the goals he is on for stand out.

Ha, seriously?

Sometimes it’s just blatantly statistically obvious that someone’s statement is factually incorrect.

Brett Pesce played about 40% of the ES minutes for Carolina and was on the ice for about 40% of the ESGA despite playing the highest-leverage minutes on the team.

The notion that he’s bad defensively or on the ice for a disproportionate amount of goals is just nonsense. It’s wrong. And as we can see on this board, people can watch a lot of Canucks games and have really bad takes on what they’re watching.

yes seriously.

the notion that a player can have decent stats that don't track a metric is not exactyl controversial. if you are serious about learning about players rather than showing us how smart you are, then instead of dimissing that poster who has 100 times more experience scouting that player than you do, you could have asked him a couple of questions about his observation to see where it came from and perhaps learn something.

 

[Fatass]

Could be a good partner for Hughes. He's got a lot of experience. Hopefully he meshes well with Hughes if he plays with him. On the PK what do we have?

Soucy Cole
Hughes Hronek
Hirose Myers

I see Hronek on PK 1 and Myers on PK 2 with Cole and Soucy. Hughes is great at PK too, of course he’s a phenom and will want those minutes, but I expect he sees very little PK time. He’s going to play less, and help the club even more because he can be more offensive minded 5 on 5. Cole will allow Hughes to do that. Very smart signing.

 

[RobertKron]

Plus/Minus stats tell you whether the player has been on the ice for more or less even strength goals and how many more/less. It's not a lot different from having high assists totals where you still need context in order to equate a player's high assists totals to being a good playmaker.

Again, not really disagreeing with you, but the difference would be that the assist totals are tracking something the player has done individually (even if incidentally, the player still had to have contacted the puck on the way to the goal), while plus-minus tracks something the team has done (even if the player may have been directly involved) and then attributes it equally to all players. There is a different level of inherent noise in the one than the other.

And, again, I'm going to point out for context that this whole discussion about plus-minus stems from and was in response to this statement:

Well OEL was more like a 2nd pairing guy his last 3 seasons base on his average TOI. His minus 24 is why he was bought out and guys like Cole and Soucy brought in. You want to win games? You replace minus guys for plus guys.

Isn't this the discussion with Karlsson that started this whole +/- discussion? He had 101 points but was -36. Back in the day we had Dmen we describe as riverboat gamblers (nowadays these type of Dmen don't make and stay in the NHL).

FWIW, obviously nobody is ever going to confuse Karlsson with Chris Tanev, but it's not like his plus-minus was an outlier on his team (and it was -26 rather than -36. Hertl was a -36, though.). Basically just about everyone on that team other than Megna who played a lot of minutes was near -20 or below. They got ventilated, and got sub-.900 goaltending from both their goalies.

 

[F A N]

Again, not really disagreeing with you, but the difference would be that the assist totals are tracking something the player has done individually (even if incidentally, the player still had to have contacted the puck on the way to the goal), while plus-minus tracks something the team has done (even if the player may have been directly involved) and then attributes it equally to all players. There is a different level of inherent noise in the one than the other.

That's a fair point. To me, in an era where we do care about advanced stats, I think any statistic is extra information that does have utility when put into proper context. I think a Dman generating a secondary assist is more telling than a forward generating a secondary assist. But I would make the same arguments that if a player consistently generates secondary assists there's some utility in the stat.

In the case of OEL, I think his +- this past season did reflect his poor defensive play. So this is a case where ok this stat suggests he was bad defensively and if you take a closer look he was bad.

And, again, I'm going to point out for context that this whole discussion about plus-minus stems from and was in response to this statement:

Well noted.

FWIW, obviously nobody is ever going to confuse Karlsson with Chris Tanev, but it's not like his plus-minus was an outlier on his team (and it was -26 rather than -36. Hertl was a -36, though.). Basically just about everyone on that team other than Megna who played a lot of minutes was near -20 or below. They got ventilated, and got sub-.900 goaltending from both their goalies.

Karlsson also doesn't have a history of having a strong +/- despite elite point production.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Whuh? The quoted post wasn't even directed at me. It's your reply to MS questioning your initial comment in this whole stream. I had nothing to do with that exchange at all.

lol, you are like the energizer snark bunny. i am also no longer sure of your point. are you saying that me calling ms smart, equates to you calling me a trump apoligist, kellyanne, and a possessor of "suspicious views"? because no mod thought it necessary to delete my post calling ms smart for flaming

or are you saying that i started this beef with you? because as i recall the deleted discussion you called me a trump apologist before i called ms smart.

either way it seems like you taking advantage of the mods deleting your posts to rewrite history in your favour. which in and of itself seems pretty cheesy.

bottom line, your posts insulting me got deleted.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

lol, you are like the energizer snark bunny. i am also no longer sure of your point. are you saying that me calling ms smart, equates to you calling me a trump apoligist, kellyanne, and a possessor of "suspicious views"? because no mod thought it necessary to delete my post calling ms smart for flaming

or are you saying that i started this beef with you? because as i recall the deleted discussion you called me a trump apologist before i called ms smart.

either way it seems like you taking advantage of the mods deleting your posts to rewrite history in your favour. which in and of itself seems pretty cheesy.

bottom line, your posts insulting me got deleted.

