Tavares Discussion Thread

[LeafsNation75]

This is not true. You are revising history. Clarkson was bashed by everybody, and it was overwhelming consensus that he had one good goal scoring year in a good situation with an inflated SH% and that it was a bad signing. I don't know where you got the idea that Clarkson is some advanced stats darling, but that's not true at all.

Clarkson was bashed by everybody because they knew it was a mistake when Dave Nonis decided to give him 7 years and a $5.25 million AAV contract. Do you not remember that he was orginally traded for Nathan Horton because the Leafs would have rather paid him to be on injured reserve.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I said the amount of goals they give up when he is on the ice is a problem, it is a problem. Why that is happening I don't know but it doesn't make it any less of a problem.

It's a problem based on goaltending randomness in small sample sizes, so while it may be a problem, it's not really a problem that we can or should do anything about, and it's not a problem caused by "LOL Tavares sux".

Why is it highly likely that the goalie is the cause?

Because the reasons for that GA stat being what it is are clear. It is based on a goaltending stat being abnormal, not based on abnormal individual defensive metrics.

half a season implies somethings happening.

Half of a season is not very significant for goal-based statistics, especially defensively, where there is less individual skater impact.

The best players are not on top every season, I would suggest they are rarely on top because of competition factor

So then if you know the reasons, why are you drawing incorrect conclusions from him not being on top internally over small samples?

Not all shots are created equally and IMO opinion the HDCF metric is fatally flawed. It is dependent on distance and location from where the shot is taken.

HDCF is not solely dependent on shot location or shot distance. I don't know where you got this idea.

 

[Big Muddy]

Clarkson was bashed by everybody because they knew it was a mistake when Dave Nonis decided to give him 7 years and a $5.25 million AAV contract. Do you not remember that he was orginally traded for Nathan Horton because the Leafs would have rather paid him to be on injured reserve.

I'll guess it wasn't everybody in here based on observation of personalities in here. I think there's a contingent of this fan base that will back everything that management/team does, and won't switch to the other side until it becomes popular to do so.

 

[CDN24]

It's a problem based on goaltending randomness in small sample sizes, so while it may be a problem, it's not really a problem that we can or should do anything about, and it's not a problem caused by "LOL Tavares sux".


Because the reasons for that GA stat being what it is are clear. It is based on a goaltending stat being abnormal, not based on abnormal individual defensive metrics.


Half of a season is not very significant for goal-based statistics, especially defensively, where there is less individual skater impact.


So then if you know the reasons, why are you drawing incorrect conclusions from him not being on top internally over small samples?


HDCF is not solely dependent on shot location or shot distance. I don't know where you got this idea.

Could not the reverse be true, could the abnormal GA be driving the save percentage? I don't know why his GA60 is so bad, but I doubt it's a simple as the goalie.

You quoted the stat to explain why there is no problem so maybe you can enlighten me, what is it based on?

 

[LeafsNation75]

I'll guess it wasn't everybody in here based on observation of personalities in here. I think there's a contingent of this fan base that will back everything that management/team does, and won't switch to the other side until it becomes popular to do so.

Comparing the times I remember a lot more negativity about the Clarkson signing compared to the Tavares signing.

 

[Big Muddy]

Comparing the times I remember a lot more negativity about the Clarkson signing compared to the Tavares signing.

OK, I wasn't here.

"A lot more negativity" is difficult to define in terms of something quantitative, and isn't the same as "everybody".

I'll guess people were thinking we'd actually get something from a Marleau trade versus giving up something (a 1st) to get rid of his contract. I wasn't here, but I'll guess that this resonates for some people and is true.

 

[LeafsNation75]

OK, I wasn't here.

"A lot more negativity" is difficult to define in terms of something qualitative, and isn't the same as "everybody".

I'll guess people were thinking we'd actually get something from a Marleau trade versus giving up something (a 1st) to get rid of his contract. I wasn't here, but I'll guess that this resonates for some people and is true.

I was speaking from my experience of reading HF that day, because I do remember a lot of negative comments about the Clarkson signing, where as it was nothing like that compared with the Tavares signing.

 

[Big Muddy]

I was speaking from my experience of reading HF that day, because I do remember a lot of negative comments about the Clarkson signing, where as it was nothing like that compared with the Tavares signing.

