• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Hockeytown0001

Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Not after one game ... That's why scouts watch multiple games ;)

Pretty sure they arent carrying charts with them

Advanced analytics aren't used for scouting, It's used for NHL players. I feel like you have zero grasp of what this conversation is about.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admittedly didn't know much about Corsi numbers (or other Advanced metrics for Hockey) prior to this thread. I think they are very interesting, and agree that they can be useful if used in combination with a number of other traditional methods of evaluating a player.

That being said in order to get a more accurate 'number' on a players worth, one would need to go much deeper than simply 'total shots attempted for - total shots attempted against' as that can lead to some ‘weird’ results.

In particular, this method seems to 'reward' Players/Lines who take the most shots, regardless of the quality of said chances, as well as ‘hurt’ players who average the most ice time (and subsequently go up against the better competition).

Tatar was mentioned as leading the team in the Corsi rating in 2013-2014, which makes sense because he led the team in shots that season (158). However, he was 5th on the team in shooting percentage at 12%, and 6th on the team in pts (39 pts in 73 GP). Additionally, he had an ATOI of 14:21 which was 11th among forwards that season, which indicates he was routinely playing against other teams 2nd and 3rd lines.

Nyquist on the other hand had the 5th highest Corsi rating that year, even though he led the team in shooting percentage at 18.3% and was 2nd on the team in pts with 48 (1 behind the team lead) despite playing only 57 games and averaging 16:51 Min/game (5th amongst forwards).

Anyone who watched that season would tell you Nyquist was far and away the better player of the two. Yet Corsi ratings indicate otherwise.

This past year(2015-2016 season) is a similar story:

The top 10 Wings Forwards based off of Corsi Rating (Min 500 min played) are as follows

Player | Corsi | ATOI

---------------------------------------------

Datsyuk 57.4 19:39

Tatar 56.4 14:21

Nyquist 54.4 15:10

Richards 54.0 14:58

Helm 52.0 15:04

Larkin 51.9 16:33

Sheahan 51.5 15:14

Zetterberg 50.7 19:25

Abdelkader 49.6 18:26

Glendening 45.1 14:35

Outside of the Magic Man (who despite playing on one leg and being old, was still our best player) - 5 of the next 6 players averaged about 15 min or less. This tells me that the Corsi rating depends a lot on the quality of your opponent. Only the elite players will have a top Corsi number while also playing top 3 minutes.

That being said - I think it is useful, and Ive enjoyed looking into it today, but as many of you have said already, its best used as a supplementary tool to evaluate a player. I still use the eye test personally, but when comparing players I dont watch all the time, this can come in handy, to a certain degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of the Magic Man (who despite playing on one leg and being old, was still our best player) - 5 of the next 6 players averaged about 15 min or less. This tells me that the Corsi rating depends a lot on the quality of your opponent. Only the elite players will have a top Corsi number while also playing top 3 minutes.

He's the magic man. Statistics do not apply. Don't get me rattled that stats apply to all. I'll flash my statistics credentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure they arent carrying charts with them

Carrying charts with them? Like on a clipboard inside their briefcase or something? Why would they do that? Don't they have smartphones? ...or a tablet? ...oh, RIIIIGGGGHHT. Dial-up internets and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying charts with them? Like on a clipboard inside their briefcase or something? Why would they do that? Don't they have smartphones? ...or a tablet? ...oh, RIIIIGGGGHHT. Dial-up internets and everything.

Remember them pagers? don't know why they called them beepers over here"..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha this is the most pointless conversation / debate ever! Not a single person supporting analytics has said that the only thing you need to judge a player is stats, but yet people that are against all of these advanced stats keep coming back and saying that you can't judge a player solely on stats... Well no s***, that's why we've said over and over again that watching is very important as well... But make no mistake, all of these stats are used to aid hockey professionals, from scouts to coaches to broadcasters to writers and so on...

