Player Discussion Darnell Nurse - To bridge or not to bridge, that is the question.

[Laineux]

So it’s a measure of how often your teammates shots go in while you’re on the ice with them?

I don’t see how this is a relevant stay at all unless it can show that elite setup men or elite shooters are indeed elite. For everyone else on the ice it seems pointless.

If it's much higher/lower than normal then it shows the element of puck luck involved in a given season.

 

[McDNicks17]

So it’s a measure of how often your teammates shots go in while you’re on the ice with them?

I don’t see how this is a relevant stay at all unless it can show that elite setup men or elite shooters are indeed elite. For everyone else on the ice it seems pointless.

You know how it's generally accepted that if a player is shooting 25%, it's probably lucky and unsustainable? OnSH% basically just shows if other players are possibly getting lucky/unsustainable points from playing with that player. Elite players can affect it marginally, but over a large sample size, it usually levels out.

A good example would be William Karlsson. Vegas knows Karlsson had an extremely lucky and likely not repeatable goal scoring season because of his 23.4% shooting percentage, but Vegas also has to consider that it wasn't only Karlsson's goal totals that got inflated, but his teammates assists totals too. OnSH% gives them a rough idea of how lucky his teammates were.


I just brought it up because I think Skjei's high onSH% caused a bit of an anomaly as far as points go in 2016/17 and, if that's considered, he and Nurse are actually a lot closer comparables.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

So it’s a measure of how often your teammates shots go in while you’re on the ice with them?

I don’t see how this is a relevant stay at all unless it can show that elite setup men or elite shooters are indeed elite. For everyone else on the ice it seems pointless.

It shows players who had abnormal years, for example Matthews had a 12.7% oISH while mcdavid had a 10.5

 

[Drivesaitl]

If it's much higher/lower than normal then it shows the element of puck luck involved in a given season.

Statistically speaking this is as misleading as reversion to mean. Because extraneous variables can exist and explain data aberration. Just that they are not presently accounted for by the metrics, so that they call some outlier data as luck, or PDO. Its probably something that should be stated and emphasized less. Data tails are just that. Just data that don't occur around the mean. Nothing like luck needs to be described to that except if one wants to engage in the falsehood of reversion to mean.

Karlsson above is an interesting casestudy. The stats would have him being lucky. What was seen on ice was a player making elite plays like crazy for a period of time and really much of the season and playoffs. Such spans are not even limited sample, they are considerable sample. he wasn't lucky, he was redhot for an extended time. Will he ever replicate this season? no. But the reason for his season was not luck, it was being really in the zone. This happens, and it happens in all sports and in life. There are times for all of us in which we are at our absolute best. Its not a completely understood phenomenon. But it exists. as does "in the zone".

So that an argument could be made that Darnell Nurse was simply in an outlier zone the first half of last season. I don't think so, I think with him, a young D stud, we will see some replication of his stellar play. But Darnell was not lucky to have a great first half last season. He was simply very good.

 

[Laineux]

Statistically speaking this is as incorrect as reversion of mean. Because extraneous variables can exist and explain data aberration. Just that they are not presently accounted for by the metrics, so that they call some outlier data as luck, or PDO. Its probably something that should be stated and emphasized less. Data tails are just that. Just data that don't occur around the mean. Nothing like luck needs to be described to that except if one wants to engage in the falsehood of reversion to mean.

Karlsson above is an interesting casestudy. The stats would have him being lucky. What was seen on ice was a player making elite plays like crazy for a period of time and really much of the season and playoffs. Such spans are not even limited sample, they are considerable sample. he wasn't lucky, he was redhot for an extended time. Will he ever replicate this season? no. But the reason for his season was not luck, it was being really in the zone. This happens, and it happens in all sports and in life. There are times for all of us in which we are at our absolute best. Its not a completely understood phenomenon. But it exists. as does "in the zone".

It becomes almost an philophical question whether you want to merit it as luck or just a stretch of extremely good play.

But, the important part is whether it's going to be repeatable in the future which these metrics can and do predict.

 

[Drivesaitl]

It becomes almost an philophical question whether you want to merit it as luck or just a stretch of extremely good play.

But, the important part is whether it's going to be repeatable in the future which these metrics can and do predict.

EXACTLY. The inference that it is PDO or luck is inferring the data are not likely replicated. In the Karlsson instance of goals scored the PDO theory would happen to align with probability and so that in that case it would seem true. Even though Karlsson has proved himself as an NHL goal scorer, and will do well, he won't likely match the total.

