Proposal: Trade Rumours/Proposals 2019-20 PART VIII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,475
7,194
Ottawa
The team was on a 99 point pace at the time of the trade. And that's with Karlsson missing training camp and the first half dozen games. Upgrading Turris for Duchene should have improved the team.

Whining about the playoff run being not sustainable or depleted opponents doesn't turn the Senators from a fringe playoff team to a bottom dweller. While you can question whether or not the team would make the playoffs, no one except the most ardent Senators hater would have predicted them ending up 30th.

From what I remember, most predictions in the off season had them as a bubble team.

The start of the season was fools gold for people who weren’t paying attention because they were playing poorly but doing just well enough to get a boost from loser points.

It’s not whining, it’s a fact. Boston was missing several key players and Ottawa was a fringe playoff team in 2016-2017 who went on a special run.

A fringe team that went on a special/lucky/hot run, and then lost a top four defenseman and was going to get diminishing returns from their best player and best defenseman without adding anything of value certainly doesn’t look like a good bet to go all in.

Duchene was an on-ice upgrade over Turris, no question, but that was an all in move. A first and a recent first on top of your best Center. You have to be right on your evaluation or you will be judged accordingly.

Again, IIRC, Turris was considered a glue guy and the team wasn’t happy he was moved. They went on a few massive losing streaks right after the trade.

Being a fringe/bubble team, your first is very valuable. Maybe second last wasn’t predictable but it’s certainly not a good gamble.

99 point pace at the time of the trade is a sorely lacking evaluation of the state of the team at the time of the trade.

First off, 14 game sample. Not exactly predictive enough to be banking on pace.

6 wins in those 14 games, and frankly the team looked bad in many of those games. The wheels were falling off.

I do agree that Duchene should have improved the team, but i don't think it was the area the team was most in need of improvement, nor was the timing particularly good. Like you said, karlsson missed camp and looked off, maybe hold off to see how he recovers before going all in? Maybe find him a better partner then Oduya?

Lots of people predicted Ottawa would miss the playoff. Not many were predicting them to be dead last, but many foresaw them struggling that year.

Spot on.
 

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
I guess I’m thinking more about a WAR than GAR and specifically something like WAR/million or war/million related to the expected WAR/Million.

Who is more valuable ? A $3.5 million dollar player who puts a a $3.5 type season or a $9.5 million player who puts up a $9.5 type season? Part of me wants to call them even, parts wants to favour a $9.5 season, but the $3.5 player will likely only under produce by $1-2.5 million.

Stone at 29 looks OK but who knows what type of season he will have at 34 with two kids and a bad back. He may put up a $3 million season making $9.5.

Is Duclair more valuable when he has a $6 million season when he makes $1.6 vs Bobby Ryan who makes 7 and has a $1.5 million season or Chris Tierney who makes $3.5 and has a $3.5 tpye season ?

Are you aware of any stay that correlates player salary to expected output.

GAR is just unconverted WAR. GAR has larger numbers and spreads players out a little more, so that is why I use it. Stone provided 2.8 WAR. Forwards ranked 9-14 all provided 2.8 WAR.

I am not that versed in contracts, so I am not sure exactly what you mean by a 3.5 or X million-dollar season. If you expand on that, I could say more. If the players are assumed to be providing equal value to contract, you probably prefer the higher paid player as that player will get you closer to the 100 GAR mark, those players are much rarer, and fans like watching those players more, so that helps with making money for the team.

Here is maybe one way to view it. Again, contracts are not really my thing, so maybe this is off. Historically speaking, a team needs to accumulate 100+ GAR in a season to win the cup. The salary cap in 19-20 was 81.5 million, so Stone took up ~11.7% of the cap. One could say that means he should be providing at least 11.7 GAR to help the team get to 100. He provided 15.8, and he has never had a season below 15. Tierney at 3.5 million must provide 4.29 GAR for his GAR contribution to equal his cap hit percentage. He provided 3.5 last season. Again, GAR can easily be converted to WAR, so it is the same thing. Of course, you can baseline to an average team instead of a cup winning team, and Stone's value skyrockets. There are many ways to look at it.

