Car 52, Where Are You? Mike Green, Pt. 3

[RandyHolt]

Until advanced stats have been proven to consistently find the gems in the rough, they are merely numbers.

Some randoms. Green is often out against weaker opponents since Carlson does his heavy lifting. Green is often out with a strong faceoff guy, say Oates pairs up him with Beagle, which I think he did since we saw Ovi Erskine a lot for offensive draws.

Wouldn't those 2 things automatically drive up Green's possession numbers significantly since Quacker was steadfast in his madness, and refused to acknowledge failure and adjust his approach?

 

[BobRouse]

1) You hold him in that high regard, yet he's not immune to being traded(at least explored).

2) More like a baseline for what I'd look for. Not going to just take any B level prospect and a pick, if you can get a bluechip guy like Eakin, I don't see how it's bad. Eakin's turned into a great role player.

Again, not trading him for scraps, but certainly for the right pieces I don't see how anyone would be against. If you get a 1st + a decent prospect I'd be down.

.

There are reasons to trade him just like any player. The value has to be right. Personally I'd extend Green but it doesn't look like thats a popular opinion.

No offense but...Your baseline SUCKS! I think almost everyone here can tell you that.

Eakin is by no means a "blue chipper". He's a good young role player with limited upside. No way "blue chipper"=good role player in my book at least.

No one would be against the "right pieces" at this point due to his contract status and the new coaching staff. But your definition of the "right pieces" is pretty far off. You want to trade him for scraps and get hosed.

 

[BobRouse]

Until advanced stats have been proven to consistently find the gems in the rough, they are merely numbers.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=5v5&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

Look at the top teams in the list. Look at the list from the time Corsi started taking hold.

There is no doubt that Zoidberg and Liberation are right on this. Possession stats are a strong indicator of success both on a team and individual basis.

At some point people will have to get with the times and stop being stubborn about the "good old ways". Resistance to change is understandable

 

[g00n]

I think Liberation pretty much discounted that theory right there. Offensive dman=Drive possession. Its more like Very good offensive dmen=Drive possession.

What do all these guys have in common?

Ehrhoff
Myers
Phaneuf
Franson
Erik Johnson
Jack Johnson
Shea Weber
Ryan Suter
Kris Letang
Gonchar

Some played on decent teams and some on poor teams. The Caps were a poor possession team and Green STILL posted positive possession numbers. Those guys didn't.



So Weber and Suter are below average then? Letang? Any of those guys on the list?

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201314&sit=5v5&pos=defense&minutes=500&teamid=0&type=corsi&sort=PCT&sortdir=ASC

You're making circular arguments. You're defending the stats by presenting the stats. You do that a lot. And you're doing exactly what I said, abusing the stats without context when tenths of a percent can be the difference.

Look at Schultz 5v5 zone adjusted CF and CF% in 09-10 and tell me he was as good as Mike Green just because the stats say so. If his +55 or whatever is phony and an indictment of +/- then why isn't his Corsi an indictment of that stat, also?

 

[RandyHolt]

Resist!

Team numbers mean little to me since the discussion is really about a single player, and the accuracy of the stat.

I suspect coaches systems influence corsi - maybe heavily. Or a coach that is getting max effort out of his players, their corsi is going to be better than a guy that saves all his energy for the PP / has fat cat disease.

I know little so wonder if a player asked to dump and chase is going to have lame duck possession numbers compared to a player that is asked to.... wait for it, simply take shots.

What about good teammates. LA looks stacked to me, their players and systems look methodical. Sarge gets to play on a dream team all year. I think advanced stats should reflect that he would eventually be bought out/released. I bet plus fiddy's show they did not.

Lets look at Corsi in the 3rd period of the last game. I bet it does not reflect that the Rangers won, nor does it factor what the Rangers coach asked his players to do, which was likely let Lundy win the game for us, don't go try to score. Get it up and out, or in deep. Hockey 101 playing with a lead.

