Sabres Prospects 2016-17

[pi2000]

shorthanded goals scored and allowed (which count towards +/-); does not include PP goals for or PK goals against)

 

Are these not the same thing?

 

I guess I didn't state it clearly...  There's 6 scenarios:

 

goals for at even strength, shorthanded or on the power play.

goals against at even strength, shorthanded or on the power play.

 

Plus/Minus only counts for 4 of those situations...

 

- when you score at even strength

- when you get scored on at even strength

- when you score while shorthanded

- when you get scored on while on the powerplay

Pi, when you use fraction of 60 minutes per game with time that includes power play time (both the 60 and the ATOI do), your numbers which only tally ES/SH goals are going to be a little different than the value you'd want. I'm not sure it makes a huge difference in the long run, so I'm going to ignore it and try to go through a few things.

 

Understood, I noticed that, but don't really have the time to make those TOI adjustments.... but like you said, the differences would likely be minor.     I'll probably do it at some point but need to get some actual work done today.   

Edited July 13, 2017 by pi2000

[Randall Flagg]

I guess I didn't state it clearly...  There's 6 scenarios:

 

goals for at even strength, shorthanded or on the power play.

goals against at even strength, shorthanded or on the power play.

 

Plus/Minus only counts for 3 of those situations...

 

- even strength

- when you score while shorthanded

- when you get scored on while on the powerplay

 

Understood, I noticed that, but don't really have the time to make those TOI adjustments.... but like you said, the differences would likely be minor.     I'll probably do it at some point but need to get some actual work done today.   

It'd be waaaaaaaaay too much work, I wouldn't worry about it.

Another problem - If Chychrun had a +3, instead of a negative number, you'd be giving him a relativeplusminus of -16. You want the equation to read

 

TR+/- = z - (xy/60).

The problem wouldn't have shown when actually using a plus player on a minus team because you would have intuitively had the right number already once you figured out xy/60. But that way the formula does the right work too.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I have three words; MY BRAIN HURTS

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=evlrs5Bi_6E

Edited July 13, 2017 by GASabresFan

[pi2000]

It'd be waaaaaaaaay too much work, I wouldn't worry about it.

Another problem - If Chychrun had a +3, instead of a negative number, you'd be giving him a relativeplusminus of -16. You want the equation to read

 

TR+/- = z - (xy/60).

The problem wouldn't have shown when actually using a plus player on a minus team because you would have intuitively had the right number already once you figured out xy/60. But that way the formula does the right work too.

 

Perfect, thanks!

 

I thought more about adjusting TOI, but you can still log a + while shorthanded or a - while on the power play, so you still need to count those minutes because I'm counting those goals for and against.... there aren't many goals in those situations tho.   

 

Some TR+/- for a few of our favorite Sabres last season (w/ some fuzzy math to account for fewer games played):

 

A TR of 0 on a bad team means you're part of the problem.

 

Foligno: +18

 

Bogosian: 0

 

Franson:  +14

 

Ennis:  0

 

Eichel: +6

 

ROR: +23

 

Kane: +4

 

Reinhart:  +10

 

Moulson:  +10

 

Kulikov:  -10

 

DLo: -1

 

Cal O'Reilly: -6

 

Gionta:  +10

 

ERod: -5

Edited July 13, 2017 by pi2000

[Randall Flagg]

If I had to concisely state the main problem people have with the +/- stat as a comparison tool on its own, it would be that sometimes good players play on bad teams and bad players play on good teams, rendering comparisons useless because of the team-stat nature of plus minus. Not only is this a problem, but situational usage is a key part of a hockey game and there is no quantitative or qualitative way that this factors into +/-. I don't see people use it as thoroughly as pi does very often, and when they don't go through this situational usage.