JFreshHockey on twitter has found that 1 WAR is roughly worth 3.5 million dollars on the open market. Stone provided ~3 WAR last season, so he was worth about 10.5 million from that perspective. Here is a graphic for Stone from JFreshHockey. This was taken some point in the season, so that is why his WAR changed to 2.8 from 3.4.
upload_2020-6-18_18-40-36.png



Here is how the ranges of WAR can be viewed:
upload_2020-6-18_19-1-7.png


I am not aware of any project that has looked at the correlation between xGAR and salary; however, that is not really important. The only way salary can have an impact on performance is if the player stops trying after getting paid. What is more important is the repeatability of GAR. The more repeatable, the more confidence you can have in using it for future assessment. I don't have correlations for expected numbers, but JFreshHockey has found that using a regression for the past three seasons produces an r2 of 0.5 in relation to the next season, so it is repeatable to a decent extent; however, Stone has produced incredibly strong results for his entire career, so he is not getting lucky, and his numbers are probably more repeatable than a regression suggests.
 

Crosside

Registered User
Aug 1, 2018
4,724
1,842
From what I remember, most predictions in the off season had them as a bubble team.

The start of the season was fools gold for people who weren’t paying attention because they were playing poorly but doing just well enough to get a boost from loser points.

It’s not whining, it’s a fact. Boston was missing several key players and Ottawa was a fringe playoff team in 2016-2017 who went on a special run.

A fringe team that went on a special/lucky/hot run, and then lost a top four defenseman and was going to get diminishing returns from their best player and best defenseman without adding anything of value certainly doesn’t look like a good bet to go all in.

Duchene was an on-ice upgrade over Turris, no question, but that was an all in move. A first and a recent first on top of your best Center. You have to be right on your evaluation or you will be judged accordingly.

Again, IIRC, Turris was considered a glue guy and the team wasn’t happy he was moved. They went on a few massive losing streaks right after the trade.

Being a fringe/bubble team, your first is very valuable. Maybe second last wasn’t predictable but it’s certainly not a good gamble.



Spot on.
The biggest reason of this fall is Condon and Anderson can stop the puck
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
The biggest reason of this fall is Condon and Anderson can stop the puck

Yes and no.

Goaltending did take a dive, but a goalie is also heavily reliant on the team in front of him. Say what you want about Turris and Methot, but both guys were good on the defensive side of the puck. Losing two of them at once made it one hell of a lot harder for our netminders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aragorn

DueDiligence

Registered User
Nov 16, 2013
8,471
4,836
GAR is just unconverted WAR. GAR has larger numbers and spreads players out a little more, so that is why I use it. Stone provided 2.8 WAR. Forwards ranked 9-14 all provided 2.8 WAR.

I am not that versed in contracts, so I am not sure exactly what you mean by a 3.5 or X million-dollar season. If you expand on that, I could say more. If the players are assumed to be providing equal value to contract, you probably prefer the higher paid player as that player will get you closer to the 100 GAR mark, those players are much rarer, and fans like watching those players more, so that helps with making money for the team.

Here is maybe one way to view it. Again, contracts are not really my thing, so maybe this is off. Historically speaking, a team needs to accumulate 100+ GAR in a season to win the cup. The salary cap in 19-20 was 81.5 million, so Stone took up ~11.7% of the cap. One could say that means he should be providing at least 11.7 GAR to help the team get to 100. He provided 15.8, and he has never had a season below 15. Tierney at 3.5 million must provide 4.29 GAR for his GAR contribution to equal his cap hit percentage. He provided 3.5 last season. Again, GAR can easily be converted to WAR, so it is the same thing. Of course, you can baseline to an average team instead of a cup winning team, and Stone's value skyrockets. There are many ways to look at it.

JFreshHockey on twitter has found that 1 WAR is roughly worth 3.5 million dollars on the open market. Stone provided ~3 WAR last season, so he was worth about 10.5 million from that perspective. Here is a graphic for Stone from JFreshHockey. This was taken some point in the season, so that is why his WAR changed to 2.8 from 3.4.
View attachment 350653


Here is how the ranges of WAR can be viewed:
View attachment 350655

I am not aware of any project that has looked at the correlation between xGAR and salary; however, that is not really important. The only way salary can have an impact on performance is if the player stops trying after getting paid. What is more important is the repeatability of GAR. The more repeatable, the more confidence you can have in using it for future assessment. I don't have correlations for expected numbers, but JFreshHockey has found that using a regression for the past three seasons produces an r2 of 0.5 in relation to the next season, so it is repeatable to a decent extent; however, Stone has produced incredibly strong results for his entire career, so he is not getting lucky, and his numbers are probably more repeatable than a regression suggests.
Stone is certainly a great player now and has been for 5 plus years. But he is 28, has another 6 years on his contract, and analytics would say his best stat years are behind him. He might remain steady for 2-3 years more but then he will probably decline. If the Knights win a cup or two they won't care but a team like the Senators would not a declining star ( with 3-4 years remaining on a contract) as they just start becoming seriously competitive.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
I believe Stone will be an impact player for many years, but knowing our track record with cutting bait on the core of our 2017 run team (Karsslon, Turris, Brassard, Phaneuf, Smith, Methot, Dzingel), Stone will somehow be bad next season.

