Salary Cap: Penguins future roster building (2017-18 and beyond) | Contract/FA charts in Post #1

[DanielPlainview]

Literally none of what you said is a fact.

Facts are quantifiable and proven, not some opinions from some random dude on a message board. The only thing close to facts presented are the stats that others have pointed out that conveniently disagree with your qualitative narrative.

If that's the best you got, I suggest you stop being so sensitive. People don't necessarily disagree with your point as much as they disagree with the moronic way you're going about it, trying to convince everyone that your cursory opinions are the same as legitimate and detailed analysis, as if you're some amazing hockey mind whose broad strokes should be excused from scrutiny.

Observation is not opinion. If I say he's bad at things because I've watched him fail at those things repeatedly and consistently, it's a fact that he is bad at those things. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

 

[Shady Machine]

No, I'm not confusing opinion with fact. An opinion isn't recounting what Maatta does on the ice. He shoots poorly. I've seen it over and over. Same with everything else I've said.

Stats are not reprentation of reality. They are simply tallies.

So you don't believe in statistical evidence? How do you know that your eyes and brain are the only true unbiased set on this Earth?

 

[SEALBound]

Hainsey can't do anything better than Maatta.

Let this post be a warning to everyone all summer or mostly just leading up to July 1st, that ANYONE who has Ron Hainsey in the lineup (even for FREE) will get vigorous verbally assaulted by me. I will poopoo 1000 replies and lineups if I have to.

 

[DanielPlainview]

So you don't believe in statistical evidence? How do you know that your eyes and brain are the only true unbiased set on this Earth?

Staistical evidence has it's uses but it has to be used properly. If two guys score two goals in a game and one player had two deflections and the other ran through the defense for his two, then you can't claim just because they're statistically equals that the goals required the same skill. Stats do not paint reality.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

No, I'm not confusing opinion with fact. An opinion isn't recounting what Maatta does on the ice. He shoots poorly. I've seen it over and over. Same with everything else I've said.

Stats are not reprentation of reality. They are simply tallies.

The word poorly is OPINION. He shoots is factual, the poorly part is opinion.

It really isnt that hard.

Definition of opinion:

- a view or judgment formed about something...
- an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something

 

[larueskee]

I don't hate Maatta, I just think he's not a good player and I base that on watching him play.

Stats are not reality in the way you want them to be here. And the only responses to my points have been a bunch of "nuh uh!" posts. I mean seriously, that's all this has been. It's ridiculous.

Maatta can't skate. He can't shoot. His passes are often poor and he often struggles to receive passes. He is often out of position. He plays with next to no intensity. These are the facts.

I have to say this even though I am a big arguer of stats and facts are truths. Maata is pretty bad on the eye test. He moves slow, is slow to the play and has the softest passes and clearing attempts I have ever seen. I also believe the eye test is not reliable when saying players look good. Heck Even I look good in a NHL uniform.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Observation is not opinion. If I say he's bad at things because I've watched him fail at those things repeatedly and consistently, it's a fact that he is bad at those things. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

Observation isnt opinion, but your judgement of the observation IS OPINION.

Olli Maata passes a puck. Is an observation. Its factual. Not room for argument it happened.

Olli Maata passes puck poorly. Is an opinion. It takes YOUR judgement (opinion) and adds it to a fact.

Seriously i dont know about the schools where you come from but mine sucked and we still had this covered by second grade.

 

[DanielPlainview]

The word poorly is OPINION. He shoots is factual, the poorly part is opinion.

It really isnt that hard.

Definition of opinion:

- a view or judgment formed about something...
- an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something

No, it isn't if it's supported by actual observation. If Maatta shoots and it goes 3ft wide of the goalie, it's a poor shot. If one watches him do this repeadly and consistently, it can be said factually that Maatta shoots poorly; he is an inaccurate shooter; he posses a low-level shooting ability.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Staistical evidence has it's uses but it has to be used properly. If two guys score two goals in a game and one player had two deflections and the other ran through the defense for his two, then you can't claim just because they're statistically equals that the goals required the same skill. Stats do not paint reality.

Who care how much skill they required? Ill take either two goals any day. If i have two players than average 40 goals per season im not parsing by how skilled the goals were. I'll take either. Or at the very least move on to other criteria.

