The Star: Maple Leafs should trade Phil Kessel

[Leafidelity]

Playoff totals

GP: 7
G: 4
A: 2
+3

/thread

 

[Bomber0104]

Playoff totals

GP: 7
G: 4
A: 2
+3

/thread

You should see Gretzky's playoff stats before he was traded, multiple times.

 

[Muston Atthews]

He's been a minus player ES, regardless of who he has played with...

So in other words for all the good he does when even strength, he costs us when 5 on 5, badly, with his non-existent defensive and physical play.

Nothing earth-shattering here, just a fact (that some Leafs fan don't like owning up to!).

That's the beauty of the PP...no defending required! Bodes well with Phil Kessel's style.

So is Steven stamkos a glorified power play specialist too? -4 with 10 ppg, 8 ppa

Or ovechkin, a measly +2 with 16 ppg, 11 ppa

Or Malkin, +5 with 4 ppg and 14 ppa

Phil kessel is a -3 with 6 ppg and 15 ppa

What do ya know, the great snipers of the NHL also are very good on the power play !! Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Leafidelity]

You should see Gretzky's playoff stats before he was traded, multiple times.

Just because he was doesn't mean he should have been.

If you were wondering these are the players moved for Gretz.

LA
Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelinas, $15 million in cash, three first-round draft picks (Jason Miller, Martin Rucinsky, Nick Stajduhar)

St Louis
Patrice Tardif, Roman Vopat, Craig Johnson a 1st and a 5th

 

[Anthrax442]

It's not like the other papers are that much better when it comes to quality. Too much media garbage out there...

True. But Cox + Feschuk and Kelly really drive me nuts.

 

[p.l.f.]

I hope the Toronto Star goes out of business.
Nothing but garbage

 

[The_Chosen_One]

When you make baseless little jabs like this, it doesn't really support your equally baseless numbers.

You don't think your tone doesn't play a role in that? I have yet to see any substantial criticism outside of utilizing the appeal to authority argument. Your assessment of their play is clearly wrong.

Forgive me, I am a foreigner, but I believe we are conversing in English. Let's remain true to it, shall we?

I am as well. I'll make the corrections.

Corey Perry, as it turns out, is unanimously appreciated for his gritty play and ability to check his opponents.

What is your point? He plays gritty against softer competition. Perry isn't that great defensively, and anyone who suggests that is outright mad.

It's not like the Ducks are going to intentionally hold him back against top competition. Datsyuk, on the other hand, produces against the top lines.

2 points, remember when linematching didn't go his way.

Phil Kessel is not.

Crosby isn't gritty either. What the hell is your point?

Ask anyone outside of the realm of free internet hockey stats and this will be confirmed.

People who are barely familiar with the game, of course.

Weird how everytime there's discussions about the worst defensive forward and softest forward in the league, Kessel's name consistently comes up. No mention of Perry. Weird eh?

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. Perry was noted by Randy for floating. You know, his own damn coach at that time. I don't see much changes in his style of play.

So in other words, "I don't know for sure but I'm just going to dismiss Corey Perry's Cup and Hart trophy's and just overrate the hell out of a PP specialist.

It takes a team to win a cup, not an individual. Corey was a side character on a team with two elite defenceman, an elite top line, and elite centre as his linemate. That shut down line

Skill does not have a correlation with production. Otherwise Linus Omark and Rob Schremp would be kings of the NHL. Kessel produces well on the PP, and that's about it.

It's obvious that you don't watch the games. Kessel has been producing against the shut down lines. To consider him a PP specialist would ignore his presence during ES.

I have not a clue what you are trying to convey here, but I assume you mean Perry and Getzlaf were sheltered THERE, but fast forward into the future, and they are no longer sheltered?

Umm...Getzlaf was normally sheltered during the regular season. That is, used offensively. During the playoffs, the opposition was essentially shutting him down. His production fell to 2 points, while in the 2011 playoffs, he produced, but in favourable (or sheltered) conditions.

