What should the value of Ben Lovejoy's next contract be?

[Dipsy Doodle]

The bolded did not happen, unless there are two other players named Harrington and Letang in the national hockey league.

It did. Letang and Harrington were great together - albeit it was a small sample size.

Was getting particularly rave reviews in this post-game:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1799955&highlight=letang+harrington+rowdy

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

They'll keep him on the ice to save face. He's worth nothing to this team otherwise.

I don't doubt this in the slightest

 

[Shady Machine]

Still waiting to hear why Harrington isn't going to be another Carl Sneep.

Again, what has he shown you? I've seen nothing special so far.

That said, what I think means very little but I will say again that I would try to move Harrington, perhaps in an effort to get a first round pick back, which seems to be all the rage right now. Keeping Chorney isn't a long term solution and in my opinion Harrington is a maybe too so at least trade the one that gets you more back.

See where I'm going with this?

Where you are going with this is stupid. They just moved Despres for peanuts. Do you trust this GM to get max value out of Harrington? He just had his first taste of NHL hockey this year and was pretty decent overall. There is no reason to give up on him now in favor of Chorney or anyone else.

 

[Shady Machine]

The bolded did not happen, unless there are two other players named Harrington and Letang in the national hockey league.

RRP is exaggerating a bit because of his love for Harry, but they did look pretty good together overall.

That said, they need to keep the rest of Dumo, Harry, Pouliot IMO. We no longer have some crazy enviable D prospect pool. The only way you move any of those guys is for a nutty return.

 

[billybudd]

It did. Letang and Harrington were great together - albeit it was a small sample size.

Was getting particularly rave reviews in this post-game:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1799955&highlight=letang+harrington+rowdy

I can bring up post-game comments from 2013 praising the "great chemistry shown by Bennett with Crosby." From the previous season saying how "good Zach Boychuk looked on Malkin's left." Neither thing ever actually happened. They just fit narratives many people wished would happen.

I can't recall if Harrington was good against the Bolts or not, but what I do know is that Letang's numbers with Harrington are comfortably worse than they are with any other D on the season excluding Chorney, with whom Letang played a whopping 4 minutes.

 

[cygnus47]

The cupboard is bare except for goaltenders. We shouldn't be trading ANYONE apart from the veterans that have been discussed here ad nauseum.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I can bring up post-game comments from 2013 praising the "great chemistry shown by Bennett with Crosby." From the previous season saying how "good Zach Boychuk looked on Malkin's left." Neither thing ever actually happened. They just fit narratives many people wished would happen.

I can't recall if Harrington was good against the Bolts or not, but what I do know is that Letang's numbers with Harrington are comfortably worse than they are with any other D on the season excluding Chorney, with whom Letang played a whopping 4 minutes.

That's fine. Advanced stats, which I don't have much use for at the best of times, aren't meant to be used in small sample sizes.

All the posters who were impressed with Harrington's work there didn't have to check the advanced stats before they acknowledged it either.

 

[PKV Jungle Friends]

Where you are going with this is stupid. They just moved Despres for peanuts. Do you trust this GM to get max value out of Harrington? He just had his first taste of NHL hockey this year and was pretty decent overall. There is no reason to give up on him now in favor of Chorney or anyone else.

First of all, it's not stupid because I'm not suggesting to get rid of Harrington. This whole thing began with me saying that as of right now I would have Chorney in there over Harrington, not in the next couple years.

Nobody is giving up on Harrington, so I'm not sure where you got that.

I don't trust this GM/management team to get max value for anyone. I simply said that he could get more for Harrington than Chorney.

Lastly, I just love a good debate. Forces people to actually have reasons for why they think things. I hope Harrington knocks it out.

 

[billybudd]

That's fine. Advanced stats, which I don't have much use for at the best of times, aren't meant to be used in small sample sizes.

All the posters who were impressed with Harrington's work there didn't have to check the advanced stats before they acknowledged it either.

Those stats aren't that advanced. What they say is that Letang and Harrington got bathed in red lights like a Steve Poabst/Jason Strudwick pairing and that this outcome wasn't repeated by Letang with any of his other partners.

When you're declaring such and such "was" the "best partner" Kris Letang had this year (which is, necessarily, comparative), the actual results and outcomes relative the other options matter much more than how impressed a poster who once called Jaysen Megna a first liner (not you) happened to be back in December.

In terms of actuals and results, you might be able to get away with saying Harrington-Letang was the seventh-best pairing Letang was on this past season, though a case could also, easily, be made that it wasn't even among his top 10. "Best" is completely out of the question.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Those stats aren't that advanced. What they say is that Letang and Harrington got bathed in red lights like a Steve Poabst/Jason Strudwick pairing and that this outcome wasn't repeated by Letang with any of his other partners.

