Mike Gillis Discussion Thread - Part II

[Tiranis]

Continue.

Click to read more...

 

[Tiranis]

True - judging from the way they generally shy away from doing that in-game I'd hazard a guess that it's not a priority in practices at all.

I think it's a by-product of over-emphasizing possession. Often the winger is already going into places where they would retrieve the puck to continue their zone time, while the centres on most of our lines hang back too high to be able to get there in time.

 

[Verviticus]

They were out chanced and out played by both Chicago and Dallas. If you're going to rely on possession/chance stats, at least be honest with what they're showing.

dallas chances, dallas possession. note that 15 is almost double 8 for EV

chicago they didn't deserve to win, but whatever, that's one of the six or seven games he listed and i got it mixed up in my memory

Actually, I'm willing to bet that Fenwick and Corsi will be dumped within a year or two. Very interesting things going on at the last MIT sports analytics conference.

Actually, I take that back. They have a company so they'll probably keep it all proprietary and we'll still be using Fenwick and Corsi lol.

yeah, until the nhl starts tracking zone time/literal possession again, thats the best we get.

although "dumped" would be a really strong reaction, lol

 

[mossey3535]

dallas chances, dallas possession. note that 15 is almost double 8 for EV

chicago they didn't deserve to win, but whatever, that's one of the six or seven games he listed and i got it mixed up in my memory



yeah, until the nhl starts tracking zone time/literal possession again, thats the best we get.

although "dumped" would be a really strong reaction, lol

If some of these new stats like expected goals are better correlated than Fenwick/Corsi (which are not that well correlated to be honest) then there's no real reason to keep using them.

They're going to come up with better fitting stats eventually IMO since advanced statistics in hockey is pretty green compared to Sabremetrics. And shots directed as a metric of possession is a bit of a reach if you think about it. It just happened that all our other traditional stats sucked so badly that these gave us a much more complete story. But I don't think that's going to last too much longer.

 

[Verviticus]

If some of these new stats like expected goals are better correlated than Fenwick/Corsi (which are not that well correlated to be honest) then there's no real reason to keep using them.

They're going to come up with better fitting stats eventually IMO since advanced statistics in hockey is pretty green compared to Sabremetrics. And shots directed as a metric of possession is a bit of a reach if you think about it. It just happened that all our other traditional stats sucked so badly that these gave us a much more complete story. But I don't think that's going to last too much longer.

it seems like you're under the impression that someone is going to generate a statistic that

A: is tracked
B: has a useable sample size throughout the entire year
C: is better in all regards than the ones in use now

any two of these would be an accomplishment in of itself, all three would be a minor miracle

 

[mossey3535]

it seems like you're under the impression that someone is going to generate a statistic that

A: is tracked
B: has a useable sample size throughout the entire year
C: is better in all regards than the ones in use now

any two of these would be an accomplishment in of itself, all three would be a minor miracle

Expected Goals is a metric that

A: uses goals, shots, hits F/A and faceoffs. Those are all tracked.

B: currently the model uses odd games as data and even games as predictors. Besides, there are known issues with Corsi/Fenwick and sample sizes so this would be pretty even no matter what stat is used.

C: has correlations roughly 50% superior to that of Corsi/Fenwick.

Again, this has been presented at the MIT Sloan sports analytics conference. Here is a good overview of the concept. I can't find another blog where he basically says that he tried using a model incorporating Fenwick/Corsi but I believe they weren't as effective as using good old SOG.

People are going to start doing more modelling and it's going to result in better analytics. That's inevitable, and better suited than a single statistic that we're using baseball-style IMO.

 

[Verviticus]

it seems like they're predicting 'goals scored' though, not 'games won'. that's a different thing.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

If Colton Orr takes a shot from the top of the circle it should not carry the same weight as a Stamkos shot from the top of the circle. They are not equal, they do not represent an equal opportunity to score. That's the problem i have using ''shots'' and ''scoring chances'' because even when you take away all the other variables those events need to be weighted in a way that's basically impossible to do for the stat to matter at all.

