The 2019-20 Tank Command Thread -Part V

[HavlatMach9]

I think the only error PD could make from here on in is finishing 2-4 slots the wrong way in the lottery. He needs to direct this team to a bottom 3 finish and let the balls fall where they do.

Not really sure how to accomplish this though. If we go younger, I'm hesitant to say we're worse off.

 

[ijif]

So i went looking for the poll on the Athletic that you sited. Couldn't find it but would like to read it. I did find an interesting article by Bourne dated January 23 in which WOWY data was cited as the worst way to assess a player

I have issues with advanced stats and their meaning. The article i referenced contains two statements that highlight some issues with advanced stats:

1. Every shot on net is a scoring chance. Statistically speaking that is correct. Yet from a hockey viewpoint, i can stand on the blueline on pound slap shots at Carey Price and I'm not going to score with my 50 something year old shot
2. The interviewee was asked how their xG models account for a situation where a 2 on 0 doesn't result in a shot on net. The answer was they don't. And the interviewee rhetorically asked "if it didn't result in a shot on net was it really a scoring chance?" Which mathematically speaking is true because in order to have a "chance" to score, you have to shoot the puck on net, however from a hockey viewpoint, me standing at the point blasting slappers on Price results in scoring chances whereas McDavid and Draisaitl on a 2 on 0 on Price and Draisaitl whiffing on the pass is not an xG is wrong.

I think the stats eggheads have a ways to go yet before their data is truly relied on.

Sure, a lot of people do not like wowy analysis. It is an eye-test regression. I have no problem saying it is problematic, but the pattern is clear with Zaitsev, so someone needs to explain the pattern of him dragging every player on our roster down.

On point one, I am not really sure what the issue is here. No one thinks every shot is a scoring chance. It might be technically defined as such, but that is not how scoring chance data is calculated.

On point two, I don't really agree with you, but I don't disagree with you. Whiffing on the shot has a 0 probability of going in. If you could only choose between whiffing on an odd-man rush or shooting from the point, you'd take shooting from the point.
That being said, the players should get credit in other ways for creating the odd-man rush, but it is not through expected goals, and I think that is your point. Even if you whiffed, something good did happen on the ice, and we should account for that. For example, if Mcdavid sauces it to Drait in the middle of the ice, people do track that, and McDavid would get credit for putting the puck into a dangerous area of the ice. If Drait carried the puck in before the odd-man rush, he would get credit for the zone entry. All this stuff can be found through tracking data. Ottawa management can get those types of numbers, so while my analysis might be limited, the actual team has way better numbers to work with, but I have a feeling they are not really using them in any capacity.

I also feel the need to point out stats, by definition, will never be perfect. They are the best estimation we have at the time. If we have better stats guys than other teams, we will have better estimations, and that leads to competitive advantage. If we could take everything into account, we would not need stats because we would know everything.

Also, the main point of my original post is Zaitsev does not have comparable numbers to actual top four defenders, and he is bad by literally every metric. He has bad macro, micro, wowy, war, and isolated metrics. We have moved away from the Zaitsev discussion, but my point was to look at the pattern of terrible metrics across the board. Remember, every excuse made for Zaitsev does not need to be made for any actual top-four defender on any other team.

For the athletic poll, I found it on the mainboards. I don't subscribe to the athletic, but the results were posted in the OP. The thread is probably on the second or third page of the main board as of now.

 

[Tuna99]

I think the only error PD could make from here on in is finishing 2-4 slots the wrong way in the lottery. He needs to direct this team to a bottom 3 finish and let the balls fall where they do.

Trade the D - Hainsey, Demelo, Boro will guarantor a bottom 5 pick.

Keep playing good enough to lose

 

[TheDebater]

Not really sure how to accomplish this though. If we go younger, I'm hesitant to say we're worse off.

I reckon we could be in quite the dilemma post deadline day if all of Pageau, Hainsey, Ennis, Namestnikov, and possibly others are traded. Who replaces these players at the NHL level to finish out the season?

Belleville is having a great year, does Dorion really want to disrupt their run by calling up Brown, Norris, Batherson and Brannstrom to fill NHL roles? I doubt that, he has been harping all year that the development of the young players is integral to this rebuild so the question is, what does he do?