 

The importance of usage is I think well known - people talk all the time about sheltering players. There was a lot of "imagine Fedun getting Risto's minutes" and "get Sam as 3C so he can feast while Jack draws tough opposing defensive players and ROR gets all the top lines). We regularly reminisce about Roy-Afinogenov-Vanek doing exactly this in 06-07, Vanek producing his best ever goal total and the league leading plus minus. Not only can usage vary wildly within our team (Larsson was the defensive center, Jack was sheltered, Matthews was ridiculously sheltered with Gardiner while Rielly got boned) but when you move across the country to a different team with a different coach with different usage ideas, any tenuous +/- comparison ability that was there (there wasn't really any, as shown below) gets destroyed. Far, far too many variables affect usage and +/- that have nothing to do with what the player actually did on the ice. 

 

Just now another one popped into my head. Positional expectations in the defensive zone for wingers and for centers aren't comparable. Unless Hossa is on your line, or Tarasenko in the other direction. Palat vs. Drouin. Gionta or Kane. Allowing a shorty gives you a minus? More noise on an already unintelligible signal. You should see the centers that a metro player has to defend, and the defense groups a pacific forward has to face. 

 

Pi understands the problem with comparing +/- across teams, so he devises this clever formula to calculate a relative value to how your team performs. He's already thoroughly described it, and it makes sense in a vacuum, but I still have the same problem with it.

 

So I've done a couple examples to illustrate this plus minus relative thing in action. I did them on my whiteboard because I have never typed in LaTeX and am getting sick of typing numbers. 

 

 

The formula is at the top with a key you probably can't see (whoops) defining the variables I used (yeah, I used the greek letter that most resembles a 'p' for "P"lus minus, bite me). From the example he ran earlier, we see that on the Arizona Coyotes, one Jakob Chychrun posted a relative +/- of negative one. He was only slightly worse than expected to be based on how good his team is, impressive for a rookie playing a tough position.

 

I ran the formula on Oliver Ekman-Larsson, a no BS consensus top 15 defenseman in the game (and top 10 in my mind). He is known for being more offensive than defensive, but there is not a shred of doubt that his defensive abilities as a seasoned veteran are far beyond Jakob's right now. It's not even close, even if you only describe his d-zone play as "mediocre" (it's pretty good, his gap control and stickwork and ability to read the play range from acceptable to good). He's ELITE offensively. He comes out of this formula looking worse than Chychrun does. He is better offensively by light years, and better defensively by a lot, AND we've plucked them from the same sheet of ice during the same games. What gives? 

It's the same exact usage problem as before. 

The second example is even more glaring. A promising young defenseman tasked with the defensive minutes, while an ultra-sheltered Polak appears to obliterate him, even though his puck skills and skating, and therefore gap and recovery defending abilities, are brutal. Polak's puck skills are so bad that even though his quality of competition is leagues below Rielly's, Babs still wouldn't start him in the offensive zone, something that should help his case on the popular usage site http://www.hockeyabstract.com/playerusagecharts(Switch to Toronto, Defense) and yet doesn't pull his classification away from "Struggling Depth Defenseman" (Rielly is considered a top-4 two-way defenseman). You'd have flipped those labels if plus minus and team-relative-plus-minus were all you had.

 

Sometimes +/- can be consistent with a player's abilities. Sometimes the citrus fruit sales in Georgia are too. It doesn't work anywhere near as well as a dozen other things that have been well documented as far better predictors, most notably, score-adjusted possession stats. Partly because goals for and goals against are naturally small sample sizes even over long seasons compared to shot attempts, and partly because the better stats and their users DO go through tremendous efforts to contextualize, account for score, account for situation and linemates and QoC, and account for overall team success at them. That already gets done. We don't leave all that stuff in the dark when we pull these stats out, we use them to bring light to the stats. 

 

I'm going to go through one more exercise that I've seen before and really enjoy. I shall define two players named Player 1 and Player 2. They are exactly the same. When they are on the ice, they score at the same rate. They shoot at the same rate. They suppress shots at the same rate. They are completely identical players. We'll give them easy numbers to work with. Per 60 minutes of ES ice time, their GF is 3.00 goals and their GA is 2.50 goals. They each have a CF/60 of 6.00 shots and a CA/60 of 6.00 shots, they're even corsi players. They face the same players the same amount of time, this stays the same even when I change the variables in a second.

