Player Discussion Ethan Bear: It's a Bear Market

[Ol' Jase]

This is completely wrong thread for this topic but I will post this and if you want we can continue else were!
At first I thought you were joking. Because I just mentioned that people are too results driven and you pretty much just looked the result. And I don't put any weight on goal differential when making my estimations. That was just weird fact and it is very unlikely that they have almost identical point%. But I would say that generally goal differential is closer to "truth" than points (there really isn't truth in these things. Just educated guesses, but I hope you understand what I was trying to explain).

In normal season I don't put any weight on h2h results. Teams play like 1-5/6 games against each other per year, such small sample sizes are pretty much useless. This year you could make some slight chances, or just simply don't make the bet if some team seems the others number. But it is better to ignore those things than make huge adjustments.

How I see things: Like I said earlier probabilities were around 62/63-37/38. This time the team with 37/38% chance of winning ended up winning the game. Simple as that, I don't make really any big conclusions from one game. If team X beats team Y it doesn't mean that they are better team. Detroit won b2b games against Carolina about week ago.

If I had a bet to that match, the most important for me is to check closing odds. Those odds are opinion of every dollar/euro that was invested to that game (in big leagues closing odds are considered to be very accurate). Then I check scoring chances and xG from the game. For example that aforementioned NYR-PHI game was pretty close, but Rangers had a slight edge.

Would I make any adjustments from that game? Only really marginal ones, but nothing significant. Rangers were the favourites, they had more scoring chances/xG, but they ended losing a one goal game.

3.4 Oilers vs Flames closing odds
1.71-2.27

11.4 Flames vs Oilers closing odds
2.03-1.88

23.4 Rangers vs Flyers closing odds
1.60-2.49

Betting market shared my view that there is bigger gap between Rangers vs Flyers than Oilers vs Flames. If you don't agree then there is money to be made for you.

This has absolutely no relevance to player comparisons, and certainly illustrates absolutely nothing to indicate you understand the numbers better than most people.

You do you all you want, but I would really stop with these assertions that the sport of hockey isn’t results driven. I’ve been watching the sport for probably longer than you’ve been alive and was a long time Oiler season ticket holder, so I’m comfortable in the assumption that I understand the game at the same level as you do.

 

[McCombo]

Betting odds are mostly a crap shoot.
Oilers had the second best odds to win the cup didn't they? And they were barely a playoff team.

I don't know if I would point to betting sites as proof of advanced stat skills.

This is just bs. There is a reason why over 95% lose money.

When the bookmakers release their opening odds they aren't precise and that is the time to find value as a bettor. When the money starts flowing in odds change. The closer we get to starting time the more accurate they get.

Outright odds can be crapshoot and you can find value there too. But I was referring to single game odds. If you think they are crapshoot put your money were your mouth is!

 

[McCombo]

This has absolutely no relevance to player comparisons, and certainly illustrates absolutely nothing to indicate you understand the numbers better than most people.

You do you all you want, but I would really stop with these assertions that the sport of hockey isn’t results driven. I’ve been watching the sport for probably longer than you’ve been alive and was a long time Oiler season ticket holder, so I’m comfortable in the assumption that I understand the game at the same level as you do.

Because I wasn't talking about player comparison in that post. I have no doubt you understand hockey, in the end results are the only thing that matters but I try to find reasonings for those results. If a team gets completely out-chanced, lets say 50-20 shots on goal but the goalie plays best game of his career and they get few lucky bounces and sneak a 1-2 win. I would completely ignore that result and give more emphasis to which team actually were dominating the game.

 

[McCombo]

Betting odds are mostly a crap shoot.
Oilers had the second best odds to win the cup didn't they? And they were barely a playoff team.

I don't know if I would point to betting sites as proof of advanced stat skills.

And if you are talking about the year after when Oilers were one win away conference finals, robbed by refs. The consensus after that year was that Oilers are going to be contenders for years to come with McDavid only getting better when he hits the prime. You could feel the excitement and optimism here too. So why would you blame bookmakers to share that view? If anything that shows how crapshoot the results are.

