2020-21 Trade Rumors and Speculation

[Curt]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

The phrase I used was "not sure."  It's not a label, it's more of a question mark. You look at Skinner and see an off year and huge potential. I see a talented hockey player but a bit of a prima donna with possible attitude problems. Half full half empty, we will see who is right. I prefer if it's you. 

I think it’s also possible that all of the above are true, people are complicated.

Skinner may be a talented hockey player who can be a bit of a prima donna with occasional attitude problems who had an off year, but still has huge potential to rebound.

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No no no, there's more to it than that and you assess other factors. I don't really feel like going on and on for paragraphs about the value of +/- I only objected to your assessment of it as meaningless.  Flawed maybe, incomplete certainly, but far from meaningless. 

It is a useless stat when we have easily accessible stats that are far better and tell us far more about player contributions. It is meaningless and you yourself say so " there's more to it than that and you assess other factors" meaning that unlike some other stats +/- requires a lot of other things to make it even mildly useful. Corsi tells me more without the need for 100 qualifying statements. You were on the ice for this many shot attempts for and against. xGF tells me more. Plus minus simply tells me your even strength on ice goal differential and in an age of 3v3 overtimes it is probably even more useless. 

[LGR4GM]

15 minutes ago, Curt said:

I think it’s also possible that all of the above are true, people are complicated.

Skinner may be a talented hockey player who can be a bit of a prima donna with occasional attitude problems who had an off year, but still has huge potential to rebound.

Basically PerraultForever is implying that Jeff Skinner will shoot 3% below his average sh% going forward and also generate less chances. Stats say he will regress to the mean and there is no reason to not believe his shot% will increase and he will shoot more with better teammates (probably from better positions). 

Random question since it is falsely believed Jeff Skinner is a defensive black hole. Is Skinner a positive xGF or negative? Does he have more takeaways or giveaways? Does he have a positive or negative corsi?

[JohnC]

18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

and if he does this we can spend the season talking about how Olofsson's having an off year and how badly him and Johanson get pushed around and dominated in tough games. Krueger recognized that a one line hockey team cannot succeed. Is it his fault we don't have enough talent to be a two line team? We didn't win with Skinner on the top line either. 

Not having enough talent to staff two top lines is the obvious issue. Who is arguing otherwise? Who is not stressing the desperate need to bring in second line talent from the outside? Your point that the Sabres didn't win with Skinner on the top line doesn't resonate with me. What we got the previous year with Skinner on the top line is goal production. The team's floundering in his first year certainly wasn't his fault because he was fulfilling the role that he was initialing brought in for i.e. scoring goals. 

[dudacek]

Non-random question: what does it mean to be a defensive black hole?

To me, it means a player who consistently fails to prevent or nullify the other team’s attack within the system, either through poor positioning and decision-making or lack of physical execution.

But that is an exceedingly difficult thing to quantify because it is so reliant on situations, assignments and on the execution of those around you.

Was Chris Tanev terrible defensively against Vegas because the team was outshot 14 to 4 while he was on the ice? Or was he great defensively because he cleared every rebound and let Demko have a clean look at every shot despite the fact that his teammates couldn’t clear the zone?

Was Quinn Hughes terrible defensively because he was consistently overpowered in the corners and in front? Or was he outstanding defensively because he facilitated more zone exits than any three other Canuck defenseman combined?

Who played better D? Ryan McDonough with a 47 per cent Corsi and a -1 on 61 per cent D-zone starts against Crosby and Guentzel? Or Zach Bogosian with a 53 per cent Corsi and a +1 on 45 per cent D-Zone starts against E-Rod and Conor Sheary?

When a team that preaches “shoot from everywhere” plays a team that preaches “get the goalie to open up with lots of cross-ice passes” and outshoots them 37 to 26, did they have a better game “defensively”?  Corsi tells me they did. High danger tells me they didn’t.

Skinner looks bad defensively because he is so often the last man back. The most obvious reason is he started as the furthest one forward. Which is probably where his coach wanted him to be. So the eye test may be misleading. But no more misleading, I suspect, than his Corsi or many other fancy stats presented as gospel.

Edited September 7, 2020 by dudacek

[SwampD]

Werd.

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Non-random question: what does it mean to be a defensive black hole?

To me, it means a player who consistently fails to prevent or nullify the other team’s attack within the system, either through poor positioning and decision-making or lack of physical execution.

But that is an exceedingly difficult thing to quantify because it is so reliant on situations, assignments and on the execution of those around you.

