TrueBlueGED

Yea, my apologizes. I was trying to respond to both you and Flagg (who I understood to be questioning the methodological rigor of pollsters) and it got all muddled up. I've been in a hospital waiting room since 6am and my brain is slowly melting. I don't disagree with any of the challenges you just rattled off.

Corsi (technically it uses Fenwick, but whatever) is only one component of xG. Part one of this article explains the xG model. Video would help put a specific answer to your question, but some plausible explanations are that Vesey backchecks with the ferocity of a sleeping cat, is a reasonable on-puck defender but loses his man so often it'd make Risto blush. What could result is very few shots against because the shots against are such high quality they go into the net with a high frequency. edit: Worth noting that on his career, Vesey is in the bottom third for corsi against. So last season could be an outlier, or signs of growth. Hard to say.

My interpretation is when his team doesn't have the puck he essentially spins in circles staring at the rafters while the other team gets to the prime scoring areas.

A result from the 90s!?!?!?! ? Really though, polling isn't perfect, and you're of course going to find polls where the actual result falls outside the margin of error. But that's not the norm. Polls as a whole are pretty accurate, even if not fool-proof. I also bristle at the notion that pollsters aren't methodologically rigorous and putting good-faith efforts into accuracy, though I realize that wasn't your assertion.

No, but I think they'd merely be the 3rd worst defensive line in the history of hockey ?

On the other hand, if it ever comes to pass, Skinner-Eichel-Vesey might be the worst defensive line in the history of hockey ?

This is where I disagree. I don't think he's useless or among the worst defensemen in the league, but I think he fits to a T the classic 3rd pairing Dman who should run your second unit PP and get as little even strength ice as is reasonable. And for $5.4M, I need more than that.

Well, my across the board assertion was based on their careers to date, not just the most recent season. Sheary's defensive xG was meh, but Vesey's was horrible. You're understating the difference here. Every other metric between the two they were within the same standard deviation, so I'll happily meet in the middle and say they're approximately the same value-wise. But then you put defense into the mix, and Sheary is the clear winner. Maybe we can agree on this: the Sabres need to do better than both of them in their top-6.

Life as a grad student on break, right? Define inaccurate. Polls aren't perfect, of course, and it also depends on what the poll is asking....but they're pretty accurate. Care to expand? The major pollsters are incredibly rigorous and put a ton of effort into getting an accurate picture. Also, Nate Silver isn't a pollster, he simply uses them as the foundation of his prediction models.

Would you be happier if I said Vesey's offensive contributions are completely washed away by his horrible defensive play?

Neither were good last year, that's for sure. I put the most weight on xG because of its predictive value, which is where my clear judgment in favor of Sheary comes from. For whatever it's worth, everything I've read about Vesey's defensive play qualitatively backs up his abominable defensive xG in the chart.

The flip side is that those who are drawn to Risto's physical attributes and attitude may go searching for justifications, accurate or not, to explain the poor metrics. It's not hard to imagine somebody thinking, perhaps subconsciously, "a 6'3 RHD who scores 40 with a mean streak simply has to be good, the numbers can't be right" and go from there. It's what I'm counting on when thinking of potential returns in a Risto trade.

I haven't watched enough to know, but I've read enough to be comfortable that any strength on the puck he may have over Sheary is completely washed out by his lack of interest involving anything resembling defense. Besides, if he's stronger on the puck but still has worse outcomes across the board, does it really matter?

Well, that's because all available evidence says he is.

So, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I value him as a 3rd pair Dman, which doesn't have a lot of value in a trade obviously. So from that perspective, if we snag a really good 3C type, I should be happy. On the other hand, my belief (hope?) is that there are GMs out there who value him quite a bit more than I do, and under that view, a 3C type would be a disappointing return.

Indeed. I want someone who can do the job, period.

...so you're saying Benning really likes deeply flawed, expensive RHD? There's hope!!! Although I think Risto ultimately does get moved, I do continue to have a slight worry that Botterill's set the price too high and there's a risk we get stuck keeping him.

Yea, I'm really not interested in relitigating this. I thought your point was that since the individual impact is less that it's not worth getting them, not that tanking to get them isn't worth it. We will never in a million years see eye to eye on that, so moving on.

Tarasenko, Pietrangelo, and O'Reilly would like a word.

Yea, but that was a way different version of Harden. I think it'll be fun, just not sure I know how well it will work against the top teams in the West.

I have no idea how Westbrook and Harden are going to work together. I guess like the first year of LeBron and Wade in Miami where they essentially take turns? Regardless, the NBA offseason is so fun.

Not as impactful as in the NBA, sure, but you're still completely screwed without them.

I think you might be unnecessarily conflating "puck moving" with "high risk." In my view, puck moving simply means they're good at transitioning the puck and flipping the ice. That doesn't necessarily mean they do it by attempting high risk plays.

I'd definitely have taken him over Vesey, but Johansson (assuming health) is a much better middle-6 option.

This is exactly my thinking. Let him be somebody else's "maybe if" and "if only" and *what if we try..." and "perhaps we can..." A team shouldn't have to twist itself in a pretzel to maybe possibly make its $5.4M defenseman serviceable.