 

[tardigrade81]

I reckon we could be in quite the dilemma post deadline day if all of Pageau, Hainsey, Ennis, Namestnikov, and possibly others are traded. Who replaces these players at the NHL level to finish out the season?

Belleville is having a great year, does Dorion really want to disrupt their run by calling up Brown, Norris, Batherson and Brannstrom to fill NHL roles? I doubt that, he has been harping all year that the development of the young players is integral to this rebuild so the question is, what does he do?

And also isn’t the point of a rebuild to leave some of the best players to build around? If we keep trading our best players we will be in a friggin rebuild the rest of my life.

 

[ijif]

Thanks I appreciate the work. This is one of those players where my eyes and the analytics disagree. I watch him and I see him as pretty steady who doesn’t really seem to make the glaring mistakes that I see from the Ceci’s or players of that ilk.

That is fair. I am in the same boat with other players.

I see the prevailing argument for Zaitsev is that he does not make very poor or obvious mistakes; however, that does not mean he is a good defender in terms of the overall impact on the game. He might not make egregious mistakes, but he is constantly defending because he provides little positive value anywhere else on the ice.

Here is an example from an NHL coach (take that for what it is worth)

Dave Tippet uses his own player-efficiency ratings. Here he is talking about using these numbers, and how he is viewing different defenders.

"We had a player that was supposed to be a great, shut-down defenseman. He was supposedly the be-all, end-all of defensemen. But when you did a 10-game analysis of him, you found out he was defending all the time because he can’t move the puck." - This is pretty much Zaitsev. Sure, maybe he is good at defending, but he is defending all the time. That is not a positive.

"Then we had another guy, who supposedly couldn’t defend a lick. Well, he was defending only 20 percent of the time because he’s making good plays out of our end. He may not be the strongest defender, but he’s only doing it 20 percent of the time. So the equation works out better the other way. I ended up trading the other defenseman." - Think Jake Gardiner (at least on TML)

 

[JD1]

Sure, a lot of people do not like wowy analysis. It is an eye-test regression. I have no problem saying it is problematic, but the pattern is clear with Zaitsev, so someone needs to explain the pattern of him dragging every player on our roster down.

On point one, I am not really sure what the issue is here. No one thinks every shot is a scoring chance. It might be technically defined as such, but that is not how scoring chance data is calculated.

On point two, I don't really agree with you, but I don't disagree with you. Whiffing on the shot has a 0 probability of going in. If you could only choose between whiffing on an odd-man rush or shooting from the point, you'd take shooting from the point.
That being said, the players should get credit in other ways for creating the odd-man rush, but it is not through expected goals, and I think that is your point. Even if you whiffed, something good did happen on the ice, and we should account for that. For example, if Mcdavid sauces it to Drait in the middle of the ice, people do track that, and McDavid would get credit for putting the puck into a dangerous area of the ice. If Drait carried the puck in before the odd-man rush, he would get credit for the zone entry. All this stuff can be found through tracking data. Ottawa management can get those types of numbers, so while my analysis might be limited, the actual team has way better numbers to work with, but I have a feeling they are not really using them in any capacity.

I also feel the need to point out stats, by definition, will never be perfect. They are the best estimation we have at the time. If we have better stats guys than other teams, we will have better estimations, and that leads to competitive advantage. If we could take everything into account, we would not need stats because we would know everything.

Also, the main point of my original post is Zaitsev does not have comparable numbers to actual top four defenders, and he is bad by literally every metric. He has bad macro, micro, wowy, war, and isolated metrics. We have moved away from the Zaitsev discussion, but my point was to look at the pattern of terrible metrics across the board. Remember, every excuse made for Zaitsev does not need to be made for any actual top-four defender on any other team.

For the athletic poll, I found it on the mainboards. I don't subscribe to the athletic, but the results were posted in the OP. The thread is probably on the second or third page of the main board as of now.

