Jump to content

2020-21 Trade Rumors and Speculation


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, +/- is a very tricky stat.  I consider it a primitive metaphor for a statistic -- it was the first attempt to measure skaters beyond simple goals + assists = points & penalty minutes.  As such, it is quite crude.

First, you need to put every team on the same scale with Adjusted Plus-Minus, which I commented on in the Analytics group.  This puts the entire league on roughly the same scale.

Even then, it's still imperfect.  Good teams tend to have a bunch of players just below an adjusted 0.0 while they have a few players well into the plus.  Conversely, bad teams tend to have several players near an adjusted 0.0 while they have many in the debit column.

And after that, you still need to be aware of player usage and their team situation.  Dave "Cementhead" Semenko got good ratings as Gretzky's bodyguard.  Wayne Gretzky's plus-minus dropped fairly steadily over his last few years because he was not a defencive stalwart in the DPE and he was tasked of carrying a team when his back wasn't up to it in more ways than one.  However, IMHO, if he had been in Buffalo int 1999 between Sanderson and Barnes, they might win the Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

IMHO, +/- is a very tricky stat.  I consider it a primitive metaphor for a statistic -- it was the first attempt to measure skaters beyond simple goals + assists = points & penalty minutes.  As such, it is quite crude.

First, you need to put every team on the same scale with Adjusted Plus-Minus, which I commented on in the Analytics group.  This puts the entire league on roughly the same scale.

Even then, it's still imperfect.  Good teams tend to have a bunch of players just below an adjusted 0.0 while they have a few players well into the plus.  Conversely, bad teams tend to have several players near an adjusted 0.0 while they have many in the debit column.

And after that, you still need to be aware of player usage and their team situation.  Dave "Cementhead" Semenko got good ratings as Gretzky's bodyguard.  Wayne Gretzky's plus-minus dropped fairly steadily over his last few years because he was not a defencive stalwart in the DPE and he was tasked of carrying a team when his back wasn't up to it in more ways than one.  However, IMHO, if he had been in Buffalo int 1999 between Sanderson and Barnes, they might win the Cup.

Paging @pi2000 ...

@pi2000 ... pink courtesy phone ... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

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

 

Of course the Leafs lost to the Leafs. 
 

That’s usually who beats them most often. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

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. 

Identifying the mistakes of the past is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not going to get weighed down by the glaring mistakes of the past that can't be changed. This offseason the team is in a position to make some deals that upgrade the team and better balance out the roster. Will it be done? I hope so. The opportunities should be there. 

When you are driving and constantly have your eyes on the rear-view mirror looking to see what is behind you instead of keeping your eyes on the road to see what is in front of you what inevitably happens is you crash. My advice to people who are so sour because of the frustrations of the past is to put your energies into the possibilities of the future. I guarantee that you will be much happier.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

This is from a deleted tweet from the NHL Coaches Association.

This describes  Botterill’s use of analytics as well

033BA048-6551-4172-A871-BE06BC2A401C.jpeg

I think the potential issue with that is clear, but I’m going to say it anyway.

An organization needs to decide what it values in players from both eyeball and analytics scouting.  Then find players that meet their criteria in both of those areas.

If you eyeball scout, then go looking for numbers that tell what you already believe, you will be able to find them, because there is an immense amount of numbers out there.  The problem is that not all of those numbers are important, and you will be able to find something to support your eyeball scouting, regardless of whether it was good or not.

Edited by Curt
I still don’t type good on my phone
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Identifying the mistakes of the past is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not going to get weighed down by the glaring mistakes of the past that can't be changed. This offseason the team is in a position to make some deals that upgrade the team and better balance out the roster. Will it be done? I hope so. The opportunities should be there. 

When you are driving and constantly have your eyes on the rear-view mirror looking to see what is behind you instead of keeping your eyes on the road to see what is in front of you what inevitably happens is you crash. My advice to people who are so sour because of the frustrations of the past is to put your energies into the possibilities of the future. I guarantee that you will be much happier.  

Sorry, but I've tried that for several seasons now and just can't any more as I see the same thing repeating yet again. What you say is true, but there is also that other adage that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. 

What about Adams being hired and the current talk seems in any way different to you than when Murray or JBot was hired? Myself, it feels like deja vu and I'm not going to be fooled again. So if/when this new group does something real, something different, then I'm all in, but I'm not blindly buying in yet again just based on hope and rhetoric. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to trades and speculation...

Lots of buzz around Josh Anderson from Jackets...the Jackets are right up against the cap and have several young prospects to resign over the next couple of years including Dubois this off season.  I believe Anderson is as good as gone and Jackets just want to maximize their return.  They showed this year they can win without him and probably don't want to give him a big contract.

Wennberg is another player Jackets have not been high on the past two seasons after he signed his contract.  I believe he showed in the post season he is still a good player and just needs to find the right fit.  Columbus would have to retain a little on Wennberg but feel he would be a 2nd or 3rd line center option for Buffalo.

 

My trade-

Risto and 2021 2nd rd pick for Anderson and Wennberg ($1mil. retained).  Risto would be a perfect fit behind Werenski and Jones.

 

Skinner, Eichel, Anderson

Olofsson, Wennberg, Reinhart

Kahun, Cozens, Johansson

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 6:54 PM, thewookie1 said:

Your trade proposal is too rich for my taste. 

Just saying though if we got Ehlers I might go

Skinner-Eichel-Ehlers

Olofsson-2C-Reinhart 

Johansson-Cozens-RW3

Asplund-Lazar-Okposo

 

Thompson is a tad troublesome though due to his inexperience and I really don’t want him with Cozens.

Ehlers-Eichel-Thompson

Olofsson-X-Sam

Skinner-Cozens-Johansson

?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instigators all over a tip that Johnny Gaudreau is being shopped.

Career-worst 58 points last year. 99 the year before.

LW, one year left in a contract that pays him $6.75 million.

What would you give up?

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

Instigators all over a tip that Johnny Gaudreau is being shopped.

Career-worst 58 points last year. 99 the year before.

LW, one year left in a contract that pays him $6.75 million.

What would you give up?

Skinner?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Instigators all over a tip that Johnny Gaudreau is being shopped.

Career-worst 58 points last year. 99 the year before.

LW, one year left in a contract that pays him $6.75 million.

What would you give up?

Okposo, mittelstadt, montours rights? Any of those would be great. Not realistic I understand. 

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

Instigators all over a tip that Johnny Gaudreau is being shopped.

Career-worst 58 points last year. 99 the year before.

LW, one year left in a contract that pays him $6.75 million.

What would you give up?

He has 2 years left I believe.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Instigators all over a tip that Johnny Gaudreau is being shopped.

Career-worst 58 points last year. 99 the year before.

LW, one year left in a contract that pays him $6.75 million.

What would you give up?

Once the Sabres have a 2C I'd think about this.  For now, all assets have to be focused on obtaining the 2C.  

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Monahan and Johnny Hockey, for Samson, 1st overall this year, and Colin Miller, maybe add in a 2nd or 3rd. 

Giving up way too much for three years of Monahan and two of Johnny Hockey. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Giving up way too much for three years of Monahan and two of Johnny Hockey. 

Probably a bit too much, you think those 2 will come cheaper? 

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...
×
×
  • Create New...