Rasmus Asplund Watch 2018

[LGR4GM]

With Botterill indicating on WGR he is starting to speak with Rasmus Asplund about coming to the US, let's start Rasmus watch. Also if he comes here, and we draft Rasmus Dhalin and Rasmus Sandin, we would have Rasmus - Ristolainen, Asplund, Dhalin, and Sandin. 

 

Asplund is a 2nd round 2016 draft pick. He is 5'11" 183lb Center who plays in the SHL. The league is known for being defensive minded and lower scoring. Asplund this past season had 8g, 20a in 50games. He could make the Sabres as he has played pro hockey for 3 full seasons already but that may be hard as he has to transition to NA ice. 

 

His scouting report from the draft

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/04/24/rasmus-asplund-scouting-report-2016-nhl-draft-26/

[Derrico]

Is his SHL team out of the playoffs?

[LGR4GM]

Is his SHL team out of the playoffs?

No, his team is down in their playoff series 3 games to 1. They play today and if they lose then yes he is out of the playoffs. 

[Derrico]

Thanks. It would be nice getting him over here.

[nfreeman]

How good do we think he is? Better than Larsson? Faster than Larsson?

[Huckleberry]

How good do we think he is? Better than Larsson? Faster than Larsson?

 

He is faster , Thing I love about Larsson sometimes he can have a real mean streak and be a pest.

Sadly not seen often enough this year though.    Asplund would make a good 3C and we can slot larsson as 4C.

[pi2000]

He is faster , Thing I love about Larsson sometimes he can have a real mean streak and be a pest.

Sadly not seen often enough this year though.    Asplund would make a good 3C and we can slot larsson as 4C.

 

Larsson needed to be gone 3 years ago, he's not an NHL player.    He turns the puck over constantly... he can't catch a pass to save his life, he can't pass, he can't hit the net, he's not particularly quick or fast, he's not a shutdown guy, he's not big and mean, he has a negative TRpm... why he's in the lineup I have no idea.    The only thing he's half-way decent at is face-offs at 53.7%.   

[Crusader1969]

He is faster , Thing I love about Larsson sometimes he can have a real mean streak and be a pest.

Sadly not seen often enough this year though.    Asplund would make a good 3C and we can slot larsson as 4C.

 

 

If Mittelstadt plays C then he is either going to slot into a 4th line role or move to wing.  Though I could see him making ROR expendable in a couple of years.

[BuffalOhio]

Larsson needed to be gone 3 years ago, he's not an NHL player.    He turns the puck over constantly... he can't catch a pass to save his life, he can't pass, he can't hit the net, he's not particularly quick or fast, he's not a shutdown guy, he's not big and mean, he has a negative TRpm... why he's in the lineup I have no idea.    The only thing he's half-way decent at is face-offs at 53.7%.   

 

Larsson sucks, so ... yeah to this ^

[Randall Flagg]

Larsson needed to be gone 3 years ago, he's not an NHL player.    He turns the puck over constantly... he can't catch a pass to save his life, he can't pass, he can't hit the net, he's not particularly quick or fast, he's not a shutdown guy, he's not big and mean, he has a negative TRpm... why he's in the lineup I have no idea.    The only thing he's half-way decent at is face-offs at 53.7%.   

Listing his TRPM in a list for reasons to dump him is ludicrous. By definition of your stat, unless everyone on the team has the same TRPM, you are going to have players that have negative TRPM, which weight out to balance the good ones exactly. Simply dumping those players because of that reason is foolish because, presuming again that you have good players with good TRPM, somebody will always be there to take his place in that regard. 

 

Which again highlights the fact that you regularly use that stat and only that stat to make conclusions is pretty goofy and not an improvement on just using the plus minus, which is shown statistically to be a worse predictor than goals, which is a worse predictor than shots, which is a worse predictor than shot attempts, which is a worse predictor than high danger shot attempts, and so on. Because it still neglects everything that makes +/- by itself worse than these things. 

 

 

[Mustache of God]

Asplund was, according to GMTM at the time, the key piece in the Kulikov?Pysysk swap. I recall he was very high on Asplund and given his track record I'm holding my breath on this kid. Hope I'm wrong but Murray seemed to have the Midas* touch.

 

*By Midas I mean poop not gold.

[Thorner]

Listing his TRPM in a list for reasons to dump him is ludicrous. By definition of your stat, unless everyone on the team has the same TRPM, you are going to have players that have negative TRPM, which weight out to balance the good ones exactly. Simply dumping those players because of that reason is foolish because, presuming again that you have good players with good TRPM, somebody will always be there to take his place in that regard. 