I don't know why your so hung up on prettiness instead of effectiveness.

 

[WickedWrister]

Really enjoying this semantics debate boys. Top notch content

 

[DanielPlainview]

Observation isnt opinion, but your judgement of the observation IS OPINION.

Olli Maata passes a puck. Is an observation. Its factual. Not room for argument it happened.

Olli Maata passes puck poorly. Is an opinion. It takes YOUR judgement (opinion) and adds it to a fact.

Seriously i dont know about the schools where you come from but mine sucked and we still had this covered by second grade.

It is not judgment; it is assessment - determining the quality of the pass based on the context and the outcome. "That is a poor pass by Maatta" is a statement of fact if Maatta tries to pass it back to Malkin but it ends up being corralled by Fleury behind the goal due to innaccuracy.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

No, it isn't if it's supported by actual observation. If Maatta shoots and it goes 3ft wide of the goalie, it's a poor shot. If one watches him do this repeatedly and consistently, it can be said factually that Maatta shoots poorly; he is an inaccurate shooter; he posses a low-level shooting ability.

Example flawed...

1. You are in no way defining the rate this happens (such as percentage)
2. You are in no way setting an average by which to compare this rate
3. You are using the OPINION that it is happening "repeatedly and consistently" below what the average would be as some sort of fact. (based soley on because you say so)
4. You are ignoring other parts of shooting ability (such as velocity and shooting percentage)

IF you charted every time Maata shot, then added every time it went 3 feet wide and formed an (inaccuracy percentage) then compared it to every single other defenseman, then factored other things like average velocity, shooting percentage THEN AND ONLY THEN will you have a fact. But in this case those facts would be called STATS which your are completely dismissing anyway.

 

[DanielPlainview]

Who care how much skill they required? Ill take either two goals any day. If i have two players than average 40 goals per season im not parsing by how skilled the goals were. I'll take either. Or at the very least move on to other criteria.

I don't know why your so hung up on prettiness instead of effectiveness.

Thank you for having me explain how this works to you. It was a lot of fun

 

[molon labe]

How do you work out what's an overpayment and what's not without looking at what that payment can net you in the rest of the market?

If you don't use comparable players, how do you determine if a player is paid fairly or not? Is it simply based on your opinion?

I believe it's got to be a fractional type system where you allot variable percentages based on the style of your team. Not necessarily an exact science - but point being on a team with Sid and Geno, the majority of your money should be going to them + supporting their talents. If we were to have 20% into our offense in an offensive style system, and 80% wrapped up in defense I don't see how that makes any sense.

In Oli's case - what's a supporting defender worth to the Penguins? Maybe that guy is worth 6 to a team that MUST HAVE defense at all costs, or nothing to a team that already has defenders but just wants a luxury, etc. For the Pens system, does he bring anything to the table that any of our available or could-be available players does not- where he gets a premium monetary consideration? We're currently grasping at the bottom trying to fill holes because of unforeseen circumstances sure - but if you back up players that need to be backed up and assemble the system accordingly, then yes I think you can just about name your price per position. A point being, comparable is being a bit generic - comparible salaries for players can only really be compared if you're comparing similar teams, styles, etc.. i.e. a defense-first team might spend 16M on their top pairing, whereas it probably doesn't make sense for an offensive team to do so.

 

[DanielPlainview]

Example flawed...

1. You are in no way defining the rate this happens (such as percentage)
2. You are in no way setting an average by which to compare this rate
3. You are using the OPINION that it is happening "repeatedly and consistently" below what the average would be as some sort of fact. (based soley on because you say so)
4. You are ignoring other parts of shooting ability (such as velocity and shooting percentage)

IF you charted every time Maata shot, then added every time it went 3 feet wide and formed an (inaccuracy percentage) then compared it to every single other defenseman, then factored other things like average velocity, shooting percentage THEN AND ONLY THEN will you have a fact. But in this case those facts would be called STATS which your are completely dismissing anyway.

It is not flawed. The observation of him missing is just as valid as writing out a bunch of graphs and diagrams and percentages. The numbers do not make the reality, they simply measure some piece of it. Good god man.