When you're declaring such and such "was" the "best partner" Kris Letang had this year (which is, necessarily, comparative), the actual results and outcomes relative the other options matter much more than how impressed a poster who once called Jaysen Megna a first liner (not you) happened to be back in December.

In terms of actuals and results, you might be able to get away with saying Harrington-Letang was the seventh-best pairing Letang was on this past season, though a case could also, easily, be made that it wasn't even among his top 10. "Best" is completely out of the question.

It's not out of the question, because that sample size isn't anywhere near large enough to serve as any kind of reflection of the effectiveness of a defense pair, and interpreting them as such is misusing the data.

Why do you think that goals against over a small sample size are all on account of the defense? Seems to me that goals against happen for any number of reasons. The consensus was that the Letang and Harrington pairing was very good together, so it seems unlikely that these goals were going in on account of poor play from them.

Like the stats-based evaluation of the Bennett/Malkin combination (which you criticized in spite of their production because of their goals-against...but didn't take into account that they played together on a tour of the Metro during which time every line including Sid's got lit up, a critical bit of context that put their numbers in a new light), you're painting an incomplete picture by using these numbers as the sole judge of a pair's effectiveness.

Trying to debunk the idea that Harrington and Letang played well together based only on advanced stats over a small sample size, in direct contrast to contemporary consensus, isn't a very solid argument IMO.

 

[Sideline]

As someone with advanced training in statistics I can state with great confidence that a sample size of less than half a season is going to be essentially meaningless. Ideally you want a season or two. This is all assuming advanced stats are even valid predictors in the first place.

 

[billybudd]

It's not out of the question, because that sample size isn't anywhere near large enough to serve as any kind of reflection of the effectiveness of a defense pair, and interpreting them as such is misusing the data.

Why do you think that goals against over a small sample size are all on account of the defense? Seems to me that goals against happen for any number of reasons. The consensus was that the Letang and Harrington pairing was very good together, so it seems unlikely that these goals were going in on account of poor play from them.

Like the stats-based evaluation of the Bennett/Malkin combination (which you criticized in spite of their production because of their goals-against...but didn't take into account that they played together on a tour of the Metro during which time every line including Sid's got lit up, a critical bit of context that put their numbers in a new light), you're painting an incomplete picture by using these numbers as the sole judge of a pair's effectiveness.

Trying to debunk the idea that Harrington and Letang played well together based only on advanced stats over a small sample size, in direct contrast to contemporary consensus, isn't a very solid argument IMO.

You can't say two guys "were the best together" then cry "small sample size" when they're demonstrably not even close. You're the one that decided to draw conclusions from that sample size in the first place. It's either big enough to evaluate or it isn't.

In that small sample size, those two got shelled like a Sabres third pairing. Would that have continued? I don't know. But it's what happened in the three or so games they played together.

As someone with advanced training in statistics I can state with great confidence that a sample size of less than half a season is going to be essentially meaningless. Ideally you want a season or two. This is all assuming advanced stats are even valid predictors in the first place.

There's no 'prediction' going on here. What's being evaluated is the past. Players A and B played X minutes together. In those minutes, they were either effective or they weren't. In this case, they weren't.

Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau could theoretically have had the makings of the most dominant lines in history. If they played together for 50 minutes in a season, scored once and got scored on five times, the correct evaluation is that they were terrible together that year, not that it was "the best combination either guy's ever had in his career."

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You can't say two guys "were the best together" then cry "small sample size" when they're demonstrably not even close. You're the one that decided to draw conclusions from that sample size in the first place. It's either big enough to evaluate or it isn't.

I can, because advanced stats aren't to be used in that way, but my impression - with the caveat of small sample size - absolutely is.

In that small sample size, those two got shelled like a Sabres third pairing. Would that have continued? I don't know. But it's what happened in the three or so games they played together.

If you're evaluating a pairing over a season, it's unlikely that any other variables are contributing to a high goals against relative to other pairings. Over a few games? A few missed assignments from forwards or goalie whiffs throw the whole thing out of whack even if Harrington and Letang play heavenly hockey together.

Which is the entire reason why people don't use advanced stats the way you are right now.

 

[IcedCapp]

There's no 'prediction' going on here. What's being evaluated is the past. Players A and B played X minutes together. In those minutes, they were either effective or they weren't. In this case, they weren't.

Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau could theoretically have had the makings of the most dominant lines in history. If they played together for 50 minutes in a season, scored once and got scored on five times, the correct evaluation is that they were terrible together that year, not that it was "the best combination either guy's ever had in his career."