Was Chris Tanev terrible defensively against Vegas because the team was outshot 14 to 4 while he was on the ice? Or was he great defensively because he cleared every rebound and let Demko have a clean look at every shot despite the fact that his teammates couldn’t clear the zone?

Was Quinn Hughes terrible defensively because he was consistently overpowered in the corners and in front? Or was he outstanding defensively because he facilitated more zone exits than any three other Canuck defenseman combined?

Who played better D? Ryan McDonough with a 47 per cent Corsi and a -1 on 61 per cent D-zone starts against Crosby and Guentzel? Or Zach Bogosian with a 53 per cent Corsi and a +1 on 45 per cent D-Zone starts against E-Rod and Conor Sheary?

When a team that preaches “shoot from everywhere” plays a team that preaches “get the goalie to open up with lots of cross-ice passes” and outshoots them 37 to 26, did they have a better game “defensively”?  Corsi tells me they did. High danger tells me they didn’t.

Skinner looks bad defensively because he is so often the last man back. The most obvious reason is he started as the furthest one forward. Which is probably where his coach wanted him to be. So the eye test may be misleading. But no more misleading, I suspect than his Corsi or many other fancy stats presented as gospel.

Wait until you find out he has more takeaways than giveaways, his corsi is positive, his xGF percentage is positive. 

Skinner doesn't look bad defensively. His even strength goal differential has been bad and he's been on bad teams. 

[dudacek]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Wait until you find out he has more takeaways than giveaways, his corsi is positive, his xGF percentage is positive. 

Skinner doesn't look bad defensively. His even strength goal differential has been bad and he's been on bad teams. 

None of those things tell me he’s a good or bad defensive player.

His giveaway total should be low, since he doesn’t pass much, and the ratio of shots taken versus times he has the puck is absurdly high.

His Corsi should be positive given how often he shoots.

The takeaways and expected goals confirm the eye test that he’s good at pickpocketing opponents and at getting himself into scoring position.

What do the stats show about scoring chances given up to his man off the rush?

What do they show about his zone exit carries and passes?

How many of his takeaways happen In the defensive zone?

How well does he take away shooting lanes?

How diligent is he about circling up high to cover for a teammate in the offensive zone?

How often does he break up rushes in the back check?

How well does he get into shooting lanes protect against the point shot? Passing lanes?

Does he cover up for the errors of his teammates?

Can he be trusted to eliminate his man from getting a scoring chance?

Edited September 7, 2020 by dudacek

[dudacek]

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Wait until you find out he has more takeaways than giveaways, his corsi is positive, his xGF percentage is positive. 

Skinner doesn't look bad defensively. His even strength goal differential has been bad and he's been on bad teams. 

Is Skinner better at preventing goals than Rasmus Ristolainen?

[SwampD]

I think LGR was agreeing with you.

[Zamboni]

42 minutes ago, dudacek said:

None of those things tell me he’s a good or bad defensive player.

His giveaway total should be low, since he doesn’t pass much, and the ratio of shots taken versus times he has the puck is absurdly high.

His Corsi should be positive given how often he shoots.

The takeaways and expected goals confirm the eye test that he’s good at pickpocketing opponents and at getting himself into scoring position.

What do the stats show about scoring chances given up to his man off the rush?

What do they show about his zone exit carries and passes?

How many of his takeaways happen In the defensive zone?

How well does he take away shooting lanes?

How diligent is he about circling up high to cover for a teammate in the offensive zone?

How often does he break up rushes in the back check?

How well does he get into shooting lanes protect against the point shot? Passing lanes?

Does he cover up for the errors of his teammates?

Can he be trusted to eliminate his man from getting a scoring chance?

Dude, just look at +/- 
It paints a better picture along with your eyeballs. 
Excuse me while I get back in my Delorean. I have a lunch date with Punch and Lorentz.

[Curt]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Basically PerraultForever is implying that Jeff Skinner will shoot 3% below his average sh% going forward and also generate less chances. Stats say he will regress to the mean and there is no reason to not believe his shot% will increase and he will shoot more with better teammates (probably from better positions). 

Random question since it is falsely believed Jeff Skinner is a defensive black hole. Is Skinner a positive xGF or negative? Does he have more takeaways or giveaways? Does he have a positive or negative corsi?

Yeah, I don’t see Skinner as an awful defensive player, but I do think he is probably below average.  Often playing a high risk/reward sort of defense where he pressures very hard for giveaways.