 

[Jacob]

Just off the top of my head, I haven't been paying as much attention to him as I have some other players...I don't very often see Dumoulin muff easy passes or make errant passes but I wouldn't say he's a great mover of the puck, just better than Maatta. He doesn't shoot often but he seems to be less likely to strike someone in the stands when he does. He plays tougher; he's bigger and bring more physicality. His positioning is inconsistent but his better skating allows him to make up for it where Maatta usually cannot.

Maatta has 21 shots on goal to Dumoulin's 8 this playoffs. Hits & blocked shots is pretty close, Dumoulin has a slight edge in each. I seriously wouldn't describe Dumoulin as "tougher."

I think you're paying too much attention to Maatta and not enough on the rest of the players, and just the game in general. If you focus in on one guy, especially a d-man, they're not going to look great.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

It is not judgment; it is assessment - determining the quality of the pass based on the context and the outcome. "That is a poor pass by Maatta" is a statement of fact if Maatta tries to pass it back to Malkin but it ends up being corralled by Fleury behind the goal due to innaccuracy.

1. Assessment is the same as Judgement in this context.
2. Your ignoring things such as type 1 and type 2 error because last i checked a hockey game isnt a pass/fail skills competition. There are degrees of good and bad and which side of error to stay on.
3. You still in no way comparing an isolated "bad pass" to league average rate this occurs and whether Olli Maata falls below or above that average.

 

[Coastal Kev]

So you don't believe in statistical evidence? How do you know that your eyes and brain are the only true unbiased set on this Earth?

You can't rely on stats in most sports outside of baseball. Too much opinion input on the numbers and the ones that aren't tell you more about the team than the individual.

 

[Shady Machine]

No, it isn't if it's supported by actual observation. If Maatta shoots and it goes 3ft wide of the goalie, it's a poor shot. If one watches him do this repeadly and consistently, it can be said factually that Maatta shoots poorly; he is an inaccurate shooter; he posses a low-level shooting ability.

How often does he miss the net vs other players? That's where stats are useful. They attempt to take human bias out of the equation.

 

[Shady Machine]

You can't rely on stats in most sports outside of baseball. Too much opinion input on the numbers and the ones that aren't tell you more about the team than the individual.

Of course stats aren't the end all, be all here, but just saying Maatta sucks and it's factual because he passes poorly, shoots poorly, etc doesn't make it true.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

It is not flawed. The observation of him missing is just as valid as writing out a bunch of graphs and diagrams and percentages. The numbers do not make the reality, they simply measure some piece of it. Good god man.

Its so flawed it not funny.

An observation of a puck not hitting something is only relevant to that exact play.

The puck not hitting the net is a fact.

That doesnt make that person a bad shooter. It doesnt even make him an inaccurate shooter.

Unless you prove he misses the net more often than other shooters in the same situation. Its not that difficult.

 

[Shady Machine]

It is not judgment; it is assessment - determining the quality of the pass based on the context and the outcome. "That is a poor pass by Maatta" is a statement of fact if Maatta tries to pass it back to Malkin but it ends up being corralled by Fleury behind the goal due to innaccuracy.

Sure but you didn't do that. You just said he passes poorly and called it a fact. How often are his passes behind a player or missed vs other players?

 

[Coastal Kev]

Of course stats aren't the end all, be all here, but just saying Maatta sucks and it's factual because he passes poorly, shoots poorly, etc doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing against Maata, just the stats.

The only possible trade I would make with Maata would be for a type of Dman that we don't currently have on the roster like Trouba or Zadorov. Other than that, keep the kid.

 

[DanielPlainview]

Its so flawed it not funny.

An observation of a puck not hitting something is only relevant to that exact play.

The puck not hitting the net is a fact.

That doesnt make that person a bad shooter. It doesnt even make him an inaccurate shooter.

Unless you prove he misses the net more often than other shooters in the same situation. Its not that difficult.

You need to stop. As I've said numerous times already, observing a hockey player consistently and repeatedly miss his target means he is innaccurate. This is fact. You don't need the numbers and graphs to make it fact. That's ridiculous.

 

[DanielPlainview]

Sure but you didn't do that. You just said he passes poorly and called it a fact. How often are his passes behind a player or missed vs other players?

Yes, I did. I said numerous times those things were based on my observations. Keeping record doesn't have any bearing on it.