Don't blame bookmaker if the team just crumbles out of nowhere.

 

[CycloneSweep]

And if you are talking about the year after when Oilers were one win away conference finals, robbed by refs. The consensus after that year was that Oilers are going to be contenders for years to come with McDavid only getting better when he hits the prime. You could feel the excitement and optimism here too. So why would you blame bookmakers to share that view? If anything that shows how crapshoot the results are.

Don't blame bookmaker if the team just crumbles out of nowhere.

It's further shows how hard and impossible it is to predict success based on stats on a very complex and chaotic team sport.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Because I wasn't talking about player comparison in that post. I have no doubt you understand hockey, in the end results are the only thing that matters but I try to find reasonings for those results. If a team gets completely out-chanced, lets say 50-20 shots on goal but the goalie plays best game of his career and they get few lucky bounces and sneak a 1-2 win. I would completely ignore that result and give more emphasis to which team actually were dominating the game.

But the end result is the only relevant takeaway from the game itself, including in a betting scenario.

“Completely ignoring” results make absolutely no sense on any level. What the hell is the point statistical analysis then? This is just baffling on so many levels.

 

[McCombo]

It's further shows how hard and impossible it is to predict success based on stats on a very complex and chaotic team sport.

But somehow some people do it for living, it is the same the story in poker. People who don't understand it say that it is based on luck who wins. Well if you have a one poker night with friends and you may play 40-70 hands that night, it is pretty much just luck who happens to win. But when a player has played for example 100k hands in online poker the results have very little to do with luck. You can't predict every unlikely scenario, you just need to estimate what is the most probable scenario better than most. Time will do its job in the long run. That's why both in poker and betting the most important thing is bankroll management. If I happened to get tips what to bet from best professional in the planet, even then I couldn't risk more than 1-3% of my bankroll to each bet. If I would bet lets say 10% to each bet I would lose all my money eventually even if those tips would be damn good. People don't understand how much variance there is. Found a good example:


"Most people have a very short-term view on Sports Betting and don't really understand the long-term numbers. Keeping personal track of your own record over time with proper bankroll management doing this for at least 10000 bets without starting over can really help to get a grasp of the swings that are involved and what you are expecting to win (or lose). One of the best ways to get a better understanding of the numbers and swings without having to spend years keeping track of your bets is to simulate them. Simply think of an ROI (return on investment) percentage you expect to reach, (If you plan to set it at +5% or higher you are likely being overly optimistic) and run a coin flip simulator at odds that represent that ROI. [Example Expect +3% ROI = Run coin flips @ 2.06 odds] This on its own should give you a pretty good view on the swings that can be expected at some point.

Just randomly doing 1000 coin flips gave the result of 475W-525L which means that if you are sure of a long-term +3% ROI edge you can still be down -2.15% ROI after 1000 bets and it's not even that unlikely. Understanding these numbers really help to make much better sense of downswings and help you through them."

If somehow someone offered me to bet 2.06 odds to coin toss and I could do that rest of my life I would quit my job asap and get a loan. But still after 1000 flips I could be losing like example showed, but eventually I will make money.

 

[McCombo]

But the end result is the only relevant takeaway from the game itself, including in a betting scenario.

“Completely ignoring” results make absolutely no sense on any level. What the hell is the point statistical analysis then? This is just baffling on so many levels.

The end result matters to which team will make playoffs (they got the points), but the result has nothing to do what to expect from the team in upcoming games and I am interested about that.