Him and Hoffman are the only two core players from that run who we've moved on from who have escaped a major decline. It is too early with Pageau since we just traded him.

On a side note, it's fascinating how many players on that team either have had a major decline, or are out of the NHL entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aragorn

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
Stone is certainly a great player now and has been for 5 plus years. But he is 28, has another 6 years on his contract, and analytics would say his best stat years are behind him. He might remain steady for 2-3 years more but then he will probably decline. If the Knights win a cup or two they won't care but a team like the Senators would not a declining star ( with 3-4 years remaining on a contract) as they just start becoming seriously competitive.

I never said Ottawa should have signed him. I would have traded our "core" a lot earlier than Dorian.
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,555
From what I remember, most predictions in the off season had them as a bubble team.

The start of the season was fools gold for people who weren’t paying attention because they were playing poorly but doing just well enough to get a boost from loser points.

It’s not whining, it’s a fact. Boston was missing several key players and Ottawa was a fringe playoff team in 2016-2017 who went on a special run.

A fringe team that went on a special/lucky/hot run, and then lost a top four defenseman and was going to get diminishing returns from their best player and best defenseman without adding anything of value certainly doesn’t look like a good bet to go all in.

Duchene was an on-ice upgrade over Turris, no question, but that was an all in move. A first and a recent first on top of your best Center. You have to be right on your evaluation or you will be judged accordingly.

Again, IIRC, Turris was considered a glue guy and the team wasn’t happy he was moved. They went on a few massive losing streaks right after the trade.

Being a fringe/bubble team, your first is very valuable. Maybe second last wasn’t predictable but it’s certainly not a good gamble.



Spot on.

There are a few other factors at play that I find often get dismissed

PD made several moves leading up to that tdl that strengthened our bottom 6. Recall Kelly and Neil dressing for every game they were healthy in the regular season but not playing in the playoffs. We added several bodies by the tdl, then injuries hit and as a team we played those last 20 games very banged up. We were healthy as the playoffs started and we saw a different roster throughout those playoffs

The other thing about that 30th place collapse was Anderson's play fell off a cliff. Slow age related decline is predictable. That's not what happened. Anderson went from a middle of the pack 15 to 20 overall type starter to not being a starter capable guy at all. And he's never recovered.
 

JungleBeat

Registered User
Sep 10, 2016
5,049
3,547
Canada
There are a few other factors at play that I find often get dismissed

PD made several moves leading up to that tdl that strengthened our bottom 6. Recall Kelly and Neil dressing for every game they were healthy in the regular season but not playing in the playoffs. We added several bodies by the tdl, then injuries hit and as a team we played those last 20 games very banged up. We were healthy as the playoffs started and we saw a different roster throughout those playoffs

The other thing about that 30th place collapse was Anderson's play fell off a cliff. Slow age related decline is predictable. That's not what happened. Anderson went from a middle of the pack 15 to 20 overall type starter to not being a starter capable guy at all. And he's never recovered.
Adding fringe NHLers at the deadline is a weak attempt at going all in. All the guys Dorion added have been out of the NHL for awhile now lol.
 

JungleBeat

Registered User
Sep 10, 2016
5,049
3,547
Canada
They were bottom 6 players brought in to strengthen the bottom 6. And they did. What's lol worthy is not understanding that
Strengthen the bottom six by barely being NHL players? Lol, a combined zero goals between them. Unbelievable, such a terrible bottom six Dorion assembled with only Pageau and Smith bringing any sort of value.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
Adding fringe NHLers at the deadline is a weak attempt at going all in. All the guys Dorion added have been out of the NHL for awhile now lol.
To be fair, adding fringe nhl players to replace Kelly and Neil was a pretty significant improvement. Burrows was not great but Neil was a liability. Same with Stalberg and Wingels vs Kelly.