 

[BobRouse]

If his +55 or whatever is phony and an indictment of +/- then why isn't his Corsi an indictment of that stat, also?

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014/6/5/5602668/why-plus-minus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey

Resist!

Team numbers mean little to me since the discussion is really about a single player, and the accuracy of the stat.

I suspect coaches systems influence corsi - maybe heavily. Or a coach that is getting max effort out of his players, their corsi is going to be better than a guy that saves all his energy for the PP / has fat cat disease.

I know little so wonder if a player asked to dump and chase is going to have lame duck possession numbers compared to a player that is asked to.... wait for it, simply take shots.

What about good teammates. LA looks stacked to me, their players and systems look methodical. Sarge gets to play on a dream team all year. I think advanced stats should reflect that he would eventually be bought out/released. I bet they did not.

Lets look at Corsi in the 3rd period of the last game. I bet it does not reflect that the Rangers won, nor does it factor what the Rangers coach asked his players to do, which was likely let Lundy win the game for us.

1. Resistance is Futile....

2. If all those things are true then what about the Caps being a terrible possession team .477 with only a couple players being positive possession players?

Seems like Green drove play DESPITE the suckitude around him and the crappy system.

Lends even more credence to his ability.

 

[g00n]

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014/6/5/5602668/why-plus-minus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey

You didn't answer the question. We know +/- has flaws. That's the point. So do the newer stats, and in both cases it isn't recognized at first. Even Corsi was panned years ago which spawned searches for other stats like PDO and Fenwick, which are also incomplete.

Both types of stats point to Schultz=Green and we know that's not true. We also know Weber and Suter are not worse players than Green. But you selectively use the stats and circular logic to create your comparisons. You're proving my point for me.

If you're going to do nothing but knee-jerk non-answers to posts you don't even read or think about then you're wasting my time.

 

[BobRouse]

You didn't answer the question. We know +/- has flaws. That's the point. Both types of stats point to Schultz=Green and we know that's not true. We also know Weber and Suter are not worse players than Green. But you selectively use the stats and circular logic to create your comparisons. You're proving my point for me.

If you're going to do nothing but knee-jerk non-answers to posts you don't even read or think about then you're wasting my time.

Ofcourse there are other factors involved like for instance how good a possession team that player is on and the quality of competition/zone starts blah blah.

Green is on a terrible possession team. Yet one of the few players that posted positive numbers.

Don't bring up +/- in any argument at this point. Its outdated.

Also if Corsi is such a crappy stat how come teams are now hiring Corsi gurus??? There was one hired the other day in fact. Sorta like a salary cap expert but focusing on these advanced stats.

Mac and Trotz brought those stats up in the press conference.

Every reporter uses them and so do the Caps broadcasters.

You can resist as much as you want but there is a reason why everyone is using them.

Its like that scene in Moneyball...Pitt and Hill are pitching their ideas at a table with a bunch of old skool scouts who pretty much discount all their "new fancy stats". Some people here remind me of those guys.

Keep up the resistance! FIGHT THE POWER!

 

[g00n]

Ofcourse there are other factors involved like for instance how good a possession team that player is on and the quality of competition/zone starts blah blah.

Green is on a terrible possession team. Yet one of the few players that posted positive numbers.

Don't bring up +/- in any argument at this point. Its outdated.

Also if Corsi is such a crappy stat how come teams are now hiring Corsi gurus??? There was one hired the other day in fact. Sorta like a salary cap expert but focusing on these advanced stats.

Mac and Trotz brought those stats up in the press conference.

Every reporter uses them and so do the Caps broadcasters.

You can resist as much as you want but there is a reason why everyone is using them.

Its like that scene in Moneyball...Pitt and Hill are pitching their ideas at a table with a bunch of old skool scouts who pretty much discount all their "new fancy stats". Some people here remind me of those guys.

Keep up the resistance! FIGHT THE POWER!

