Confirmed with Link: [NYR] Jimmy Vesey re-signs (2 years, $2.275M AAV)

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,699
32,891
Maryland
That's an interesting way of looking at things. Good work on putting it together.

Part of my argument regarding RFAs and the contracts they sign is that I have strong doubts about whether things like relCF% really come into the picture. I mean, we know that basically half or more of the guys running clubs at this very moment apparently place little emphasis on possession (or at least, the possession stats that people generally use, which are pretty simplistic) since they sign guys that kill possession and employ coaches that place no emphasis on possession. You know, they're old school "Hockey Guys," and even though they grudgingly employ analytics guys, they seem to ignore that shit a lot of the time. I think they tend to focus on the the "traditional" numbers because that's what they've always known. Hence my comment that if you're a 30-point guy, you'll get paid like a 30-point guy--even if you have some deficiencies that the other 30-point guys don't have.

Of course it will evolve, eventually. Though when it does, I think it will involve measures we don't have yet, or don't know we have yet.
 

Harbour Dog

Registered User
Jul 16, 2015
10,258
12,864
St. John's
If you just take total points into account, then sure Vesey is similar to these others. Also I agree, you have to look at CH% not just raw AAV.

Normalizing these numbers to CH% and Total Points/60 to calculate P60/CH% you get this:

Lindberg.749
Ferland.734
Dzingel.688
Vesey.517
Martinook.517
Rieder.511
Donskoi.465
Sheahan.419
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So if you value point scoring rates and normalize to percentage of cap hit, Vesey is about around the norm on this list.



Disclaimer: I am not a data analytics person at all and have basically no education in statistics, so I am sure I am doing something wrong from here on. However, here is my attempt to quantify a player normalized to cap hit%. If I make a mistake, I would appreciate if someone would help correct this.


If you want to look at other factors such as possession to get a more complete picture of the players then the list looks quite different. Taking relative CF% and normalizing by CH%:

Rieder1.433
Donskoi1.215
Martinook.617
Dzingel.454
Lindberg-.220
Sheahan-.244
Vesey-.385
Ferland-.502
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
In an attempt to combine both of these to incorporate scoring and production normalized to cap hit, I added these two together which is probably oversimplifying this whole thing:

Rieder1.944
Donskoi1.681
Dzingel1.142
Martinook1.133
Lindberg.529
Ferland.232
Sheahan.175
Vesey.133
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I am guessing that relCF% was the wrong number to use for this, but I picked something that tried to eliminate the teammate difference. On the off chance that I did not make a mistake, Vesey looks like the worst on this list of comparables.

If anyone knows a better way to quantitatively evaluate contracts or has any ideas on how to improve this, it is actually kind of fun and I would like to look more into it.

I also have little training in statistics, so this is more a question than an attempt to point out error.

How did you adjust when doing the CF%/CH% so that there wasn't an advantage for players with a negative Corsi to have a larger cap hit?
 

Doctyl

Play-ins Manager
Jan 25, 2011
23,259
7,028
Bofflol
I also have little training in statistics, so this is more a question than an attempt to point out error.

How did you adjust when doing the CF%/CH% so that there wasn't an advantage for players with a negative Corsi to have a larger cap hit?
I did not. I knew there was something about the negative relCF%. Using just CF% would probably correct this right? That would give players on better teams an advantage though.

xGF would also probably be a better metric than CF now that I am thinking more about this.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,997
10,634
Charlotte, NC
That's an interesting way of looking at things. Good work on putting it together.

Part of my argument regarding RFAs and the contracts they sign is that I have strong doubts about whether things like relCF% really come into the picture. I mean, we know that basically half or more of the guys running clubs at this very moment apparently place little emphasis on possession (or at least, the possession stats that people generally use, which are pretty simplistic) since they sign guys that kill possession and employ coaches that place no emphasis on possession. You know, they're old school "Hockey Guys," and even though they grudgingly employ analytics guys, they seem to ignore that **** a lot of the time. I think they tend to focus on the the "traditional" numbers because that's what they've always known. Hence my comment that if you're a 30-point guy, you'll get paid like a 30-point guy--even if you have some deficiencies that the other 30-point guys don't have.

Of course it will evolve, eventually. Though when it does, I think it will involve measures we don't have yet, or don't know we have yet.

I don’t think it will ever evolve beyond using points as THE standard for forward contracts, and rightfully so. It’s not a matter of being stuck in traditional thinking. It’s a matter of asking what the bottom line is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2

Amazing Kreiderman

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
44,841
40,314
In 2018 you sure do

Not that this is a blueprint to be followed to the point, but I came up with this a few years ago while talking with a friend while enjoying some Finnish gin.

First line: 25CH%
Second line: 20CH%
Third line: 10CH%
Fourth line: 5CH%


First pairing: 15CH%
Second pairing: 10CH%
Third pairing: 5CH%

Goalie tandem: 10CH%


Move the percentages a bit here or there, depending on what spots are filled by guys on ELCs.
 