I've no interest in a Zaitsev debate

But you did mention wowy, xGF and the Athletic. I could not find the article but the one article i did find (i gave you the author and date) references both wowy and xG models

I think so called advanced stats have some advancing to achieve before we can really rely on them

As i said in the example in my previous post, referencing me shooting on Price or a McDavid /Draisaitl rush, today's models are wrong. They return the correct statistical result but in reality that is the wrong result. The models need to be rethought to be valid

 

[Cosmix]

Not really sure how to accomplish this though. If we go younger, I'm hesitant to say we're worse off.

You may be right but I would not quarrel with trading Hainsey, Borowiecki, Pageau, Sabourin, Ennis, Boedker to acquire picks and prospects.

Bringing England and Jaros up would not be an improvement on D. Bringing up the young forward prospects also would not do much other than give them some experience.

 

[aragorn]

IMO all of the UFAs should be on the table to be traded, if they can't get what they want for a certain player & he could help Ottawa next season than I would be okay with signing that guy (Boro, Pageau or DeMello) for a yr or two. Other than that whichever UFA can not be traded & they are not interested in re-signing should be allowed to walk at yr's end. While trading these UAFs they should be open to getting picks or a very good young player in return rather than just picks & the picks should be for this yr & next yr's draft.

At next yr's trade deadline I would expect that they will try & move Anisimov, Tierny, Reilly & maybe Nilsson, Ryan, Zaitsev & maybe a non-performer. Again try & get the best picks possible for the 2021 or 2022 draft as well as maybe a good young prospect who could fit in Ottawa's future plans.

 

[ijif]

I've no interest in a Zaitsev debate

But you did mention wowy, xGF and the Athletic. I could not find the article but the one article i did find (i gave you the author and date) references both wowy and xG models

I think so called advanced stats have some advancing to achieve before we can really rely on them

As i said in the example in my previous post, referencing me shooting on Price or a McDavid /Draisaitl rush, today's models are wrong. They return the correct statistical result but in reality that is the wrong result. The models need to be rethought to be valid

I don't have the athletic.
I told you where to find the results of the article.
I have already stated that I have no interest in arguing about the strength of expected goal models.
It is wrong (in your opinion). I have already explain how it can be accounted for. This is why we use multiple stats. No stat will ever be perfect.

Please do not respond to me unless you can explain why all of Zaitsev's numbers suck compared to other top-four defenders. In other words, don't respond to me unless you are attacking my main point.

 

[ijif]

I love how statistcal validity is questioned over and over again as if 90% of this board has a valid eye test.

Most of you couldn't out scout a monkey, and that isn't an insult, the pros can't do it, and I probably can't.

 

[supsens]

Sure, a lot of people do not like wowy analysis. It is an eye-test regression. I have no problem saying it is problematic, but the pattern is clear with Zaitsev, so someone needs to explain the pattern of him dragging every player on our roster down.

On point one, I am not really sure what the issue is here. No one thinks every shot is a scoring chance. It might be technically defined as such, but that is not how scoring chance data is calculated.

On point two, I don't really agree with you, but I don't disagree with you. Whiffing on the shot has a 0 probability of going in. If you could only choose between whiffing on an odd-man rush or shooting from the point, you'd take shooting from the point.
That being said, the players should get credit in other ways for creating the odd-man rush, but it is not through expected goals, and I think that is your point. Even if you whiffed, something good did happen on the ice, and we should account for that. For example, if Mcdavid sauces it to Drait in the middle of the ice, people do track that, and McDavid would get credit for putting the puck into a dangerous area of the ice. If Drait carried the puck in before the odd-man rush, he would get credit for the zone entry. All this stuff can be found through tracking data. Ottawa management can get those types of numbers, so while my analysis might be limited, the actual team has way better numbers to work with, but I have a feeling they are not really using them in any capacity.

I also feel the need to point out stats, by definition, will never be perfect. They are the best estimation we have at the time. If we have better stats guys than other teams, we will have better estimations, and that leads to competitive advantage. If we could take everything into account, we would not need stats because we would know everything.

Also, the main point of my original post is Zaitsev does not have comparable numbers to actual top four defenders, and he is bad by literally every metric. He has bad macro, micro, wowy, war, and isolated metrics. We have moved away from the Zaitsev discussion, but my point was to look at the pattern of terrible metrics across the board. Remember, every excuse made for Zaitsev does not need to be made for any actual top-four defender on any other team.