I disagree entirely. I have no side in this discussion, but 50 minutes is not enough time to judge either way. Harrington was something like a -10 on the season, and I never thought his play warranted that. For instance, there was a game against Washington where he was a -3, and I actually thought he was one of the Penguins' better players that night.

Such small sample sizes - and 50 minutes isn't even one of 82 games, is way too small to determine anything.

 

[Sideline]

There's no 'prediction' going on here. What's being evaluated is the past. Players A and B played X minutes together. In those minutes, they were either effective or they weren't. In this case, they weren't.

A statistical argument about effectiveness is an argument that the observations were not random events. If they are not random then the observations have some predictive power.

Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau could theoretically have had the makings of the most dominant lines in history. If they played together for 50 minutes in a season, scored once and got scored on five times, the correct evaluation is that they were terrible together that year, not that it was "the best combination either guy's ever had in his career."

This is fundamentally incorrect. To make any conclusion you need all other factors (line mate, d pair, opposition players, referees, goalies, location, pre-game meals, how they slept the night before, family life, etc. etc.) to be identical under both the null and alternative hypothesis. With enough observations of both states (together or not together) those other factors will usually average out.

Consider baseball: a .240 hitter is barely MLB quality and generates ~148 hits per season. A .300 hitter is an all-star and generates ~184 hits per season; about 1 extra hit every 4 games. Basically it's perfectly normal to watch 3 entire games and see no difference at all in production between a superstar and a fringe big league player.

 

[IcedCapp]

A statistical argument about effectiveness is an argument that the observations were not random events. If they are not random then the observations have some predictive power.



This is fundamentally incorrect. To make any conclusion you need all other factors (line mate, d pair, opposition players, referees, goalies, location, pre-game meals, how they slept the night before, family life, etc. etc.) to be identical under both the null and alternative hypothesis.

Consider baseball: a .240 hitter is barely MLB quality and generates ~148 hits per season. A .300 hitter is an all-star and generates ~184 hits per season; about 1 extra hit every 4 games. Basically it's perfectly normal to watch 3 entire games and see no difference at all in production between a superstar and a fringe big league player.

see also: why Sidney Crosby is the best player in the league.

It's not his production in a single season, it's his consistently-high level of production year-in and year-out

 

[AjaxTelamon]

A statistical argument about effectiveness is an argument that the observations were not random events. If they are not random then the observations have some predictive power.



This is fundamentally incorrect. To make any conclusion you need all other factors (line mate, d pair, opposition players, referees, goalies, location, pre-game meals, how they slept the night before, family life, etc. etc.) to be identical under both the null and alternative hypothesis. With enough observations of both states (together or not together) those other factors will usually average out.

Consider baseball: a .240 hitter is barely MLB quality and generates ~148 hits per season. A .300 hitter is an all-star and generates ~184 hits per season; about 1 extra hit every 4 games. Basically it's perfectly normal to watch 3 entire games and see no difference at all in production between a superstar and a fringe big league player.

We're quite a ways down the rabbit hole at this point with this. I like Harrington, and I think he actually played really well against Washington. His positional play against Ovy was outstanding and well beyond his years.

However, this whole discussion was started by this hyperbole:

Because Harrington distinguished himself against the very best of his peers, just finished his 1st year of pro hockey at an age when Sneep just finished his 3rd of 4 years at college, and Harrington fared much better than his numbers indicated in his limited NHL call-up, which included a stint when he was the best partner Letang had this year.

Which is indefensible by any means of analysis aside from the old "because I want it to be so". The kid flashed some good things, but was bitten by some bad bounces, and some mistakes that kids make.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Which is indefensible by any means of analysis aside from the old "because I want it to be so". The kid flashed some good things, but was bitten by some bad bounces, and some mistakes that kids make.

There's no quantitative support, that's it. And they haven't yet devised a reliable method of quantitative support for a defensive defenseman over a small sample size.

It's not "because I want it to be so". It's "because that's what I saw", and I don't remember him making "kid mistakes" that would put him below any of Letang's other partners this year. Harrington's performances were more up and down when he was paired with immobile defensemen who didn't complement him well in Bort and Scuds.

Most of all, I'm surprised that anyone thinks being Letang's best partner this year is such an unattainable standard, given who he played with. Who do people think deserves this distinction, anyway?

 

[hooverdam]

There's no quantitative support, that's it. And they haven't yet devised a reliable method of quantitative support for a defensive defenseman over a small sample size.

It's not "because I want it to be so". It's "because that's what I saw", and I don't remember him making "kid mistakes" that would put him below any of Letang's other partners this year. Harrington's performances were more up and down when he was paired with immobile defensemen who didn't complement him well in Bort and Scuds.