Why are you always at the centre of petty arguments Kruts? I feel like every time I read one of these posts, a puppy dies.

 

[MS]

yes seriously.

the notion that a player can have decent stats that don't track a metric is not exactyl controversial. if you are serious about learning about players rather than showing us how smart you are, then instead of dimissing that poster who has 100 times more experience scouting that player than you do, you could have asked him a couple of questions about his observation to see where it came from and perhaps learn something.

He didn't make any sort of nuanced claim.

He made a very easy to disprove statistical claim. I disproved that statistical claim.

The notion that Brett Pesce was on the ice for a disproportionate number of goals is nonsense. He's actually on the ice for fewer goals than you'd expect given his minutes/usage, and this lines up with literally every other viewpoint on him I've ever seen from a Canes fan that he's an excellent player.

If he wants to make some sort of out-of-the-box argument that Pesce is actually bad in high-leverage minutes, the onus is on him to prove that claim.

+/- gets a bad rap. it's a useful initial indicator like corsi. you can quickly roughly adjust it based on other players on the same team and relative deployment around the league, but a deeper dive is needed to draw substantive concusions.

a bad +/- is like a smoke alarm going off. sometimes the house is on fire, but often it's just that someone has burned the toast. either way, it requires investigation to understand why it is happening.

a good +/- is like a bounce on your fishing float. sometimes it is just wave action, but often it is a fish coming on. you need to pay close attention when it happens.

We agree here.

+/- is basically just Corsi/possession stats which are less accurate due to smaller sample sizes but easier to garner a bit of info off of at a quick glance. It's always hilarious to me when people come out with '+/- is worthless!' while at the same time using Corsi to form their opinions. They're essentially the same bloody thing.

Both +/- and Corsi measure how effective a player performs in their role, and are useful only if you understand the context of that role. And maybe it means something, and maybe it's just noise.

 

[Nucker101]

He didn't make any sort of nuanced claim.

He made a very easy to disprove statistical claim. I disproved that statistical claim.

The notion that Brett Pesce was on the ice for a disproportionate number of goals is nonsense. He's actually on the ice for fewer goals than you'd expect given his minutes/usage, and this lines up with literally every other viewpoint on him I've ever seen from a Canes fan that he's an excellent player.

If he wants to make some sort of out-of-the-box argument that Pesce is actually bad in high-leverage minutes, the onus is on him to prove that claim.



We agree here.

+/- is basically just Corsi/possession stats which are less accurate due to smaller sample sizes but easier to garner a bit of info off of at a quick glance. It's always hilarious to me when people come out with '+/- is worthless!' while at the same time using Corsi to form their opinions. They're essentially the same bloody thing.

Both +/- and Corsi measure how effective a player performs in their role, and are useful only if you understand the context of that role. And maybe it means something, and maybe it's just noise.

The high leverage claim is wrong too unless 5v5 minutes in 1 goal game situations doesn’t count as high leverage enough

 

[RobertKron]

lol, you are like the energizer snark bunny. i am also no longer sure of your point. are you saying that me calling ms smart, equates to you calling me a trump apoligist, kellyanne, and a possessor of "suspicious views"? because no mod thought it necessary to delete my post calling ms smart for flaming

or are you saying that i started this beef with you? because as i recall the deleted discussion you called me a trump apologist before i called ms smart.

either way it seems like you taking advantage of the mods deleting your posts to rewrite history in your favour. which in and of itself seems pretty cheesy.

bottom line, your posts insulting me got deleted.

 

[F A N]

lol, you are like the energizer snark bunny. i am also no longer sure of your point. are you saying that me calling ms smart, equates to you calling me a trump apoligist, kellyanne, and a possessor of "suspicious views"? because no mod thought it necessary to delete my post calling ms smart for flaming

or are you saying that i started this beef with you? because as i recall the deleted discussion you called me a trump apologist before i called ms smart.

either way it seems like you taking advantage of the mods deleting your posts to rewrite history in your favour. which in and of itself seems pretty cheesy.

bottom line, your posts insulting me got deleted.