In the case of Darnell Nurse theres more likelihood he could have a good or better season. Luck doesn't enter into it much (actually not either case)
as both players were in a zone. Hockey analytics cannot capture or define or quantify what that means. It just sees it as aberrant data set. In analytics everything should conform in numbers. Anybody that has played sports knows there are some days, weeks, season, where you are better than you have ever been. Anybody from Golfers, Tennis players, hockey players know this. You just ride this time grinning ear to ear as you beat people you never beat. Repeatedly. In the case of Tennis I had 2-3 years where I beat people I shouldn't beat. One of those seasons peaking in some wins that were never matched before or after in who I played. Similarly on the pro tour you get players top20 one year that virtually disappear in rankings. Its common.

 

[nabob]

I don’t think you can call it luck when you are talking about the very best players in the entire world.

A goalie from Latvia playing out of his mind in the WJHC and then totally disappearing from the spotlight could be luck. But we are talking about very skilled pro athletes in the best league in the world.

 

[LaGu]

Statistically speaking this is as misleading as reversion to mean. Because extraneous variables can exist and explain data aberration. Just that they are not presently accounted for by the metrics, so that they call some outlier data as luck, or PDO. Its probably something that should be stated and emphasized less. Data tails are just that. Just data that don't occur around the mean. Nothing like luck needs to be described to that except if one wants to engage in the falsehood of reversion to mean.

Karlsson above is an interesting casestudy. The stats would have him being lucky. What was seen on ice was a player making elite plays like crazy for a period of time and really much of the season and playoffs. Such spans are not even limited sample, they are considerable sample. he wasn't lucky, he was redhot for an extended time. Will he ever replicate this season? no. But the reason for his season was not luck, it was being really in the zone. This happens, and it happens in all sports and in life. There are times for all of us in which we are at our absolute best. Its not a completely understood phenomenon. But it exists. as does "in the zone".

So that an argument could be made that Darnell Nurse was simply in an outlier zone the first half of last season. I don't think so, I think with him, a young D stud, we will see some replication of his stellar play. But Darnell was not lucky to have a great first half last season. He was simply very good.

I've watched many of the WKarlsson goals over and over and they were not bouncing off legs and such. He was sniping that puck, looking like an elite scorer. Awesome to see even though it is probably very unlikely that he manages again.

Imo Nurse is legit, but a bridge is all we can afford.

 

[nexttothemoon]

I think there is obviously luck in small samples but as the sample grows to several seasons worth of data... you start to see results that are definitely more skill determined vs luck determined.

Here's all the current Oilers relative on ice SH% at ES over the past 7 seasons (or less of course if the player has played fewer than 7 seasons)...

McDavid +3.96
Rattie +2.32
Draisaitl +1.56
RNH +1.44
Lucic +1.21
Aberg +1.06
Kassian +0.29
Strome +0.01
Brodziak -0.40
Rieder -0.81
Puljujarvi -1.30
Khaira -1.58
Caggiula -1.72

Larsson +1.03
Russell +0.74
Klefbom +0.42
Benning +0.29
Nurse +0.25
Sekera -0.02
Gravel -1.06


Is that pretty much in line with what you'd expect as far as adding/subtracting from offensive efficiency when those players are on the ice?


I don't see that many anomalies there. Keep in mind this is a multi season sample (up to 7 seasons).

Rattie is likely high but again that's a small sample of 49 games for him.

Same with Aberg (68 games)... but he may have a little more offensive ability than some give him credit for.

Caggiula is a drag on offense and we already knew that by the eyeball test.


Keep in mind this is just one specific stat focused on relative on ice SH%. It doesn't take into account any defensive stats and doesn't take into account shot increases/decreases either when those players are on the ice.

What the stat does reveal though is that I think it's a misnomer to say that "luck" is what is being shown by relative on ice shooting percentage... especially in larger samples.

 

[nexttothemoon]

Flipping it over to ES on ice relative Save % (over those same past 7 seasons)...


Puljujarvi +2.97
Aberg +1.12
Strome +0.17
Rieder -0.13
Lucic -0.16
Brodziak -0.22
Khaira -0.28
RNH -0.38
Caggiula -0.57
McDavid -0.72
Kassian -0.76
Draisaitl -1.85
Rattie -3.36

Gravel +1.60
Benning +0.80
Larsson +0.40
Nurse +0.19
Russell +0.15
Sekera -0.27
Klefbom -1.98


Again relatively small sample sizes here for players like Aberg, Rattie, Gravel and even Puljujarvi are likely skewing their stats somewhat.

For Aberg especially though, I'd like to see if they have a bit of a diamond in the rough with him as his underlying stats show he might be able to contribute positively if he can just wake up and show up for games.

Now of course you also have to take into account the on ice shot increases/decreases that occur when these players are on the ice + QOC and zone starts so this stat imo isn't quite as useful in a vacuum as the relative on ice Shooting % stat.

No stat is actually perfect in isolation obviously but I think at a quick glance they can give some insights into which players are generally contributing positively/negatively to their team's success/failure on the ice.

