First off, yes, it's totally facetious to assume that Tracey was the sole reason for Victoria allowing a full goal per game more, just like it's totally facetious to pin the goal-per-game increase on him as well. But since your expert professional nuance on skills seemed to miss that the goalie Victoria shipped *away* wasn't any better for Victoria. What's more, check out the cross tabs. Gould had a similar SV% to Evanoff in the 15 games he played for Victoria this year, but his GAA was markedly lower, indicating that Victoria was allowing a *lot* more shots on net after the acquisition of Tracey.
Thanks for admitting YOUR OBVIOUS MISTAKE on Tracey being the sole reason for the drop in GA average. A netminder is usually on the ice for 60 minutes. Are you saying that LW Tracey is on the ice for all 60 minutes too? Do you encompass the failure of YOUR OBVIOUS MISTAKE?
It appears you've got an agenda, so let's go back to basics. Let's look at the personnel in the trade, not including picks.
Moose Jaw sends
LW Tracey (1.36 pts/game)
G Evanov
Victoria sends
C Doust (0.25 pts/game)
D Nolan Jones (0.2 pts/game)
G Gould
Victoria loses three players and Moose Jaw loses two player. There's a swap of goalies, but Victoria loses a center and a defenseman. Victoria didn't give away scraps to get Tracey.
In the video, Victoria noted it was a heavy price to pay.
What was Moose Jaw receiving? Here's an article about what they got back:
link
Victoria just significantly changed the dynamic of their team, assuming you actually believe top talents were exchanged. Considering that Tracey was the best talent in the trade, then we can say that Victoria had to overpay with talent and draft picks. Victoria loses a two-way center and a 6'2 defenseman. If we're looking only a minutes played, then Tracey and Doust cancel each other out as forwards. Then you're missing all those minutes provided by Jones.
Now, more context. Although Victoria is a defense first team, they only had +2 goal differential. That means they were lacking offense.
Doust was a -10 in 36 games with Victoria.
Jones was a - 9 in 30 games with Victoria.
What was Tracey's plus/minus rating with Victoria?
Tracey was - 5 in 23 games with Victoria.
Surely, Tracey would have to be far worse than a -5 plus/minus rating for the team to give up an additional 1.14 GA/game average? Just asking a simple question using simple box scores.
Tracey did not participate in three games with Victoria.
Feb 15 Vic 3 Kam 5
Feb 17 Vic 6 Kam 7, OTL
Feb 19 Vic 2 Cal 3, OTL
In three games without Tracey, the Royals scored 11 goals and gave up 15 goals, a 3.66 GF/g average and 5.0 GA/g average.
In the 24 games with Tracey, his points helped to represent 32.4% of the 71 GF for Victoria. Again, with Tracey on-board, the team's scoring went up 0.50 GF/game.
During Victoria's season, I really felt bad for them as they were no longer winning as many games compared to before the trade for Tracey. Once the season was over and we can reflect, Tracey did his job for the Royals such that he helped the team score more goals.
Moose Jaw sends
LW Tracey (1.36 pts/game)
Victoria sends
C Doust (0.25 pts/game)
D Nolan Jones (0.2 pts/game)
Tracey produced 0.96 pts/game with Victoria, the best scoring average on the team. He helped the team improve its goal scoring by 0.50 GF/game.
You have to actually acknowledge that the Royals were scoring 0.50 GF/game fewer before they traded for Tracey. Unfortunately, the trade cost the Royals their defensive acumen simultaneously. The highest negative plus/minus rating on Victoria was -19 by D Smith. The second highest plus/minus rating was -18 by LW Derungs. I guess your narrative driven agenda that Tracey was the main culprit to the Royals defensive demise lacks support as well as it being asinine considering Tracey isn't on the ice 60 minutes a game. ::: eyes rolling :::
So please continue this tirade of moving goal posts while continually lacking all sorts of contexts because "muh narrative" matters. Just because I called you out on your mistake doesn't mean I made a mistake too. LMFAO!
Everything Madden said in his latest interview about Tracey isn't anything new to me or others that have tracked Tracey this year. We kept saying Tracey was traded to a defensive team and had to acclimate to that team's culture of playing defense first as opposed to the shootout style in Moose Jaw. I kept saying the silver lining would be Tracey learning how to play better defense. Yeah, I'm disappointed that Tracey couldn't keep up his 1.36 pts/game average, but the context of being moved to a defensive team starving for offense and Tracey still finished with the best pts/game average on the team is quite impressive. It also means he can drive the offense.
That's what 2019-20 was all about - proving his draft year wasn't a fluke. Did he prove that? Yes. In fact, he did it twice over in the same season! He lead two different teams in scoring rate.
I wanted to see how the Royals would have done in the playoffs with Tracey. Madden and staff saw that Tracey was gelling better with the team in March. I got the excel, so why not break the season down into months just because it's just a few more steps in excel.
| 2019-20 | | | | | | | | | | |
| Victoria | Games | GF | GA | W | L | OTL | Pts | | GF/g | GA/g |
| Total | 64 | 176 | 190 | 32 | 24 | 6 | 70 | | 2.75 | 2.97 |
| Before Tracey | 37 | 94 | 92 | 22 | 13 | 0 | 44 | | 2.54 | 2.49 |
| Jan | 11 | 31 | 42 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 9 | | 2.82 | 3.82 |
| Feb | 12 | 39 | 44 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 12 | | 3.25 | 3.67 |
| Mar | 4 | 12 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | | 3.00 | 3.00 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
huh. It's a small sample in March, but the team started to figure itself out a bit defensively. It looks like a trend since the trade in January onto March. I really wanted to see Tracey in a playoff atmosphere with the Royals.
Tracey point production per month
Jan: 11 games, 3 g + 8 a = 11 pts (1.0 pts/g)
Feb: 9 games, 1 g + 5a = 6 pts (0.67 pts/g) ... injured for 3 games
Mar: 4 games, 3g + 3a = 6 pts (1.5 pts/g)
You can gain a lot of knowledge through stats, provided you have enough stats and trying to find patterns (sometimes, there are no patterns). But, hey, that's a lot of meticulous work and deep diving. It's not my fault that some of you can't believe that a few people can come to the same conclusion with the scouting staff, albeit everything being surface stuff. There are some details the scouting staff only knows. In general, a person can get to a similar conclusion just by using stats. But this is the age of info at your fingertips, so you'll get local articles and video. Those should reaffirm or change one's calculus of the possible conclusion.