Most of all, I'm surprised that anyone thinks being Letang's best partner this year is such an unattainable standard, given who he played with. Who do people think deserves this distinction, anyway?

Martin. Honorable mention to Maatta, though again: small sample size. Martin and Letang were very solid and complemented each other well, and Letang even said he felt the most comfortable playing with him. The only other time he's mentioned a preference for partners was when he wanted to play with Despres.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Martin. Honorable mention to Maatta, though again: small sample size. Martin and Letang were very solid and complemented each other well, and Letang even said he felt the most comfortable playing with him. The only other time he's mentioned a preference for partners was when he wanted to play with Despres.

Martin's fine so long as he's never required to win a board battle or watch the front of the net. Maatta was great when healthy last year, but mainly when he was carrying his own pairing.

With the obvious qualification that it was only a few games, I think Harrington and Letang played better together and read one another better than any other Letang pairing. Harrington's own-end smarts and competitiveness and Letang's dynamism fit like a glove.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I really don't want Martin back. I hope he prices himself out of this team's cap situation.

Good luck wherever you end up Paulie.

Maybe Nashville, make Nealsy some eggs.

 

[hooverdam]

Martin's fine so long as he's never required to win a board battle or watch the front of the net. Maatta was great when healthy last year, but mainly when he was carrying his own pairing.

With the obvious qualification that it was only a few games, I think Harrington and Letang played better together and read one another better than any other Letang pairing. Harrington's own-end smarts and competitiveness and Letang's dynamism fit like a glove.

When has Maatta carried his own pairing, though? I suppose Maatta and Bortuzzo were solid but we never saw that in 2013-14 unless the entire D was healthy, and that was rare. Maatta and Niskanen had an equal share of responsibility in my mind, I don't think one significantly outperformed or carried the other. Maatta and Orpik forced Maatta on his weak side so he could babysit Orpik and it certainly wasn't ideal, though no pairing with Orpik was ideal.

This past season, Maatta's healthy partners were Letang and Ehrhoff. His most common one was Ehrhoff and I wouldn't say he was carrying Ehrhoff; next most common was Letang, which was the pairing when Maatta had his thyroid surgery and came back and then went out again.

I think they're going to reunite Maatta and Letang again this coming season. I just don't/didn't see what you mean with Letang and Harrington and don't remember too much discussion of it during their partnership. Letang and Martin made each other better, made their teammates better, and were probably the reason the Pens made it out of the first round against the Jackets in 2014.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

When has Maatta carried his own pairing, though? I suppose Maatta and Bortuzzo were solid but we never saw that in 2013-14 unless the entire D was healthy, and that was rare. Maatta and Niskanen had an equal share of responsibility in my mind, I don't think one significantly outperformed or carried the other. Maatta and Orpik forced Maatta on his weak side so he could babysit Orpik and it certainly wasn't ideal, though no pairing with Orpik was ideal.

This past season, Maatta's healthy partners were Letang and Ehrhoff. His most common one was Ehrhoff and I wouldn't say he was carrying Ehrhoff; next most common was Letang, which was the pairing when Maatta had his thyroid surgery and came back and then went out again.

I think they're going to reunite Maatta and Letang again this coming season. I just don't/didn't see what you mean with Letang and Harrington and don't remember too much discussion of it during their partnership. Letang and Martin made each other better, made their teammates better, and were probably the reason the Pens made it out of the first round against the Jackets in 2014.

I'm not sure why so much of this is referring to years other than last year. Letang and Martin were alright last season but I disliked a lot about Martin's game in the hard areas, and I think Ehrhoff was a train wreck who if he ever looked competent last year was on account of Maatta.

I think Maatta and Letang will be reunited this year but it's a poor use of resources to have our two best defensemen on one pairing when each is capable of carrying their own if complemented well.

I'll just agree to disagree on the effectiveness of the Harry/Tang pairing.

 

[UnrealMachine]

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

Harrington had a 5on5 PDO of .848 and an on-ice sv% of .806. As others have said, he passed the eye test, but had horrendous puck luck.

 

[Chili Goal]

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

Harrington had a 5on5 PDO of .848 and an on-ice sv% of .806. As others have said, he passed the eye test, but had horrendous puck luck.

I have every confidence that Rutherford will deal Harrington for a middling forward this summer, and Harry will quickly become a super-solid top-4 defender.

dead horse, but we had one (1) excess young defender to deal. Rutherford shot his load with Despres. We could and should keep Pouliot / Harrington / Dumo. but we know we won't. because Scuds and Lovejoy will need their veteran minutes.