If someone just looks at the Oilers record from last ten games they may think that they are playing very well. They have been winning but it would be a reach to say that have been playing well. I see very troubling signs. If Oilers continue playing that badly 5on5 they will most likely lose more games in the near future than win, of course I won't ignore special teams success and that helps. No one knows how they will look/play, but I will put more stock on those numbers behind the results than results. Example from real life: 18-19 season Buffalo Sabres won 10 games in a row in November that put them atop the NHL standings, but in those 10 games they had given up more high danger scoring chances than any other team in the league. Most of the people thought that finally Sabres are a good team, "you can't be bad when you win ten games in a row". I saw the exact opposite, team that is most likely not even close to being what their results represents and saw I huge opportunity to bet against team that is way overrated. Were they good? No they ended up missing the playoffs by a mile.

And it is even worse the see if a single bet was good or bad by just the result. In the post above I showed how much swings there are, so you can't make any conclusions from small sample sizes, let alone one game. If you made a bet to coin toss at odds over 2.00 and lost, would your conclusion be that it was a bad bet? No it was absolutely the right decision, but the result wasn't favourable. So how do I and pretty much every bettor who wins make conclusion was their bet good or bad? Again real life examples, of my own bets, one won and the other lost.

19.4 Vancouver vs Toronto; I had Toronto to win in regulation at 1.67 (made the bet 2 days before the game)
This was one of the hardest games to make evaluation because of situation Canucks were. It was unprecedented. It was a calculated risk. I thought that there is big chance that this game is very one sided because the Canucks had barely time to practice or even be on the ice for 3 weeks and most of them had Covid. Very unlikely they are in a good game shape.
Closing odds for Toronto's regulation win was 1.43. And as I expected the Leafs dominated the game, but Braden Holtby played out of his mind and the bet lost. I beated the closing odds massively and the gameplay was as I expected, only thing that didn't workout was the result. I would make that bet again every day of the week.

24.4 Rangers vs Philadelphia, I had Rangers to win in regulation at 2.15 (made that bet 3 days before the game)
This was latter game of their b2b series. 3 days before the game there are lots of question marks, like goaltenders and stuff. But there is also more value to be founded (not so precise odds). I chechked that 27.3 when they last faced Rangers were favourites eventhough it was away game for them. This was a home game and that alone changes things quite a bit (making Rangers even bigger favourite). Of course in almost one month things can change quite a bit, but the model I trust kept Rangers a better team with plenty of margin.
Closing odds for Rangers regulation win was 1.97. So again I beated to closing odds, not so much as in Toronto game. But that was more of special game. You can't regularly get that big of an edge. I would make both bets again given this information. Toronto bet being the better eventhough it lost.

You think like the people who lose money. They just search teams that they think will win game and ignore what odds/price they for that selection. But because we can't affect who will win, all I care is odds/price. If I see value I make the bet, doens't matter if team is Detroit, Edmonton or Colorado.

Edit. And I have made plenty of bad bets that have ended up winning. Like has every other winning player. You can't be right every time.

Edit2. And the dates from those games can be different for you because of time zones

 

[Ol' Jase]

The end result matters to which team will make playoffs (they got the points), but the result has nothing to do what to expect from the team in upcoming games and I am interested about that.



If someone just looks at the Oilers record from last ten games they may think that they are playing very well. They have been winning but it would be a reach to say that have been playing well. I see very troubling signs. If Oilers continue playing that badly 5on5 they will most likely lose more games in the near future than win, of course I won't ignore special teams success and that helps. No one knows how they will look/play, but I will put more stock on those numbers behind the results than results. Example from real life: 18-19 season Buffalo Sabres won 10 games in a row in November that put them atop the NHL standings, but in those 10 games they had given up more high danger scoring chances than any other team in the league. Most of the people thought that finally Sabres are a good team, "you can't be bad when you win ten games in a row". I saw the exact opposite, team that is most likely not even close to being what their results represents and saw I huge opportunity to bet against team that is way overrated. Were they good? No they ended up missing the playoffs by a mile.

And it is even worse the see if a single bet was good or bad by just the result. In the post above I showed how much swings there are, so you can't make any conclusions from small sample sizes, let alone one game. If you made a bet to coin toss at odds over 2.00 and lost, would your conclusion be that it was a bad bet? No it was absolutely the right decision, but the result wasn't favourable. So how do I and pretty much every bettor who wins make conclusion was their bet good or bad? Again real life examples, of my own bets, one won and the other lost.