What's obvious is that Corey Perry is a better all-round player than Kessel...most people recognize this. A Leafs fan with a minute knowledge of statistics might be of another opinion.

Wrong.

If Perry isn't like Datsyuk then Kessel is light years away from him, by that standard.

Thanks to Phil's speed and vision, he's probably better than Perry in that regard. If you watch the games, Perry is never used like Datsyuk.

Hockey does not lend itself to being quantified. The minute you realize this the better off you will be. This is not baseball...this is a dynamic live-action game.

It doesn't matter if I use quantitative data, or I use qualitative data. Corey Perry started out as a sheltered forward and will only produce in those settings.

But if he is up against offensive specialists, why can't he compensate for their lack of defensive ability? What I assume you are trying to say in this mess of an argument you constructed is that in an advanced stats world, there are actually two types of "top players", that being offensive specialists and the other being defensive specialists. Why are defensive specialists scoring against Kessel's line? Why are offensive specialists preventing Grabovski from scoring?

Offensive specialists are more likely going to be starting in the offensive zone. To re-gain possession against the top lines is going to tire you out offensively. Have you ever personally played against talented athletes?

That is, unless you're Patrice Bergeron, but what's interesting to note is that the top four teams tend to have petty defensively sound forwards. For instance, it wouldn't be a good idea to wander off in the offensive zone vs the Crosby, Krecji, etc. You'll likely be exposing yourself defensively.

These are questions a stupid model such as CORSI will never explain, despite its best efforts. What you have is a model that looks to be constructed by someone with a Grade 11 education. Takes faulty information that we've had on record for ages, rearranges it, and then tries to convince us that it somehow became un-faulty, as if such a thing is possible by the laws of the universe. LOL

Irrelevant.

I'll ask again, how does CORSI account for shot selection, and how are they credited?

How does CORSI account for an easy tap-in goal?
How does CORSI account for an incredible stretch pass?

CORSI is an aggregate indicator. Those shot selections would not be statistically significant. If they were, that'd indicate poorer defensive zone coverage and a reduction in CORSI.

How does CORSI account for incredible goaltending?

Goaltending on average will be constant. Regardless of whether the CORSI changes, the same goalie ( in most cases) will be present.

How does CORSI account for forechecking effectiveness?

The CORSI on the defending side would decrease.

How does CORSI account for puck distribution?

Superior puck distribution would result to higher an increasing CORSI for that team.

How does CORSI account for "boneheaded" defensive plays?

Possession decreases during boneheaded defensive plays. Decrease in CORSI.

I didn't ask you what behindthenet has to say about Clarke Macarthur because I can look for myself without you repeating their garbage information.

We know that Clarke MacArthur was sheltered, because we was playing with Kadri. Even on the defensive zone, McClement replaced Clarke, and it was a McClement - Grabs - Kulemin line.

Yes, that was noticeable when watching the game.

I asked you why CORSI rewards a player skating back to the bench for a line change, when his linemate takes a spam shot from the top of the circle...

If it was Grabovski taking a spam shot from the top of the circle, he would be losing possession. Thus his CORSI will decrease and the linemate who purportedly helped him re-establish possession will be awarded a positive CORSI.

Do you know what's ridiculous? Grabovski had 80 shots, while Kulemin had 72 shots. Were Kulemin shots more higher quality than Grabovski? I really wonder, because Grabovski had a much higher shooting % than Kulemin.

I noticed Grabovski playing like Grabage while NOT facing the Chara/Bergeron line since Kessel saw them.

Can you even keep up with the games? During the regular or post season, Bergeron was never used against Grabs line. Mikhail wasn't on the shut down unit (vs Krecji's line) during the playoffs even though he usually started in the defensive zone.

Starting away from the top lines increased his productivity. He was able to do more in the offensive zone. If he was used like his previous seasons, he would've produced at least 20goals and 50 points during the regular season.