Obviously there are things that these stats cannot tell you, like potential, work ethic, determination, stick handling, shooting and play-making ability, and that is why it's great that most of us are fortunate enough to be able to watch the games... However, some of these things like quality of teammates and opponents, whether a player is sheltered or not, etc, etc that people are claiming cannot be tracked through these advanced stats are flat out wrong. These are the exact types of things that are tracked through advanced stats.

I guarantee a blind person that has never watched a hockey game in his / her life, but has access to all of these advanced stats, would be able to give a better analysis on who is the top 10 players at each position than someone that only relies on watching the games... You know why? Bias. Every single person here, has a bias for or against certain players, and unless you're willing to dig deeper and rely on some of these stats to broaden your perception, you will continue to be in the dark...

Great post by the way ToastyWing. How did you come up with so much info? Was it through stats? Or are you recalling all of this information from all the games you've watched over the years?

nyquististhefuture, you're right, Hakan Andersson didn't use advanced stats when he drafted these guys, and still doesn't because most of these stats are still foreign to developmental leagues, especially in Europe. I doubt many amateur scouts use the advanced stats, but you can bet your a** every single pro scout uses at least some of them... They'd be fools not to. And as much as I love Hakan for the amazing players he's brought the Wings, for every Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk we've been fortunate enough to have, there has been a lot more Motkov, Wikstrom, Petrasek, etc. that have been complete busts. And there's no denying that he hasn't had a pick that looks like a future hall of famer since those guys, back when he was one of the few scouts that was willing to take gambles on these European kids...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha this is the most pointless conversation / debate ever! Not a single person supporting analytics has said that the only thing you need to judge a player is stats, but yet people that are against all of these advanced stats keep coming back and saying that you can't judge a player solely on stats... Well no s***, that's why we've said over and over again that watching is very important as well... But make no mistake, all of these stats are used to aid hockey professionals, from scouts to coaches to broadcasters to writers and so on...

Obviously there are things that these stats cannot tell you, like potential, work ethic, determination, stick handling, shooting and play-making ability, and that is why it's great that most of us are fortunate enough to be able to watch the games... However, some of these things like quality of teammates and opponents, whether a player is sheltered or not, etc, etc that people are claiming cannot be tracked through these advanced stats are flat out wrong. These are the exact types of things that are tracked through advanced stats.

I guarantee a blind person that has never watched a hockey game in his / her life, but has access to all of these advanced stats, would be able to give a better analysis on who is the top 10 players at each position than someone that only relies on watching the games... You know why? Bias. Every single person here, has a bias for or against certain players, and unless you're willing to dig deeper and rely on some of these stats to broaden your perception, you will continue to be in the dark...

Great post by the way ToastyWing. How did you come up with so much info? Was it through stats? Or are you recalling all of this information from all the games you've watched over the years?

nyquististhefuture, you're right, Hakan Andersson didn't use advanced stats when he drafted these guys, and still doesn't because most of these stats are still foreign to developmental leagues, especially in Europe. I doubt many amateur scouts use the advanced stats, but you can bet your a** every single pro scout uses at least some of them... They'd be fools not to. And as much as I love Hakan for the amazing players he's brought the Wings, for every Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk we've been fortunate enough to have, there has been a lot more Motkov, Wikstrom, Petrasek, etc. that have been complete busts. And there's no denying that he hasn't had a pick that looks like a future hall of famer since those guys, back when he was one of the few scouts that was willing to take gambles on these European kids...

And yet people say X is better than Y because... and post nothing but advanced stats with no context as their proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else would you like as proof? Would you prefer to take someone else's opinion as proof? A stat holds much more water than anyone's opinion, and that goes for everything, not just hockey...

No one is asking you to believe that Smith is better than DeKeyser based on stats, because he's not. Stats aside from corsi prove that he's not. Just like I'm not going to believe that Smith sucks just because someone has the opinion / bias that he sucks... Same goes for any player... Nyquist, Tatar, Pulkkinen, Helm, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha this is the most pointless conversation / debate ever! Not a single person supporting analytics has said that the only thing you need to judge a player is stats, but yet people that are against all of these advanced stats keep coming back and saying that you can't judge a player solely on stats... Well no s***, that's why we've said over and over again that watching is very important as well... But make no mistake, all of these stats are used to aid hockey professionals, from scouts to coaches to broadcasters to writers and so on...

