Management V

[vancityluongo]

I am not taking a position on how good of a player Barrie is, specifically, but I find it entirely plausible that a player, especially a defender, could be not very good despite putting up a lot of points. These players are like the Ryan Howard type players in baseball that were hugely overvalued 10-15 years ago because nobody could get their head around the idea that a player could hit 40 HR's and have 100 RBI's and still not be especially valuable. It's the same sort of thing. Whether it applies to Barrie or not I'm not sure but dismissing the idea out of hand because points seems specious. Barrie was -63 over those 5 years, and was pretty consistently at the bottom of the Avs in terms of goals allowed at ES. While that doesn't necessarily mean much in and of itself, it does lend credence to the idea.

This is a fascinating thought. Huh.

 

[MS]

This is a fascinating thought. Huh.

This is basically the argument I've been having here about James Neal for the past year about his play for the past 4 years. Guy is a terrible player despite what the hockey card stats say.

In MLB, back in the day people thought this guy was a terrific player. Was an All-Star, won Gold Gloves, was considered an above-average 3B for most of the 1970s. And then MLB had a statistical revolution, and people realized that despite hitting .270 with quite a few doubles, he was actually a terrible hitter because he never got on base. And defensively, he was hugely overrated because he didn't have any range despite making few errors. And for his career he was below replacement value and basically an AAA player masquerading as a big-leaguer.

Ken Reitz Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Dante Bichette is another fascinating case.

There are surely equivalent players/situations in the NHL, but they aren't so easily identified because the stats can't so easily be broken down.

 

[Melvin]

Not a baseball fan I take it? Ryan Howard in his prime was a monster hitter. Hit for huge power and posted excellent OBP. I believe the hitters you are talking about are guys like Trumbo who belt 30-40 HRs but give all that value back by making too many outs.

The mistake with Howard was signing a 31 y/o 1B/DH to a 5 year contract.

How would I have ever heard the name Ryan Howard were I not a baseball fan, lol. Come on, dude.

The bolded is my point. He was a 30 year old 1-2 WAR 1B who would never get a contract like that today, but that was still a time where teams were too enamoured with 40 HR and 100 RBI to care about anything else. I mean I probably could have picked a better example but my point is the same irrespective of what player I selected.

Hockey is more or less in those times today. Some GM's are wising up, but there are still many (including, surprisingly, Kyle Dubas it seems,) who seem to be so impressed with !55 points! that they overlook everything else.

 

[kanuck87]

How would I have ever heard the name Ryan Howard were I not a baseball fan, lol. Come on, dude.

The bolded is my point. He was a 30 year old 1-2 WAR 1B who would never get a contract like that today, but that was still a time where teams were too enamoured with 40 HR and 100 RBI to care about anything else. I mean I probably could have picked a better example but my point is the same irrespective of what player I selected.

Hockey is more or less in those times today. Some GM's are wising up, but there are still many (including, surprisingly, Kyle Dubas it seems,) who seem to be so impressed with !55 points! that they overlook everything else.

Howard signed that contract after a 4-year stretch in which he accumulated 15-17 WAR ( depending on where you look). The fact that he fell off a cliff afterwards is irrelevant. He was actually a pretty good player in his (short) prime.

There are so many other players you can use as an example, but I don’t think Howard is one of them, to be honest.

 

[4Twenty]

How would I have ever heard the name Ryan Howard were I not a baseball fan, lol. Come on, dude.

The bolded is my point. He was a 30 year old 1-2 WAR 1B who would never get a contract like that today, but that was still a time where teams were too enamoured with 40 HR and 100 RBI to care about anything else. I mean I probably could have picked a better example but my point is the same irrespective of what player I selected.

Hockey is more or less in those times today. Some GM's are wising up, but there are still many (including, surprisingly, Kyle Dubas it seems,) who seem to be so impressed with !55 points! that they overlook everything else.

You should've said Adam Dunn.

 

[F A N]

How would I have ever heard the name Ryan Howard were I not a baseball fan, lol. Come on, dude.

The bolded is my point. He was a 30 year old 1-2 WAR 1B who would never get a contract like that today, but that was still a time where teams were too enamoured with 40 HR and 100 RBI to care about anything else. I mean I probably could have picked a better example but my point is the same irrespective of what player I selected.