Cole probably likes all the Trump-style labels that are being thrown around.

 

[Regal]

He didn't make any sort of nuanced claim.

He made a very easy to disprove statistical claim. I disproved that statistical claim.

The notion that Brett Pesce was on the ice for a disproportionate number of goals is nonsense. He's actually on the ice for fewer goals than you'd expect given his minutes/usage, and this lines up with literally every other viewpoint on him I've ever seen from a Canes fan that he's an excellent player.

If he wants to make some sort of out-of-the-box argument that Pesce is actually bad in high-leverage minutes, the onus is on him to prove that claim.



We agree here.

+/- is basically just Corsi/possession stats which are less accurate due to smaller sample sizes but easier to garner a bit of info off of at a quick glance. It's always hilarious to me when people come out with '+/- is worthless!' while at the same time using Corsi to form their opinions. They're essentially the same bloody thing.

Both +/- and Corsi measure how effective a player performs in their role, and are useful only if you understand the context of that role. And maybe it means something, and maybe it's just noise.

Other than variance over small samples, plus minus is mostly deemed useless because of the multiple game states it incorporates. Empty net and short handed goals against make things a clusterf*ck. Goal differential at 5v5 has always been deemed useful by those who use corsi, etc, particularly over bigger samples.

 

[Regal]

Plus/Minus stats tell you whether the player has been on the ice for more or less even strength goals and how many more/less. It's not a lot different from having high assists totals where you still need context in order to equate a player's high assists totals to being a good playmaker.




Just to be clear, I was responding to an example YOU brought up.



Isn't this the discussion with Karlsson that started this whole +/- discussion? He had 101 points but was -36. Back in the day we had Dmen we describe as riverboat gamblers (nowadays these type of Dmen don't make and stay in the NHL).

Plus minus doesn’t actually tell you that because it includes short handed and PK goals against. Karlsson for example was an even plus minus at 5v5 despite the Sharks having a terrible 5v5 goal differential.

 

[F A N]

Plus minus doesn’t actually tell you that because it includes short handed and PK goals against. Karlsson for example was an even plus minus at 5v5 despite the Sharks having a terrible 5v5 goal differential.

Edit. I really haven't been paying attention. I think @Vector's definition is correct.

 

[Vector]

+ /- only includes even strength and short-hahded goals. PK goals against do not contribute.

 

[biturbo19]

Plus minus doesn’t actually tell you that because it includes short handed and PK goals against. Karlsson for example was an even plus minus at 5v5 despite the Sharks having a terrible 5v5 goal differential.

It absolutely does not include shorthanded goals against. That would make +/- a completely useless metric that would inherently cave in anybody who plays on the PK. For the same reason you can't get a + for a powerplay goal.

Karlsson broke even at 5v5, but at even strength in general, that's where his minus comes from. 4v4 3v3 situations like OT. A little bit counterintuitive because you'd expect him to thrive with all that extra open ice...but it also means there's fewer teammates on the ice to cover for his roving antics.

Karlsson has repeatedly been a minus player most of his career or narrowly broken just above even on that. At even strength, he's overall been a liability in his minutes most years. He makes his contributions by being an extremely strong offensive contributor and particularly a good powerplay quarterback. But he's really not that great of an actual defender in terms of keeping pucks out of his own net.



Whereas Cole doesn't bring anything to the Powerplay and isn't going to contribute much offensively, probably isn't going to play the same amount of raw minutes...but has regularly more or less broken even or been a solid net positive in his minutes at even strength. He actually defends.

 

[Vector]

It absolutely does not include shorthanded goals against. That would make +/- a completely useless metric that would inherently cave in anybody who plays on the PK. For the same reason you can't get a + for a powerplay goal.

Just so we’re clear, and I’m 90% sure this is what you’re saying, SH goals against do contribute a minus. Goal scored while as penalty killer do not count, however.

 

[biturbo19]

Just so we’re clear, and I’m 90% sure this is what you’re saying, SH goals against do contribute a minus. Goal scored while as penalty killer do not count, however.

Yeah. Exactly. You can only get a minus while on the powerplay. Not a plus, and not you can't get a minus on the penalty kill, only a plus. So as to not reward for just being on the powerplay, or punish for playing those hard penalty killing minutes. Only applies if something really bad happens on the powerplay, or something really good happens on the PK.

 

[Regal]

It absolutely does not include shorthanded goals against. That would make +/- a completely useless metric that would inherently cave in anybody who plays on the PK. For the same reason you can't get a + for a powerplay goal.