 

Now, let's play around with one variable at a time.

 

Let's give Player 1 20 minutes per game and Player 2 15, since I want Player 1 on line 1 and Player 2 on line 3 to balance the team. During Player 1's season he has 1640 minutes, meaning he was on the ice for 1640*3.00/60= 82 goals. He was on the ice for 68 goals against, giving a +/- of +14. The exact same player 2, using the same process, is a +10. Player 1 is apparently 40% better than Player 2, even though they are exactly the same.

Now let's look at these two players, each getting 20 minutes at a time now, but on different lines. I'll take two players from the same NHL team with differing PDOs (luck) and use their on ice S% and SP% as the values for our theoretical players. Kulikov posted a PDO of 95.8%, through 3.7 S% and a .921 SP% while he was on the ice in 16-17. His forwards couldn't score. His career PDO, like everyone else's, converges to 100%. But this season, Player 1 experience's Kulikov's on ice save and shooting percentages. He's a -7. Player 2, however, experiences the PDO of Jake McCabe, 100.8% (9% shooting, .918 SP%). He is a +2, a swing of nine of these pesky units (which is a lot by anyone's standards for this stat) even though the SINGLE EXISTING DIFFERENCE between these guys is a typical PDO distribution on any random team any random season. What if you conflate a bunch more things, including zone starts, quality of competition, quality of teammate, score adjusting, shift length, AND PDO? It can change a helluva lot more than the NINE plus minus points that we spread by only giving typical luck numbers. For players, I stress, that are completely identical.

 

That's why this stat is bad, even though it's sometimes (not as often as other things) right. There are so many better things out there. It's useless. By the time you've fully contextualized it you've come across a dozen stats that predict success better and tell you far more while making a point to isolate what you're looking at. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[pi2000]

Good thoughts Flagg... a couple things.

 

You'll need to adjust y (team goal differential) per player, based on number of games they played.    eg,  ARI was a -48 over 82 games, but Chychrun only played 68 games.    (48/82) * 68 = -39.8 team goal differential for Chychrun.... it's a rough estimate at best, but gives a more accurate TRpm. 

 

I mentioned that TRpm isn't a good tool for comparing 2 players against each other when we're only talking about single digit differences... which could be accounted for by zone starts, matchups, linemates, pairings, etc...  

 

That said, ROR gets dzone starts, and matches up against the best opposing players yet his TRpm is a whopping +23.   Kulikov was awful as we all know, had a TRpm of -10... he was a major liability.  

 

For some of the new players in 2016-17...

 

Scandella: -15

Pominville: -9

Beaulieu: 0

 

Minny had a great team last year, they were a +49 as a team, and Scandella played about 30% of the minutes.    You'd expect him to at least have a positive +/- but he was a -2.   Does he get the tough matchups?  I don't know, but that's not a good season for him considering Ryan Suter logged the toughest minutes and was a +12 TRpm...  on a great team no less, that's impressive.   

 

Beaulieu was a positive contributor to Montreal's success last season with a neutral TRpm.   

 

You mentioned OEL.    He took a step back in 16-17 compared to what he did in 2015-16.

 

2015-16: 21g 34a 55p   -6  TRpm: +2

2016-17: 12g 27a 39p -25  TRpm: -6

 

I re-calculated Chychrun's TRpm based on the number of games he played (68), which gives him a -3.       

 

Your point about Reilly vs Polak is a good one.   Personally I like Polak's game he's tough plays well in his own end, while Reilly like to take more chances with the puck which can come back to bite him... it's reflected in their TRpm :)   Would rather have Reilly or Polak on your team tho?   Depends on your needs.... but buyer beware with Reilly, he may create some offense and be nice PP guy, but at even strength his creativity can be a liability.    That's the beauty of TRpm, it tells you which guys are liabailities to their specific team at even strength... back to OEL, he's not very good defensively, everybody knows that, but the guy is an absolute weapon on the PP and in the o-zone.    Are you willing to sacrifice some d-zone lapses for an uptick in PP production?   Those are some interesting decisions GMs need to make.