MacArthur was also a big addition for the playoffs,

Our playoff roster was decent, not great. The kind you expect to maybe sneak into the 2nd round if they get lucky, but karlsson played out of this world, the bruins had tons of injuries, and we caught some breaks giving the team the confidence to really buy in and have everyone pushing in the same direction.

Our playoff roster was significantly better then the reg season roster that followed imo, and thats without taking into account Anderson getting older, along with both Karlsson and Brassard missing training camp to significant surgeries.

Anyways, not sure what this has to do with current trade proposals, so how about this;

Assuming we get Drysdale and a Center (whether it be Byfield, Stutzle, Rossi or Perfetti), i think we need to shore up our backend with a physical pressence.

So... Thomson, Wolanin and Brannstrom along with a plethora of 2nd round picks seem like decent collection of trade chips to go after a big two way guy in the mold of Parayko or Carlo. Are there any good young targets in that mold we could go after?

I mean, I'd love to add a Dobson type but nobody is giving that up...
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
GAR is just unconverted WAR. GAR has larger numbers and spreads players out a little more, so that is why I use it. Stone provided 2.8 WAR. Forwards ranked 9-14 all provided 2.8 WAR.

I am not that versed in contracts, so I am not sure exactly what you mean by a 3.5 or X million-dollar season. If you expand on that, I could say more. If the players are assumed to be providing equal value to contract, you probably prefer the higher paid player as that player will get you closer to the 100 GAR mark, those players are much rarer, and fans like watching those players more, so that helps with making money for the team.

Here is maybe one way to view it. Again, contracts are not really my thing, so maybe this is off. Historically speaking, a team needs to accumulate 100+ GAR in a season to win the cup. The salary cap in 19-20 was 81.5 million, so Stone took up ~11.7% of the cap. One could say that means he should be providing at least 11.7 GAR to help the team get to 100. He provided 15.8, and he has never had a season below 15. Tierney at 3.5 million must provide 4.29 GAR for his GAR contribution to equal his cap hit percentage. He provided 3.5 last season. Again, GAR can easily be converted to WAR, so it is the same thing. Of course, you can baseline to an average team instead of a cup winning team, and Stone's value skyrockets. There are many ways to look at it.

JFreshHockey on twitter has found that 1 WAR is roughly worth 3.5 million dollars on the open market. Stone provided ~3 WAR last season, so he was worth about 10.5 million from that perspective. Here is a graphic for Stone from JFreshHockey. This was taken some point in the season, so that is why his WAR changed to 2.8 from 3.4.
View attachment 350653


Here is how the ranges of WAR can be viewed:
View attachment 350655

I am not aware of any project that has looked at the correlation between xGAR and salary; however, that is not really important. The only way salary can have an impact on performance is if the player stops trying after getting paid. What is more important is the repeatability of GAR. The more repeatable, the more confidence you can have in using it for future assessment. I don't have correlations for expected numbers, but JFreshHockey has found that using a regression for the past three seasons produces an r2 of 0.5 in relation to the next season, so it is repeatable to a decent extent; however, Stone has produced incredibly strong results for his entire career, so he is not getting lucky, and his numbers are probably more repeatable than a regression suggests.

That’s pretty concise and I think it works for what I am trying to convey. Whether it’s based on accumulation of 100 GAR of a positive or negative correlation to 1.0 GAR=$3 million.

I’ll take a look at the website. Ultimately I’d like a way to evaluate the cost/value of over and underperforming players and ultimately to determine a players value.

How good was Duclair ? How bad was White/Ryan etc. Could someone like Boro on 2019-2020 deal be more valuable than EK? At least for allocating resources to secure 100GAR.

I did find the 2018-19 GAR totals compared to salary. For example Chabot was one of the highest GAR/lowest salary/cap hit players. Bouwmester was one of the worst. I can’t find the same graph for 2019-20. A lot is behind paywalls and I can se why the NHLPA doesn’t want these types of stats commonly shared.
 
Last edited:

guyzeur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2009
5,412
614
Ottawa
That’s pretty concise and I think it works for what I am trying to convey. Whether it’s based on accumulation of 100 GAR of a positive or negative correlation to 1.0 GAR=$3 million.

I’ll take a look at the website. Ultimately I’d like a way to evaluate the cost/value of over and underperforming players and ultimately to determine a players value.