 

[bucks_oil]

It becomes almost an philophical question whether you want to merit it as luck or just a stretch of extremely good play.

But, the important part is whether it's going to be repeatable in the future which these metrics can and do predict.

But that's just it. You are making a subjective interpretation of what that stat says... for a grinder you might be correct (it's just luck), but for an elite player, you are denying attribution. People would have said that Gretzky will crash next year because he's had several years in a row where his teammates had a high shooting percentage.

Stats need context. Especially when you are using the stat to assume all players are average... I mean if that is the premise of using the stat, than all players ARE equal according to the stat. It's quite a circular argument.

Unless you are comparing year over year for that player and in the context of other stats you are just looking a single, arguably meaningless, datapoint.

 

[Jamin]

Ellis just signed 6.25 mil with Nashville. How do you guys think this effects Nurse negotiations if at all?

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Ellis just signed 6.25 mil with Nashville. How do you guys think this effects Nurse negotiations if at all?

Likely not at all since we are unlikely to be able to lock him up long term right now. I wonder if Chia is trying to drop Darnell's long term AAV to see if there's a deal there first? If he sees a number that he likes I would assume that we'd move out some cap ie. Kassian.

 

[PaPaDee]

Ellis just signed 6.25 mil with Nashville. How do you guys think this effects Nurse negotiations if at all?

Ellis signed his third contract, which is all UFA years if I remember correctly, so it's really not all that comparable.

 

[joestevens29]

Ellis signed his third contract, which is all UFA years if I remember correctly, so it's really not all that comparable.

But if Ellis is giving up all UFA years doesn't that mean his price is inflated?

 

[Drivesaitl]

Camp Nurse today after the Sekera news;

 

[Soundwave]

Camp Nurse today after the Sekera news;

I'm mean sorta? They can't really sign for any more cap room than what the Oilers have left, the only difference now is maybe they can work out a long term deal but it would have to be signed after the regular season period technically begins.

 

[PaPaDee]

I'm mean sorta? They can't really sign for any more cap room than what the Oilers have left, the only difference now is maybe they can work out a long term deal but it would have to be signed after the regular season period technically begins.

Then can still push the very high end of a bridge deal, and given that Sekera is out, they have a lot more leverage.

 

[Soundwave]

Then can still push the very high end of a bridge deal, and given that Sekera is out, they have a lot more leverage.

What high is there though, lol, the Oilers have $3.25 mill in cap space basically. If he wants a bridge deal he's gonna have to accept that.

The other option that does open up is a $4.85 per deal x 6-8 years, but he has to be willing to play pre-season games without a contract most likely and trust the Oilers will honor their wink, wink agreement with him. That or sit out of pre-season games.

 

[PaPaDee]

What high is there though, lol, the Oilers have $3.25 mill in cap space basically. If he wants a bridge deal he's gonna have to accept that.

The other option that does open up is a $4.85 per deal x 6-8 years, but he has to be willing to play pre-season games without a contract most likely and trust the Oilers will honor their wink, wink agreement with him. That or sit out of pre-season games.

I thought the Oilers were just a hair under $5M in space, which gives them a lot more leverage to push for something closer to $4M on a bridge.

 

[nexttothemoon]

They can sign Nurse to a $5.5 million x 8 year deal now since the team can go over the cap by 10% in the summer.

Send JP down to Bakersfield for a day on October 1st (JP is waivers exempt). Bring JP back up the next day after Sekera's LTIR kicks in.

Oilers will still have almost $5 million in cap space and will have Nurse locked up for 8 years. Win-win for everyone.

Well except for finding another decent dman this season unless Bear/Gravel/Bouchard are to play all season long on the 3rd pairing (which actually might work as well).

 

[Mr Positive]

They can sign Nurse to a $5.5 million x 8 year deal now since the team can go over the cap by 10% in the summer.

Send JP down to Bakersfield for a day on October 1st (JP is waivers exempt). Bring JP back up the next day after Sekera's LTIR kicks in.

Oilers will still have almost $5 million in cap space and will have Nurse locked up for 8 years. Win-win for everyone.

Well except for finding another decent dman this season unless Bear/Gravel/Bouchard are to play all season long on the 3rd pairing (which actually might work as well).

Gravel would be pretty good for the bottom pairing. I'm curious about him.

But yes, the question now is whether or not management sees Nurse as a long term investment or if they want another bridge deal. What was bumming me out a bit about this was that we were possibly bridging Nurse only because of poor cap management. I'm not against bridging him if it's the right move, but at least now we have all the options in front of us and can make a hockey decision, not a cap one.

 

[oobga]

So, this Sek injury is what Nurse's agent has been waiting for.

 

[780il]

8 years
5 million dollars
Get it done

 

[CycloneSweep]

8 years
5 million dollars
Get it done

That's way too much money for a player like Nurse.