Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Brawndo

Pick #31 Ryan Johnson Defenseman

Recommended Posts

Just now, Andrew Amerk said:

Is hot garbage in some way substantially better or worse than cold garbage?

I think hot garbage tends to smell a lot worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tom webster said:

I think hot garbage tends to smell a lot worse.

True, but the analytics say that the garbage still performs the same whether or not it is emitting an unpleasant odor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tom webster said:

No, they actually drafted horribly except for one sixth round pick that turned everything around. That coupled with Belichek’s coaching genius and ability to not get too loyal to any players other then TB and a select few. Finally, being in a division that virtually guaranteed you a first round bye was the icing on the cake. A confluence of luck, sociopathic loyalty and brilliant coaching strategy.

Experience also shouldn't be underplayed. 

Everything you said is totally accurate, in establishing their first 3 titles or so (and beyond). But at some point after achieving so much greatness, regardless of the means, they were genuinely comfortable and used to being in big playoff moments and I believe that comfort level led to a certain confidence. There were times where it gave them an advantage. Tom and Bill would be the main benefactors and it flowed down the lineup through them. 

I guess what I mean is like, having "been there" established a confidence and swagger and it's a credit to them that they fostered that mindset - one of active belief. 

They always wore the pressure, and the labels, well. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Experience also shouldn't be underplayed. 

Everything you said is totally accurate, in establishing their first 3 titles or so (and beyond). But at some point after achieving so much greatness, regardless of the means, they were genuinely comfortable and used to being in big playoff moments and I believe that comfort level led to a certain confidence. There were times where it gave them an advantage. Tom and Bill would be the main benefactors and it flowed down the lineup through them. 

I guess what I mean is like, having "been there" established a confidence and swagger and it's a credit to them that they fostered that mindset - one of active belief. 

They always wore the pressure, and the labels, well. 

Agreed. 

23 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

True, but the analytics say that the garbage still performs the same whether or not it is emitting an unpleasant odor. 

I’d like to see the graphs because I’m not sure that is true. I know I perform better when emitting a more pleasant odor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tom webster said:

Agreed. 

I’d like to see the graphs because I’m not sure that is true. I know I perform better when emitting a more pleasant odor.

It depends on your role though.  The agitator is probably going to be very happy with that pungent odor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You all wanted proof and justification for me hating this pick. I reacted the way I did because the pick was, is, and will continue to be a massive failure. Thank god Botterill and half the scouts got fired because they were bad at what they did. Taking a defender at 31 was awful with the offensive talent stacked on the board. 

 

Am I the only one that has no idea what this means? 

  • Thanks (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Am I the only one that has no idea what this means? 

"The models behind xG (shorthand for Expected Goals) weigh each unblocked shot for a number of factors. Shot location is the main one, but the models also recognize events like rebounds and rush chances as well. It then assigns a value to each shot, based on the likelihood of the shot resulting in a goal." https://theathletic.com/121980/2017/10/09/an-advanced-stat-primer-understanding-basic-hockey-metrics/

Basically it looks at where and what and how shots occur on the ice while a specific player is on the ice. In this case it also compares the inverse which is shots that occur against that players team on the ice and it gives you a percentage number (at least that is my understanding) that predicts goal scoring. 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/10/01/expected-goals-are-a-better-predictor-of-future-scoring-than-corsi-goals/

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

"The models behind xG (shorthand for Expected Goals) weigh each unblocked shot for a number of factors. Shot location is the main one, but the models also recognize events like rebounds and rush chances as well. It then assigns a value to each shot, based on the likelihood of the shot resulting in a goal." https://theathletic.com/121980/2017/10/09/an-advanced-stat-primer-understanding-basic-hockey-metrics/

Basically it looks at where and what and how shots occur on the ice while a specific player is on the ice. In this case it also compares the inverse which is shots that occur against that players team on the ice and it gives you a percentage number (at least that is my understanding) that predicts goal scoring. 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/10/01/expected-goals-are-a-better-predictor-of-future-scoring-than-corsi-goals/

 

 

And at this point our prospect is doing badly? Or is someone we did not pick doing well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bob_sauve28 said:

And at this point our prospect is doing badly? Or is someone we did not pick doing well? 

Johnson is fine, he played on a meh team and is very young. The point is how well someone else is doing and how they are going to have an impact on their NHL team already versus what the Sabres did which was draft yet another defender who is probably 2 more years of NCAA and 1-2 years of AHL away from the NHL. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

"The models behind xG (shorthand for Expected Goals) weigh each unblocked shot for a number of factors. Shot location is the main one, but the models also recognize events like rebounds and rush chances as well. It then assigns a value to each shot, based on the likelihood of the shot resulting in a goal." https://theathletic.com/121980/2017/10/09/an-advanced-stat-primer-understanding-basic-hockey-metrics/

Basically it looks at where and what and how shots occur on the ice while a specific player is on the ice. In this case it also compares the inverse which is shots that occur against that players team on the ice and it gives you a percentage number (at least that is my understanding) that predicts goal scoring. 

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/10/01/expected-goals-are-a-better-predictor-of-future-scoring-than-corsi-goals/

 

 

In English, it essentially means Robertson was on the ice for the equivalent of 7 good scoring chances for, and 2 against, or something similar, right? Whether he had anything specific to do with those chances or not is not necessarily a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

In English, it essentially means Robertson was on the ice for the equivalent of 7 good scoring chances for, and 2 against, or something similar, right? Whether he had anything specific to do with those chances or not is not necessarily a factor.

Roughly. He played with Kapanen and Kerfoot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

So if I understand expected goals, Brian Holzinger and Gary MacAdam should be in the hall of fame based on this stat alone.

Come in, no one expected them to score on those chances. That’s taken into account in the formula these guys use. I believe it’s even called The Holzinger Factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dudacek said:

Come in, no one expected them to score on those chances. That’s taken into account in the formula these guys use. I believe it’s even called The Holzinger Factor.

I was only kidding.


However, you know Holzinger would have been an analytics darling for at least a couple of years before people figured it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tom webster said:

No, they actually drafted horribly except for one sixth round pick that turned everything around. That coupled with Belichek’s coaching genius and ability to not get too loyal to any players other then TB and a select few. Finally, being in a division that virtually guaranteed you a first round bye was the icing on the cake. A confluence of luck, sociopathic loyalty and brilliant coaching strategy.

Don't forget the cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dudacek said:

In English, it essentially means Robertson was on the ice for the equivalent of 7 good scoring chances for, and 2 against, or something similar, right? Whether he had anything specific to do with those chances or not is not necessarily a factor.

In an exhibition game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Me too

I’m never sure with anyone or anything any more. Either way, there should definitely be “A Holzinger Factor.”

Edited by tom webster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...