Karlsson broke even at 5v5, but at even strength in general, that's where his minus comes from. 4v4 3v3 situations like OT. A little bit counterintuitive because you'd expect him to thrive with all that extra open ice...but it also means there's fewer teammates on the ice to cover for his roving antics.

Karlsson has repeatedly been a minus player most of his career or narrowly broken just above even on that. At even strength, he's overall been a liability in his minutes most years. He makes his contributions by being an extremely strong offensive contributor and particularly a good powerplay quarterback. But he's really not that great of an actual defender in terms of keeping pucks out of his own net.



Whereas Cole doesn't bring anything to the Powerplay and isn't going to contribute much offensively, probably isn't going to play the same amount of raw minutes...but has regularly more or less broken even or been a solid net positive in his minutes at even strength. He actually defends.

By shorthanded goals against I meant shorthanded goals scored against you while your on the PP. Those are 100% included. So when you’re on the PP a lot but don’t PK much like Karlsson, you’re going to get minuses because they don’t balance out. Karlsson was on the ice for 11 shorthanded goals against, but only 1 shorthanded goals for. That’s -10 onto his plus minus right there.

Also, as I said empty net goals against are the big one, and like shorthanded goal differential something that has near zero bearing on overall value. Karlsson was on the ice for 4 goals for and 21 goals against with the empty net, because San Jose was behind a lot so we’re regularly pulling their goalie and Karlsson would always be out there to try to score. That’s -17 right there. Now with the other team pulling the goalie, Karlsson was on for 6 goals for and 2 goals against. So that’s +4. But since San Jose rarely had the lead that doesn’t make much of a dent in his empty net numbers, so he was still -13 overall in empty net situations.

So that’s a combined -23 that Karlsson had from empty net and special teams. Since he was -26 overall, that means he was actually only -3 at ES. San Jose, however, was -52 at 5v5 and -60 at ES. Karlsson performed much, much better in terms of goal differential than his team. The idea that he was a liability is nonsense and not based on fact.

As for his career, he’s -28 at 5v5 while his teams have combined for -248 at 5v5. And as we see above, ES numbers vary little from 5v5 numbers once empty net is removed (those might have been the ones you are looking at). Karlsson has been on for a lot of goals in his career, and moreso than his expected goals to the point that it suggests he’s worse than his underlying numbers. Still, his ES/5v5 offense is so incredible that it more than makes up for that and he’s very clearly a positive on his teams. He’s just rarely played for good ones. It’s funny when people talk about him for his PP prowess because he’s generally a more valuable ES player because his offense at ES is a decent amount better than his PP offense.

 

[biturbo19]

By shorthanded goals against I meant shorthanded goals scored against you while your on the PP. Those are 100% included. So when you’re on the PP a lot but don’t PK much like Karlsson, you’re going to get minuses because they don’t balance out. Karlsson was on the ice for 11 shorthanded goals against, but only 1 shorthanded goals for. That’s -10 onto his plus minus right there.

Also, as I said empty net goals against are the big one, and like shorthanded goal differential something that has near zero bearing on overall value. Karlsson was on the ice for 4 goals for and 21 goals against with the empty net, because San Jose was behind a lot so we’re regularly pulling their goalie and Karlsson would always be out there to try to score. That’s -17 right there. Now with the other team pulling the goalie, Karlsson was on for 6 goals for and 2 goals against. So that’s +4. But since San Jose rarely had the lead that doesn’t make much of a dent in his empty net numbers, so he was still -13 overall in empty net situations.

So that’s a combined -23 that Karlsson had from empty net and special teams. Since he was -26 overall, that means he was actually only -3 at ES. San Jose, however, was -52 at 5v5 and -60 at ES. Karlsson performed much, much better in terms of goal differential than his team. The idea that he was a liability is nonsense and not based on fact.

As for his career, he’s -28 at 5v5 while his teams have combined for -248 at 5v5. And as we see above, ES numbers vary little from 5v5 numbers once empty net is removed (those might have been the ones you are looking at). Karlsson has been on for a lot of goals in his career, and moreso than his expected goals to the point that it suggests he’s worse than his underlying numbers. Still, his ES/5v5 offense is so incredible that it more than makes up for that and he’s very clearly a positive on his teams. He’s just rarely played for good ones. It’s funny when people talk about him for his PP prowess because he’s generally a more valuable ES player because his offense at ES is a decent amount better than his PP offense.

Fair points. I was misunderstanding what you meant by "shorthanded goals". Wasn't really clarity that you were talking about shorthanded goals against. That and EN situations are definitely a big part of his problem. That's not something Cole has ever really had to contend with.