Hockey is more or less in those times today. Some GM's are wising up, but there are still many (including, surprisingly, Kyle Dubas it seems,) who seem to be so impressed with !55 points! that they overlook everything else.

I think it's important to look at the underlying numbers though. My understanding of Ryan Howard's numbers is that he wasn't good in the field and he couldn't hit left handed pitching. So his value came from being a DH against right handed pitching. Those restrictions lower his value obviously.

Tyson Barrie's value doesn't come from his ability to defend forwards. But I remember reading that his underlying numbers defensively were actually slightly better than Reilly's. Anyhow, Barrie's value comes from his ability to produce offensive and transition the puck as well. When you have that component on your team and the other team doesn't it gives your team a big advantage.

In baseball, you need guys who can drive in runs. In hockey, you need at least one Dman who can produce offensively. Remember the 2016-2017 Penguins? How far would they have gotten in the playoffs without Justin Schultz that year?

 

[timw33]

Whooops injuries might not be a good excuse (not even factoring in that none of our needle moving players have been hurt).

 

[MS]

Whooops injuries might not be a good excuse (not even factoring in that none of our needle moving players have been hurt).

But I'm being told we're one of the 5 or 6 most injury-affected teams in the NHL!

For the love of God, Jay Beagle is hurt! You don't just overcome stuff like that!

 

[4Twenty]

Whooops injuries might not be a good excuse (not even factoring in that none of our needle moving players have been hurt).

I couldn't find Vancouver at first, and I was wondering who the hell "vegan" was. LOL

and also, are my eyes deceiving me, or is Vancouver's bubble the smallest on the screen?

 

[timw33]

I couldn't find Vancouver at first, and I was wondering who the hell "vegan" was. LOL

and also, are my eyes deceiving me, or is Vancouver's bubble the smallest on the screen?

Which would indicate they they have lost the least important players on their team to injury so far.

PIT is huge because it's lost games from Malkin Crosby Hornqvist Letang instead of fungible bottom 6 grinders who are completely replaceable.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I think it’s been made abundantly clear in the last couple days especially that to a certain group of people, facts simply don’t matter and will never change their pro-Benning narrative.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

I don't know whats scarier.
1) Benning commit big bucks and long term to Markstrom, tying up the little bit of cap space we have to goaltending when F and D needs lots of help. Or
2) Going with Demko and a vet backup in a year where we are giving up our first, which is likely a lotto pick (I am assuming the Canucks miss the playoff this season here).
Tough place to be in...self inflicted of course but still, a difficult choice.

 

[MS]

I couldn't find Vancouver at first, and I was wondering who the hell "vegan" was. LOL

and also, are my eyes deceiving me, or is Vancouver's bubble the smallest on the screen?

Also keep in mind that the Roussel injury is from last year and was known and budgeted for ahead of time. If you just look at injuries suffered this year, we move way to the left on that graph - his games are like 40% of the games lost by the team as a whole.

 

[Vector]

2019-20 NHL top-20 scoring defencemen and some underlying stats.

Quick synopsis: Barrie's a limited PP-only player with Krug being the best comparable. Barrie needed a massive amount of PP time (nearly a full minute more than Carlson and 2 minutes more than most). He treaded water at ES. Very specialized player with a lot of PP utility but requires handling at ES. Does not PK. Possible trade partners in season are Flyers (if lost confidence in Gostisbehere), Islanders, Red Wings, Oilers, Coyotes, and Golden Knights.

Ryan McDonagh had an insane scoring season.

 

[Pavel96]

But I'm being told we're one of the 5 or 6 most injury-affected teams in the NHL!

For the love of God, Jay Beagle is hurt! You don't just overcome stuff like that!

Look, they have a lot of money and term tied up with Jay. He won a cup.

Plus the reffing this year has been brutal against the canucks. They have had a lot of bad bounces too. At times they have choked just as much as the team they were playing - but they still lost, so it's like win. Mike Gillis was horrible at drafting too - Jim is perfect at drafting.

As well, things have never looked better- so there's that.

 

[opendoor]

and also, are my eyes deceiving me, or is Vancouver's bubble the smallest on the screen?

3rd smallest behind PHI and LAK. So 29th in the league in terms of the quality of players lost. Combine that with them being about average in terms of total man games lost, and you might even say they're "relatively healthy".