Edited July 14, 2017 by pi2000

[Thorny]

Baker has released his latest depth chart/prospect rankings:

 

http://www.sabresprospects.com/2017/07/summer-2017-sabres-prospect-rankings.html

 

From the article:

 

1 - Casey Mittelstadt - C, 6'0", 199 lbs., University of Minnesota Golden Gophers (B1G)

 

You can argue that the hands, vision, sense and overall offensive upside of Mittelstadt and Nylander are comparable. Both are superior stickhandlers and playmakers that bring the ability to string together electrifying shifts in the offensive zone.

 

In the end, Mittlestdt's battle skills, construction of a complete 200-foot game and competence playing the center position give the stocky Minnesotan the edge in settling the top overall spot.

 

Two important notes:

 

1 I like Mittelstadt's potential to become a legitimate top-tier offensive force at the NHL level

 

2 While it is "odd", I couldn't care less that he couldn't do a pull-up at the Combine. (My 14-year-old nephew/goalie/beast can do 15 easily, but I don't think it makes him a better player)

 

Hockey is a game of flow and instincts. Mittelstadt has been a difference maker every shift in every game I've seen him play. He's very agile with fast hands and a dogged work ethic. The kid is a fiery competitor that will pressure the puck, grind along the walls, and simply do what it takes in all three zones for the full 60 minutes.

 

Two years (2019-20) is a comfortable timetable. However, Mittelstadt may very well be a candidate as a “one and done” collegian. The magic/arbitrary number for yanking him out after his freshman season is 45 points. Hitting the 20-goal mark would be great, but if he can get a 17-28 ratio with the Gophers, dominate at the World Junior Championship, and prove that his mind, body and skill set could quickly match up with the world's best, it just may be a good time to get him out.

 

For now, look for him to become an immediate impact player in Dinkytown and one that should be a major player as the U.S. looks to defend its gold medal.

[pi2000]

Baker has released his latest depth chart/prospect rankings:

 

http://www.sabresprospects.com/2017/07/summer-2017-sabres-prospect-rankings.html

 

From the article:

 

1 - Casey Mittelstadt - C, 6'0", 199 lbs., University of Minnesota Golden Gophers (B1G)

 

You can argue that the hands, vision, sense and overall offensive upside of Mittelstadt and Nylander are comparable. Both are superior stickhandlers and playmakers that bring the ability to string together electrifying shifts in the offensive zone.

 

In the end, Mittlestdt's battle skills, construction of a complete 200-foot game and competence playing the center position give the stocky Minnesotan the edge in settling the top overall spot.

 

Two important notes:

 

1 I like Mittelstadt's potential to become a legitimate top-tier offensive force at the NHL level

 

2 While it is "odd", I couldn't care less that he couldn't do a pull-up at the Combine. (My 14-year-old nephew/goalie/beast can do 15 easily, but I don't think it makes him a better player)

 

Hockey is a game of flow and instincts. Mittelstadt has been a difference maker every shift in every game I've seen him play. He's very agile with fast hands and a dogged work ethic. The kid is a fiery competitor that will pressure the puck, grind along the walls, and simply do what it takes in all three zones for the full 60 minutes.

 

Two years (2019-20) is a comfortable timetable. However, Mittelstadt may very well be a candidate as a “one and done” collegian. The magic/arbitrary number for yanking him out after his freshman season is 45 points. Hitting the 20-goal mark would be great, but if he can get a 17-28 ratio with the Gophers, dominate at the World Junior Championship, and prove that his mind, body and skill set could quickly match up with the world's best, it just may be a good time to get him out.

 

For now, look for him to become an immediate impact player in Dinkytown and one that should be a major player as the U.S. looks to defend its gold medal.