If this is what you call a defense for Grabovski's horrible play, I think you need to get back to the drawing board.

Umm...offensive players normally start in the offensive zone. You have the Crosby-type guys who may not, but the high producing Perry, Tavares types are usually deployed in the offensive zone. To be utilized in that manner is going to mask a lot of defensive deficiencies.

What I was asking for was for you to explain why CORSI rewards shots from the top of the circle with .0001% chance of getting by an NHL goalie...

If that is the case, CORSI would decrease, because Grabovski usually ends in the defensive zone. In other words, the possession positive guy would take the puck to the opposition zone.

Bogus would be anyone who refuses to watch a game of hockey and instead looks at a spreadsheet and pretend to know what actually happened last night.

Do you watch a game of hockey? I am starting to doubt that.

That's bogus..

Anyone who watches the games knows Kulemin is vastly superior to Grabovski. Someone who just looks at a spreadsheet of collated faulty data might think otherwise.

Why is Kulemin superior to Grabovski? I don't have to look at any spreadsheet to see that Grabs has a higher shoot percentage or that he establishes possessions better than Kulemin. After all, how is Grabs able to be the puck-hogging, tries-to-do-everything scrub in the offensive zone?

I remember him well yes. He was the one doing the penalty killing against the top lines while Grabovski was occupying the bench since he is incapable of defending even-strength, let alone shorthanded.

Different role. Shut down lines are supposed to produce against top lines. It's an offensive line. The PK unit is a defensive unit and is supposed to neutralize the top line's offence. In that regard, yes, Kulemin is superior within the defensive zone. However, when it comes to killing power plays and attacking the opposition zone, Grabovski is superior.

By that same logic, we can argue that Darren Helm is better against top lines than Datsyuk and Zetterberg because he spends significantly more time on the PK. Heck, throw in Cory Emmerton as well. However, it's pretty clear when watching the game that Dats and Zett perform a lot better against top lines. Yes, offensively better.

Ummm....not sure what you've even been watching on your TV set (if you even watch hockey games) but Kulemin and McClement are far more effective on the boards than Grabovski.

When the hell did I suggest otherwise? Its his hockey sense and stick handling that lets him maintain possession in the opposition zone. Seeing that Grabovski is a smallish forward, he isn't going to be that effective on the boards.

Now assuming Kulemin gifts wraps him the puck when taking defensive zone draws, Grabovski seems to be the only player working in the offensive zone. If he was just a mere passenger, taking stupid shots, we'd be expecting a much higher shooting % from Kulemin's side.

As I said, the team is more possession positive when Grabovski joins the ice. We all notice that when he's playing, and thus many attack him for not doing much with the puck. However that is expected when starting in the defensive zone against the top producers.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

He's been a minus player ES, regardless of who he has played with...

So in other words for all the good he does when even strength, he costs us when 5 on 5, badly, with his non-existent defensive and physical play.

Nothing earth-shattering here, just a fact (that some Leafs fan don't like owning up to!).

That's the beauty of the PP...no defending required! Bodes well with Phil Kessel's style.

Once again, using statistics when it favors you. The CORSI metric which is more accurate than the +/- metric suggests that he's a positive possession player. What is the point of using a weaker metric?

 

[Dreakmur]

Once again, using statistics when it favors you. The CORSI metric which is more accurate than the +/- metric suggests that he's a positive possession player. What is the point of using a weaker metric?

Doesn't CORSI measure attempted shots for and against?

 

[The_Chosen_One]

Doesn't CORSI measure attempted shots for and against?

Yes, meaning that the sample sizes would be much larger. For that reason, it should be a lot more accurate as well.

Tavares was well in the negative for +/- in all his seasons. He's being utilized a lot more in the offensive zone than Kessel who was expected to perform defensively.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Kadri/ Kessel is Giroux. He isn't, but Kessel can perform un-sheltered, while Kadri will produce if utilized like Tavares.

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes, meaning that the sample sizes would be much larger. For that reason, it should be a lot more accurate as well.