Which again highlights the fact that you regularly use that stat and only that stat to make conclusions is pretty goofy and not an improvement on just using the plus minus, which is shown statistically to be a worse predictor than goals, which is a worse predictor than shots, which is a worse predictor than shot attempts, which is a worse predictor than high danger shot attempts, and so on. Because it still neglects everything that makes +/- by itself worse than these things.

 

Agreed.

 

In pi’s defence, Larsson does completely suck and should not be on our roster.

[dudacek]

Agreed.

In pi’s defence, Larsson does completely suck and should not be on our roster.

There was a stretch last year where I believed he was settling into the pain-in-the-ass 20-30 point third line Centre he was projected to be. Then he blew up his wrist. That player hasn’t come back.

 

Don’t know if it says more about Larsson or the state of our team when he consistently has been the number two tight game d-zone choice for Housley most the year, after Ryan.

Edited March 27, 2018 by dudacek

[French Collection]

I hope he can be our future 3-4 C. It depends on how Casey progresses and what is done with ROR.

Asplund had some great chemistry with Nylander at the WJHC and may help Alex' development take another step in Rochester.

[pi2000]

Listing his TRPM in a list for reasons to dump him is ludicrous. By definition of your stat, unless everyone on the team has the same TRPM, you are going to have players that have negative TRPM, which weight out to balance the good ones exactly. Simply dumping those players because of that reason is foolish because, presuming again that you have good players with good TRPM, somebody will always be there to take his place in that regard.

 

Which again highlights the fact that you regularly use that stat and only that stat to make conclusions is pretty goofy and not an improvement on just using the plus minus, which is shown statistically to be a worse predictor than goals, which is a worse predictor than shots, which is a worse predictor than shot attempts, which is a worse predictor than high danger shot attempts, and so on. Because it still neglects everything that makes +/- by itself worse than these things.

 

 

So when grading out defensemen, you think goals is a better indicator than plus minus?

 

Again, it's called Team Relative for a reason. You're only comparing teammates to eachother. It works better on bad teams to figure out which players are weighing the team down. On a good team you could have a negative TRpm but a positive pm. Which is less damning than a negative pm player with a negative TRpm.

Edited March 28, 2018 by pi2000

[Randall Flagg]

So when grading out defensemen, you think goals is a better indicator than plus minus?

 

Again, it's called Team Relative for a reason. You're only comparing teammates to eachother. It works better on bad teams to figure out which players are weighing the team down. On a good team you could have a negative TRpm but a positive pm. Which is less damning than a negative pm player with a negative TRpm.

Goals are a better predictor of future success for players or for teams than plus minus is, because a player is far more likely to have done something requiring hockey skill to score a goal than he is to have done a good hockey thing that contributes to +/-. This is statistical fact. No matter the position. But goals are also bad relative to other metrics. So if you concede to delving into numbers to try and analyze a player, which is almost always necessary because even if we give all of our free time to hockey we still can only really follow one team, then you should combine and use numbers that are literally better and perform better in the past, now, and in the future than other numbers. And ideally, you get a good amount of time watching the player yourself to couple to that. But historically on this board, when you pull out this stat it's often the only thing you look at and you draw these ridiculously hard conclusions from it. 

 

+/- universally falls in this "other numbers" category I mentioned, because of how little it has to do with a player's on-ice impact. It is demonstrably one of the poorest metrics in the entire sport at telling you how good a player is and how good he'll be going forward. It has these flaws because it ignores things like usage, and because, again, you can do all and still get forty minuses or forty pluses. And pointing out individual successes, "see, Bergeron's good at defense and he has a high plus minus" or "Eich sux at D and has a negative plus minus" doesn't change the fact that statistics is a legitimate field of mathematics and can make meaningful predictions and conclusions, and those conclusions are that plus minus is junk relative to almost anything else we have access to. TRPM, while a slight improvement on raw +/- because your goalie could f*cking suck and skew your numbers relative to an equal player playing in front of Jesus Christ himself, is still junk because of the fundamental issues that make plus minus perform so badly when put to the test. 

I mean, there's a stat that couples league-wide shooting percentage from everywhere on the ice, to where shots come from while player X is out there, relative to where they come from when he isn't, and does the same thing in the defensive zone, and tells you based on those shooting percentages what type of positive or negative impact you'd have on your team over a large sample size, and it does a phenomenal job at predicting relative to even Corsi, from what I understand, which is significantly better than shots, goals, or plus minus in that order. And it's just as easy to find it on corsica as it is to find +/- on NHL.com. So that's why I wince when the latter gets brought up. 

