Proposal: Leafs/Flyers

[Broad Street Buddies]

yep, all we need to know is that Flyers fans will trust the good opinion of the coach they absolutely despise if it furthers their agenda here

My point was that when an ultra-conservative coach like Hakstol give that role to a 19 years old, it’s quite telling.

 

[Starat327]

Nylander & Liljegren for Provorov.

Provorov.

Isnt.

Availavle.

 

[Tripod]

Pssst, Provorov was second in goals scored by a defenseman in the league. Oh yeah, and he did that while getting no Power Play time.........

Pssst...no he wasn't. He was tied for first!

 

[zeke]

I look forward to it... to help you out with the inputs:

Goals, Assists- Even Strength
Goals, Assists- Powerplay
The beta (T/C)- hockey analytica released a report showing that QOC/T is really only correlated to CF and FF.

Matthews ES goals divided up: (13 GWG, 20HDG, 41 Goals| 14 high Crit Assists, 34 Assists)
Laine: (13 GWG, 22HDG, 45 Goals | 16 high Crit Assists, 38 Assists)
Funny enough... PP goals are equal to 13 because all were either GWG or HDG and same thing with Laine... kinda crazy.
Matthews faced tougher competition in ES and easier competition on schedule and PP (.9- line, .81 team/special).

The Corsi indicator is an error when equalizing stats because it’s based on ice time... because parameters are changed. It works for most other variables, but CF and FF don’t really work that way.

The error is very simple. Regression ran at 95% Confidence interval. Couldn’t post a Standard deviation bell curve but Crit value * SD (of the production stats- 4.7% diff based on equal TOI) is equal to half of the error valuation. It was a rather high. Crit value.

So that last part is just a simplified formula.

I’ll let you have your way with it after. I’m using all of those equations by the way. They all factor in.

** Shoot sorry forgot to add this... the .25, .2–> they have equal GWG, ~high Crit Assists, and slightly different high danger % goals. Although this is somewhat typically frowned upon, to make the math easier...I just set all goals and assists equal to high priority points... you know clutch players are found to be better lol. Laine has higher Crit Assists and % high danger goals... but it’s marginal so I just set them equal.

Are you using one year of data or 2? Here's the start of the 2yr data - not only do I think 2yr data is better to look at, but in this case using 2yr data is far more favorable to Laine, so it shouldn't be an issue for you.

Let me know if we are starting from the same place:

Even Strength Raw Production

Auston: 2.59p/60, 2.34p1/60, 1.64g/60, 0.95a/60, 0.69a1/60, 0.25a2/60
Patrick: 2.18p/60, 1.76p1/60, 1.29g/60, 0.90a/60, 0.48a1/60, 0.42a2/60

Player advantage in each category:

Matthews: +18.8%p/60, +33.0%p1/60, +27.1%g/60, +5.6%a/60, +43.8%a1/60
Laine: +68.0%a2/60

Is this where you're starting from? Is this a fair place to start?

 

[TheKingPin]

If it's like that Pens-Flyers series from a few years ago where that was the score of every game, sign me up! That was entertaining as hell to watch. The fact that they played like they absolutely hated each other helped it be entertaining tho.

That series was so nuts. Whoever scored first lost. So many lead changes.

 

[zeke]

Nylander & Liljegren for Provorov.

perfect post.

 

[MarkusKetterer]

That series was so nuts. Whoever scored first lost. So many lead changes.

I actually thought whoever scored the first 3 goals lost. It was definitely an anomaly for the playoffs. 99.98% of the time, 3-0 is game over.

 

[CapnZin]

Are you using one year of data or 2? Here's the start of the 2yr data - not only do I think 2yr data is better to look at, but in this case using 2yr data is far more favorable to Laine, so it shouldn't be an issue for you.

Let me know if we are starting from the same place:

Even Strength Raw Production

Auston: 2.59p/60, 2.34p1/60, 1.64g/60, 0.95a/60, 0.69a1/60, 0.25a2/60
Patrick: 2.18p/60, 1.76p1/60, 1.29g/60, 0.90a/60, 0.48a1/60, 0.42a2/60

Player advantage in each category:

Matthews: +18.8%p/60, +33.0%p1/60, +27.1%g/60, +5.6%a/60, +43.8%a1/60
Laine: +68.0%a2/60

Is this where you're starting from? Is this a fair place to start?

I used career. stats because Laine has played more games and TOI in the NHL so it inflated the percentages of growth. That’s more or less what I was trying to prove.

Equalizing their TOI gives Matthews more PPM (basically a more specific P/60) than Laine as a career base. Using stuff that doesn’t really matter (QOC, CF, FF) in the argument creates the standard error. That’s literally all I was saying.