Its OK & I understand. Its not surprising that there would be some negative sentiment for sure.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Its OK & I understand. Its not surprising that there would be some negative sentiment for sure.

No problem and I didn't notice until now that you only signed up last month, so that's why you wouldn't remember any of the talk about the Clarkson signing when it happened.

 

[CDN24]

No, it wasn't.

People can view these forums without having an account, and this place is not a good representation of Leaf fans anyway.

Clarkson is not an "advanced stat" darling. Vague descriptions of what you think other people thought, for which there is little to no evidence of, and you incorrectly attributing it to stats = bad, does not really add much to the discussion.

But he was when the Leafs signed him. The year before he had a CF% of 61.23% good for 5th best in the league. It was why the early advanced Stats guys were telling us that contract was a bargain at 5.25M for 7 years. Scored 30 G his last full season, 15 in lockout shortened and was one of the best Corsi guys out there.

 

[Big Muddy]

No problem and I didn't notice until now that you only signed up last month, so that's why you wouldn't remember any of the talk about the Clarkson signing when it happened.

Ya, I wasn't here at that time, so I have no first hand knowledge.

My ideas were based on observations of folks in here. As the expression goes: A leopard never changes its spots. LOL.

Ah, just saw the post above (#460).

 

[Dekes For Days]

I gave a bunch of reasons why Tavares could have some of the worse one-ice goal stats in the league.

And then dismissed them and just attributed it to Tavares with no evidence.

Then you ignored all that by saying its most likely the goalies fault.

No, I gave context to your stats and showed that it is primarily the result of goaltending.

The same goalie who can stop a puck when others are on the ice seems to not be able to stop a beachball when JT is on. Wonder why, did JT piss in Andy's cornflakes?

No, randomness in small samples. It's not that hard.

Stats tell you what happened but they still have a long way to go on the why it happened.

Not when used correctly.

As for JT maybe his play is as good as last year, they results certainly are not.

No, they're not. And?

Which JT is the real one, the one we saw last year or the one we are seeing this year.

Likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[LeafsNation75]

But he was when the Leafs signed him. The year before he had a CF% of 61.23% good for 5th best in the league. It was why the early advanced Stats guys were telling us that contract was a bargain at 5.25M for 7 years. Scored 30 G his last full season, 15 in lockout shortened and was one of the best Corsi guys out there.

I admit not being into all these analytic stats. However I do know at that time the Leafs weren't into things like that, at least until Dubas and I don't think those stats is what lead Dave Nonis to sign him.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Could not the reverse be true, could the abnormal GA be driving the save percentage?

If this was the case, we would see different defensive metrics for Tavares that reflect him causing chances against at an abnormal rate, not Andersen letting in goals way above expected.

 

[Dekes For Days]

But he was when the Leafs signed him.

No, he wasn't.

The year before he had a CF% of 61.23% good for 5th best in the league.

In the lockout shortened season. This alone does not really tell us all that much.

It was why the early advanced Stats guys were telling us that contract was a bargain at 5.25M for 7 years.

I have never once in my entire life heard anybody ever call that signing "a bargain".

 

[LeafsNation75]

In the lockout shortened season. This alone does not really tell us all that much.

Once again I will admit to not being into all these analytic stats. However I do remember when Clarkson signed at least on TSN and Sportsnet, they used his stats from the 2011-2012 season where he played 80 games, scored 30 goals and 46 points as to why he got that contract from Toronto.

 

[Martin Skoula]

But he was when the Leafs signed him. The year before he had a CF% of 61.23% good for 5th best in the league. It was why the early advanced Stats guys were telling us that contract was a bargain at 5.25M for 7 years. Scored 30 G his last full season, 15 in lockout shortened and was one of the best Corsi guys out there.

You think people were excited about Clarkson because of a half-season sample of good Corsi?

Everyone who was paying attention was screaming about his contract being the most obvious trap seen in ages because he was going to get paid for the 30 goals he scored on double his career shooting percentage at the time.

 

[CDN24]

If this was the case, we would see different defensive metrics for Tavares that reflect him causing chances against at an abnormal rate, not Andersen letting in goals way above expected.

As I mentioned earlier I think the HDCF metric is flawed. I asked you to define it but as yet you haven't.