 

[xtra]

3rd smallest behind PHI and LAK. So 29th in the league in terms of the quality of players lost. Combine that with them being about average in terms of total man games lost, and you might even say they're "relatively healthy".

and of course accounting for the 28 man games lost to rousell. Like MS said remove him and boy oh boy it woudl be funny to see

 

[RandV]

I don't know whats scarier.
1) Benning commit big bucks and long term to Markstrom, tying up the little bit of cap space we have to goaltending when F and D needs lots of help. Or
2) Going with Demko and a vet backup in a year where we are giving up our first, which is likely a lotto pick (I am assuming the Canucks miss the playoff this season here).
Tough place to be in...self inflicted of course but still, a difficult choice.

Whether or not it's the right move (I'm on the fence) you just know if Benning is still running the team he will do what he can to sign Markstrom - assuming he wants to stay. Benning is adverse to starting the season without a vet in net and doesn't take long term considerations into account when signing contracts. There will probably be 5-10 teams with an option to change starters next summer, so personally I'm anticipating a 5 year $30 million contract extension for Markstrom.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Whether or not it's the right move (I'm on the fence) you just know if Benning is still running the team he will do what he can to sign Markstrom - assuming he wants to stay. Benning is adverse to starting the season without a vet in net and doesn't take long term considerations into account when signing contracts. There will probably be 5-10 teams with an option to change starters next summer, so personally I'm anticipating a 5 year $30 million contract extension for Markstrom.

I think Markstrom might get more. There are currently 10 goalies with a cap hit of $6m/yr. Marky I think is better than Lundqvist, Holtby, Crawford and Schneider, who all currently carries at least $6m/yr cap hit. And arguably better than several others too. With the anticipated rise in salary cap due to the new TV contract in a couple years, I expect a long term deal for Marky to starts in the $7m/yr range.
This would be a crippling cap hit on this team. However not having Marky is also very undesirable at this point as I'm not sure Demko is ready for the starter role.

 

[y2kcanucks]

2019-20 NHL top-20 scoring defencemen and some underlying stats.

Quick synopsis: Barrie's a limited PP-only player with Krug being the best comparable. Barrie needed a massive amount of PP time (nearly a full minute more than Carlson and 2 minutes more than most). He treaded water at ES. Very specialized player with a lot of PP utility but requires handling at ES. Does not PK. Possible trade partners in season are Flyers (if lost confidence in Gostisbehere), Islanders, Red Wings, Oilers, Coyotes, and Golden Knights.

Ryan McDonagh had an insane scoring season.

Whoa you can predict the future?

 

[F A N]

There will probably be 5-10 teams with an option to change starters next summer, so personally I'm anticipating a 5 year $30 million contract extension for Markstrom.

I'm not so sure about that. The market for goalies really hasn't been good and among those 5-10 teams with an option to change starters next season, have they been paying top 10 money for a goalie lately? I just don't think a 30 year old Markstrom has the type of name recognition to get a 5 year contract at $6M AAV.

I think Markstrom might get more. There are currently 10 goalies with a cap hit of $6m/yr. Marky I think is better than Lundqvist, Holtby, Crawford and Schneider, who all currently carries at least $6m/yr cap hit. And arguably better than several others too. With the anticipated rise in salary cap due to the new TV contract in a couple years, I expect a long term deal for Marky to starts in the $7m/yr range.

Markstrom is not better than those guys at the time those guys signed their last contract. Your valuations for Markstrom is crazy. If Markstrom is a Vezina finalist and backstops the Canucks deep into the playoffs then there is a slight possibility he gets $7M AAV.

 

[Lindgren]

This is basically the argument I've been having here about James Neal for the past year about his play for the past 4 years. Guy is a terrible player despite what the hockey card stats say.

In MLB, back in the day people thought this guy was a terrific player. Was an All-Star, won Gold Gloves, was considered an above-average 3B for most of the 1970s. And then MLB had a statistical revolution, and people realized that despite hitting .270 with quite a few doubles, he was actually a terrible hitter because he never got on base. And defensively, he was hugely overrated because he didn't have any range despite making few errors. And for his career he was below replacement value and basically an AAA player masquerading as a big-leaguer.

Ken Reitz Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

Dante Bichette is another fascinating case.

There are surely equivalent players/situations in the NHL, but they aren't so easily identified because the stats can't so easily be broken down.