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=85819289&

Again, you don't even understand the stats and you're accusing people who've been there done that of being behind. 30 years ago people were talking about +/- in the same way, so you need to deal with me bringing it up because it's an important part of the point, NOT an important stat. Get that through your head.

 

[RandyHolt]

RH Advanced Stat

Corsi / Cap Hit.

Shouldn't Green easily lead our defense in Corsi based on realistic expectation, which I have quantified using their cap hit?

 

[ChibiPooky]

For those with questions about #fancystats such as where they come from, why they're regarded as "possession" stats, how dump & chase affects possession, etc., the research has been done.

Fortunately, Arctic Ice Hockey has graciously put together this compilation of links to original research: http://www.arcticicehockey.com/stat...6/advance-statistics-hockey-numbers-reference

Enjoy.

 

[Capitlols]

There are reasons to trade him just like any player. The value has to be right. Personally I'd extend Green but it doesn't look like thats a popular opinion.

No offense but...Your baseline SUCKS! I think almost everyone here can tell you that.

Eakin is by no means a "blue chipper". He's a good young role player with limited upside. No way "blue chipper"=good role player in my book at least.

No one would be against the "right pieces" at this point due to his contract status and the new coaching staff. But your definition of the "right pieces" is pretty far off. You want to trade him for scraps and get hosed.

The fact that you want to extend Green is disturbing. I guess his erratic play and injury history are enough to warrant an extension from your point of view. Well it was good enough for George.

So you wouldn't want a young, hard-working player who will make an impact at the NHL level?

I think your under the impression we're trading that same Norris candidate. He's fallen off substantially, yet your living in his glory days, ignoring injuries, cherry-picking stats, and holding on to hope. Your quite clearly deluded into believing he'll return to that form, I've moved on.

Let's be reality, we know what to expect from him if he's here this year:
-10-15 missed games
-Around 40 points and ~10 goals
-Below average D
-Maybe some "leadership"

 

[Ajax1995]

They've had nine years to evaluate him, do they really need another season.

I guess that depends on whether you think Trotz is just some guy who has been lucky enough to get a decent amount of defensemen who would have become the same high level of player regardless of who was coaching them or if you think he actually played a part in them being the players they are now.

Basically does coaching matter? IMO it undoubtedly does. I expect every blueliner on this team to be a better player under Trotz and that includes Green. The questions is how much better?

And again, if Trotz can't get a decent amount more out of Green than we have seen over the last few seasons that B level prospect and a 2nd will still be available at the deadline.

 

[Ajax1995]

Not going to just take any B level prospect and a pick, if you can get a bluechip guy like Eakin, I don't see how it's bad. Eakin's turned into a great role player.

Eakin was never a blue chip prospect. He was a B level guy who panned out, which obviously happens.

 

[BobRouse]

The fact that you want to extend Green is disturbing. I guess his erratic play and injury history are enough to warrant an extension from your point of view. Well it was good enough for George.

So you wouldn't want a young, hard-working player who will make an impact at the NHL level?

I think your under the impression we're trading that same Norris candidate. He's fallen off substantially, yet your living in his glory days, ignoring injuries, cherry-picking stats, and holding on to hope. Your quite clearly deluded into believing he'll return to that form, I've moved on.

Let's be reality, we know what to expect from him if he's here this year:
-10-15 missed games
-Around 40 points and ~10 goals
-Below average D
-Maybe some "leadership"

I said my stance would not be popular but thats me. I am a big fan of Green and think he is GOOD...like REAL GOOD.

He's good for about 15 goals+35 assists. The last 3 years he's not been allowed to use his strengths of rushing the puck and still did well. With average puck luck those are the kind of stats he would have put up last year despite missing those 12 games.

Below average D? Maybe. But ALL our Dmen played poorly under Oates. The big difference with Green? We have the puck more when he is on the ice and spend less time in our own zone. You can't just look at one side of the equation. He's a net positive in that regard.