When you add in the additional overages (clutch goals, clutch Assists, and what not) They equalized themselves with that haha... wasn’t expecting that. It’s actually crazy. I thought that I was messing up or I wasn’t looking up the right info, but they literally equal their raw stats in those categories so the math was so much easier to write out.

Feel free to do whatever you want... just use career data though.

Oh... RAW data needs to be accounted for TOI... use the same denominator or base.


**My bad... didn’t see you used /60

 

[zeke]

I used career. stats because Laine has played more games and TOI in the NHL so it inflated the percentages of growth. That’s more or less what I was trying to prove.

Equalizing their TOI gives Matthews more PPM (basically a more specific P/60) than Laine as a career base. Using stuff that doesn’t really matter (QOC, CF, FF) in the argument creates the standard error. That’s literally all I was saying.

When you add in the additional overages (clutch goals, clutch Assists, and what not) They equalized themselves with that haha... wasn’t expecting that. It’s actually crazy. I thought that I was messing up or I wasn’t looking up the right info, but they literally equal their raw stats in those categories so the math was so much easier to write out.

Feel free to do whatever you want... just use career data though.

Oh... RAW data needs to be accounted for TOI... use the same denominator or base.


**My bad... didn’t see you used /60

So were those numbers I posted the raw production numbers we should start with or no?

 

[zeke]

I used career. stats because Laine has played more games and TOI in the NHL so it inflated the percentages of growth. That’s more or less what I was trying to prove.

Equalizing their TOI gives Matthews more PPM (basically a more specific P/60) than Laine as a career base. Using stuff that doesn’t really matter (QOC, CF, FF) in the argument creates the standard error. That’s literally all I was saying.

When you add in the additional overages (clutch goals, clutch Assists, and what not) They equalized themselves with that haha... wasn’t expecting that. It’s actually crazy. I thought that I was messing up or I wasn’t looking up the right info, but they literally equal their raw stats in those categories so the math was so much easier to write out.

Feel free to do whatever you want... just use career data though.

Oh... RAW data needs to be accounted for TOI... use the same denominator or base.


**My bad... didn’t see you used /60

Corsi/Fenwick/xGF - UNADJUSTED RAW

Now personally I think ignoring the “against” stats when looking at possession numbers is flawed from the start, but it seems you are fine with looking at just the “for” stats, so instead of arguing about that let’s go with your analysis of just the “for” stats alone.

Corsica provides beautiful adjustments for zone and score effects, but since you’re creating your own adjustments let’s start off with the raw unadjusted numbers:

On-Ice

Auston: 62.4cf/60, 46.4ff/60, 32.9sf/60, 3.17xgf/60
Patrick: 54.8cf/60, 41.6ff/60, 29.0sf/60, 2.31xgf/60

On-Ice Relative to Team

Auston: +3.92relcf/60, +2.87relff/60, +2.74relsf/60, +2.43relxgf/60
Patrick: -0.87relcf/60, -0.17relff/60, -1.46relsf/60, -0.14relxgf/60

Individual

Auston: 17.3icf/60, 14.3iff/60, 10.4isf/60, 1.21ixgf/60
Patrick: 15.3icf/60, 12.0iff/60, 8.4isf/60, 0.67ixgf/60

Is this where you are starting from when it comes to using Corsi/Fenwick? Is this a fair place to start?

And I know you have created your own adjustments, but here are the On-Ice numbers adjusted for zone and score (and some other) effects by Manny at Corsicahockey.com (note: these adjustments are not just for zone “starts”, but for zone deployment of every single shift):

On-Ice Adjusted

Auston: 54.7cf/60, 41.4ff/60, 29.6sf/60, 2.93xgf/60
Laine: 48.0cf/60, 37.2ff/60, 26.1sf/60, 2.15xgf/60

 

[Drytoast]

 

[tony d]

It won't happen. Toronto gives up Matthews they're going to want more than Patrick and Provorov.

 

[Starat327]

perfect post.

Post maybe.

But it's a terrible proposal.

 

[CapnZin]

If you want to use CF/CFrel | FF/FFrel to further your argument go ahead. I’m not concerned about who misses more shots, or that Matthews drives play 3% better than his linemates.

CF doesn’t change with TOI, but it does when adjusting other parameters that I didn’t use which creates an error in the way I’m arguing.

My argument from a bunch of previous posts was that the flyers have never had a player like Laine before. Matthews doesn’t do much for us. We have Couts who was a very similar game. We have Giroux if need be who just had a 102 Point season.

The flyers, however, haven’t had a shoot first sniper like Laine. All of our winger are general 2-way or playmakers.