How good was Duclair ? How bad was White/Ryan etc. Could someone like Boro on 2019-2020 deal be more valuable than EK? At least for allocating resources to secure 100GAR.

I did find the 2018-19 GAR totals compared to salary. For example Chabot was one of the highest GAR/lowest salary/cap hit players. Bouwmester was one of the worst. I can’t find the same graph for 2019-20. A lot is behind paywalls and I can se why the NHLPA doesn’t want these types of stats commonly shared.
Let's say you are the GM, are you ever going to take any risks? How long will be your contracts? 2 to 4 years?
 
Last edited:

HSF

Registered User
Sep 3, 2008
26,058
7,601
I believe Stone will be an impact player for many years, but knowing our track record with cutting bait on the core of our 2017 run team (Karsslon, Turris, Brassard, Phaneuf, Smith, Methot, Dzingel), Stone will somehow be bad next season.

Him and Hoffman are the only two core players from that run who we've moved on from who have escaped a major decline. It is too early with Pageau since we just traded him.

On a side note, it's fascinating how many players on that team either have had a major decline, or are out of the NHL entirely.

Smith Brass and Phaneuf are not surprising. Smith was trash for the past couples years he was here and Phaneuf and Brass were brought in as vets to tighten some positions up. Meth was also older. Dzingle had pretty mixed reviews here people didn't want to pay him too much. The only really ones that hurt are the young guys like karlsson Duchene Stone and Hoff. I would say the only real decline is Karlsson but we will see if he can recover from it.

I guess what im saying is the decline of the olders guys is not surprising
 

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
That’s pretty concise and I think it works for what I am trying to convey. Whether it’s based on accumulation of 100 GAR of a positive or negative correlation to 1.0 GAR=$3 million.

I’ll take a look at the website. Ultimately I’d like a way to evaluate the cost/value of over and underperforming players and ultimately to determine a players value.

How good was Duclair ? How bad was White/Ryan etc. Could someone like Boro on 2019-2020 deal be more valuable than EK? At least for allocating resources to secure 100GAR.

I did find the 2018-19 GAR totals compared to salary. For example Chabot was one of the highest GAR/lowest salary/cap hit players. Bouwmester was one of the worst. I can’t find the same graph for 2019-20. A lot is behind paywalls and I can se why the NHLPA doesn’t want these types of stats commonly shared.

I was going to mention it is paywalled. The people that run the site did made it paywalled a couple of months ago, but it was free for a long time, and other people have had WAR metrics for free, but they get hired by NHL teams, so all the stuff gets taken down. The people just get RTSS data directly from the NHL, so it doesn't have anything to do with the NHLPA. Most of these people making the models are just stat guys that like hockey. All the write-ups for the models are available online.

Duclair provided 1.6 GAR or 0.2 WAR. He can push offence at even strength, but he is not good at defence. In 18-19, he had a 0.8 GAR or 0.1 WAR. Over the last two seasons, he is the 287th ranked forward. He is a strong offensive player, but he is a very weak defensive player. I would not offer Duclair term. As long as it is fewer than 3 years, I don't care how much they pay him.

White was not good this year, but he was good last year. His contract probably won't be the best, but if he can get back to 18-19 form, it won't be terrible. I would not mind trading him, though. He is a player that is going to need a driver like Stone on his line.

The model actually liked Ryan compared to what I expected. He was a negative player in 19-20, but he has put up decent numbers over his career because he drives even-strength offence at a first-line level, but that has fallen off.

Boro is a sub-replacement level player. He is not an NHL level player. Karlsson was a beast for SJ in 18-19. It took him a bit to get going, but he did get going. In the last 35 games, he had 38 points. In that span, in only one game was he outscored at 5 v 5. He gave SJ 16.4 GAR in 18-19 and 3.8 in 19-20. His xGAR did not really fall off, but xGAR can be problematic. It's hard to say where he is at in terms of playing ability with his injuries and such. We will have a better idea next year.

Chabot is a great player, and I think his contract will good for us moving forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2owned

Cosmix

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 24, 2011
17,797
6,436
Ottawa
To be fair, adding fringe nhl players to replace Kelly and Neil was a pretty significant improvement. Burrows was not great but Neil was a liability. Same with Stalberg and Wingels vs Kelly.