Obviously there are things that these stats cannot tell you, like potential, work ethic, determination, stick handling, shooting and play-making ability, and that is why it's great that most of us are fortunate enough to be able to watch the games... However, some of these things like quality of teammates and opponents, whether a player is sheltered or not, etc, etc that people are claiming cannot be tracked through these advanced stats are flat out wrong. These are the exact types of things that are tracked through advanced stats.

I guarantee a blind person that has never watched a hockey game in his / her life, but has access to all of these advanced stats, would be able to give a better analysis on who is the top 10 players at each position than someone that only relies on watching the games... You know why? Bias. Every single person here, has a bias for or against certain players, and unless you're willing to dig deeper and rely on some of these stats to broaden your perception, you will continue to be in the dark...

Great post by the way ToastyWing. How did you come up with so much info? Was it through stats? Or are you recalling all of this information from all the games you've watched over the years?

nyquististhefuture, you're right, Hakan Andersson didn't use advanced stats when he drafted these guys, and still doesn't because most of these stats are still foreign to developmental leagues, especially in Europe. I doubt many amateur scouts use the advanced stats, but you can bet your a** every single pro scout uses at least some of them... They'd be fools not to. And as much as I love Hakan for the amazing players he's brought the Wings, for every Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk we've been fortunate enough to have, there has been a lot more Motkov, Wikstrom, Petrasek, etc. that have been complete busts. And there's no denying that he hasn't had a pick that looks like a future hall of famer since those guys, back when he was one of the few scouts that was willing to take gambles on these European kids...

You're right about the bias part I believe. Strongly.

Håkan Andersson does use advanced stats as a complimentary, he has been for at least 7-8 years according to an interview I read. God knows what place I read it in though.

You're more than right about analytics being a compliment as well in my opinion. But what most people don't get is that these ´new´ "Analytics guys" that are being hired by professional teams aren't there to do what people percieve as analytics, i.e. crunch numbers and present these nice tables that are being presented here.

That can be done by McDonalds employees that are currently flipping burgers. They are there to Confirm what the numbers seem to indicate. Correlation, advanced such. Usually from multiple angles, using those raw analytics data.

Edited by Jacksoni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet people say X is better than Y because... and post nothing but advanced stats with no context as their proof.

Yeah because when you make random posts with "This group is better than another group because I said so" is a better way of analysis right? Take a look.

Zetterberg Larkin Nyquist

Tatar AA Vanek

Martha Sheahan Abdelkader

Miller Glendening Jurco/rookie

Zetterberg Larkin Nyquist

Tatar Nielsen Vanek

Helm Sheahan Abdelkader

Miller Glendening Ott/Jurco

Group one isn't any worse and might even be better

Oh wait that was you.

Tons of context here. My eyes are bewildered. Awesome. Amazing. Cool. You've convinced me. Screw analytics.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been high jacked by the world wide criminal syndicate known as the Corsi Bandits.

It's actually making people not want to post or read here. I find myself just scrolling past the posts that have "short story" qualifications. Or name calling arguments.

What I'd like to know is which would you rather do:

Trade AA plus 1st for Shattenkirk

OR

Nyquist plus 2nd for Fowler

For my money I'm going Fowler, I'd sweetin the deal a bit with a GR defenseman like Sproul or XO if I had to. But no way I give up AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing AA would be a big mistake at this juncture... I'd rather hold on to Nyquist too, though... I think he had an off year during a year that the organization had an off year, and paired with the right playmaker he could come back and be better than he ever was.

Though I could be wrong...

... and we still need that D.

If those were my choices, I'd choose Fowler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha this is the most pointless conversation / debate ever! Not a single person supporting analytics has said that the only thing you need to judge a player is stats, but yet people that are against all of these advanced stats keep coming back and saying that you can't judge a player solely on stats... Well no s***, that's why we've said over and over again that watching is very important as well... But make no mistake, all of these stats are used to aid hockey professionals, from scouts to coaches to broadcasters to writers and so on...