And why do you say I wouldn't want a "young hard working player who will make an impact"??

All I'm saying is Green is worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than that (Eakin+2nd) and that we would get fleeced if you were the GM and made such a move.

If a team offers fair value then you consider it sure. But you do that for every player do you not?

His salary situation and whether or not he even wants to resign here will be a factor too.

 

[Raikkonen]

There could be a problem with an eye test. It is based on emotions.

When Carlson is redirecting the puck around Holtby's pads with the skates - one thinks it's an unlucky bounce, lets go get a goal and forget about it.

When Green blunders 2on1 in some fashioned way - one thinks it's an awful mistake. Which is remembered much better because it's a negative emotion. We already saw links about it here - just a brain mechanics.

I think every goal should be measured (while being watched many times) with every parameter and then registered. And if you have 50 blunders from Green in 50 games, fully detailed - this is your eye test.

If you have 50 unlucky bounces from Carlson - it's a food for thought also.

It's hard to rely on memory I think.

Should be a more advanced method. I guess teams are working on it internally without publicity. It's a good advantage to have a system that really is effective in the blunders measurements

I like the idea of Corsi/Caphit. Props to RH!

 

[jsykes]

The possession stats that you seem to live by right now certainly have their purpose, however, as everyone that uses them says, they still do not tell the entire story and you have to also use, to an extent, the eye test.

Just because a guy is on the ice for a lot of shots, does not mean they are quality, nor good possession, nor whether he is actually contributing to the thing that matters most...goals.

A guy can be on the ice for offense zone faceoff, which is won and they throw four shots toward the net with two wide, one blocked and one easily gloved by the goalie. They stay on for the faceoff which they win, it goes right to a dman who shoots it into the shins of the opponent, then trips over himself trying to recover and the other team goes down, takes one shot and scores.

Using corsi, that dman is a corsi positive 4 for that shift. Yet he fumbled the puck and allowed a goal.

Sure in the long run things will tend to even out, but that isnt always the case and can still be very misleading. If a player is often on the ice with other guys that shoot a lot and he himself throws a lot of worthless shots toward the net, but gives the puck away easily which allows for opposing goals would still provide a positive corsi number, but mean the player is also ineffective with a poor +/-, which I know is not a great stat, but when used along with this could be a good indicator. Green has good possession numbers, but is also on the ice for a lot more goals against than for. That makes me believe his possession numbers are just possession and not effective possessions, lots of shots toward the net, but arent going in the net.

I think that is what everyone sees with Green. While his numbers may lead you to think one thing, it doesnt mean its been positive offense, that is where the eye test comes into play. With so many flubs and goals given up directly, along with a rather lackluster offense (lots of shots missing the net and blocked shots), he just does not pass that test and I think the stats are rather misleading in his case.

And in the end, for me, its all about what I'm seeing, not about what all these stats, none of which are perfect, are saying.

 

[BobRouse]

And in the end, for me, its all about what I'm seeing, not about what all these stats, none of which are perfect, are saying.

But you are seeing things selectively....

What you may not see is that the past 3 years Green's greatest asset has been pulled from him under Hunter and Oates. He's not allowed to carry the puck up the ice in which case he would be infinitely more effective.

Yes those stats don't tell the whole story but apparently what you are seeing isn't either.

Risk takers are going to make more glaring errors while drawing alot of ire from fans. Again this is why the offensive defenseman is always one of the first goats a team's fanbase acquires.

He makes a hell of a lot of good plays and breakouts. Chipping the puck off the glass will lead to fewer mistakes but is basically like punting on 3rd down and 10.

 

[jsykes]

But you are seeing things selectively....

What you may not see is that the past 3 years Green's greatest asset has been pulled from him under Hunter and Oates. He's not allowed to carry the puck up the ice in which case he would be infinitely more effective.

