Confirmed Trade: [OTT/SJS] Erik Karlsson and Francis Perron for Tierney, DeMelo, Norris, Balcers, 1st, 2nd - Part III

[Samsquanch]

If you’re deeply disturbed by someone posting something on the internet I pity you. I agree with you to an extent for sure. I think it’s good to look at advanced numbers but they ultimately don’t trump actual points produced, there should be a middle ground though. But, man you’re really beating this into the ground.

Ill be fine, just being dramatic and killing time at work.

And the reason Im still arguing is because there seem to legit be a few posters here who disagree with what Im saying. Its scary.

LOL you do realize soumela and Tierney have the same amount of primary points 5v5, right?

Thought you were done, and your back to talking about points again now? Lol where do we go from here?

 

[Ronnie Residue]

Thought you were done, and your back to talking about points again now? Lol where do we go from here?

I think letting the season play out would be a good start.

 

[Revelation]

Would Haula + Colin Miller instead of Tierney + DeMelo have been better? Those players were virtually the same thing a year ago as Tierney and DeMelo are now

 

[Ronnie Residue]

Ill be fine, just being dramatic and killing time at work.

And the reason Im still arguing is because there seem to legit be a few posters here who disagree with what Im saying. Its scary

Fair, I’m doing the same lol
Problem is the incredibly extreme opinions on this topic. I’ve seen people saying Corsi is a worse indicator than +\-, then people who only look at corsi. I think both are off a little. Also, in general only looking at a sample size of 7 games is just stupid.

 

[swiftwin]

LOL you do realize soumela and Tierney have the same amount of primary points 5v5, right?

LOL you realize Tierney has as many points on Saturdays as Suomela does for the whole season, right?

/see? I too can use arbitrary qualifiers to argue my points

 

[Samsquanch]

Fair, I’m doing the same lol
Problem is the incredibly extreme opinions on this topic. I’ve seen people saying Corsi is a worse indicator than +\-, then people who only look at corsi. I think both are off a little. Also, in general only looking at a sample size of 7 games is just stupid.

No arguments there.

But whats even more stupid than that is arguing that someone who got tripled in production did better than the other guy in that same sample size. This is the reality that Im living in right now

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

LOL you realize Tierney has as many points on Saturdays as Suomela does for the whole season, right?

/see? I too can use arbitrary qualifiers to argue my points

Except one isn't arbitrary because soumela doesn't get PP time, hence the 5v5 only and secondary assists can be awarded when the player doesn't have any effect on the scoring plan.

 

[Samsquanch]

Except one isn't arbitrary because soumela doesn't get PP time, hence the 5v5 only and secondary assists can be awarded when the player doesn't have any effect on the scoring plan.

No its simply a good representation of how out of touch with reality you are at the moment because you're STILL trying to say that in these first games, Suomela has been better.

Its time to let it go dude.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

No its simply a good representation of how out of touch with reality you are at the moment because you're STILL trying to say that in these first games, Suomela has been better.

Its time to let it go dude.

It's fair to compare players point productions on the power play when one of them doesn't play on the PP? Hmm. Sounds legit.

 

[Samsquanch]

It's fair to compare players point productions on the power play when one of them doesn't play on the PP? Hmm. Sounds legit.

Tierney only has 4pp points (5 ES) so why are we even discussing something you are wrong about right off the get go? Still worth discussing now?

So what do you say when I say this;

Chabot and Lajoie have both been far better than Karlsson so far to start the year? Same concept, different players.

Please amaze me with your ability to spin this in EK's favor somehow.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

For the Sharks, Suomela has looked better than Tierney ever did in the same role at evens. Tierney's PK abilities are missed, imo, but at evens, Suomela so far is crushing anything Tierney ever did. I understand people want to look at the production side of it but I'll take a 30 point pace 3C who is dominating possession and scoring chances on both sides of the ice over Tierney's 40 point play while giving up more chances 5v5. I hope Tierney does well with an expanded role but Suomela has been better for us thus far than Tierney at evens.

 

[GetFocht]

Dorion is starting to look like a genius

 

[Samsquanch]

Dorion is starting to look like a genius

Lets not get crazy here.

He's definitely taken himself out of milbury territory though at least. Boedker is also looking fantastic so far, like really good, and thats another one people wanted to crucify him for.