 

[Tiranis]

If Colton Orr takes a shot from the top of the circle it should not carry the same weight as a Stamkos shot from the top of the circle. They are not equal, they do not represent an equal opportunity to score. That's the problem i have using ''shots'' and ''scoring chances'' because even when you take away all the other variables those events need to be weighted in a way that's basically impossible to do for the stat to matter at all.

We know what the likelihood of Stamkos scoring is — that would be his career shooting percentage. Which is higher than Orr's by quite a bit. Just because you can't look at one stat and make conclusions doesn't make it invalid.

 

[Verviticus]

If Colton Orr takes a shot from the top of the circle it should not carry the same weight as a Stamkos shot from the top of the circle. They are not equal, they do not represent an equal opportunity to score. That's the problem i have using ''shots'' and ''scoring chances'' because even when you take away all the other variables those events need to be weighted in a way that's basically impossible to do for the stat to matter at all.

the problem is in any model, ever, that has ever existed, you need to make approximations. across an entire team its very very easy to do and has been proven time and time again with strong correlations to winning

when you're judging individual players, obviously keep some context and use your brain!

 

[Bleach Clean]

@DiamondDog:

But Ehrhoff is a 50 point defenceman, and was a key cog in the Canucks machine. Helped to define a new style of play which galvanized our team.

I see both Garrison and Ehrhoff has valuable (it's a matter of opinion as to who is more valuable) but Ehrhoff was the better fit for our team.

Better fit depends on what you are trying to do. VAN isn't trying to be the team they were with Ehrhoff: The softer ES team that got shut down in the playoffs.

50 points is relative. Edler is a 50 point guy essentially, yet we see people calling for his head after each game. That's how I felt about Ehrhoff sometimes after playoff games. And in those games, I couldn't care less what he did in the regular season. Did you?

I disagree in your assessment that this team is better at ES than the 2011 team, yes. I would agree that the PP and goaltending is responsible for a decline in the standings, but I also think that the defense can influence both the PP and goaltending, and our defensive pairings have been such a mess they are part of the issue - along with our goaltender's play this year and Newell Brown.

How can you disagree? Possession stats have them at 5 or 6 without a 2nd or 3rd line C. Further, they were leading the division with an 0-36 PP run. This team is wholly reliant on ES play, while the 2011 team had more reliance on the PP and got burned eventually because of that dependence.

The team's D has been a "mess" due to other factors unrelated to a PMD. Hamhuis and Bieksa are playing like crap and Edler has been hit or miss. That's why the D has struggled, not strictly due to the pairings. Again, I think people are making way too big a deal of balancing the pairings. A system shouldn't be so brittle.

And here is the crux of our disagreement. I think this is a ridiculous way to approach building a team, and history has proven (a la the Ranger of the late 90's) that this is a bad way to approach free agency.

The draft? Sure, go BPA. But in the offseason you need to find players that the team lacks, and that fill a hole or need. Not add to an area of strength when there are glaring holes that need to be filled.

Since you've ignored my hypothetical Lundvist example, I'll use a forward one instead.

The team has 2 top 6 centres in Kesler and Sedin. Let's say we trade Schneider for Couturier just for funsies, and that gives 3 very good C's down the middle. Let's further say that Weiss loves Vancouver, and is willing to sign in Vancouver for 4.5M per season, despite being horrible on the wing. Now - Purcell is available at an identical cap hit, for future considerations. According to your philosophy we should pick up Weiss instead of Purcell, as he's the "better forward", regardless of his fit on the team.

Sorry - I think that is an awful way to build a team. You are completely missing the forest for the trees. In my scenario, we should get Purcell, as the 2nd line needs a playmaking winger far more then a C who plays worse on the wing. Regardless of who the better player is.

This is why, unless we are trading Edler, signing Garrison was a less than ideal move. Our d pairings are a mess. And none of the combinations have worked particularly well.