19.4 Vancouver vs Toronto; I had Toronto to win in regulation at 1.67 (made the bet 2 days before the game)
This was one of the hardest games to make evaluation because of situation Canucks were. It was unprecedented. It was a calculated risk. I thought that there is big chance that this game is very one sided because the Canucks had barely time to practice or even be on the ice for 3 weeks and most of them had Covid. Very unlikely they are in a good game shape.
Closing odds for Toronto's regulation win was 1.43. And as I expected the Leafs dominated the game, but Braden Holtby played out of his mind and the bet lost. I beated the closing odds massively and the gameplay was as I expected, only thing that didn't workout was the result. I would make that bet again every day of the week.

24.4 Rangers vs Philadelphia, I had Rangers to win in regulation at 2.15 (made that bet 3 days before the game)
This was latter game of their b2b series. 3 days before the game there are lots of question marks, like goaltenders and stuff. But there is also more value to be founded (not so precise odds). I chechked that 27.3 when they last faced Rangers were favourites eventhough it was away game for them. This was a home game and that alone changes things quite a bit (making Rangers even bigger favourite). Of course in almost one month things can change quite a bit, but the model I trust kept Rangers a better team with plenty of margin.
Closing odds for Rangers regulation win was 1.97. So again I beated to closing odds, not so much as in Toronto game. But that was more of special game. You can't regularly get that big of an edge. I would make both bets again given this information. Toronto bet being the better eventhough it lost.

You think like the people who lose money. They just search teams that they think will win game and ignore what odds/price they for that selection. But because we can't affect who will win, all I care is odds/price. If I see value I make the bet, doens't matter if team is Detroit, Edmonton or Colorado.

Edit. And I have made plenty of bad bets that have ended up winning. Like has every other winning player. You can't be right every time.

Edit2. And the dates from those games can be different for you because of time zones

Again, you have absolutely shifted the discussion to centre around using possession metrics to help analyze team performance, something which I have clearly stated can be quite predictive and useful.

Again, this doesn’t bear out that you can understand the game better than most people and it certainly doesn’t remotely show that the predictive usefulness of team possession metrics extrapolate equally to individual performance.

 

[McCombo]

Again, you have absolutely shifted the discussion to centre around using possession metrics to help analyze team performance, something which I have clearly stated can be quite predictive and useful.

Again, this doesn’t bear out that you can understand the game better than most people and it certainly doesn’t remotely show that the predictive usefulness of team possession metrics extrapolate equally to individual performance.

It would be pretty pointless to just continue arguing. I will keep putting some value to those, with a grain of salt, but I think there must so some truth to it.

Seeing what Avalanche are capable, both offensively and defensively, with at least three elite puck-movers it would be stupid to just ignore it and keep acquiring/re-signing players that can't do those things. It is time to move on from the idea that there is only space for 1-2 offensive skilled defenseman. Avs have pretty much flipped that around and only have 1-2 defensive minded Dmen in the line-up.

I don't think their defense is the best in defensive zone, but they are by far the best defense at keeping the puck out of their Dzone. And they have elite results to show for it.

Hoping that Oilers would follow that path (seems unlikely) and Bear brings that element, but of course not as well. If he would become Devon Toews lite, I would be happy. Good 2nd pairing guy who has great first pass and can distribute the puck in the offensive zone.

 

[Ol' Jase]

It would be pretty pointless to just continue arguing. I will keep putting some value to those, with a grain of salt, but I think there must so some truth to it.

Seeing what Avalanche are capable, both offensively and defensively, with at least three elite puck-movers it would be stupid to just ignore it and keep acquiring/re-signing players that can't do those things. It is time to move on from the idea that there is only space for 1-2 offensive skilled defenseman. Avs have pretty much flipped that around and only have 1-2 defensive minded Dmen in the line-up.