At this point I would easily take Boedker over Hoffman and his lazy ass play.

 

[Masked]

Just because it's in bold doesn't make it a true statement.

The only better stat Tierney has is points. Literally every single advanced statistic points to soumela being more effective on the ice and just not getting the same puck luck as Tierney.

Just because you don't understand advanced stats doesn't mean they are not an effective tool at player evaluation. While not always successful at predicting future output, it's generally far more useful than just using counting stats and they point to Soumela finishing the year with better counting stats than Tierney.

Corsi, Fenwick, Corsi Rel, Fenwick Rel, scoring chances for percentage, and high scoring chance percentage are all vastly in Soumelas favor.

The old silly stats defence - the people who criticize them just don't understand them. I suspect it is the opposite - the people who use them don't understand them. Lets face it, hockey silly stats aren't exactly advanced calculus. They aren't THAT hard to understand. Based upon how many variables are involved the sample sizes are too low for them to be anywhere close to being useful.

 

[Ronnie Residue]

Dorion is starting to look like a genius

Man hf is an interesting one today.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

How so?!?! Do you have the stats on this?

-I remember in 2017, 3 of the 4 conference finalists were in the bottom half of the league in corsi in the regular season.
-The top corsi team in the regular season has failed to make the playoffs the last two seasons in a row
-2 of the top 4 didn't make the playoffs last year
-The last two cup winners were in the bottom half in the regular season

I think this is an issue of causation vs correlation. The Kings and Hawks were pretty dominant in the early 2010's (when corsi came to prominence). Both those teams were big heavy teams played systems that relied heavily on possession and shots. Now that the Kings and Hawks are not as good, we're seeing that corsi is nowhere near as important as people think it is.

Since 2007-2008, there have been 165 playoff series. The winner in 5v5 regular season Corsi has won 94 of those series and the winner in regular season points has won 94 of those series. Both have a 56.97% chance of predicting the winner of a series; 6.97% more useful than just flipping a coin.

So, I was wrong in saying Corsi had twice the predictive power; that was from data I remembered reading in a study from roughly 2 years ago. Over the past 2 seasons, 13 of the 30 series played have been won by the Corsi winning team, while 20 of the 30 series played have been won by the regular season winning team.

Prior to the past two years, the Corsi winner had won 60% of the playoff series, and the regular season winner had won 54.81% of the playoff series. So, prior to 2016-2017, Corsi was 10% more effective than flipping a coin, while regular season points were 4.81% more effective than flipping a coin. At that point, CF% could have been considered twice as effective as regular season points, but it appears that regular season points percentage has caught up.

I just gathered these numbers this morning so feel free to double check them:

Year	CF Winners	Home Winners
2018	7	11
2017	6	9
2016	10	9
2015	8	9
2014	12	6
2013	10	9
2012	8	6
2011	7	10
2010	9	8
2009	9	9
2008	8	8
Total	94	94
Win %	0.56969697	0.56969697

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

At any rate, with teams with higher regular season 5v5 CF% winning 56.97% of the playoff series played since 2007-2008 when CF% was tracked, maybe a guy whose CF% this season is currently 39.5, and whose CF% relative to his teammates on a poor Ottawa team is -3.3%, is not actually all that good.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Tierney only has 4pp points (5 ES) so why are we even discussing something you are wrong about right off the get go? Still worth discussing now?

So what do you say when I say this;

Chabot and Lajoie have both been far better than Karlsson so far to start the year? Same concept, different players.

Please amaze me with your ability to spin this in EK's favor somehow.

I'm just going to block you. Your entire argument for how good a player is just total points, completely ignoring everything else and even the context of those points. If you supported your claims with some data besides "but more points!" then maybe this could be a real debate, but every single reply you have is just about points, completely disregarding everything else.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The old silly stats defence - the people who criticize them just don't understand them. I suspect it is the opposite - the people who use them don't understand them. Lets face it, hockey silly stats aren't exactly advanced calculus. They aren't THAT hard to understand. Based upon how many variables are involved the sample sizes are too low for them to be anywhere close to being useful.

Over the course of 165 playoff series, the team with the higher 5v5 CF% won 94. The team with the higher regular season points percentage won the same exact amount.