For starters, don't confuse attempted shots with possession time. While there is some correlation between the two, an attempted shot is often the end of actual possession.

More importantly, counting shots has all the same flaws as counting goals. CORSI does nothing to separate any particular player from the 12 that are on the ice at one time. I agree that a bigger sample size gives you a more reliable result, but if the stats don't measure what they are supposed to, it's all meaningless.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

For starters, don't confuse attempted shots with possession time. While there is some correlation between the two, an attempted shot is often the end of actual possession.

Yes, CORSI alone would be limited. However if we to compare the CORSI amongst linemates, we tend to get a much better picture. If there is a linemate shooting more against ( especially if starting in the defensive zone), we can tell that he is a good possession player. Now if we take in account the competition and their shots differentials, we can gauge how the said player performs against stiffer competition.

More importantly, counting shots has all the same flaws as counting goals. CORSI does nothing to separate any particular player from the 12 that are on the ice at one time. I agree that a bigger sample size gives you a more reliable result, but if the stats don't measure what they are supposed to, it's all meaningless.

CORSI has limitations, but the problem with qualitative assessments is it's very biased. When watching the game, most fans do not take in account the zone starts, quality of shifts, and what not.

For example, take PK vs shut down minutes. In the former, we're expecting the team with a man advantage to have puck possession. That is why plays in the opposition zone is limited. On the other hand, in a shut down role, we want to minimize puck possession of the top lines. We're going to weaken ourselves if we run a PK format for ten minutes. That's why we need players who can stick handle well in the opposition zone. PK specialists usually differ from the top line specialists.

I think we should use both quantitative and qualitative data otherwise we're going nowhere. We know that Phaneuf takes tough minutes, because we should know who is normally on ice when Crosby is in the offensive zone. It's usually going to be Phaneuf, and not Gardiner. It works, and that's why Randy Carlyle will continue to deploy Phaneuf in that manner.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Why on earth is this controversial? I agree, Kessel's game was better than ever in the playoffs. But the Leafs crashed out in the first round. And it's not like Kessel was out there carrying the whole club on his back. He was damn good, but absolutely not indispensable. Not a single Leaf is right now. This isn't a team coming off a Cup run; it's a team coming off years out of the playoffs and a crushing first-round collapse in game seven.

If Nonis can work a deal where Kessel goes for a package of players that improves the team, he should do it. Same goes for anybody else. There are no untouchables in Toronto.

You read some of these threads and it's like Kessel has led the Leafs to multiple cups and turned the team into a perennial playoff contender. No wonder our fanbase is the joke of the league.

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes, CORSI alone would be limited. However if we to compare the CORSI amongst linemates, we tend to get a much better picture. If there is a linemate shooting more against ( especially if starting in the defensive zone), we can tell that he is a good possession player. Now if we take in account the competition and their shots differentials, we can gauge how the said player performs against stiffer competition.

CORSI doesn't differentiate any player on the ice, just like plus minus.

CORSI has limitations, but the problem with qualitative assessments is it's very biased. When watching the game, most fans do not take in account the zone starts, quality of shifts, and what not.

The problem with CORSI is that it doesn't measure possession... well, that's not a problem with CORSI, it's the problem with people who use CORSI to talk about possession.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Playoff totals

GP: 7
G: 4
A: 2
+3

/thread

that doesnt /thread.

Again: if Kessel, for whatever reason doesn't want to stay here long term, then we trade him. the end. (for a quality player + a high pick). and the only reason why we do this is because the guy has a no trade, and we don't want to have to hem/haw/hope he waives it (though if it's anything like the other burke No trades, the guy has to give a list of 10-15 teams he'll be traded to).

if he stays, then i'm all for it.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

CORSI doesn't differentiate any player on the ice, just like plus minus.

CORSI alone doesn't. The relative CORSI on the other hand is quite effective in gauging possession in relation to linemates. We then compare the numbers to the opposition's relative CORSI. If a line is spending minutes against possession monsters, and yet have a positive CORSI, it suggests stronger play.