[pi2000]

Goals are a better predictor of future success for players or for teams than plus minus is, because a player is far more likely to have done something requiring hockey skill to score a goal than he is to have done a good hockey thing that contributes to +/-. This is statistical fact. No matter the position. But goals are also bad relative to other metrics. So if you concede to delving into numbers to try and analyze a player, which is almost always necessary because even if we give all of our free time to hockey we still can only really follow one team, then you should combine and use numbers that are literally better and perform better in the past, now, and in the future than other numbers. And ideally, you get a good amount of time watching the player yourself to couple to that. But historically on this board, when you pull out this stat it's often the only thing you look at and you draw these ridiculously hard conclusions from it.

 

+/- universally falls in this "other numbers" category I mentioned, because of how little it has to do with a player's on-ice impact. It is demonstrably one of the poorest metrics in the entire sport at telling you how good a player is and how good he'll be going forward. It has these flaws because it ignores things like usage, and because, again, you can do ###### all and still get forty minuses or forty pluses. And pointing out individual successes, "see, Bergeron's good at defense and he has a high plus minus" or "Eich sux at D and has a negative plus minus" doesn't change the fact that statistics is a legitimate field of mathematics and can make meaningful predictions and conclusions, and those conclusions are that plus minus is junk relative to almost anything else we have access to. TRPM, while a slight improvement on raw +/- because your goalie could f*cking suck and skew your numbers relative to an equal player playing in front of Jesus Christ himself, is still junk because of the fundamental issues that make plus minus perform so badly when put to the test.

 

I mean, there's a stat that couples league-wide shooting percentage from everywhere on the ice, to where shots come from while player X is out there, relative to where they come from when he isn't, and does the same thing in the defensive zone, and tells you based on those shooting percentages what type of positive or negative impact you'd have on your team over a large sample size, and it does a phenomenal job at predicting relative to even Corsi, from what I understand, which is significantly better than shots, goals, or plus minus in that order. And it's just as easy to find it on corsica as it is to find +/- on NHL.com. So that's why I wince when the latter gets brought up.

Using shot attempts to predict success is worse than plus minus. BUF as a team had better possession numbers this season than last, but look at the standings... look at the goal differential, look at all the minus players. If you look at standings over the years you'll see they normally shake out such that teams with the best goal differential are at the top of the standings and the team with the worst goal differential is almost always at the bottom. Goal differential goes hand in hand with plus minus.

 

That said, if you ordered the teams.by SAT%, instead of goal differential, it would be very misleading.

 

So when I look at a bad team like Buffalo and wonder why is their goal differential so poor... I ask myself who is most often on the ice when a goal is given up. Like you said goals matter, they matter more than anything. So it only makes sense to use plus minus as a measuring stick, even more so when comparing members of the same team.

Edited March 28, 2018 by pi2000

[MattPie]

Asplund was, according to GMTM at the time, the key piece in the Kulikov?Pysysk swap. I recall he was very high on Asplund and given his track record I'm holding my breath on this kid. Hope I'm wrong but Murray seemed to have the Midas* touch.

 

*By Midas I mean poop not gold.

 

That seems a bit obvious considering GM literally picked Pu. FWIW, it seems like we're starting to see GMTM's strength in drafting with Borgen, Pu, Asplund, and (that D.. Davidson? that seems pretty good), all from not-the-first round. It seems like the guy couldn't make a good trade to save his life but his picks seem OK.

[Randall Flagg]

Using shot attempts to predict success is worse than plus minus. BUF as a team had better possession numbers this season than last, but look at the standings... look at the goal differential, look at all the minus players. If you look at standings over the years you'll see they normally shake out such that teams with the best goal differential are at the top of the standings and the team with the worst goal differential is almost always at the bottom. Goal differential goes hand in hand with plus minus.

 

That said, if you ordered the teams.by SAT%, instead of goal differential, it would be very misleading.

Dude, the work has literally been done. It is objectively false to say that plus minus is a better predictor than anything that I know of, much less shot attempts. 

 

True, if you have the studies saved, please help me out. 

 

If not, I guess I'll go looking later. 

[pi2000]

Dude, the work has literally been done. It is objectively false to say that plus minus is a better predictor than anything that I know of, much less shot attempts.

 

True, if you have the studies saved, please help me out.

 

If not, I guess I'll go looking later.

Using plus minus to compare players on different teams is not a very useful comparison. This is why I came up with TRpm.. and I only use it to compare players on the same team. The numbers back up the eye test. Okposo is far and away the worst TRpm on the team... and we can all agree he's been horrible this season... TRpm just confirms it.