 

That's nice, but I take Baker's opinions with a grain of salt, he always seems to hype guys up too much focusing too much on their positives and runs a muck with superlatives.

 

That said, I was thrilled they picked him as he was easily BPA.     He's going to be a star, but still a lot he needs to work on.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Mittelstadt vs Asplund vs Nylander, who is our No. 1 forward.

[Thorny]

Mittelstadt, Nylander, Asplund.

[GASabresIUFAN]

So the 8th pick in a weaker draft is better then the 8th pick in a stronger draft 1 year later.  I agree by the way.  In fact, I'd say Mittelstadt, Asplund, Nylander.  

[LGR4GM]

So the 8th pick in a weaker draft is better then the 8th pick in a stronger draft 1 year later. I agree by the way. In fact, I'd say Mittelstadt, Asplund, Nylander.

For the 100th time, the 2017 draft was weaker at the top top but was as deep as 2016.

 

I also think Casey might be the pick of the 3-10 range

[Derrico]

So the 8th pick in a weaker draft is better then the 8th pick in a stronger draft 1 year later. I agree by the way. In fact, I'd say Mittelstadt, Asplund, Nylander.

Recency bias. Alex nylander will be fine.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Recency bias. Alex nylander will be fine.

I'm going to disagree as to the bias.  We saw them both perform in the same 3 on 3 and Mittelstadt looked like the better and more dynamic player.  This isn't to say the Alex won't be fine or an effective NHL player.  Alex has the advantage of getting a long look in the big boy camp while Casey is off to college, but rating them today I'm taking both Casey and Asplund over him.  Both just looked closer to being NHL players

[dudacek]

The meteoric rise of Nikita Kucherov in the player ranking thread got me thinking about player development and Alex Nylander.

 

In his post draft year Kucherov put up 1/3/4 in 18 games in the KHL

He then came over here and spent a year tearing up the Q

After that he dominated the AHL early and was promoted to the NHL where he potted 18 points in 58 games as a rookie.

 

In other words, Kucherov struggled more than Alex did as an 18-year-old in a men's league. And he was a year year older than Alex is now when he made the NHL and he didn't exactly rip it up in that year.

 

I guess what I'm saying is it might be premature to start worrying about Nylander. He's a small skilled player who just turned 19.

Edited July 15, 2017 by dudacek

[Eleven]

Care to chime in on this one, 11?

 

Without the caption, I'd be completely at sea.

[North Buffalo]

Flagg, what an explanaition of measuring players worth and I got where you are coming from. As with Pi, I think there are many variables that measure a players worth... line, variable of teamates, goals for personally and line he plays on and against, situational use, injuries to himself or linemates, line combination consistency and even things like on ice time protecting a lead or leading or just on ice leading a comeback..., who steps up and when? My problem with stats have always been two fold, sample size creates anomalies and trying to boil down to a few variables creates intended or unintended bias and thus skewed misued stats.

[GASabresIUFAN]

The meteoric rise of Nikita Kucherov in the player ranking thread got me thinking about player development and Alex Nylander.

 

I guess what I'm saying is it might be premature to start worrying about Nylander. He's a small skilled player who just turned 19.

Since when is a 6'1 player considered small?

 

I don't think anyone is really "worried" about Nylander. Disappointed a little that he wasn't more dominant in the A, even at 18. However 28 pts in 65 games is .40 p/gp isn't horrible for a 18 year old in the AHL. It was certainly better the Zemgus did in similar circumstances a few years ago when he had 17 pts in 61 games for the Amerks.

 

Where the disappontment comes in was in comparing him to his brother. William was the 8th pick in 2014. In the season following his draft, he split time between the SHL (20 pts in 21 games) and the AHL (32 pts in 37 games).

Edited July 16, 2017 by GASabresFan

[Taro T]

Since when is a 6'1 player considered small?

I don't think anyone is really "worried" about Nylander. Disappointed a little that he wasn't more dominant in the A, even at 18. However 28 pts in 65 games is .40 p/gp isn't horrible for a 18 year old in the AHL. It was certainly better the Zemgus did in similar circumstances a few years ago when he had 17 pts in 61 games for the Amerks.