I don't think their defense is the best in defensive zone, but they are by far the best defense at keeping the puck out of their Dzone. And they have elite results to show for it.

Hoping that Oilers would follow that path (seems unlikely) and Bear brings that element, but of course not as well. If he would become Devon Toews lite, I would be happy. Good 2nd pairing guy who has great first pass and can distribute the puck in the offensive zone.

I understand that it seems I’m being hard on you, I am sorry about that and I don’t mean to be. It come from many years of trying to make people see the extreme dubious nature of individual assessment based around statistics that aren’t actually individual in nature.

You likely weren’t around for when a fairly large contingent of us who saw the usefulness of things like Corsi had for team performance analytics get openly mocked and ridiculed for even suggesting that shot quality was an important variable in using possession metrics to analyze anything.

Ah, the Tyler Dellow days...good times...

 

[Fourier]

I understand that it seems I’m being hard on you, I am sorry about that and I don’t mean to be. It come from many years of trying to make people see the extreme dubious nature of individual assessment based around statistics that aren’t actually individual in nature.

You likely weren’t around for when a fairly large contingent of us who saw the usefulness of things like Corsi had for team performance analytics get openly mocked and ridiculed for even suggesting that shot quality was an important variable in using possession metrics to analyze anything.

Ah, the Tyler Dellow days...good times...

It's a challenge. But keep fighting the good fight

 

[GOilers88]

I hope he's found it for good this time cause he's been looking good for the last few weeks now. Keep it up, kid!

 

[TheNumber4]

Bear is essentially back to being as good as he was last year now and can now work on being even better. Great draft pick, great kid. Future is bright for him here.

Also, thank f*** Benning is finally off this team. Said it for years, this team takes a huge step forward when talentless hacks like Benning cant make this line up. And now the step has been taken, and Benning should be out of the League soon as predicted.

 

[ImmuneEH]

Bear is essentially back to being as good as he was last year now and can now work on being even better. Great draft pick, great kid. Future is bright for him here.

Also, thank f*** Benning is finally off this team. Said it for years, this team takes a huge step forward when talentless hacks like Benning cant make this line up. And now the step has been taken, and Benning should be out of the League soon as predicted.

I haven't followed Benning since the Oilers moved on from him but I don't get the hate. He was a steady bottom pairing D for us.

 

[TheNumber4]

I haven't followed Benning since the Oilers moved on from him but I don't get the hate. He was a steady bottom pairing D for us.

Disagree. But i know he has his fans (couple of big hits and goals in the playoffs will garner fans). But he is the definition of mediocre, somehow he treaded water defensively and wasnt too much of a liability but he couldnt make an outlet pass to save his life and had almost zero upside or ceiling which was a huge waste of a 6D spot. Think Holland and Tipps saw the same which is why going into the playoffs last year they tried to upgrade on Benning by bringing in Green.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

I haven't followed Benning since the Oilers moved on from him but I don't get the hate. He was a steady bottom pairing D for us.

By steady, he was required to be extremely sheltered and have his minutes managed more than any other Oilers D.

 

[ImmuneEH]

By steady, he was required to be extremely sheltered and have his minutes managed more than any other Oilers D.

Disagree. But i know he has his fans (couple of big hits and goals in the playoffs will garner fans). But he is the definition of mediocre, somehow he treaded water defensively and wasnt too much of a liability but he couldnt make an outlet pass to save his life and had almost zero upside or ceiling which was a huge waste of a 6D spot. Think Holland and Tipps saw the same which is why going into the playoffs last year they tried to upgrade on Benning by bringing in Green.

I'm not a Benning fan, I just feel that neither of you know what you're talking about. He somehow managed to have a positive +/- even in years when the rest of our defense wasn't doing so hot.

Green was less about Benning I believe and more about adding a RHD who could QB the powerplay. Benning made the occasional big hit, was fine defensively, and wasn't a liability. What more do you want? Does a 6D need to have a higher ceiling? I think they should be able to do their job, which Benning was able to do.