The advanced stats for hockey are getting better. (I'm no expert, obviously, but that's what seems to be the case.) But, granting that it's more difficult to break things down for hockey than it is for baseball, what constantly irritates me is the anti-stats position that since a phenomenon can't be identified statistically, it doesn't exist.

The moneyball/advanced stats revolution in baseball proved that the old scouting and evaluating methods were rife with inefficiencies and prejudices. Somehow people are able to convince themselves that because it's more difficult to create statistical profiles in hockey, the old scouting methods must be just fine, and hockey has somehow remained immune from the errors that were so prevalent in baseball. The logic is baffling.

 

[RandV]

I'm not so sure about that. The market for goalies really hasn't been good and among those 5-10 teams with an option to change starters next season, have they been paying top 10 money for a goalie lately? I just don't think a 30 year old Markstrom has the type of name recognition to get a 5 year contract at $6M AAV.



Markstrom is not better than those guys at the time those guys signed their last contract. Your valuations for Markstrom is crazy. If Markstrom is a Vezina finalist and backstops the Canucks deep into the playoffs then there is a slight possibility he gets $7M AAV.

Look what Bobrovsky, Varlamov, and Lehner just signed for. Varlamov is a good comparison here as at 31 he signed a 5 year $25M deal. $5 million is the starting rate for a quality starter, and I could be wrong but I feel like there's going to be more of a market this summer for goalies. Not just teams that have an open slot but there are others like Buffalo or Carolina with a mediocre B rate $3M(+/-) guy who will have 1 year left that they could move on from. You also have to think Markstrom and his agent are certainly going to try for a big contract, as he didn't become the #1 starter till quite late in his career this will likely be the first and last chance Markstrom has to cash in on some big NHL $$$. The next 3 years could see him earn more than his entire career so far.

 

[PecaFan]

The moneybag/advanced stats revolution in baseball proved that the old scouting and evaluating methods were rife with inefficiencies and prejudices. Somehow people are able to convince themselves that because it's more difficult to create statistical profiles in hockey, the old scouting methods must be just fine, and hockey has somehow remained immune from the errors that were so prevalent in baseball. The logic is baffling.

I don't think advanced stat doubters think hockey is immune, but rather the current batch of so called advanced stats are irrelevant, essentially random statistical noise. I could make a PecaFan index, based on how many Ps, Es, Cs, and As are in a player name and it would be just as 'accurate' as some of the other numbers currently being thrown around. Was it this thread that recently had that chart of corsi across the league, and it was essentially a completely random scatter chart? That's the stuff we're talking about. edit, it's here: Post-Game Talk: - GM 26: Penguins def. Canucks - 8-6

I think advanced stats do exist and may one day be quantified, but we certainly haven't found them yet. It's like we're in the dark ages of medicine, where the doubter says "I don't think the newfangled 'advanced medicine' of lighting of 3 candles at midnight is what cured him" but hasn't yet discovered the microbes and bacteria that actually underly the problem.

So, lacking credible new methods, one relies on the old methods until something proven comes along.

 

[4Twenty]

I don't think advanced stat doubters think hockey is immune, but rather the current batch of so called advanced stats are irrelevant, essentially random statistical noise. I could make a PecaFan index, based on how many Ps, Es, Cs, and As are in a player name and it would be just as 'accurate' as some of the other numbers currently being thrown around. Was it this thread that recently had that chart of corsi across the league, and it was essentially a completely random scatter chart? That's the stuff we're talking about. edit, it's here: Post-Game Talk: - GM 26: Penguins def. Canucks - 8-6

I think advanced stats do exist and may one day be quantified, but we certainly haven't found them yet. It's like we're in the dark ages of medicine, where the doubter says "I don't think the newfangled 'advanced medicine' of lighting of 3 candles at midnight is what cured him" but hasn't yet discovered the microbes and bacteria that actually underly the problem.

So, lacking credible new methods, one relies on the old methods until something proven comes along.

You illustrate the problem with these metrics. You’re expecting something to be proven. Instead of using them as a tool of understanding.

There’s nothing wrong with recording events as they take place on the ice. It’s the interpretations of the event data that is your issue, seemingly.

What I hope to see when puck tracking comes in is individual puck touches and where and what occurs from there but none of that will prove anything, it’s all just a measurement or a recording of events. The more information the better I say.