Obviously there are things that these stats cannot tell you, like potential, work ethic, determination, stick handling, shooting and play-making ability, and that is why it's great that most of us are fortunate enough to be able to watch the games... However, some of these things like quality of teammates and opponents, whether a player is sheltered or not, etc, etc that people are claiming cannot be tracked through these advanced stats are flat out wrong. These are the exact types of things that are tracked through advanced stats.

I guarantee a blind person that has never watched a hockey game in his / her life, but has access to all of these advanced stats, would be able to give a better analysis on who is the top 10 players at each position than someone that only relies on watching the games... You know why? Bias. Every single person here, has a bias for or against certain players, and unless you're willing to dig deeper and rely on some of these stats to broaden your perception, you will continue to be in the dark...

Great post by the way ToastyWing. How did you come up with so much info? Was it through stats? Or are you recalling all of this information from all the games you've watched over the years?

nyquististhefuture, you're right, Hakan Andersson didn't use advanced stats when he drafted these guys, and still doesn't because most of these stats are still foreign to developmental leagues, especially in Europe. I doubt many amateur scouts use the advanced stats, but you can bet your a** every single pro scout uses at least some of them... They'd be fools not to. And as much as I love Hakan for the amazing players he's brought the Wings, for every Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk we've been fortunate enough to have, there has been a lot more Motkov, Wikstrom, Petrasek, etc. that have been complete busts. And there's no denying that he hasn't had a pick that looks like a future hall of famer since those guys, back when he was one of the few scouts that was willing to take gambles on these European kids...

So many words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither. I'm starting to think Fowler is overrated.

Another local kid though, he will probably be proud to come home and play here. He'd most likely re-sign and end his career here. I like the kid, I think he's better than Shattenkirk, plus the home factor means whatever we give up would be worth it because he would more than likely stay for a long time. Shattenkirk has no reason to stay after this one season.

I hear Winnipeg is not giving up Trouba, so that's why I didn't mention him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha this is the most pointless conversation / debate ever! Not a single person supporting analytics has said that the only thing you need to judge a player is stats, but yet people that are against all of these advanced stats keep coming back and saying that you can't judge a player solely on stats... Well no s***, that's why we've said over and over again that watching is very important as well... But make no mistake, all of these stats are used to aid hockey professionals, from scouts to coaches to broadcasters to writers and so on...

Obviously there are things that these stats cannot tell you, like potential, work ethic, determination, stick handling, shooting and play-making ability, and that is why it's great that most of us are fortunate enough to be able to watch the games... However, some of these things like quality of teammates and opponents, whether a player is sheltered or not, etc, etc that people are claiming cannot be tracked through these advanced stats are flat out wrong. These are the exact types of things that are tracked through advanced stats.

I guarantee a blind person that has never watched a hockey game in his / her life, but has access to all of these advanced stats, would be able to give a better analysis on who is the top 10 players at each position than someone that only relies on watching the games... You know why? Bias. Every single person here, has a bias for or against certain players, and unless you're willing to dig deeper and rely on some of these stats to broaden your perception, you will continue to be in the dark...

Great post by the way ToastyWing. How did you come up with so much info? Was it through stats? Or are you recalling all of this information from all the games you've watched over the years?

nyquististhefuture, you're right, Hakan Andersson didn't use advanced stats when he drafted these guys, and still doesn't because most of these stats are still foreign to developmental leagues, especially in Europe. I doubt many amateur scouts use the advanced stats, but you can bet your a** every single pro scout uses at least some of them... They'd be fools not to. And as much as I love Hakan for the amazing players he's brought the Wings, for every Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk we've been fortunate enough to have, there has been a lot more Motkov, Wikstrom, Petrasek, etc. that have been complete busts. And there's no denying that he hasn't had a pick that looks like a future hall of famer since those guys, back when he was one of the few scouts that was willing to take gambles on these European kids...

Thanks - not sure if you are being Tongue and Cheek with your question or not lol, but no - while I have watched the vast majority of Wings games the last 20 years or so, most of my info was pulled from stats found on the interwebz..