[dudacek]

52 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Dude, just look at +/- 
It paints a better picture along with your eyeballs. 
Excuse me while I get back in my Delorean. I have a lunch date with Punch and Lorentz.

+/- might not be the best indicator of how “good” a player is, but it is absolutely the best indicator of how successful the team was when you were on the ice.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

So, anyone have any juicy, or otherwise, rumours?

[LGR4GM]

40 minutes ago, dudacek said:

+/- might not be the best indicator of how “good” a player is, but it is absolutely the best indicator of how successful the team was when you were on the ice.

except it's not

[SwampD]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

except it's not

It really is.

In fact, It’s a direct relationship to how successful the team was when you were on the ice.

It doesn’t tell you how much more likely you were to score than the other team while you were on the ice. It tells you which team scored more while you were on the ice. You know, the object of the game of hockey.

Edited September 7, 2020 by SwampD

[dudacek]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

except it's not

It absolutely is. The object is to score more goals than the other team does. Your team scores more, you are more successful, Period. End of story.

What Swamp said.

Edited September 7, 2020 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

It isn't. 

Scenario that we see hundreds of times a year, line change. You are the last man on because your replacement sluggard off. You are on the ice but get 2 steps before a goal is scored on the rush. Clearly you suck and your team isn't successful with you on the ice. 

1 scenario out of hundreds that demonstrate why +/- is a useless stat. People like it because it is easy to understand. 

Another scenario, you are covering your assignment and are good at it. Tim sucks though and they pass it to Tim's guy who scored, guess you suck too. 

Another scenario, you are in position but your goalie is trash and wiffs on an easy shot

Another scenario, you are a pk machine and get your points on the PP. Too bad because pp goals don't count and PK ability isn't reflected in +/- 

Another scenario, it is 3v3 OT, bad line change means you barely set foot on the ice and game over

Another scenario, faceoff loss (you aren't the center) and point shot and score. 

There are so many every game occurrences that result in goals that +/- is willfully ignorant of. Hell there are times during play where +/- is literally not calculated if your team scores. I don't what the original point was but +/- comparisons other than as a very vague look at a teams overall level is completely useless. 

[WildCard]

25 minutes ago, SwampD said:

It really is.

In fact, It’s a direct relationship to how successful the team was when you were on the ice.

It doesn’t tell you how much more likely you were to score than the other team while you were on the ice. It tells you which team scored more while you were on the ice. You know, the object of the game of hockey.

Team can lose 10 games 2-1 and win 2 games 5-0 and still suck with a positive team +/-

[LGR4GM]

31 minutes ago, SwampD said:

It really is.

In fact, It’s a direct relationship to how successful the team was when you were on the ice.

It doesn’t tell you how much more likely you were to score than the other team while you were on the ice. It tells you which team scored more while you were on the ice. You know, the object of the game of hockey.

It is not. It is a relationship to if an even strength goal was scored while you were on the ice and accounts for literally no other variable. You like it because it is easy not because it is useful. 

Teams that lack talent or score on the PP more are disproportionately hurt by +/- 

Good players on bad teams will have a bad +/- because they will be put in more situations where their singular efforts don't matter to the overall play. +/- is not a reflection how a successful a team was when you were on the ice. It is a reflection of how good the team unit on the ice may have been barring other factors at 5v5. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

On top of all that +/- has far less information in it about forwards than it does defenders. ANOTHER SCENARIO... you are a winger and go down low to win a puck battle and do, the center on the wall you get the puck to make a move but loses the puck and a breakout heads the other way. You are busting to get back but you are behind the play and your defender gets owned and they score, guess you sucked at defending. +/- is a bad stat with tons of noise that basically tells us that bad teams have lots of +/- players. 

Alright, I have said my piece. I am sure you don't agree but that is on you now for not understanding how bad of a statistic +/- in when trying to use analytics to understand how/why a goal occurred. 

Fine thing I would note is that +/- isn't even really analytics, it is just a straight count. There is no variable accounting going on. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

On top of all that +/- has far less information in it about forwards than it does defenders. ANOTHER SCENARIO... you are a winger and go down low to win a puck battle and do, the center on the wall you get the puck to make a move but loses the puck and a breakout heads the other way. You are busting to get back but you are behind the play and your defender gets owned and they score, guess you sucked at defending. +/- is a bad stat with tons of noise that basically tells us that bad teams have lots of +/- players. 