With Karlsson though, being a career minus 5v5 and in other even strength scenarios as well as those shorthanded goals against and empty net situations is still a big part of how those teams end up with those substantial negative results overall. He's just not a good defender. Has to rely very heavily on offensive contributions just to try to break even on overall impact...and hasn't always done so effectively if the offense and offensive minutes aren't completely there.

 

[Nick Lang]

By shorthanded goals against I meant shorthanded goals scored against you while your on the PP. Those are 100% included. So when you’re on the PP a lot but don’t PK much like Karlsson, you’re going to get minuses because they don’t balance out. Karlsson was on the ice for 11 shorthanded goals against, but only 1 shorthanded goals for. That’s -10 onto his plus minus right there.

Also, as I said empty net goals against are the big one, and like shorthanded goal differential something that has near zero bearing on overall value. Karlsson was on the ice for 4 goals for and 21 goals against with the empty net, because San Jose was behind a lot so we’re regularly pulling their goalie and Karlsson would always be out there to try to score. That’s -17 right there. Now with the other team pulling the goalie, Karlsson was on for 6 goals for and 2 goals against. So that’s +4. But since San Jose rarely had the lead that doesn’t make much of a dent in his empty net numbers, so he was still -13 overall in empty net situations.

So that’s a combined -23 that Karlsson had from empty net and special teams. Since he was -26 overall, that means he was actually only -3 at ES. San Jose, however, was -52 at 5v5 and -60 at ES. Karlsson performed much, much better in terms of goal differential than his team. The idea that he was a liability is nonsense and not based on fact.

As for his career, he’s -28 at 5v5 while his teams have combined for -248 at 5v5. And as we see above, ES numbers vary little from 5v5 numbers once empty net is removed (those might have been the ones you are looking at). Karlsson has been on for a lot of goals in his career, and moreso than his expected goals to the point that it suggests he’s worse than his underlying numbers. Still, his ES/5v5 offense is so incredible that it more than makes up for that and he’s very clearly a positive on his teams. He’s just rarely played for good ones. It’s funny when people talk about him for his PP prowess because he’s generally a more valuable ES player because his offense at ES is a decent amount better than his PP offense.

Wait a sec. Are you telling me Karlsson was on the ice for 11 short handed goals against? That's freaking brutal. He deserves a minus 25 for that alone lol, or at least every single minus he got. Why wouldn't you count those against them? That's a big screw up.

 

[credulous]

Wait a sec. Are you telling me Karlsson was on the ice for 11 short handed goals against? That's freaking brutal. He deserves a minus 25 for that alone lol, or at least every single minus he got. Why wouldn't you count those against them? That's a big screw up.

kucherov and stamkos were on ice for 10. elias pettersson for 9. hughes and kuzmenko for 8 each. short handed goals against doesn't really mean anything

 

[Nick Lang]

kucherov and stamkos were on ice for 10. elias pettersson for 9. hughes and kuzmenko for 8 each. short handed goals against doesn't really mean anything

To me they do, and call me crazy but don't NHL teams care too? It means you gave up a bunch of goals while you had the man advantage. It's deplorable. That's a big disadvantage and a game killer to give up shorties. You usually lose the game when you do that. It's one thing Petterson definitely has to work on. Way to carefree on the boards when on the PP at times. It drives me crazy. Same with Hughes and Stamkos and Kucherov I assume. If I'am a coach I'm certainly not telling my players hey that's cool no big deal when they give up a short handed goal. That's incredulous, Credulous.

Canucks were also last in the league in that department, SJ was second worst, and TB not far behind. I can't imagine that being a stat NHL teams want to be leading or don't care about. TB scored 71 goals on the PP while the Canucks mustered 62, and SJ a lowly 41. Karlsson only had 27 points on the PP so only +16 PP player when you minus his goals against. Over a third of his PP utility completely up in smoke because he gets scored on at an alarming rate with the man advantage. That's not to mention the exceptionally devastating effect giving up a shorty can have on a team. Similarly Petterson was on for 25 goals while giving up 9, again a +16 player giving up a third of the amount of the goals he contributes to. Definitely not something I would be proud of if I was playing.

 

[VanJack]

Cole is a very smart signing. He’s a heavy bodied, defensive minded D who can support Hughes or Hronek 5 on 5. And he will be important to our PK too. Guy is almost always a plus player every year.

I think Cole was signed mostly for his prowess on the PK. I know Boudreau loved to have Hughes and Pettersson out there killing penalties, but in my view the 'risk' far outweighs the 'reward'.

The Canucks signings this summer have been guys with some history of success on the PK. So hopefully they can put together a couple of units that can be effective, without exposing their star players like Hughes, Pettersson and Miller.