To my knowledge its still based on the old War on Ice location of shot map. Basically offensive zone broken into 3 zones High slot is zone 3, bits on each side of slot and low slot is 2 and the rest is zone 1.

A shot from zone 1 is assigned a 1, zone 2 a 2 and zone 3 a 3. If the shot is off the rush (defined as within 4 seconds of an event (shot) in another zone it gets a plus 1, if it is off a rebound (defined as within 3 seconds of a shot in same zone) it gets a plus 1. If it is blocked a minus 1. If total; score is 3 or greater it is high danger.

That 2 on 1 shot into a gaping cage I described earlier would not be high danger under this definition. It is in zone 1 so one point and probably meets the 4 sec off the rush definition so another point for a total of 2.

The high danger chances are primarily based on location not the situation. All shots off the rush have same danger element be it a 2 on 1, breakaway or a 2 on 3. HDCF is a flawed stat, or it needs a Super SHDCF measure. Not all HDCF events are created equal. Shots from OVI's office in this model are rarely HDCF events. As any goalie how dangerous they are.

Natural Stat Trick - Glossary

 

[Dekes For Days]

As I mentioned earlier I think the HDCF metric is flawed. I asked you to define it but as yet you haven't.

You literally posted the glossary, so not really sure what you're waiting to get. It even talks about how it's not solely shot location. Expected GF/GA takes even more into consideration.

What you're essentially saying is that Tavares is single-handedly causing tons of his high danger chances to be "super high danger" chances that have an incredibly low percentage chance of being saved, so abnormally to the point where it's skewing Andersen's save percentage significantly, and somehow causing him to allow goals ridiculously beyond his expected even when factoring in quality of chances, yet he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of shot attempts, with or without missed and/or blocked shots, he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of shots, he doesn't allow an abnormal expected goals against, he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of scoring chances against, he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of high danger chances against, but the fact that he maybe could be potentially doing something like that over this small sample despite doing the opposite last year is reason to be concerned, even though your evidence for all of this is literally nothing except personal speculation.

 

[Stephen]

After reading through some of the posts, all I can say is that when Andersen returns to form, I look forward to enjoying a long playoff run & perhaps even hoisting the Cup. The rest of the team is solid.

The analysis on TSN Radio today predicated on the fact that the new Keefe system benefits some players who are offensively inclined but hurts the weaker puck handling D and Freddie has not thrived.

Seems like we need Andersen to be a Grant Fuhr who can keep the team in it to win it 7-5. But he’s more comfortable in that Brodeur role where he’s insulated by a system and able to play a predictable and controlled game.

Where does Tavares fit into all of this? Seems like they need to cater his line and position to something where the play can be slowed down. Tavares doesn’t thrive in a track meet. He needs a puck carrier to do most of the work so he can grind down low, be a net front presence and score garbage goals.

 

[LeafsNation75]

You think people were excited about Clarkson because of a half-season sample of good Corsi?

Everyone who was paying attention was screaming about his contract being the most obvious trap seen in ages because he was going to get paid for the 30 goals he scored on double his career shooting percentage at the time.

At the time of the Clarkson signing did anyone even care about Corsi and all those other analytic stats? I remember it becoming more popular once Kyle Dubas was originally hired.

 

[Martin Skoula]

At the time of the Clarkson signing did anyone even care about Corsi and all those other analytic stats? I remember it becoming more popular once Kyle Dubas was originally hired.

It's just unblocked shot counts, I'm sure teams have been internally tracking at least something similar for decades. The Clarkson signing tended to split people between intangibles and stats. If you thought his leadership and physicality or whatever was worth it, you were fine taking the risk that his 30 goal season was a fluke. If you looked at the context, you knew for sure the 30 goal season was a fluke and the rest of his game wasn't worth 35 million.

It was also a bad contract the second it was signed, considering even the guy who signed that contract said it was bad 3 days into the contract:

“I’m not worried about six or seven right now. I’m worried about one. And Year One, I know we’re going to have a very good player. I believe that he’s got a lot of good years left in him.”

Dave Nonis, July 4, 2013

 

[LeafsNation75]

It's just unblocked shot counts, I'm sure teams have been internally tracking at least something similar for decades. The Clarkson signing tended to split people between intangibles and stats. If you thought his leadership and physicality or whatever was worth it, you were fine taking the risk that his 30 goal season was a fluke. If you looked at the context, you knew for sure the 30 goal season was a fluke and the rest of his game wasn't worth 35 million.