MacArthur was also a big addition for the playoffs,

Our playoff roster was decent, not great. The kind you expect to maybe sneak into the 2nd round if they get lucky, but karlsson played out of this world, the bruins had tons of injuries, and we caught some breaks giving the team the confidence to really buy in and have everyone pushing in the same direction.

Our playoff roster was significantly better then the reg season roster that followed imo, and thats without taking into account Anderson getting older, along with both Karlsson and Brassard missing training camp to significant surgeries.

Anyways, not sure what this has to do with current trade proposals, so how about this;

Assuming we get Drysdale and a Center (whether it be Byfield, Stutzle, Rossi or Perfetti), i think we need to shore up our backend with a physical pressence.

So... Thomson, Wolanin and Brannstrom along with a plethora of 2nd round picks seem like decent collection of trade chips to go after a big two way guy in the mold of Parayko or Carlo. Are there any good young targets in that mold we could go after?

I mean, I'd love to add a Dobson type but nobody is giving that up...

I don’t think the Senators budget at this time includes the addition of high salaried free agents. Melnyk appears to have adopted the strategy of improving the team via the drafting of young prospects and retaining them through their cost-controlled years on ELCs and RFA contracts. That is not a bad strategy for a small Canadian market team with seat revenues in Canadian dollars and an owner with capital and profit-related issues.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
I was going to mention it is paywalled. The people that run the site did made it paywalled a couple of months ago, but it was free for a long time, and other people have had WAR metrics for free, but they get hired by NHL teams, so all the stuff gets taken down. The people just get RTSS data directly from the NHL, so it doesn't have anything to do with the NHLPA. Most of these people making the models are just stat guys that like hockey. All the write-ups for the models are available online.

Duclair provided 1.6 GAR or 0.2 WAR. He can push offence at even strength, but he is not good at defence. In 18-19, he had a 0.8 GAR or 0.1 WAR. Over the last two seasons, he is the 287th ranked forward. He is a strong offensive player, but he is a very weak defensive player. I would not offer Duclair term. As long as it is fewer than 3 years, I don't care how much they pay him.

White was not good this year, but he was good last year. His contract probably won't be the best, but if he can get back to 18-19 form, it won't be terrible. I would not mind trading him, though. He is a player that is going to need a driver like Stone on his line.

The model actually liked Ryan compared to what I expected. He was a negative player in 19-20, but he has put up decent numbers over his career because he drives even-strength offence at a first-line level, but that has fallen off.

Boro is a sub-replacement level player. He is not an NHL level player. Karlsson was a beast for SJ in 18-19. It took him a bit to get going, but he did get going. In the last 35 games, he had 38 points. In that span, in only one game was he outscored at 5 v 5. He gave SJ 16.4 GAR in 18-19 and 3.8 in 19-20. His xGAR did not really fall off, but xGAR can be problematic. It's hard to say where he is at in terms of playing ability with his injuries and such. We will have a better idea next year.

Chabot is a great player, and I think his contract will good for us moving forward.

People stopped watching Karlsson after the early stretch.

He played some of the best hockey of his career in San Jose after an awkward first 15 or so games. Then he got hurt. It's why I'm not bullish on the idea that he is done already.

So what I'm saying is, it's interesting that the advanced stats validate that "eye test" that Karlsson was really good for a stretch in 18-19.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
Let's say you are the GM, are you ever going to take any risks? How long will be your contracts? 2 to 4 years?

Im OK with Chabot and Brady getti long term deals. There is still a lot of risk with Chabot’s 8 but I think that is the right place to put the risk vs hobbling 29 year olds who are already multimillionaires and want retirement contracts that they hopefully will be bought out of.
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
I was going to mention it is paywalled. The people that run the site did made it paywalled a couple of months ago, but it was free for a long time, and other people have had WAR metrics for free, but they get hired by NHL teams, so all the stuff gets taken down. The people just get RTSS data directly from the NHL, so it doesn't have anything to do with the NHLPA. Most of these people making the models are just stat guys that like hockey. All the write-ups for the models are available online.

Duclair provided 1.6 GAR or 0.2 WAR. He can push offence at even strength, but he is not good at defence. In 18-19, he had a 0.8 GAR or 0.1 WAR. Over the last two seasons, he is the 287th ranked forward. He is a strong offensive player, but he is a very weak defensive player. I would not offer Duclair term. As long as it is fewer than 3 years, I don't care how much they pay him.

White was not good this year, but he was good last year. His contract probably won't be the best, but if he can get back to 18-19 form, it won't be terrible. I would not mind trading him, though. He is a player that is going to need a driver like Stone on his line.