You're advocating taking a weaker Dman and I'm missing the forest for the trees. Lol. Re-evaluate. Fast.

Let me spell out for you again: Jason Garrison has been the _best_ Dman, on balance, for this team this year. But somehow he's unnecessary or too redundant to be required? Give me a break. I'd hate to think where this D would be without him.

In your scenario you take Weiss 10 times out of 10, if you feel he's the better forward, and brings great value per that 4.5m hit. Then you worry about "fit". Move Kesler to the wing if need be. But it's a concern for after you get the player, not before. Always choose the better asset, save for a very few exceptions. It's why PIT ran Crosby-Malkin-Staal for so long --> Quality trumps position.

Why do this? Because you don't know how a roster will shake out over years of time. Look at the situation now, where Kesler injured. Which do you need more, a C or a W? Further, what if later they decide to push Kesler to the wing? What's more valuable, Weiss/Purcell? Depth for positional needs is fine, but any time you are passing one quality for sub-optimal players that fit positional needs instead, you are making the wrong decision.

 

[LolClarkson*]

Thread getting derailed much ?

Mike Gillis somehow managed to devolve this team of skill. He traded the right prospects and acquired the right roster players to have exactly no finesse and skill outside of the Sedins.

 

[MajorCanuck]

Thread getting derailed much ?

Mike Gillis somehow managed to devolve this team of skill. He traded the right prospects and acquired the right roster players to have exactly no finesse and skill outside of the Sedins.

MG drank the "tuffness" kool aid and now the team lacks the high skilled puck possession identity it used to have into a mish mash of not enough skill and not enough tough ness.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Thread getting derailed much ?

Mike Gillis somehow managed to devolve this team of skill. He traded the right prospects and acquired the right roster players to have exactly no finesse and skill outside of the Sedins.

How do you figure derailed? A big talking point about Gillis has done is the Garrison vs. Ehrhoff in a nutshell.

How much skill has actually been jettisoned by Gillis though? There's Ehrhoff, Hodgson and Samuelsson/Grabner vs. Garrison, Kassian and Booth. I don't see a marked difference between Samuelsson/Grabner and Booth. Next is Hodgson vs. Kassian, where Hodgson's calling card has been high hockey IQ and not necessarily pure skill. Kassian is also very skilled, getting draft high himself at 13. The biggest change is Ehrhoff vs. Garrison, a PMD vs. a DFD. And really, that alone shouldn't be the difference between a skilled team vs. a "tough" team.

I don't see a huge shift here.

 

[Tiranis]

MG drank the "tuffness" kool aid and now the team lacks the high skilled puck possession identity it used to have into a mish mash of not enough skill and not enough tough ness.

None of the players we've acquired go counter to our supposed puck possession style of hockey (which we're slowly getting away from because of AV's coaching).

 

[Bleach Clean]

None of the players we've acquired go counter to our supposed puck possession style of hockey (which we're slowly getting away from because of AV's coaching).

I don't get how we are moving away from possession when we are actually, to my mind, better at possession that we were before? The recent acquisitions/additions like Booth, Garrison, Kassian et. al have helped that, not hindered it. They all drive play very well.

Further, how did we go from a skilled team to a non-skilled team by essentially switching Ehrhoff for Garrison. There's no market difference in skill between the other changes. And so, can one player be that important in defining the direction of the team? Apparently.

 

[Tiranis]

I don't get how we are moving away from possession when we are actually, to my mind, better at possession that we were before? The recent acquisitions/additions like Booth, Garrison, Kassian et. al have helped that, not hindered it. They all drive play very well.

Further, how did we go from a skilled team to a non-skilled team by essentially switching Ehrhoff for Garrison. There's no market difference in skill between the other changes. And so, can one player be that important in defining the direction of the team? Apparently.

In similar vein, how can you be the key to a team's transition game when you play 16 ES minutes a night?

 

[vanuck]

I think it's a by-product of over-emphasizing possession. Often the winger is already going into places where they would retrieve the puck to continue their zone time, while the centres on most of our lines hang back too high to be able to get there in time.