I was just showing that based on those overage stats like QOC/T/L, CF, FF, etc... it doesn’t correlate to what I’m saying. I can watch and see that Matthews usually has the puck when with his linemates or that he has more assists. I wanted to look deeper into which player has the better offensive prowess. Based off of overage stats like danger, Crit, %crit, and stuff like that, Laine is superior.

The error is adjusted for that at saying half the argument would be invalid or messed up if I included them in my argument.

That’s what I meant by you’re not using my stats. I can’t argue that laine is a better 2-way or that he drives play more. I can argue that his offensive prowess makes up for Matthews play in the NZ and partial defensive play saying that he is partially a superior player.... like I said with Ovi and Tavares. Tavares is by far more superior in the NZ and DZ than Ovi, but Ovi makes up for that by his offensive prowess. Tavares is the well rounded player, but they’re not always the best. It’s only 2 years into their career and a lot can change. I’m saying that Laine will be better.

 

[mdm815]

This after some guy stated the flyers have lots of guys as good as Matthews, and some even better?!? Lol

Read from the beginning of the thread. Maybe one egregious thing or underrating statement occurred in regards to Matthews until like the 5th or 6th page. It wasn’t until hyperbole had reached an apex that it was used in return.
And the other difference is a majority of flyers fans in here would say and agree that underrating Matthews is an indefensible opinion/argument, while Leafs fans in here “literally can’t even” that we wouldn’t do that deal like it’s some insane overrating of our own players.

 

[zeke]

If you want to use CF/CFrel | FF/FFrel to further your argument go ahead. I’m not concerned about who misses more shots, or that Matthews drives play 3% better than his linemates.

CF doesn’t change with TOI, but it does when adjusting other parameters that I didn’t use which creates an error in the way I’m arguing.

My argument from a bunch of previous posts was that the flyers have never had a player like Laine before. Matthews doesn’t do much for us. We have Couts who was a very similar game. We have Giroux if need be who just had a 102 Point season.

The flyers, however, haven’t had a shoot first sniper like Laine. All of our winger are general 2-way or playmakers.

I was just showing that based on those overage stats like QOC/T/L, CF, FF, etc... it doesn’t correlate to what I’m saying. I can watch and see that Matthews usually has the puck when with his linemates or that he has more assists. I wanted to look deeper into which player has the better offensive prowess. Based off of overage stats like danger, Crit, %crit, and stuff like that, Laine is superior.

The error is adjusted for that at saying half the argument would be invalid or messed up if I included them in my argument.

That’s what I meant by you’re not using my stats. I can’t argue that laine is a better 2-way or that he drives play more. I can argue that his offensive prowess makes up for Matthews play in the NZ and partial defensive play saying that he is partially a superior player.... like I said with Ovi and Tavares. Tavares is by far more superior in the NZ and DZ than Ovi, but Ovi makes up for that by his offensive prowess. Tavares is the well rounded player, but they’re not always the best. It’s only 2 years into their career and a lot can change. I’m saying that Laine will be better.

wait a sec - your formulas clearly stated that you were using CF and FF.

were you being misleading? are you using them or not?

and you still haven't answered my question about the raw production numbers - were those fair numbers to start with? or should we use something different?

 

[zeke]

If you want to use CF/CFrel | FF/FFrel to further your argument go ahead. I’m not concerned about who misses more shots, or that Matthews drives play 3% better than his linemates.

CF doesn’t change with TOI, but it does when adjusting other parameters that I didn’t use which creates an error in the way I’m arguing.

My argument from a bunch of previous posts was that the flyers have never had a player like Laine before. Matthews doesn’t do much for us. We have Couts who was a very similar game. We have Giroux if need be who just had a 102 Point season.

The flyers, however, haven’t had a shoot first sniper like Laine. All of our winger are general 2-way or playmakers.

I was just showing that based on those overage stats like QOC/T/L, CF, FF, etc... it doesn’t correlate to what I’m saying. I can watch and see that Matthews usually has the puck when with his linemates or that he has more assists. I wanted to look deeper into which player has the better offensive prowess. Based off of overage stats like danger, Crit, %crit, and stuff like that, Laine is superior.

The error is adjusted for that at saying half the argument would be invalid or messed up if I included them in my argument.

That’s what I meant by you’re not using my stats. I can’t argue that laine is a better 2-way or that he drives play more. I can argue that his offensive prowess makes up for Matthews play in the NZ and partial defensive play saying that he is partially a superior player.... like I said with Ovi and Tavares. Tavares is by far more superior in the NZ and DZ than Ovi, but Ovi makes up for that by his offensive prowess. Tavares is the well rounded player, but they’re not always the best. It’s only 2 years into their career and a lot can change. I’m saying that Laine will be better.