Where the disappontment comes in was in comparing him to his brother. William was the 8th pick in 2014. In the season following his draft, he split time between the SHL (20 pts in 21 games) and the AHL (32 pts in 37 games).

William did do better his 1st year in the A, but he actually got to play on a AHL team, not the tire fire the Amerks were.

 

Hopefully passing on Chychrun/Sergachev works out.

[GASabresIUFAN]

William did do better his 1st year in the A, but he actually got to play on a AHL team, not the tire fire the Amerks were.

Hopefully passing on Chychrun/Sergachev works out.

The Marlies were good that season, but Connor Brown was their best other player that year. Had he not also put up 20 pts in 21 games in the SHL I might be more willing to buy the better team excuse for the huge difference in their AHL performance. Edited July 16, 2017 by GASabresFan

[Thorny]

The Marlies were good that season, but Connor Brown was their best other player that year. Had he not also put up 20 pts in 21 games in the SHL I might be more willing to buy the better team excuse for the huge difference in their AHL performance.

Well, maybe he played on a good team over there in the SHL, too. Sorry, too lazy to look that up right now.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, maybe he played on a good team over there in the SHL, too. Sorry, too lazy to look that up right now.

I don't even think good/bad team is all that important here. For me, the key is William Nylander spent two years playing against men in the SHL before going to the AHL. Alex had 1 year in junior.

 

It's certainly possible (maybe even likely) that William is the better hockey player, but their development paths have essentially nothing in common, so I'm hesitant to hold their first AHL seasons to too strict of a comparison.

[nfreeman]

The meteoric rise of Nikita Kucherov in the player ranking thread got me thinking about player development and Alex Nylander.

 

In his post draft year Kucherov put up 1/3/4 in 18 games in the KHL

He then came over here and spent a year tearing up the Q

After that he dominated the AHL early and was promoted to the NHL where he potted 18 points in 58 games as a rookie.

 

In other words, Kucherov struggled more than Alex did as an 18-year-old in a men's league. And he was a year year older than Alex is now when he made the NHL and he didn't exactly rip it up in that year.

 

I guess what I'm saying is it might be premature to start worrying about Nylander. He's a small skilled player who just turned 19.

Since when is a 6'1 player considered small?

 

I don't think anyone is really "worried" about Nylander. Disappointed a little that he wasn't more dominant in the A, even at 18. However 28 pts in 65 games is .40 p/gp isn't horrible for a 18 year old in the AHL. It was certainly better the Zemgus did in similar circumstances a few years ago when he had 17 pts in 61 games for the Amerks.

 

Where the disappontment comes in was in comparing him to his brother. William was the 8th pick in 2014. In the season following his draft, he split time between the SHL (20 pts in 21 games) and the AHL (32 pts in 37 games).

William did do better his 1st year in the A, but he actually got to play on a AHL team, not the tire fire the Amerks were.

 

Hopefully passing on Chychrun/Sergachev works out.

The Marlies were good that season, but Connor Brown was their best other player that year. Had he not also put up 20 pts in 21 games in the SHL I might be more willing to buy the better team excuse for the huge difference in their AHL performance.

I don't even think good/bad team is all that important here. For me, the key is William Nylander spent two years playing against men in the SHL before going to the AHL. Alex had 1 year in junior.

 

It's certainly possible (maybe even likely) that William is the better hockey player, but their development paths have essentially nothing in common, so I'm hesitant to hold their first AHL seasons to too strict of a comparison.

 

 

Good hockey talk here boys.

[Randall Flagg]

I think the chance Alex becomes the player William already was during his rookie year is slim. William is already a very, very good NHLer, and is likely going to be a star.

[dudacek]

I think the chance Alex becomes the player William already was during his rookie year is slim. William is already a very, very good NHLer, and is likely going to be a star.

A Leaf fan told me he was among the ten best players in the NHL.

Only the third best player on TO though.