The problem with CORSI is that it doesn't measure possession... well, that's not a problem with CORSI, it's the problem with people who use CORSI to talk about possession.

It doesn't directly measure possession, but QoC weighed by the opposition's relative CORSI and the relative CORSI of the player we're assessing does tell us a lot.

The metric isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than just +/-. It is a lot more difficult to deal with qualitative metrics, because there is a lot of emotion associated in these debates. The fact remains that Kessel and Phaneuf are going to be staying.

 

[Dreakmur]

CORSI alone doesn't. The relative CORSI on the other hand is quite effective in gauging possession in relation to linemates. We then compare the numbers to the opposition's relative CORSI. If a line is spending minutes against possession monsters, and yet have a positive CORSI, it suggests stronger play.

CORSI doesn't gauge possession at all, so it can't gauge it in relation to anything. It measures attempted shots, doesn't necessarily measure possession.

You'd do just as well if you use hits to gauge possession. You can only hit somebody if they have the puck, so more hits means less possession.

If you want to measure offensive possession time, it's easy enough to measure. You don't have to take other measurements and pretend they mean something else.

It doesn't directly measure possession, but QoC weighed by the opposition's relative CORSI and the relative CORSI of the player we're assessing does tell us a lot.

Let me guess they calculate the QOC based on CORSI...

The metric isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than just +/-. It is a lot more difficult to deal with qualitative metrics, because there is a lot of emotion associated in these debates. The fact remains that Kessel and Phaneuf are going to be staying.

At least +/- actually measures what it is supposed to measure.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

CORSI doesn't gauge possession at all, so it can't gauge it in relation to anything. It measures attempted shots, doesn't necessarily measure possession.

To produce a shot requires possession of the puck. Considering Grabovski had a pretty sustainable shooting percentage, he probably would've produced more if he spent more time in the offensive zone.

You'd do just as well if you use hits to gauge possession. You can only hit somebody if they have the puck, so more hits means less possession.

That is true.

If you want to measure offensive possession time, it's easy enough to measure. You don't have to take other measurements and pretend they mean something else.

How would you measure possession time? It could be noted by watching the game, especially with the aid of NHL ice tracker. However, there are a number who have very warped observations.

At least +/- actually measures what it is supposed to measure.

It is a direct measurement, but it doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't take into account how the player is being utilized. Nikolai Kulemin is -5, Shea Weber is -2, Jordan Staal is a -18.

Simply meaningless. Those numbers are the result of taking heavy defensive shifts.

 

[Dreakmur]

To produce a shot requires possession of the puck. Considering Grabovski had a pretty sustainable shooting percentage, he probably would've produced more if he spent more time in the offensive zone.

Yes, you need possession to take a shot, but the time of possession is completely ignored. The other team could move the puck around our end for 5 minutes without attempting a shot. The first time we touch the puck, we fire it down the ice and it happens to hit the net. CORSI tells us that we had more puck possession...

How would you measure possession time? It could be noted by watching the game, especially with the aid of NHL ice tracker. However, there are a number who have very warped observations.

It's not complicated - time how long each team has offensive puck possession while each player is on the ice, then compare that to their total ice time. That will give you a percentage of possession time.

It is a direct measurement, but it doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't take into account how the player is being utilized. Nikolai Kulemin is -5, Shea Weber is -2, Jordan Staal is a -18.

Simply meaningless. Those numbers are the result of taking heavy defensive shifts.

CORSI doesn't account for player utilization either.

 

[ULF_55]

Why on earth is this controversial? I agree, Kessel's game was better than ever in the playoffs. But the Leafs crashed out in the first round. And it's not like Kessel was out there carrying the whole club on his back. He was damn good, but absolutely not indispensable. Not a single Leaf is right now. This isn't a team coming off a Cup run; it's a team coming off years out of the playoffs and a crushing first-round collapse in game seven.