Totally agree and its why my very first post in this thread was that its entirely possible that Trotz can turn him around and help him with his defensive play (which has always been lacking) while still allowing him let loose where he is effective and I'll never say he wasnt. The flashes of offensive brilliance years ago was wonderful and at one time helped to offset his D issues.

Yes those stats don't tell the whole story but apparently what you are seeing isn't either.

Well, they do, for at least last year. He was supposedly great on possession, however, he contributed to a lot of bad goals and didnt have the offense to offset it.

Risk takers are going to make more glaring errors while drawing alot of ire from fans. Again this is why the offensive defenseman is always one of the first goats a team's fanbase acquires.

Agreed.

He makes a hell of a lot of good plays and breakouts. Chipping the puck off the glass will lead to fewer mistakes but is basically like punting on 3rd down and 10.

Totally agree, unfortunately, a lot of those good plays and breakouts turn into very ugly giveaways at times.

Look, I'll admit, I've never been a huge fan of his but I'm also not ready to close the casket lid on him. I think there has to be serious evaluation by Trotz and his coaches and decide on whether they think Green can turn his game around, whether its coaching or staying healthy. He had a very bad year, as did many of the Caps. If they think he can turn it around, then they work with him and do it. If they do not think that he can fit into their plan and turn into the player they want him to be, then they need to look to move him and they need to take what they can get for him. If he's not going to be part of the plan, its silly to let it get closer him being a UFA and get even less. Get the best you can for him now and move forward.

I just hope they are able to make the right decision.

 

[BobRouse]

jsykes

I think it boils down to this as has been mentioned:

Do you move him for a Ribeiro like return (good prospect+2nd)

Or do you keep him unless you get a Burns like return (top 6 young player+better prospect+1st) and then re-evaluate at the deadline?

I think we could EASILY get a Ribeiro like return at the deadline if not more.


Now there is word that Orlov maybe out well into November with that wrist injury which depletes our D more.

The coaches/management may not have a choice...we may HAVE to keep him regardless even if a Burns like return is presented. The Orlov situation changes everything.

 

[ChibiPooky]

There are some very awkward interpretations of #fancystats in this thread. They're just tools, and as any stat geek will tell you, are only as good as the analyst reading them. In particular, it's very easy to read too much into them.

As an example, I was discussing Johansson's contributions to the top line with NBTW. He claimed that Johansson was a passenger on the top line. I started looking at his WOWY (with or without you) possession stats to try to disprove that. Classic example of reading too much into the stat. Despite the fact that both Ovechkin and Backstrom saw better Corsi with Johansson than without him, that doesn't indicate him not being a passenger on the line. It just means he did better than the alternative(s).

In the case of Green, the stats say that he's a positive possession player. That's good. How does he generate that possession? Well, the stats don't say much about that. He has low PDO - well, we expect his personal shooting percentage to regress toward his career average. But what about his on-ice save percentage? While it's established that sv% isn't a repeatable skill for skaters, that doesn't really mean anything in a historical context. In fact over small samples (such as a partial season), sv% can be influenced by an individual skater. So while high Corsi and low PDO are generally positive looking forward, they don't say much about the past on their own.

 

[Capitlols]

I guess that depends on whether you think Trotz is just some guy who has been lucky enough to get a decent amount of defensemen who would have become the same high level of player regardless of who was coaching them or if you think he actually played a part in them being the players they are now.

Basically does coaching matter? IMO it undoubtedly does. I expect every blueliner on this team to be a better player under Trotz and that includes Green. The questions is how much better?

And again, if Trotz can't get a decent amount more out of Green than we have seen over the last few seasons that B level prospect and a 2nd will still be available at the deadline.

Mike Green will be 29, Trotz isn't going to be developing a rookie Suter, Weber, Timonen. He's going to have to rid of an awful lot of bad habits Green has accumulated over the years, that'll be tough for any coach to do.

Guys like Orlov, Carlson, and Alzner I can absolutely see him having an effect on.