There's got to be a way - it just has to. If only they weren't so afraid of losing the puck in the first place, I think. It doesn't have to be a classic 'jam play' either - even just shots from the high slot generated off centering passes are rare to see anymore, if even at all. Compare that to LA who look for that play quite a lot of the time from watching their games this season.

Frankly though, I don't see it happening with this coach. But that would be for the other thread.

 

[LolClarkson*]

How do you figure derailed? A big talking point about Gillis has done is the Garrison vs. Ehrhoff in a nutshell.

How much skill has actually been jettisoned by Gillis though? There's Ehrhoff, Hodgson and Samuelsson/Grabner vs. Garrison, Kassian and Booth. I don't see a marked difference between Samuelsson/Grabner and Booth. Next is Hodgson vs. Kassian, where Hodgson's calling card has been high hockey IQ and not necessarily pure skill. Kassian is also very skilled, getting draft high himself at 13. The biggest change is Ehrhoff vs. Garrison, a PMD vs. a DFD. And really, that alone shouldn't be the difference between a skilled team vs. a "tough" team.

I don't see a huge shift here.

Gillis changed his mindset after the cup loss. I don't think Nonis would have had it in him to go after guys like Samuelson,Demitra(rip) or Sundin. But Gillis did.

The old Gillis with Nonis's core was successful. The new Gillis with Nonis's core is a disaster.

 

[LolClarkson*]

None of the players we've acquired go counter to our supposed puck possession style of hockey (which we're slowly getting away from because of AV's coaching).

What about the players we lost ?

AV showed he can coach anything. Look at his rope a dope playoff run in the Nonis era and his skill run in the Gillis era.

 

[Diamonddog01]

@DiamondDog:
Better fit depends on what you are trying to do. VAN isn't trying to be the team they were with Ehrhoff: The softer ES team that got shut down in the playoffs.

50 points is relative. Edler is a 50 point guy essentially, yet we see people calling for his head after each game. That's how I felt about Ehrhoff sometimes after playoff games. And in those games, I couldn't care less what he did in the regular season. Did you?

I never called for his head after each game, regardless of whether it was the regular season or the playoffs. In fact I can't even remember any bonehead plays that cost us goals, or games, when he played here.

I care about both what he does in the regular season and in the playoffs. And I was fine with his play in the playoffs. You've created this mythical scenario (he was putrid in the playoffs) and are now passing it off as fact. You have to actually establish that he was that bad in the first place before running with it.

How can you disagree? Possession stats have them at 5 or 6 without a 2nd or 3rd line C. Further, they were leading the division with an 0-36 PP run. This team is wholly reliant on ES play, while the 2011 team had more reliance on the PP and got burned eventually because of that dependence.

The team's D has been a "mess" due to other factors unrelated to a PMD. Hamhuis and Bieksa are playing like crap and Edler has been hit or miss. That's why the D has struggled, not strictly due to the pairings. Again, I think people are making way too big a deal of balancing the pairings. A system shouldn't be so brittle.

How can I disagree? Well by looking at these stats you keep trotting out for one. Regardless of our injury status, we were 4th in possession stats in 2011. This year we are, as you said, 5th or 6th. I don't really care about the circumstances. Let's break this down. 4 > 5. We were better at ES in 2011. In addition, our goal differential was better as well. Sure there are reasons for all of this - ie goaltending, PP, injuries, etc - but the fact is we were better at ES in 2011.

I disagree that the pairings haven't played a huge role in why the D has struggled, but apparently for you 3 of our top 4 defencemen are all having off-years.

You're advocating taking a weaker Dman and I'm missing the forest for the trees. Lol. Re-evaluate. Fast.

Let me spell out for you again: Jason Garrison has been the _best_ Dman, on balance, for this team this year. But somehow he's unnecessary or too redundant to be required? Give me a break. I'd hate to think where this D would be without him.