The model actually liked Ryan compared to what I expected. He was a negative player in 19-20, but he has put up decent numbers over his career because he drives even-strength offence at a first-line level, but that has fallen off.

Boro is a sub-replacement level player. He is not an NHL level player. Karlsson was a beast for SJ in 18-19. It took him a bit to get going, but he did get going. In the last 35 games, he had 38 points. In that span, in only one game was he outscored at 5 v 5. He gave SJ 16.4 GAR in 18-19 and 3.8 in 19-20. His xGAR did not really fall off, but xGAR can be problematic. It's hard to say where he is at in terms of playing ability with his injuries and such. We will have a better idea next year.

Chabot is a great player, and I think his contract will good for us moving forward.

Do you have Boro’s or Duc’s 19-20 GAR or WAR ? I thought Duc has his own defensively (eye test). Not to say he was strong but I don’t see him as weak defensively and he is good offensively (last year).
 

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
Do you have Boro’s or Duc’s 19-20 GAR or WAR ? I thought Duc has his own defensively (eye test). Not to say he was strong but I don’t see him as weak defensively and he is good offensively (last year).

GAR for this year
upload_2020-6-19_13-51-8.png


xGAR for this year
upload_2020-6-19_13-56-29.png
 

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324

Interesting. Some of those xGAR numbers really put things to perspective. Ennis and Brown had decent years and White (27th) and Z (last) were horrible. Can you produce and xGAR vs Sens Player Salary graph for 2019-20 ? That would be a neat way to see the value (over, underpayment) in contracts.

I didn’t think Z had a terrible eye test of a season, maybe that bad eval on my part or maybe the limitations of xGAR.

Thanks for sharing those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmix

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
Interesting. Some of those xGAR numbers really put things to perspective. Ennis and Brown had decent years and White (27th) and Z (last) were horrible. Can you produce and xGAR vs Sens Player Salary graph for 2019-20 ? That would be a neat way to see the value (over, underpayment) in contracts.

I didn’t think Z had a terrible eye test of a season, maybe that bad eval on my part or maybe the limitations of xGAR.

Thanks for sharing those.

I just whipped this up in excel. I took the numbers from players on our roster according to cap friendly. This is just one year, so it can help show you the value provided by a player, but it should not be taken as a full indicator of a player's actual talent, ability or value because of the limited sample.

I will also say that getting to 100 xGAR is harder than getting to 100 GAR. Good teams can beat expected because they have good players. From 07-20 (farthest the data goes back), Ottawa has never gotten past 85 xGAR. We have gotten past 100 GAR twice, but that was probably just us overperforming. In other words, for the past 13 seasons, this team has failed to ice what I would define as a competitive team. In my opinion, that is inexcusable and pathetic. Anyway, here is the spreadsheet:

PlayerCapCap Hit% xGARValue
T. Chabot81.50.8633331.0593046.95.840696
B. Tkachuk81.50.9251.1349694.12.965031
N. Paul81.50.750.9202453.52.579755
A. Duclair81.51.652.024543.61.57546
C. Brown81.52.12.5766873.61.023313
M. Reilly81.51.51.8404912.40.559509
J. Hawryluk81.50.7591670.9314930.5-0.43149
M. Peca81.51.31.5950921.1-0.49509
C. Wolanin81.50.91.1042940.6-0.50429
R. Balcers81.50.750.9202450.1-0.82025
A. Englund81.50.70.858896-0.7-1.5589
S. Sabourin81.50.70.858896-2.6-3.4589
C. Tierney81.52.9373.603681-0.9-4.50368
A. Anisimov81.54.555.5828220.7-4.88282
M. Boedker81.544.907975-0.1-5.00798
R. Hainsey 81.53.54.294479-1.1-5.39448
C. White81.54.755.828221-1.2-7.02822
B. Ryan81.57.258.895706-0.1-8.99571
N. Zaitsev81.54.55.521472-8.3-13.8215
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Some players here look good and some look bad, but everyone is actually worse than portrayed in this spreadsheet because we (I am assuming) have an internal cap that is well below the 81.5 million dollar mark.