If you have a subscription or are willing to get a free trial to the Athletic, here's an article for you.

He served as a solid stop-gap while we waited for Bear/Bouchard.

 

[TheNumber4]

I'm not a Benning fan, I just feel that neither of you know what you're talking about. He somehow managed to have a positive +/- even in years when the rest of our defense wasn't doing so hot.

Green was less about Benning I believe and more about adding a RHD who could QB the powerplay. Benning made the occasional big hit, was fine defensively, and wasn't a liability. What more do you want? Does a 6D need to have a higher ceiling? I think they should be able to do their job, which Benning was able to do.

If you have a subscription or are willing to get a free trial to the Athletic, here's an article for you.

He served as a solid stop-gap while we waited for Bear/Bouchard.

Further proving -/+ is one of the worst stats in hockey and can be justly ignored. If your gonna take -/+ to determine that Benning was good, then will you take McDrai's negative -/+ as indicating they were bad?

Green was 100% about Benning. It wasn't about adding him to an already red hot PP last year, they didn't even put him there, but they did replace Benning. Benning couldn't transition the puck, like ever and not exaggerating. And Tippett wants to play D by playing in the O-Zone and keeping possession.

A 6D spot should be a spot to bring in prospects and rookies. Its a development spot and Benning with his lack of ceiling was wasting it. Now that spot can be used to bring in guys like Bear, and eventually Bouchard, Broberg etc.

I believe but cant confirm that a big reason we couldnt resign our own picks like Gustaffsson and Marino was because seemingly we had already gifted that last spot on D to a talentless Benning, but I digress.

 

[ImmuneEH]

Further proving -/+ is one of the worst stats in hockey and can be justly ignored. If your gonna take -/+ to determine that Benning was good, then will you take McDrai's negative -/+ as indicating they were bad?

Green was 100% about Benning. It wasn't about adding him to an already red hot PP last year, they didn't even put him there, but they did replace Benning. Benning couldn't transition the puck, like ever and not exaggerating. And Tippett wants to play D by playing in the O-Zone and keeping possession.

A 6D spot should be a spot to bring in prospects and rookies. Its a development spot and Benning with his lack of ceiling was wasting it. Now that spot can be used to bring in guys like Bear, and eventually Bouchard, Broberg etc.

I believe but cant confirm that a big reason we couldnt resign our own picks like Gustaffsson and Marino was because seemingly we had already gifted that last spot on D to a talentless Benning, but I digress.

I think we're just gonna disagree on this one. I'll let you have the last word on this as I don't like when people clog up player threads with side arguments about other players and prefer not to do it myself. I'll just say my final piece.

+/- isn't a smoking gun obviously, but it seems relevant that he was a consistently positive player in that stat throughout his time here, whereas other dmen were negative. That's all I'm saying.

"A 6D spot should be a spot to bring in prospects and rookies". That's your opinion. This is an idealistic scenario, and doesn't acknowledge the fact that at times you'll have prospects who aren't ready. You'll need a guy as a stop-gap to cover that position until the prospects develop further.

I think Bear's development has been handled perfectly. I wouldn't change a thing regarding that. I don't think Bouchard should have had a guaranteed full-time roster spot last season. My expectation was that him and Bear would fight for a spot, Bear won.

Just as an aside, my main gripe is when people feel the need to knock down one player when they want to prop up another.

He's a demonstrably reliable 3rd pairing defender who fills the role of 3RD well but you're mad that he's not/will not be a 2nd pairing guy. I just don't get it lol.

Bringing Gustaffsson and Marino feels like a silly thing you're trying to do to pad your argument. Management wasn't interested in Gustaffson from what I recall. You're out of your mind if you think you'd have the foresight to say "I would have cut Benning loose to demonstrate to Marino that there is opportunity here, sign him, then pencil him into the line-up". No one here could have foreseen Marino's impact in his rookie season.