That's assuming he doesn't completely fall flat on his face.

I said my stance would not be popular but thats me. I am a big fan of Green and think he is GOOD...like REAL GOOD.

He's good for about 15 goals+35 assists. The last 3 years he's not been allowed to use his strengths of rushing the puck and still did well. With average puck luck those are the kind of stats he would have put up last year despite missing those 12 games.

Below average D? Maybe. But ALL our Dmen played poorly under Oates. The big difference with Green? We have the puck more when he is on the ice and spend less time in our own zone. You can't just look at one side of the equation. He's a net positive in that regard.

And why do you say I wouldn't want a "young hard working player who will make an impact"??

All I'm saying is Green is worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than that (Eakin+2nd) and that we would get fleeced if you were the GM and made such a move.

If a team offers fair value then you consider it sure. But you do that for every player do you not?

His salary situation and whether or not he even wants to resign here will be a factor too.

He wasn't healthy the past three years, which is to be expected. His strength was best utilized in a pond hockey style under Boudreau, but that's not how the NHL is played especially in the playoffs. Lol at luck.

They way I look at it, he led our Dmen in giveaways and PIMs with less ice time and less games played, he's not a great pker, he's not a great shot blocker, and he's below average in his own zone in general. So if he's not producing at a high clip, he's a liability and not worth having around.

Not entirely sure what Green would fetch, that was more of a guess from my standpoint, but I'd still be willing to take that type of value. I don't value him nearly as high as some, clearly.

 

[AlexBrovechkin8]

jsykes

I think it boils down to this as has been mentioned:

Do you move him for a Ribeiro like return (good prospect+2nd)

Or do you keep him unless you get a Burns like return (top 6 young player+better prospect+1st) and then re-evaluate at the deadline?

I think we could EASILY get a Ribeiro like return at the deadline if not more.


Now there is word that Orlov maybe out well into November with that wrist injury which depletes our D more.

The coaches/management may not have a choice...we may HAVE to keep him regardless even if a Burns like return is presented. The Orlov situation changes everything.

I agree with everything you said. D corps is thin as it is, Dima may be out, and a Ribeiro return is out of the question. Just terrible value. Let Trotz whisper his sweet nothings into Green's ear and see if he can return him to form.

 

[BobRouse]

Not entirely sure what Green would fetch, that was more of a guess from my standpoint, but I'd still be willing to take that type of value. I don't value him nearly as high as some, clearly.

No you clearly don't value him as much as pretty much anyone on these boards. Even the most ardent of haters would concede he's worth more than what we gave up for Ribs.

But with the Orlov uncertainty its not going to matter. I don't believe we will have any choice but to hang onto Green unless we plan to scrap the season before it starts. Without Green and hurt Orlov the first 2 months of D will look brutal unless we bring in a ton of guys. 3 NHL level Dmen additions will be needed with the removal of Green.

I agree with everything you said. D corps is thin as it is, Dima may be out, and a Ribeiro return is out of the question. Just terrible value. Let Trotz whisper his sweet nothings into Green's ear and see if he can return him to form.

Well we can't go into the season with just Carlson and Alzner as our only 2 NHL level dmen. That would mean we'd have to add at least 3 significant players on D in one offseason if we trade Green. 2 is a tall order as it is.

I don't know if he's a Trotz type Dman but I think we will have to see what he can do with him at this point.

 

[Capitlols]

No you clearly don't value him as much as pretty much anyone on these boards. Even the most ardent of haters would concede he's worth more than what we gave up for Ribs.

But with the Orlov uncertainty its not going to matter. I don't believe we will have any choice but to hang onto Green unless we plan to scrap the season before it starts. Without Green and hurt Orlov the first 2 months of D will look brutal unless we bring in a ton of guys. 3 NHL level Dmen additions will be needed with the removal of Green.
.

That's assuming Green himself doesn't find his way on IR.