In your scenario you take Weiss 10 times out of 10, if you feel he's the better forward, and brings great value per that 4.5m hit. Then you worry about "fit". Move Kesler to the wing if need be. But it's a concern for after you get the player, not before. Always choose the better asset, save for a very few exceptions. It's why PIT ran Crosby-Malkin-Staal for so long --> Quality trumps position.

Why do this? Because you don't know how a roster will shake out over years of time. Look at the situation now, where Kesler injured. Which do you need more, a C or a W? Further, what if later they decide to push Kesler to the wing? What's more valuable, Weiss/Purcell? Depth for positional needs is fine, but any time you are passing one quality for sub-optimal players that fit positional needs instead, you are making the wrong decision.

Hook, line and sinker.

First of all your Pittsburgh analogy is poor, and would only be valid if Pittsburgh added another top 6 C to their roster. They didn't, instead they focused on wingers and defenceman each and every offseason with that particular lineup. Let's extend this scenario further, remembering that Weiss is awful on the wing.

We head into the season with

Booth - Kesler - Weiss. It turns out to be ineffective, and AV tries a few different combinations (as he is wont to due) with Weiss on the 1st line, then on the 3rd line, and then centring Kesler as you suggest. The 2nd line never really clicks, and the three players finish with 45 points, 60 points, and 51 points respectively. Weiss is handy when Kesler is thrown out of draws, being a good faceoff guy himself, and helps the team when Kesler is injured for lets say 10 games.

Now with Purcell we head into the season with

Booth - Kesler - Purcell, and it turns out to be a very effective line. Purcell is an excellent playmaking winger, who finds and sets iup Kesler and Booth nicely over the season. The line remains stable throughout the year, excepting a few injuries here and there. The three players finish with 58 points, 70 points, and 65 points respectively. The faceoff percentage suffers a bit, and Schroeder is called up and does a mediocre job for the 10 games Kesler is injured.

The team wins more games in the latter example. It's ridiculous to add to a position of strength, or to positions that have already been filled, when there are glaring holes in other areas of the team.

With your focus on BPA in free agency you are missing the forest for the trees, despite shrugging that comment off, and forgetting hockey is a team game. You are advocating having an insurance policy, regarding positions of strength, much like Gillis has done with Ballard. Unfortunately it's a poor way to manage assets and cap space.

Quality trumps position in a vacuum. Not when there is a surplus of talent at that position and a dearth of talent in other positions.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I never called for his head after each game, regardless of whether it was the regular season or the playoffs. In fact I can't even remember any bonehead plays that cost us goals, or games, when he played here.

I care about both what he does in the regular season and in the playoffs. And I was fine with his play in the playoffs. You've created this mythical scenario (he was putrid in the playoffs) and are now passing it off as fact. You have to actually establish that he was that bad in the first place before running with it.

You didn't see any holes in Ehrhoff's play, but yet Gillis chose to hard line him and eventually dump him for a 4th? How do we resolve this? Was it his 50 point regular season that deterred Gillis... Or was it something that left a bad impression with regards to the playoffs? Don't take my word for it, the proof is right there in what Gillis did. That's a _fact_.

For me to establish it beyond that, what would you like? Advanced stats? Put the games on here? Many people thought he played poorly. Perhaps peruse the older threads? If we disagree subjectively, what objective data would you require to be proven wrong?

How can I disagree? Well by looking at these stats you keep trotting out for one. Regardless of our injury status, we were 4th in possession stats in 2011. This year we are, as you said, 5th or 6th. I don't really care about the circumstances. Let's break this down. 4 > 5. We were better at ES in 2011. In addition, our goal differential was better as well. Sure there are reasons for all of this - ie goaltending, PP, injuries, etc - but the fact is we were better at ES in 2011.

I disagree that the pairings haven't played a huge role in why the D has struggled, but apparently for you 3 of our top 4 defencemen are all having off-years.

Lol. Curious. If I know that I've posted that they are 5-6 at close Fenwick. And I _know_ they were 4th in close Fenwick in 2011... Why do you think I have drawn the conclusion that they are better at ES now? Think it through... slowly.