Generally speaking, cap problems do not stem from paying good players. The problems come from paying players like White, Ryan, and Zaitsev over 10 million dollars to provide negative value. As a cap team, it is going to be incredibly hard to win with those kinds of contracts. We need to be very careful giving away 3-5 million dollar contracts for any significant amount of time.
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,471
8,999
I just whipped this up in excel. I took the numbers from players on our roster according to cap friendly. This is just one year, so it can help show you the value provided by a player, but it should not be taken as a full indicator of a player's actual talent, ability or value because of the limited sample.

I will also say that getting to 100 xGAR is harder than getting to 100 GAR. Good teams can beat expected because they have good players. From 07-20 (farthest the data goes back), Ottawa has never gotten past 85 xGAR. We have gotten past 100 GAR twice, but that was probably just us overperforming. In other words, for the past 13 seasons, this team has failed to ice what I would define as a competitive team. In my opinion, that is inexcusable and pathetic. Anyway, here is the spreadsheet:

PlayerCapCap Hit% xGARValue
T. Chabot81.50.8633331.0593046.95.840696
B. Tkachuk81.50.9251.1349694.12.965031
N. Paul81.50.750.9202453.52.579755
A. Duclair81.51.652.024543.61.57546
C. Brown81.52.12.5766873.61.023313
M. Reilly81.51.51.8404912.40.559509
J. Hawryluk81.50.7591670.9314930.5-0.43149
M. Peca81.51.31.5950921.1-0.49509
C. Wolanin81.50.91.1042940.6-0.50429
R. Balcers81.50.750.9202450.1-0.82025
A. Englund81.50.70.858896-0.7-1.5589
S. Sabourin81.50.70.858896-2.6-3.4589
C. Tierney81.52.9373.603681-0.9-4.50368
A. Anisimov81.54.555.5828220.7-4.88282
M. Boedker81.544.907975-0.1-5.00798
R. Hainsey 81.53.54.294479-1.1-5.39448
C. White81.54.755.828221-1.2-7.02822
B. Ryan81.57.258.895706-0.1-8.99571
N. Zaitsev81.54.55.521472-8.3-13.8215
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Some players here look good and some look bad, but everyone is actually worse than portrayed in this spreadsheet because we (I am assuming) have an internal cap that is well below the 81.5 million dollar mark.

Generally speaking, cap problems do not stem from paying good players. The problems come from paying players like White, Ryan, and Zaitsev over 10 million dollars to provide negative value. As a cap team, it is going to be incredibly hard to win with those kinds of contracts. We need to be very careful giving away 3-5 million dollar contracts for any significant amount of time.

Can I use this now to brag about Nick Paul being the 3rd best player on the team? COL (chuckling out loud)

Does it take into account the players role as given by the coach, the different situations the coach has the player play or how often a player gets in the o-zone as compared to the d-zone & who the coach has a player playing with? There is so much to hockey that stats don't account for, that fans don't care about, know about or understand. We hope that coaches know these things & put players in the best position for success although shit happens & not all players respond the same or as well with all coaches. There are dozens of variables that stats just don't account for including team interpersonal dynamics. Stats are great, but coaching has a lot to do with how players respond & play based on what the coaches want to see as well as the environment they play in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmix

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
741
723
Can I use this now to brag about Nick Paul being the 3rd best player on the team? COL (chuckling out loud)

Does it take into account the players role as given by the coach, the different situations the coach has the player play or how often a player gets in the o-zone as compared to the d-zone & who the coach has a player playing with? There is so much to hockey that stats don't account for, that fans don't care about, know about or understand. We hope that coaches know these things & put players in the best position for success although shit happens & not all players respond the same or as well with all coaches. There are dozens of variables that stats just don't account for including team interpersonal dynamics. Stats are great, but coaching has a lot to do with how players respond & play based on what the coaches want to see as well as the environment they play in.

He may be our third best player! My eye-test likes him, and the stats do not mind him. He is not much of an offensive guy, but he is a solid defensive player. When he is moving his feet and working hard, he is an effective player, no doubt.

I'll try to answer some of your questions. It does depend on what you mean by different roles, but it does take into account all the players on the ice, and it does take into account zone starts. It also takes into account things like back to back games. In short, my answer to your questions would be yes, it takes everything you brought up into consideration. Stats will never be perfect because stats are our best approximation. If we had perfect and complete information, we would not need stats.

I agree that many things can influence a player's mental state, and that can have positive or negative impacts, but we (the fans) usually have no way of knowing how outside factors are influencing a player's mental state, so it is usually pointless to speculate on for our purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->