It was also a bad contract the second it was signed, considering even the guy who signed that contract said it was bad 3 days into the contract:


Dave Nonis, July 4, 2013

There is no doubt the Clarkson signing was bad and I wonder if it's really true that Edmonton offered him more money or was it Nonis way of saying they got him at a discount? That was only reported where as with Tavares it was confirmed how San Jose offered him 7 years and $91 million, which is $13.5 million AAV.

 

[CDN24]

You literally posted the glossary, so not really sure what you're waiting to get. It even talks about how it's not solely shot location. Expected GF/GA takes even more into consideration.

What you're essentially saying is that Tavares is single-handedly causing tons of his high danger chances to be "super high danger" chances that have an incredibly low percentage chance of being saved, so abnormally to the point where it's skewing Andersen's save percentage significantly, and somehow causing him to allow goals ridiculously beyond his expected even when factoring in quality of chances, yet he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of shot attempts, with or without missed and/or blocked shots, he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of shots, he doesn't allow an abnormal expected goals against, he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of scoring chances against, he doesn't allow an abnormal amount of high danger chances against, but the fact that he maybe could be potentially doing something like that over this small sample despite doing the opposite last year is reason to be concerned, even though your evidence for all of this is literally nothing except personal speculation.

I posted the glossary after you responded to every post I made except the one where I asked you to define HDCF. You brought up the stat.

I am not saying he is single handedly causing a ton of high danger chances. I am saying he is getting scored on a ton of times, way more than in the past and it is something to be concerned about. You say and I quote

"Because the reasons for that GA stat being what it is are clear. It is based on a goaltending stat being abnormal"

All at 5-5, JT On ice save % is 88.51, his HDCA per 60 is 11.86 (highest on team), His HDGA/60 is 2.01 (again highest on team), CA per 60 is 55.48. His GA60 is 3.65
AM at 5-5 On ice save % is 92.23, his HDCA per 60 is 9.43 (lowest on team), His HDGA/60 is 1.15 (again lowest on team), CA60 is 53.65. His GA60 is 2.30

What do those stats tell me, they tell me whatever is happening is happening primarily on The high danger stuff but there are differences on regular shot attempts too.

JT on non high danger corsi events against is giving up 1.64 goals per 60 (3.65-2.01) on 43.62 CA 60 (55.48-11.86) 3.76% are going in (1.64/43.62)
AM on non high danger corsi events against is giving up 1.15 goals per 60 (2.3-1.15) on 44.22 CA 60 (53.65-9.43) 2.60% are going in (1.15/44.22)
JT on high danger Corsi attempts is giving up 2.01G/60 on 11.86 attempts per 60 in percentage terms 16.95% of those attempts are going in (2.01/11.86)
AM on high danger Corsi attempts is giving up 1.15G/60 on 9.43 attempts per 60 in percentage terms 12.20% of those attempts are going in (1.15/9.43)

You seem to believe that the only explanation for these differences is goaltending, having a lower on ice save % leads to more goals against.
I am saying what if there is something else? What if something else is causing the extra goals against that would in turn affect save %.

I think the fact that all HDCA events are not the same could be a reason. Seems strange that the goalie would be that much worse with if the shot quality were the same. 1/2 a season is a significant sample size. If its not then most of these stats are meaningless.

The 2.43 extra HDCA60 can't be Freddy's fault can it?

 

[CDN24]

The analysis on TSN Radio today predicated on the fact that the new Keefe system benefits some players who are offensively inclined but hurts the weaker puck handling D and Freddie has not thrived.

Seems like we need Andersen to be a Grant Fuhr who can keep the team in it to win it 7-5. But he’s more comfortable in that Brodeur role where he’s insulated by a system and able to play a predictable and controlled game.

Where does Tavares fit into all of this? Seems like they need to cater his line and position to something where the play can be slowed down. Tavares doesn’t thrive in a track meet. He needs a puck carrier to do most of the work so he can grind down low, be a net front presence and score garbage goals.

This is probably a big factor in why Tavares is struggling on the goals against side.

If you want Freddy to be more like Grant Fuhr he needs to be able to mentally put aside all the GA and just stop the next one. Takes a certain mindset or cocaine to be able to do that. Fuhr had both going for him.