As for how reliable/useful these types of metrics are for scouting - I am not sure...scouting is heavily based on judging potential over current results, and to my knowledge there is no reliable method to calculate potential in Hockey (or any sport for that matter). IMO Advanced metrics are best used at finding undervalued players already at the NHL level (or close to it). Everyone knows who the elite players are. You don't need Corsi/Fenwick/(insert name here) stats to know that Crosby and Karlsson are elite players, or that McDavid is going to be a Stud. But the average fan might not be aware of how good of a player someone like Tyler Toffoli is who was 2nd in the NHL with a 59.3% Corsi ranking, despite averaging over 17 minutes per game. Smart GMs I assume us these types of stats to make the final decision between two or more seemingly similar players (or I would if I was a GM lol).

(Edit: sorry for formatting...still new to this)

Edited by ToastyWing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been high jacked by the world wide criminal syndicate known as the Corsi Bandits.

It's actually making people not want to post or read here. I find myself just scrolling past the posts that have "short story" qualifications. Or name calling arguments.

What I'd like to know is which would you rather do:

Trade AA plus 1st for Shattenkirk

OR

Nyquist plus 2nd for Fowler

For my money I'm going Fowler, I'd sweetin the deal a bit with a GR defenseman like Sproul or XO if I had to. But no way I give up AA.

Is Fowler a Legit #1 D-Man? His best season was arguably his Rookie year - hes been trending down a bit, especially the last two seasons. While hes a good player, trading an above average young Forward for an above average young Defenseman doesnt do much for me -it might improve the team slightly, but not enough to make us a contender.

IMO this team needs a shake up badly, and should make a big move for a big impact player (Defenseman). There are only a handful of those in the NHL, but the Wings can make a run at one of them if Holland is willing to take some risk and part with some young prospects....Its funny because up until last year Illitches other team (Tigers) was run by Dombrowski - who would constantly trade highly regarded prospects for star players (which almost always worked out in the Tigers favor). Holland is the absolute polar opposite and seems mortified at the thought of trading away a future superstar. This is okay in some (rare) cases, but 99% of the time I'll take a proven NHL talent over an unknown, regardless of how high that unknowns upside might be.

Edited by ToastyWing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, nobody's trading number one defenseman. We would have never had a shot at Weber or Subban. There are no top 5 defense men out there available. But he has to make a deal to make our defense better and Fowler would do that. Defense or not he has to deal some of these forward there's too many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, nobody's trading number one defenseman. We would have never had a shot at Weber or Subban. There are no top 5 defense men out there available. But he has to make a deal to make our defense better and Fowler would do that. Defense or not he has to deal some of these forward there's too many of them.

I agree with you that Subban would have never been dealt to us since we are in the same Division as Montreal, but what makes you think Weber wouldnt have been available for the right package? Its a moot point now, but I find it difficult to believe Holland couldnt have thrown a package together tempting enough to get the Preds to bite....assuming he sack'd up and was willing to deal some combination of Mantha/AA/Svech/Nyquist/Tatar/Picks/etc.

Just FYI - if the Wings did trade for Fowler, I would be happy. I think hes a good player (not great but good, and a solid upgrade over what we have currently), and he also went to my same High School lol. I just don't think it would be 'enough' to turn this team around. I would rather package several (all) of our assets for a Home Run / Top 10 Defenseman, over trading for a few very Solid, but ultimately not top end players.

That being said, I understand the odds of another top D-man being traded this offseason (let alone to Det.) is extremely low, so best case scenario for me would be getting a player in the same category as the two you mentioned (Shattenkirk/Fowler) + Dumping Jimmys contract (Not necessarily in the same trade). If he can do that Id say this off season was a success. (But the team still wouldn't be a contender in my mind - even though they'd be better for sure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually shocked that Nashville wanted a number one defenseman coming back the other way. They have one of the deepest back ends in the league and lack offense. I thought that Weber for Hall would have been a much better deal for both Nashville and Edmonton... and even Montreal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.