Doctyl

Play-ins Manager
Jan 25, 2011
23,259
7,028
Bofflol
I don’t think it will ever evolve beyond using points as THE standard for forward contracts, and rightfully so. It’s not a matter of being stuck in traditional thinking. It’s a matter of asking what the bottom line is.
The question should be what is the best predictor of future success. Are points from the previous season the best statistic we have for predicting points in the next season? I suspect something else correlates better when modeling future success, not that I know what it is (other posters on this board would know more).

Goals, points, and plus-minus are the bottom line stats, but I do not think they tell anywhere near the whole picture. A savvy GM should consider everything when discussing contracts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SA16

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,997
10,634
Charlotte, NC
The question should be what is the best predictor of future success. Are points from the previous season the best statistic we have for predicting points in the next season? I suspect something else correlates better when modeling future success, not that I know what it is (other posters on this board would know more).

Goals, points, and plus-minus are the bottom line stats, but I do not think they tell anywhere near the whole picture. A savvy GM should consider everything when discussing contracts.

I’m not saying that those kinds of things won’t be taken into account. Just not as the ultimate indicator. Also, I’m really only talking about contract valuation. Other kinds of statistics are more likely to be used in decision making. i.e. “this is a guy we want to keep or let go” or “this is a guy we want to pursue or pass on”
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2

YoSoyLalo

me reading HF
Oct 8, 2010
79,323
16,780
www.gofundme.com
Except you know, that pretty big thing called scoring goals. I heard those are important in hockey
Wow, you’re right. The difference between 17 in 79 and 13 in 71 is just staggering.

Those extra four goals in more games is certainly “a pretty big thing”. Not like Fast is better at *LITERALLY* every other aspect of hockey.
 

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,497
40,026
Wow, you’re right. The difference between 17 in 79 and 13 in 71 is just staggering.

Those extra four goals in more games is certainly “a pretty big thing”. Not like Fast is better at *LITERALLY* every other aspect of hockey.

If you look at the last 2 years, 33 vs 19 is a big difference.

By your logic, Brandon Pirri is better than Mats Zuccarello.

I never said Vesey was a better player. although it's a helluva lot closer than Pirri and Zuccarello.
 

Ori

#Connor Bedard 2023 1st, Chicago Blackhawks
Nov 7, 2014
11,578
2,173
Norway
The contract is fine - I also read that he knows the coach from his time in Boston and it might help him to improve his game.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,997
10,634
Charlotte, NC
The contract is fine - I also read that he knows the coach from his time in Boston and it might help him to improve his game.

Yeah, I’m sure the coach from BU spent any notable amount of time talking to a player from Harvard :sarcasm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ori

Amazing Kreiderman

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
44,841
40,314
If you look at the last 2 years, 33 vs 19 is a big difference.



I never said Vesey was a better player. although it's a helluva lot closer than Pirri and Zuccarello.

Looking at just goals is a flawed way to compare players. But hey, if you want to look at the last 2 years...

Fast has 54 points in 139 games
Vesey has 55 points in 159 games
 

Mac n Gs

Gorton plz
Jan 17, 2014
22,588
12,852
Looking at just goals is a flawed way to compare players. But hey, if you want to look at the last 2 years...

Fast has 54 points in 139 games
Vesey has 55 points in 159 games
Does anyone actually think Vesey is better than Fast? Fast is clearly the better overall player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inferno

Good Intentions

Registered User
Mar 30, 2018
2,070
1,793
Don't look now, but Jimmy has 6 points in his last 5 games and on pace for over 25G and 40+Points on the season. Turning into the perfect 3rd line player.

Very wary of “on pace” language after 15 games.

He had a nice pass and finish last night, thank you for the game - but he’s not the “perfect” anything to me. I’m not a Vesey fan, not do I think he will ever be an above average contributor. NHL regular? Maybe. Different market, could see him with a Buffalo or Chicago. I’d be shocked if he was still with us in a couple years. I’ll take Namestnikov over Vesey every day of the week, and it’ll be Lias over both thereafter...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Filthy Dangles

will1066

Fonz Drury
Oct 12, 2008
43,597
59,560
Vesey's stats should be at a BETTER pace. He has missed on open nets and glorious chances since the beginning of the season. He has generated chances pretty consistently through the first month and a half. He has been a good net front presence on the PP. He's made plays happen. If you really want to target someone who's made zero impact, target Spooner.
 
Last edited:

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,056
12,355
Elmira NY
Vesey looks like a different player to me. He was never really a player that crowded opponents and took away their space. That's something he's done at least the greater part of the games this season. He's in the way and he's working hard and he's making it hard on people defending him and his confidence is growing. He wasn't nearly that hard of a player to play against in his first two years. At the same time after being scratched two games in a row Buchnevich is pretty much doing the same and Pavel's a player with greater skill than Vesey---so I'm happy with both of them right now. As for this season so far Vesey is easily justifying his new contract.

Quinn is demanding that his players play hard--really pushing them and there are consequences when they don't. That's a good thing.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad