Five things I need to see to validate the Sabres being fully in on analytics

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

Doesn't matter who the Sabres pick half of SS will be upset. This draft has no standouts as they are all more or less a crap shoot. I'm assuming they will take one of Power, Eklund, Beniers. I don't care which one it is,  none of them would be considered in the top 5 next year.

Woo slow down. Sure, Shane Wright is gonna be 1st overall but don't write off a draft just because it doesn't have a Wright, or Bedard, or McDavid.  This draft is gonna to surprise ppl because the players that come from it endured some of the most crazy draft years ever. There's more to this draft than meets the eye. 

[woods-racer]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Woo slow down. Sure, Shane Wright is gonna be 1st overall but don't write off a draft just because it doesn't have a Wright, or Bedard, or McDavid.  This draft is gonna to surprise ppl because the players that come from it endured some of the most crazy draft years ever. There's more to this draft than meets the eye. 

Covid makes it an even bigger crap shoot as we can't evaluate like normal with less talent than most years. There is no cut and clear #1. You just said it. It's a crap shoot with out the talent.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

Covid makes it an even bigger crap shoot as we can't evaluate like normal with less talent than most years. There is no cut and clear #1. You just said it. It's a crap shoot with out the talent.

That's just not true. That's not how drafting works to be honest. Just because the #1 pick isn't clear doesn't mean the draft is a crapshoot or lacks talent. 

I disagree strongly. 

[Curt]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

That's just not true. That's not how drafting works to be honest. Just because the #1 pick isn't clear doesn't mean the draft is a crapshoot or lacks talent. 

I disagree strongly. 

I honestly think he is just talking about the #1 pick. There is no guy who stands out head and shoulders above the rest like there sometimes is.  Wright, Bedard, McDavid, Matthews.

[Thorny]

Shouldn't the title of this thread read:

"Five things I need to calculate to validate the Sabres being fully in on analytics"

?

[Marvin]

13 hours ago, Zamboni said:

Oh, it’s not about me not believing it. It’s about me grasping it 😂 

Half I get. I follow. I understand.

And half … well, you get it 😂

I was playing on the gif being from "Get Smart" with one of several catch phrases.  Sorry about that, Chief.

[inkman]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Shouldn't the title of this thread read:

"Five things I need to calculate to validate the Sabres being fully in on analytics"

?

[inkman]

Uh huh 

 

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, inkman said:

Uh huh 

 

Just wait until someone tells you about how he's still developing. 

[Zamboni]

Wait until someone says “the eye test tells me Risto isn’t all that bad, because like he hits people n stuff”. 😂

[PASabreFan]

11 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Wait until someone says “the eye test tells me Risto isn’t all that bad, because like he hits people n stuff”. 😂

I never want so much hatred in my heart. No thank you!

[Zamboni]

19 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I never want so much hatred in my heart. No thank you!

 

😂

[bob_sauve28]

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-drafting-first-overall-in-year-in-which-scouting-world-got-turned-upside-down/article_9c97bde0-e4a1-11eb-909c-4b1d9c7b7fac.html

 

Interesting article on what a crap shoot this years draft will be. We might be able to grab a great player with that early second round pick 

 

[inkman]

On 7/10/2021 at 12:25 AM, inkman said:

1)  Get Risto off the team.  He gets crushed every time he’s on the ice and brings down every Sabre he’s on the ice with

2) Cody Eakin never suits up for the Sabres again.  He replaced Sobotka as the worst forward in the NHL statistically.  It’s quite disturbing they got rid of the worst player and then someone found someone worse.  

3) Not drafting Owen Power - dmen are much trickier to evaluate with metrics but it would give me confidence if they took any of the top forwards or Hughes whose ceiling looks much higher than Power

4) Don’t give away assets to move Okposo. Just no reason for it unless they plan on bringing in $30 mill in players this off-season 

5) Don’t leave Asplund or Borgen unprotected in the expansion draft.  These are players you build with.  Good teams keep these players.  Bad ones let them walk for nothing. 

Strike one 

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, inkman said:

Strike one 

Technically its half a strike, he successfully protected Asplund by negotiating with Skinner

[rakish]

Part 3 of my series on Analytics. Part 1 is called Risto and can found a page or 2 back, it's a general introduction at 14 min, if I remember correctly. The second part is a 29 minute slog into what your data analysis tools need to do for you, it's a tough road, I get it. It can be found on my podcast page and is called Reinhart. Part 3, at about 7 minutes, I argue that analytics misinterpret a key variable, which they call XGA, which leads them to value the poor defensive players and get rid of the good defensive players, creating the analytics death spiral.

I forgot to mention that in the first chart 5 players don't appear, the only 2 of consequence are Eichel and McCabe. I'm trying to demonstrate the relationship between what I call 'Should Have Goals Against' (they call XGA) and the quality of competition.

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by rakish
I forgot to name part 2 of the series

[Thorny]

5 hours ago, rakish said:

Part 3 of my series on Analytics. Part 1 is called Risto and can found a page or 2 back, it's a general introduction at 14 min, if I remember correctly. The second part is a 29 minute slog into what your data analysis tools need to do for you, it's a tough road, I get it. It can be found on my podcast page and is called Reinhart. Part 3, at about 7 minutes, I argue that analytics misinterpret a key variable, which they call XGA, which leads them to value the poor defensive players and get rid of the good defensive players, creating the analytics death spiral.

I forgot to mention that in the first chart 5 players don't appear, the only 2 of consequence are Eichel and McCabe. I'm trying to demonstrate the relationship between what I call 'Should Have Goals Against' (they call XGA) and the quality of competition.

 

Another interesting one.

I'm a bit confused on Reinhart. He seems to be reasonably far along to the right on those charts, maybe mid-pack on difficulty of opponent, and his expected goals against is really low. If I'm reading it right - I feel like that performance is pretty good? I think you mentioned you were interested in a trade re: Sam. 

Sure guys like Thompson and Okposo are further to the right, but the difference in the y axis seems even more than correspondent 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorny]

15 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Technically its half a strike, he successfully protected Asplund by negotiating with Skinner

He said "or" so either on their own represents satisfying the requirement 

[rakish]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Another interesting one.

I'm a bit confused on Reinhart. He seems to be reasonably far along to the right on those charts, maybe mid-pack on difficulty of opponent, and his expected goals against is really low. If I'm reading it right - I feel like that performance is pretty good? I think you mentioned you were interested in a trade re: Sam. 

Thanks for watching. I'll link the two charts so you don't have to watch the video.

In the first png, I think you can make your argument that if you look down the 'right side' of the line, or look down the 'left side' of the line, you can differentiate between good defensive play and bad defensive play. I'm rejecting that argument, saying that expected goals against, or what I call 'should have against' IS difficulty of opponent. I'm arguing that Brad Marchand decides how many shots he's going to get, Brad's opponents' only job on defense is to make sure he gets worse shots. I'm arguing that your expected goals against is really just how much you are on the ice with Marchand. This turns the analytics value system upside down, as they believe that, say, Rasmus Dahlen is good because the stats say he's not on the ice for a lot of shots. I'm arguing that what that means is that Rasmus Dahlen is bad because the Sabres try to avoid having him on the ice with Marchand.

I call this the analytics death spiral because the Sabres (as they are deep into analytics) are purging the good players who play against Marchand, and signing to long term contracts the bad players who don't play against Marchand, because the Sabres believe XGA is important, while I argue that their valuation is upside down.

So therefore, for me, the relevant chart is the second one, as it tells you the difference between the expected goals and the actual goals, which is more or less shooting percentage. in raw values, I have Reinhart's expected goals against as 2.71 per 60, and what actually went into the net was 3.83 per 60. Which is worst on the team, not counting Caggiula and Dea.

 

 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, rakish said:

Thanks for watching. I'll link the two charts so you don't have to watch the video.

In the first png, I think you can make your argument that if you look down the 'right side' of the line, or look down the 'left side' of the line, you can differentiate between good defensive play and bad defensive play. I'm rejecting that argument, saying that expected goals against, or what I call 'should have against' IS difficulty of opponent. I'm arguing that Brad Marchand decides how many shots he's going to get, Brad's opponents' only job on defense is to make sure he gets worse shots. I'm arguing that your expected goals against is really just how much you are on the ice with Marchand. This turns the analytics value system upside down, as they believe that, say, Rasmus Dahlen is good because the stats say he's not on the ice for a lot of shots. I'm arguing that what that means is that Rasmus Dahlen is bad because the Sabres try to avoid having him on the ice with Marchand.

I call this the analytics death spiral because the Sabres (as they are deep into analytics) are purging the good players who play against Marchand, and signing to long term contracts the bad players who don't play against Marchand, because the Sabres believe XGA is important, while I argue that their valuation is upside down.

So therefore, for me, the relevant chart is the second one, as it tells you the difference between the expected goals and the actual goals, which is more or less shooting percentage. in raw values, I have Reinhart's expected goals against as 2.71 per 60, and what actually went into the net was 3.83 per 60. Which is worst on the team, not counting Caggiula and Dea.

 

 

But couldn't they be playing Dahlin away from Marchand because they are trying to maximize what Dahlin does best? Or at least that may be equally reflective of their position on Dahlin. Does Marchand play on PK1?

Also, what about on the road? Unless I missed that. Wouldn't the opposing coach be more likely to move his good players away from our good ones, if possible?

[rakish]

 

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

But couldn't they be playing Dahlin away from Marchand because they are trying to maximize what Dahlin does best? Or at least that may be equally reflective of their position on Dahlin. Does Marchand play on PK1?

Also, what about on the road? Unless I missed that. Wouldn't the opposing coach be more likely to move his good players away from our good ones, if possible?

This is 5-5, so there's no PK involved. I could only look at the road, but if XGA is degree of difficulty, it doesn't really matter if Buffalo was trying to play Dahlen against Marchand or not, it only matters if he did.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, rakish said:

 

This is 5-5, so there's no PK involved. I could only look at the road, but if XGA is degree of difficulty, it doesn't really matter if Buffalo was trying to play Dahlen against Marchand or not, it only matters if he did.

His name is Dahlin, there is no E. I had to read your original post 3 times because I thought you were talking about some obscure teammate of Marchands at first.