[Randall Flagg]

Using plus minus to compare players on different teams is not a very useful comparison. This is why I came up with TRpm.. and I only use it to compare players on the same team. The numbers back up the eye test. Okposo is far and away the worst TRpm on the team... and we can all agree he's been horrible this season... TRpm just confirms it.

Once again, using individual anecdotes to support a demonstrably mediocre predicting stat is not a convincing argument. It's even a logical fallacy. 

 

It's not even useful on the Sabres, because of usage. Without accounting for usage, the only thing TRPM fixes is different save percentages and shooting percentages of your team and teammates...which converge SHARPLY to sum to 100% over a decent sample size. And once you bring usage into the fold, you're immediately accessing a variety of far better metrics. So do that. 

 

Also, when you stick to one team, you're really only resizing plus minus based on minutes played. The original benefit of that stat was certainly to be able to compare players from other teams. 

 

I agree that TRPM is better than +/- (after I fixed it for you so that it could usefully analyze people who were below zero ;) ) in the same way that putting Josefson in for Griffith is an improvement on the Sabres...

TRPM just resizes your +/- and compares it to what you'd be expected to have based on how good the players around you are. It still uses and is itself a goal based metric, but goals are rare events and incredibly prone to statistical noise, and so goal-based stats are wonky and not good to use. The reason shot/shot attempt-based stats are better is because you get a much larger sample size, and you can start to use statistics principles and make real predictions. Eventually noise gets reduced. Now that you can even couple where those shots come from and where they get allowed, and THEN do a teammate comparison, why on earth would you not use that? You're taking the improvements of your stat and applying them to one that's far better and gives you an actual sample size to work with, along with study after study showing its increase in predictive power. 

 

This helps you distinguish between a guy with shot selection like Evander Kane and slot monsters like Auston Matthews. 

And as an example for why it's bad to use anecdotes, I remember when we first had this discussion and after 15 seconds I found a counterexample - Supposedly Roman Polak is literally 5x better at defense than Morgan Rielly is and the Leafs should switch their roles ASAP, according to TRPM. When other metrics, and any sane human on the planet, will tell you that Rielly is a stud and Polak needs to be blasted out of this league. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[pi2000]

Once again, using individual anecdotes to support a demonstrably mediocre predicting stat is not a convincing argument. It's even a logical fallacy. 

 

It's not even useful on the Sabres, because of usage. Without accounting for usage, the only thing TRPM fixes is different save percentages and shooting percentages of your team and teammates...which converge SHARPLY to sum to 100% over a decent sample size. And once you bring usage into the fold, you're immediately accessing a variety of far better metrics. So do that. 

 

Also, when you stick to one team, you're really only resizing plus minus based on minutes played. The original benefit of that stat was certainly to be able to compare players from other teams. 

 

I agree that TRPM is better than +/- (after I fixed it for you so that it could usefully analyze people who were below zero ;) ) in the same way that putting Josefson in for Griffith is an improvement on the Sabres...

TRPM just resizes your +/- and compares it to what you'd be expected to have based on how good the players around you are. It still uses and is itself a goal based metric, but goals are rare events and incredibly prone to statistical noise, and so goal-based stats are wonky and not good to use. The reason shot/shot attempt-based stats are better is because you get a much larger sample size, and you can start to use statistics principles and make real predictions. Eventually noise gets reduced. Now that you can even couple where those shots come from and where they get allowed, and THEN do a teammate comparison, why on earth would you not use that? You're taking the improvements of your stat and applying them to one that's far better and gives you an actual sample size to work with, along with study after study showing its increase in predictive power. 

 

This helps you distinguish between a guy with shot selection like Evander Kane and slot monsters like Auston Matthews. 

And as an example for why it's bad to use anecdotes, I remember when we first had this discussion and after 15 seconds I found a counterexample - Supposedly Roman Polak is literally 5x better at defense than Morgan Rielly is and the Leafs should switch their roles ASAP, according to TRPM. When other metrics, and any sane human on the planet, will tell you that Rielly is a stud and Polak needs to be blasted out of this league. 

 

I read this but I have to get to my game.   I'll respond in depth probably after I get home in a few hours... and likely a few beers deep, so prepare for a mind-numbing awe inspiring response.

[nfreeman]

Good stuff here boys.

[Randall Flagg]

I read this but I have to get to my game.   I'll respond in depth probably after I get home in a few hours... and likely a few beers deep, so prepare for a mind-numbing awe inspiring response.

Haha I can't wait. Score a few Geno's for me. 

 

Wednesday is my busy day, and I've got 2 assignments due Friday, so expect the next response like next Tuesday :P 

[PerreaultForever]

I would swap out a younger, faster guy for just about anybody we have, so yes, let's have as many Rasmuses as we can get.