For the athletic poll, I found it on the mainboards. I don't subscribe to the athletic, but the results were posted in the OP. The thread is probably on the second or third page of the main board as of now.

Demelo raises everyone’s numbers so away from Z probably means time with Demelo and a boost of stats. And once you get into guys that get almost zero ice time they probably get the easiest matches and don’t play a lot so those numbers will be random.

 

[ijif]

Demelo raises everyone’s numbers so away from Z probably means time with Demelo and a boost of stats. And once you get into guys that get almost zero ice time they probably get the easiest matches and don’t play a lot so those numbers will be random.

This is a fair interpretation of the numbers, but DeMelo boosted everyone last year. Zaitsev has never had good numbers.

 

[supsens]

This is a fair interpretation of the numbers, but DeMelo boosted everyone last year. Zaitsev has never had good numbers.

He’s not that good this is true, but the rest of the team is brutal also so most guys are going to have bad stats, most our guys will be on the below average side of advanced stats, at the end of the day he isn’t getting beat/out scored much worse than the rest of the team, probably middle of the pack.

 

[ijif]

He’s not that good this is true, but the rest of the team is brutal also so most guys are going to have bad stats, most our guys will be on the below average side of advanced stats, at the end of the day he isn’t getting beat/out scored much worse than the rest of the team, probably middle of the pack.

That is fair. I don't expect our players to put up great numbers. We do suck. My posts were partially trying to hype up DeMelo a bit. I think he is really solid. He has great raw numbers on a crappy team for two years now. Anyway, based on relative stats, Zaitsev is getting outplayed relative to the team. Of course, that can be because he is taking the hard matchups or whatever other reason someone wants to come up with, but he is at the bottom of relative CF%, GF%, and xGF% (posting xGF% for completeness). He is dead last in all three. I do not know how that is not concerning. Find me another top-four defender that is dead last on his team in all three of those categories (if you think he is a top-four defender).

I am fine with having crappy players on the team because it is a tank and because you can never have strong players throughout the entire lineup, but when we compete, we cannot be paying players posting such poor results anything more than league minimum. He is not providing the value of a top four-defender, and I still doubt he puts up good numbers in a third-pairing role because he is a limited player. Even if he did provide good numbers on the third pair, it probably is not worth it at his current cap.

 

[supsens]

That is fair. I don't expect our players to put up great numbers. We do suck. My posts were partially trying to hype up DeMelo a bit. I think he is really solid. He has great raw numbers on a crappy team for two years now. Anyway, based on relative stats, Zaitsev is getting outplayed relative to the team. Of course, that can be because he is taking the hard matchups or whatever other reason someone wants to come up with, but he is at the bottom of relative CF%, GF%, and xGF% (posting xGF% for completeness). He is dead last in all three. I do not know how that is not concerning. Find me another top-four defender that is dead last on his team in all three of those categories (if you think he is a top-four defender).

I am fine with having crappy players on the team because it is a tank and because you can never have strong players throughout the entire lineup, but when we compete, we cannot be paying players posting such poor results anything more than league minimum. He is not providing the value of a top four-defender, and I still doubt he puts up good numbers in a third-pairing role because he is a limited player. Even if he did provide good numbers on the third pair, it probably is not worth it at his current cap.

Well its’s kind of redundant if you are getting the least amount of shots you should also be getting close to least amount of GF and expected goals for. It’s like being the shortest guy in the room and saying your face and the top of your head are also shorter than everyone else so that’s 3 bad things..
And like I said 1 or 2 goals and he has the same GF% as Chabot

 

[JD1]

I don't have the athletic.
I told you where to find the results of the article.
I have already stated that I have no interest in arguing about the strength of expected goal models.
It is wrong (in your opinion). I have already explain how it can be accounted for. This is why we use multiple stats. No stat will ever be perfect.

Please do not respond to me unless you can explain why all of Zaitsev's numbers suck compared to other top-four defenders. In other words, don't respond to me unless you are attacking my main point.