Next step:


Context

Zone Starts

Personally, I just use the corsica adjustments to take care of zone deployment, because it’s much more rigorous than just looking at zone starts, but might as well put out the raw data again:

Auston: 768ozs (36.6ozs%), 742nzs (35.4nzs%), 587dzs (28.0dzs%)
Patrik: 728ozs (37.4ozs%), 638nzs (32.8nzs%), 582dzs (29.9dzs%)

Quality of Competition

Personally I think using any corsi or corsi variant as a measure for quality of competition is self-defeating, so I only really care about opponents’ time on ice (toiqoc) and more precisely a toiqoc relative metric, but here’s all the numbers anyways:

Raw

Auston: 29.50%toiqoc, 49.85cf%qoc, 56.33ca/60qoc, 49.73xgf%qoc, 2.38xga/60qoc
Patrik: 29.18%toiqoc, 49.89cf%qoc, 56.35ca/60qoc, 49.75xgf%qoc, 2.35xga/60qoc

Adjusted

Auston:
Patrik: 29.18%toiqoc, 49.87cf%qoc, 49.11ca/60qoc, 49.75xgf%qoc, 2.22xga/60qoc

Quality of Teammate

I think we capture most of quality of teammate by looking at Relative to Team stats, but here are the numbers anyways:

Raw

Auston: 30.68%toiqot, 49.11cf%qot, 58.44cf/60qot, 49.65xgf%qot, 2.36xgf/60qot
Laine: 31.45%toiqot, 51.78cf%qot, 58.17cf/60qot, 53.89xgf%qot, 2.55xgf/60qot

Adjusted

Auston: 30.68toiqot%, 50.1cf%qot, 51.78cf/60qot, 50.1xgf%qot, 2.43xgf/60qot
Laine: 31.45%toiqot, 52.13cf%qot, 51.34cf/60qot, 53.94xgf%qot, 2.20xgf/60qot


Is this a fair place to start when it comes to context and making adjustments to the raw production numbers?

 

[zeke]

Post maybe.

But it's a terrible proposal.

of course it is. just like the proposal in the OP.

 

[CapnZin]

wait a sec - your formulas clearly stated that you were using CF and FF.

were you being misleading? are you using them or not?

I did. That’s how I got the error. If I didn’t use them there would be no error. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time.

I’m sorry if I’ve been confusing... generally have a hard time writing my thoughts out.

When adjusting for Corsi/Fenwick and other stats it creates an error which would be half the Value received of Laines overage from Ozone stats. That’s where the 2.16 came from. In the math itself for the .432... no Corsi or FF.... but in the error yes.

 

[zeke]

I did. That’s how I got the error. If I didn’t use them there would be no error. That’s what I’ve been saying the whole time.

I’m sorry if I’ve been confusing... generally have a hard time writing my thoughts out.

When adjusting for Corsi/Fenwick and other stats it creates an error which would be half the Value received of Laines overage from Ozone stats. That’s where the 2.16 came from. In the math itself for the .432... no Corsi or FF.... but in the error yes.

ok - so can you just clearly state all the inputs you are using then?

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Post maybe.

But it's a terrible proposal.

For who?

 

[93gilmour93]

Not sure what’s funny. If you think Philly would consider Patrick and Provorov for Matthews your wrong. Matthews isn’t quite the player some Leafs fans make him out to be. His value although high is not a 21 yr old 1d and a potential 1/2 C that’s just ridiculous.

This is laughable also. You give any GM this offer and everyone of them will trade those two for Matthews. Forget what leafs fans opinions from HF Boards you want to use there's a reason from Bob McKenzie down why Matthews is viewed the way he is. Provorov is great and we will see what Patrick is in the future but both would be moved for Matthews if Philly had that opportunity.

 

[CapnZin]

I’m sorry I wrote hat wrong lol... I did use them as an overage. 2.16 is the error on the overage terms.

I didn’t do the value for w/o error. I’m sorry for stating that I did. That may be why I confused you.

When accounting for offensive ability... everything in there... Laine has more offensive prowess and it helps close the gap on the NZ and DZ play.

The overage w/o the error terms wouldn’t be much different. May close the gap a little, but it’ll be marginal with the numbers we’re working with.

Sorry for the confusion! That’s my bad!

 

[pmwlker]

This is laughable also. You give any GM this offer and everyone of them will trade those two for Matthews. Forget what leafs fans opinions from HF Boards you want to use there's a reason from Bob McKenzie down why Matthews is viewed the way he is. Provorov is great and we will see what Patrick is in the future but both would be moved for Matthews if Philly had that opportunity.

More opinion. Like I said everyone has one and most are shit.

 

[mdm815]

Yeah i mean from Bob McKenzie on down opinions are pretty low on that Ivan guy....