If Nonis can work a deal where Kessel goes for a package of players that improves the team, he should do it. Same goes for anybody else. There are no untouchables in Toronto.

You read some of these threads and it's like Kessel has led the Leafs to multiple cups and turned the team into a perennial playoff contender. No wonder our fanbase is the joke of the league.

There are quite a few younger fans, and player fans posting.

Leafs' fans support the Leafs, players' fans support the players. Likely we see casual or situational fans here, "I'm Irish and he has an Irish background, so I'm now a Leafs' fan." Trade the Irish and the fan switches teams? That isn't a Leafs' fan that's a player fan.

If you've been watching for years you see players come and go, but the team is the team.

The goals isn't to have great players it is to have a great team.

While I appreciate the efforts some x-Leafs' players put in, to justify original player support, my support is always for the team.

Additionally, management are not the team either, just contract employees.

Everyone is available for the right price.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

You should see Gretzky's playoff stats before he was traded, multiple times.

Fortunately Edmonton was bright enough to keep him in place during his prime..

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

At least +/- actually measures what it is supposed to measure.

It's applied as an individual statistic when it measures anything but.....

 

[leach11]

He's been a minus player ES, regardless of who he has played with...

So in other words for all the good he does when even strength, he costs us when 5 on 5, badly, with his non-existent defensive and physical play.

Nothing earth-shattering here, just a fact (that some Leafs fan don't like owning up to!).

That's the beauty of the PP...no defending required! Bodes well with Phil Kessel's style.

Playoffs are the thing you care about most, correct? I mean they are the pathway to the cup, so this would only be logical to assume.

Kessel has 13 goals, 22 points, and is a +11 in the 23 NHL playoff games that he has played in. Your silly obsession with the +/- statistic cannot be used against Kessel's performances in the playoffs. In 23 playoff games, he has not impeding any team "badly" with regards to his even strength play. In these 23 games, he has netted a positive 11 goals in his even strength play. That is an undisputable fact.

Corey Perry has 18 goals, 45 points, and is a +4 in the 61 NHL playoff games that he has played. Not only has he demonstrated significantly less offensive output than Kessel, but he has also been worse in even strength play. This is evident by using the methodology that YOU have been employing as a form of player evaluation. In the playoffs, when it matters, Kessel has been better than Corey Perry, as confirmed by his point totals/game ratio and the +/- methodology that you have been attempting to use against Kessel. This isn't even taking into consideration the VAST superiority of Perry's linemates.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Why on earth is this controversial? I agree, Kessel's game was better than ever in the playoffs. But the Leafs crashed out in the first round. And it's not like Kessel was out there carrying the whole club on his back. He was damn good, but absolutely not indispensable. Not a single Leaf is right now. This isn't a team coming off a Cup run; it's a team coming off years out of the playoffs and a crushing first-round collapse in game seven.

If Nonis can work a deal where Kessel goes for a package of players that improves the team, he should do it. Same goes for anybody else. There are no untouchables in Toronto.

You read some of these threads and it's like Kessel has led the Leafs to multiple cups and turned the team into a perennial playoff contender. No wonder our fanbase is the joke of the league.

The key is twofold:

1) If he says he wants out, obviously, you move him.
2) If you plan to trade him otherwise, you only do so if it moves your club FORWARD. Sideways stepping moves are pointless.

 

[Bomber0104]

Playoffs are the thing you care about most, correct? I mean they are the pathway to the cup, so this would only be logical to assume.

Kessel has 13 goals, 22 points, and is a +11 in the 23 NHL playoff games that he has played in. Your silly obsession with the +/- statistic cannot be used against Kessel's performances in the playoffs. In 23 playoff games, he has not impeding any team "badly" with regards to his even strength play. In these 23 games, he has netted a positive 11 goals in his even strength play. That is an undisputable fact.

It's true, and one of the biggest reasons I would like to keep Kessel around for the long-term....at a reasonable price tag of course.