I really don't have any interest in your Zaitsev argument. None. Absolutely none. I don't care. I'm just highlighting that you are using stats whose very existence is to a degree questionable

 

[ijif]

Well its’s kind of redundant if you are getting the least amount of shots you should also be getting close to least amount of GF and expected goals for. It’s like being the shortest guy in the room and saying your face and the top of your head are also shorter than everyone else so that’s 3 bad things..
And like I said 1 or 2 goals and he has the same GF% as Chabot

No, your analogy is terrible. Most players are not at the bottom of all those stats for their team. Most players fair well in at least one of them.

My argument is not that Zaitsev is bad because he has a poor GF%. It is because every stat and the eye test says he is bad. Raw and relative GF%, CF%, xGF%, wowy, WAR, and isolated metrics all say he is terrible, but I am sure you will tell me why all those stats are so terrible and that Zaitsev is truly a fine defender. The pattern of terrible numbers across the board does not hold for Chabot. Chabot has good numbers in some areas and not great numbers in others, and his numbers sparkle without Zaitsev. Stop trying to play this "gotcha" game. It isn't working.

 

[ijif]

I really don't have any interest in your Zaitsev argument. None. Absolutely none. I don't care. I'm just highlighting that you are using stats whose very existence is to a degree questionable

You are not highlighting anything to anyone. You have not said anything I don't already know. Your critiques are not revolutionary new ideas.

 

[supsens]

No, your analogy is terrible. Most players are not at the bottom of all those stats for their team. Most players fair well in at least one of them.

My argument is not that Zaitsev is bad because he has a poor GF%. It is because every stat and the eye test says he is bad. Raw and relative GF%, CF%, xGF%, wowy, WAR, and isolated metrics all say he is terrible, but I am sure you will tell me why all those stats are so terrible and that Zaitsev is truly a fine defender. The pattern of terrible numbers across the board does not hold for Chabot. Chabot has good numbers in some areas and not great numbers in others, and his numbers sparkle without Zaitsev. Stop trying to play this "gotcha" game. It isn't working.

There is no gotcha, you are now saying CF% will have no bearing on xGF% nor are either of those related to GF%...
I’m not sure you understand the basics of the stats themselves or what they should reflect..
That is the entire reason and drive behind the creation of the stats themselves. This xGF% is the closest prediction they have for GF% and your argument to back the stat is to say they don’t reflect reality or go together?

 

[ijif]

There is no gotcha, you are now saying CF% will have no bearing on xGF% nor are either of those related to GF%...
I’m not sure you understand the basics of the stats themselves or what they should reflect..
That is the entire reason and drive behind the creation of the stats themselves. This xGF% is the closest prediction they have for GF% and your argument to back the stat is to say they don’t reflect reality or go together?

That isn't what I am saying.

This has been a good conversation. I hope you have a great day.

 

[HavlatMach9]

I love how statistcal validity is questioned over and over again as if 90% of this board has a valid eye test.

Depends on who is interpreting stats. Stats will show more than the eye test, but I imagine it gets used completely wrong all the time.

 

[Tuna99]

There is no gotcha, you are now saying CF% will have no bearing on xGF% nor are either of those related to GF%...
I’m not sure you understand the basics of the stats themselves or what they should reflect..
That is the entire reason and drive behind the creation of the stats themselves. This xGF% is the closest prediction they have for GF% and your argument to back the stat is to say they don’t reflect reality or go together?

analytics were designed for NHL owners who are used to seeing performance put on a spread sheet so they can evaluate their employees. Owning a $700 million dollar franchise and being told that’s this player is good because they have intangibles doesn’t work for owners who work with graphs and charts and can pin point excellence or poor work - analytics was created to sell a package of graphs of player and team play to owner's who want accountability by pointing to a spread sheet. Owners don’t know how to fix bad teams because their GMs would have explanations like ‘he’s a one shot threat scorer’ or ‘he’s a 200 foot player’, they wanted somthing tanglinke they could pull out of a desk drawer and say - ‘you said this was a possession player and his Poseidon metrics are terrible’

Analytics are for people who don’t like watching hockey, they want to evaluate it based on numbers that aren’t winning and losing

 

[Sweatred]

Chappy and Form called up. Maybe we should give Duc a day or two to recover from his travels...

 

[BatherSeason]

I get that some people don't see value in analytics, but to be completely ignorant and rude about it is a little much.