And as mentioned by opendoor: A sv% adjustment this year would top the differential found in 2011, so that point is moot.

The pairings have played a part in this team's struggles, but not nearly "huge". Look at what you are seeing at ES right now: Garrison is destroying the competition at ES on the _right_side_ next to Hamhuis. What now?

Hook, line and sinker.

First of all your Pittsburgh analogy is poor, and would only be valid if Pittsburgh added another top 6 C to their roster. They didn't, instead they focused on wingers and defenceman each and every offseason with that particular lineup. Let's extend this scenario further, remembering that Weiss is awful on the wing.

We head into the season with

Booth - Kesler - Weiss. It turns out to be ineffective, and AV tries a few different combinations (as he is wont to due) with Weiss on the 1st line, then on the 3rd line, and then centring Kesler as you suggest. The 2nd line never really clicks, and the three players finish with 45 points, 60 points, and 51 points respectively. Weiss is handy when Kesler is thrown out of draws, being a good faceoff guy himself, and helps the team when Kesler is injured for lets say 10 games.

Now with Purcell we head into the season with

Booth - Kesler - Purcell, and it turns out to be a very effective line. Purcell is an excellent playmaking winger, who finds and sets iup Kesler and Booth nicely over the season. The line remains stable throughout the year, excepting a few injuries here and there. The three players finish with 58 points, 70 points, and 65 points respectively. The faceoff percentage suffers a bit, and Schroeder is called up and does a mediocre job for the 10 games Kesler is injured.

The team wins more games in the latter example. It's ridiculous to add to a position of strength, or to positions that have already been filled, when there are glaring holes in other areas of the team.

With your focus on BPA in free agency you are missing the forest for the trees, despite shrugging that comment off, and forgetting hockey is a team game. You are advocating having an insurance policy, regarding positions of strength, much like Gillis has done with Ballard. Unfortunately it's a poor way to manage assets and cap space.

Quality trumps position in a vacuum. Not when there is a surplus of talent at that position and a dearth of talent in other positions.

I'm going to have a to post a TLDR here because I think your first hypothetical was poor enough, and I made a mistake by answering it. This one I didn't even bother reading.

I'm just going to pose this question to you again. Garrison has played with Hamhuis at ES, on the right side, for a good chunk here. They are doing very well against the competition. Both posting positive Corsi facing tough competition. Something Hamhuis wasn't doing earlier one when paired with Bieksa. So what's more useful right now? The fact that they have Garrison to place there, on the right-side, and improve the play of even Hamhuis, or getting a middling D option that is a right shot that can't supplant Bieksa in this time of need.

The evidence is pretty damning against your case. You can choose to accept, or continue to push an Ian White for Jason Garrison fantasy deal just because you think a right shot is that important. You make the call.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Gillis changed his mindset after the cup loss. I don't think Nonis would have had it in him to go after guys like Samuelson,Demitra(rip) or Sundin. But Gillis did.

The old Gillis with Nonis's core was successful. The new Gillis with Nonis's core is a disaster.

Based on what? What has Gillis done recently that makes him go from successful to disaster? Forget Booth/Samuelsson/Grabner, they are compliments. So does this full shift come down to Hodgson+Ehrhoff vs. Kassian+Garrison? Garrison is excellent at ES, and as much as I liked Ehrhoff I like Garrison more. The guy is truly stalwart and has a bomb from the point. So is it just the Hodgson move that has you up in arms here?

We are talking about 3 players, 2 of which were compliments, amounting to turn this team from success to disaster... Doesn't add up.

 

[Diamonddog01]

You didn't see any holes in Ehrhoff's play, but yet Gillis chose to hard line him and eventually dump him for a 4th? How do we resolve this? Was it his 50 point regular season that deterred Gillis... Or was it something that left a bad impression with regards to the playoffs? Don't take my word for it, the proof is right there in what Gillis did. That's a _fact_.