Alright, I have said my piece. I am sure you don't agree but that is on you now for not understanding how bad of a statistic +/- in when trying to use analytics to understand how/why a goal occurred. 

Fine thing I would note is that +/- isn't even really analytics, it is just a straight count. There is no variable accounting going on. 

So we agree then. Everything you just said was trying to relate the stat to the player. But it is a straight count of how the TEAM did when that player was on the ice, which is what dudacek said.

[dudacek]

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It isn't. 

Scenario that we see hundreds of times a year, line change. You are the last man on because your replacement sluggard off. You are on the ice but get 2 steps before a goal is scored on the rush. Clearly you suck and your team isn't successful with you on the ice. 

1 scenario out of hundreds that demonstrate why +/- is a useless stat. People like it because it is easy to understand. 

Another scenario, you are covering your assignment and are good at it. Tim sucks though and they pass it to Tim's guy who scored, guess you suck too. 

Another scenario, you are in position but your goalie is trash and wiffs on an easy shot

Another scenario, you are a pk machine and get your points on the PP. Too bad because pp goals don't count and PK ability isn't reflected in +/- 

Another scenario, it is 3v3 OT, bad line change means you barely set foot on the ice and game over

Another scenario, faceoff loss (you aren't the center) and point shot and score. 

There are so many every game occurrences that result in goals that +/- is willfully ignorant of. Hell there are times during play where +/- is literally not calculated if your team scores. I don't what the original point was but +/- comparisons other than as a very vague look at a teams overall level is completely useless. 

Is there a single one of these scenarios that is not also true for Corsi, or for Expected Goals? (Hint: there's not)

17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It is not. It is a relationship to if an even strength goal was scored while you were on the ice and accounts for literally no other variable. You like it because it is easy not because it is useful. 

Teams that lack talent or score on the PP more are disproportionately hurt by +/- 

Good players on bad teams will have a bad +/- because they will be put in more situations where their singular efforts don't matter to the overall play. +/- is not a reflection how a successful a team was when you were on the ice. It is a reflection of how good the team unit on the ice may have been barring other factors at 5v5. 

You are arguing old arguments as to how much validity +/- has as a true measure of how good a player is.

That isn't the discussion here at all.

Swamp and I are arguing it is the best indicator of how successful the team was when that player was on the ice. And it is. Your above arguments don't address that statement at all.

To your point, one would be foolish to look at Brandon Montour's +13 and Jeff Skinner -24 and conclude Montour is a far better player without diving into how those results came about. One would also be foolish to look at those surface stats, see how one player was so successful and the other was not while playing on the same team, and not want to dig deeper and find out why.

Surface stats measure results and those results are relevant.

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

It is a useless stat when we have easily accessible stats that are far better and tell us far more about player contributions. It is meaningless and you yourself say so " there's more to it than that and you assess other factors" meaning that unlike some other stats +/- requires a lot of other things to make it even mildly useful. Corsi tells me more without the need for 100 qualifying statements. You were on the ice for this many shot attempts for and against. xGF tells me more. Plus minus simply tells me your even strength on ice goal differential and in an age of 3v3 overtimes it is probably even more useless. 

Not so black and white. What kind of shots? Where did the shots come from? Things like that. ALL STATS are tools, they are additional info, but they need to be looked at together and many many factors need to be considered. None are meaningless, and none are all informative. 

Perfect example stats people hate to talk about. Leafs had a huge possession and zone time advantage against the Leafs and lost, go figure. 

(3 on 3 OT stats should be separated from game stats as should playoff OT stats, they are indeed different)

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Not having enough talent to staff two top lines is the obvious issue. Who is arguing otherwise? Who is not stressing the desperate need to bring in second line talent from the outside? Your point that the Sabres didn't win with Skinner on the top line doesn't resonate with me. What we got the previous year with Skinner on the top line is goal production. The team's floundering in his first year certainly wasn't his fault because he was fulfilling the role that he was initialing brought in for i.e. scoring goals. 

Maybe my point was lost in the overall paragraphs. My point is we add a piece we lose a different piece we don't get better. We added Kane as that goal scorer and ROR as 2C then we ditched Kane and added Skinner (both flawed but in hindsight I think I'd rather have kept the cheaper option who doesn't score all that much less) so we still need a 2C.

For some reason we can't seem to put the pieces together in Buffalo even when we bring people in they seem to drop off and disappoint or lose their love........maybe after multiple failures you have to look back and think maybe they weren't cancers on the team, maybe there's mold in the walls.