Chris Tierney has a 48.3% CF% over the course of 291 NHL games and a -3.5% CF% relative to his teammates in the same period of time. 3255 shot attempts for Tierney's team while Tierney is on the ice and 3490 shot attempts against Tierney's team while Tierney is on the ice. Is that not a big enough sample size?

 

[Samsquanch]

The old silly stats defence - the people who criticize them just don't understand them. I suspect it is the opposite - the people who use them don't understand them. Lets face it, hockey silly stats aren't exactly advanced calculus. They aren't THAT hard to understand. Based upon how many variables are involved the sample sizes are too low for them to be anywhere close to being useful.

Great post.

And now worst of all, Ive never seen this before today, but advanced stats are now actually being used to trump real production when reviewing past events.

Like their entire purpose in hockey was for prediction of future trends, not for comparing player A and B to see who was better over a freaking 7 game sample, all the while completely disregarding the massive gap in actual points

I feel like Im taking crazy pills man hahahaha.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Since 2007-2008, there have been 165 playoff series. The winner in 5v5 regular season Corsi has won 94 of those series and the winner in regular season points has won 94 of those series. Both have a 56.97% chance of predicting the winner of a series; 6.97% more useful than just flipping a coin.

So, I was wrong in saying Corsi had twice the predictive power; that was from data I remembered reading in a study from roughly 2 years ago. Over the past 2 seasons, 13 of the 30 series played have been won by the Corsi winning team, while 20 of the 30 series played have been won by the regular season winning team.

Prior to the past two years, the Corsi winner had won 60% of the playoff series, and the regular season winner had won 54.81% of the playoff series. So, prior to 2016-2017, Corsi was 10% more effective than flipping a coin, while regular season points were 4.81% more effective than flipping a coin. At that point, CF% could have been considered twice as effective as regular season points, but it appears that regular season points percentage has caught up.

I just gathered these numbers this morning so feel free to double check them:

Year	CF Winners	Home Winners
2018	7	11
2017	6	9
2016	10	9
2015	8	9
2014	12	6
2013	10	9
2012	8	6
2011	7	10
2010	9	8
2009	9	9
2008	8	8
Total	94	94
Win %	0.56969697	0.56969697

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

At any rate, with teams with higher regular season 5v5 CF% winning 56.97% of the playoff series played since 2007-2008 when CF% was tracked, maybe a guy whose CF% this season is currently 39.5, and whose CF% relative to his teammates on a poor Ottawa team is -3.3%, is not actually all that good.

Don't bother supporting your claim with data. Data is completely useless to back up your point. It's way better to just repeat yourself over and over again about an irrelevant point.

 

[danyhabsfan]

Does Perron have NHL potential? He's good in the AHL so far this season.

 

[Samsquanch]

I'm just going to block you. Your entire argument for how good a player is just total points, completely ignoring everything else and even the context of those points. If you supported your claims with some data besides "but more points!" then maybe this could be a real debate, but every single reply you have is just about points, completely disregarding everything else.

 

[robsenz]

Karlsson is still no doubt the best player in this deal, which makes San Jose the winner regardless. However the way that Ottawa has been playing doesn't make me miss arguably my favourite player of all time, which is insane. Right now they just don't need him, they are playing really decent hockey so far.

 

[swiftwin]

Don't bother supporting your claim with data. Data is completely useless to back up your point. It's way better to just repeat yourself over and over again about an irrelevant point.

His data just proved my point though... CF% is nowehere near as predictive as people make it our to be. It also validated my causation vs correlation hypothesis that the Hawks/Kings inflated the value of corsi in the early to mid 2010's. Now that they're shit, we're seeing a huge regression in the value of corsi.

 

[Masked]

Over the course of 165 playoff series, the team with the higher 5v5 CF% won 94. The team with the higher regular season points percentage won the same exact amount.

Chris Tierney has a 48.3% CF% over the course of 291 NHL games and a -3.5% CF% relative to his teammates in the same period of time. 3255 shot attempts for Tierney's team while Tierney is on the ice and 3490 shot attempts against Tierney's team while Tierney is on the ice. Is that not a big enough sample size?

No they aren't big enough sample sizes. When you figure CF% you have to figure that every different player that is on the ice at the same time is a different variable. You are talking equations with literally hundreds of variables. A player will never be able to play enough NHL games to solve that equation, or at least not with the simple formulas the silly stats use.