You know what else is a _FACT_ and that you have alluded to above? That Gillis offered Ehrhoff a contract. So prior to dumping him for a 4th he offered him the same contract Bieksa signed for.

So that tells me that despite his putrid, catastrophic playoffs (your view, not mine) Gillis still wanted him on this team, and attempted to resign him.

So what does that tell you? Perhaps Gillis didn't view him as this putrid liability if he was willing to offer him a contract? Or do you think Gillis tries to resign players he views as horrible?

You can't have it both ways. Unfortunately for our team Gillis, as you said, chose the covenant over the player.

For me to establish it beyond that, what would you like? Advanced stats? Put the games on here? Many people thought he played poorly. Perhaps peruse the older threads? If we disagree subjectively, what objective data would you require to be proven wrong?

What objective data do you need to be proven right? You are the one making an assertion here - ie Ehrhoff was the worst player of all time in the playoffs. I think this is a gross exaggeration, shoulder injury aside. In a debate you should back up your claims, instead of asking those refuting them to provide evidence of their rebuttal.

Lol. Curious. If I know that I've posted that they are 5-6 at close Fenwick. And I _know_ they were 4th in close Fenwick in 2011... Why do you think I have drawn the conclusion that they are better at ES now? Think it through... slowly.

And as mentioned by opendoor: A sv% adjustment this year would top the differential found in 2011, so that point is moot.

The pairings have played a part in this team's struggles, but not nearly "huge". Look at what you are seeing at ES right now: Garrison is destroying the competition at ES on the _right_side_ next to Hamhuis. What now?

You are the one going on about Fenwick. Not me. I simply repeated your claims. You want proof that they were better at ES in 2011 than 2013 then let's go back to good ol' 5-5 F/A.

2011 - 2nd overall at 1.32

2013 - 11th overall at 1.08

I've even bolded it for you. I'll let you think this through...(quickly or slowly, it is entirely up to you). I disagree that bumping up the sv% would improve our 5-5 F/A to 2nd or 1st overall, and you have absolutely no way to determine how much. In any case sure, sv%, our PP, and yes, the presence of Ehrhoff and balanced D pairings all contributed to us being better at 5-5 2 years ago.

I'm going to have a to post a TLDR here because I think your first hypothetical was poor enough, and I made a mistake by answering it. This one I didn't even bother reading.

I'm just going to pose this question to you again. Garrison has played with Hamhuis at ES, on the right side, for a good chunk here. They are doing very well against the competition. Both posting positive Corsi facing tough competition. Something Hamhuis wasn't doing earlier one when paired with Bieksa. So what's more useful right now? The fact that they have Garrison to place there, on the right-side, and improve the play of even Hamhuis, or getting a middling D option that is a right shot that can't supplant Bieksa in this time of need.

The evidence is pretty damning against your case. You can choose to accept, or continue to push an Ian White for Jason Garrison fantasy deal just because you think a right shot is that important. You make the call.

You unfounded arrogance is at times breathtaking. Perhaps if you read through the posts better you would fare better in these threads. It's a convenient way to ignore points that you don't have an answer for, but it certainly doesn't do much to help your argument.

Garrison has been with Hamhuis for a grand total of what - 8 games? And you're basing that he's a better fit for our team on that sample size? Vs Ehrhoff who was here for several years. Despite the fact that Edler - Bieksa pairing is a mess? Um...wow. Again, you are so focused on the advanced stats of a particular player you are missing the bigger picture or context at large. In this case both temporally and holistically.

If Ian White were to gel with Edler, the same way Ehrhoff did, and this enabled us to get the Hamhuis - Bieksa pairing back on track, improving the team's ES/5-5 play, specialty teams, and place in the standings, to 2011 levels:

I make that call each and every time. As does every good GM in the league.

 

[strattonius]

Good lord...We just came 1st in the league and this year we are in the playoff picture in an extremely competitive conference that has MANY teams struggling - not just Vancouver.

to suggest this is all Mike Gillis' fault is hilarious