Earfgang

Earfgang
Membre depuis
22 oct 2019
Équipe préférée
Hurricanes de la Caroline
Deuxième équipe préférée
Blues de St-Louis
Localisation
California
Messages dans les forums
43
Messages par jour
0,81
Sujets de discussion
3
Biographie
Unimportant person: Move along with your day
Forum: St. Louis BluesMon at 6:38 pm
Forum: Armchair-GM17 nov à 17 h 51
Forum: NHL17 nov à 15 h 18
Forum: Armchair-GM17 nov à 14 h 53
Blackhawks: Kane is better than debrincat currently
Canadians: Price is better than Domi ( hard to compare but yes)
Leafs: Mathews is clearly their best player, maybe top 5 in the league
Vancouver: Petterson is better right now than Boeser and the gap will only get further, but this ones understandable.
Coyotes: Oliver Ekman Larson is just better than Nikk, its not very close.
Nashville: Both Josi and Ellis are better than Ekholm, if you like advanced stats, Ellis might be the biggest analytics darling on the planet, but Josi is no slouch
Jets: Best player is Schefflie ( Cant spell that ****) not very close here either
Carolina: Slavin is way better than Dougie, I love his offense as much as anyone else but Slavin is the best player on that team.
Columbus: Werenski and Jones are both better than Savard, even if hes good defensively its still not very close
Kings: Doughty is better than Walker, I don't care if he has fallen off a bit he's still better, I know analytics don't like him and he is overrated but he is still better
Sharks: I think its Couture, Karelson is obviously great, but his hips and his age are gunna be the end of him here real soon
Dallas: Seguin is better, hard to compare to goalies though so forgivable
Blues: I like Ryan O'Rielly better, i like Alex P. down there better, Parayko is right with him tho, but for me its either O'Rielly or Tarasenko, even though he has taken a decline in the last couple years, he is still the second most prolific scorer in the last 5 years.

Bassically, its an OK list but a lot of over relying on specific analytics, WAR and GaE are great at telling specific stories, but in evaluating a players value overall there is a lot more to look at than what is really worth your time to weed through.

But mentioning good players in conversations like this where they don't really belong YET is good because it gets the conversation started for when they really are the best player on their team.
Forum: Carolina Hurricanes17 nov à 13 h 47
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>The_Ultimate_Pielord</b></div><div>The point of having one good goalie vs 2 mediocre goalies is that come playoff time rest isn't a major issue, so you only use one goalie and the better that goalie is the better the team is. The ideal goaltending situation is something along the lines of Arizona or Anaheim, where you have an elite goaltender and a good enough backup to only play them 45 times a year (my argument would work better if either of those teams could make the playoffs, but Carlyle and the Arizona injury bug have decided that I can't have nice things.)

Let's say we have 2 teams. One team has one goalie worth one win per 10 games (very very good) and one goalie worth -0.5 wins every ten games (less good). That comes to +0.5 wins per 10 games from goaltending with an even workload over the regular season for maximum rest, about +4 wins on the year. The other team has 2 goalies each worth 0.3 wins per 10 games, for 0.6 wins per ten games from goaltending, or 4.8 per year. Which team would you rather be?

The answer is the 1st one, for 2 reasons. For one, you can adjust the usage to make the 1st one get more wins. If you change it to a 50-30 split (using round number for easier mathing), suddenly that's +4.5 wins, or almost even. At a 60-20 split you've got +5 wins, with a 0.2 win cushion to account for diminished performance due to lack of rest. The coach can ride a #1 goalie hard to get a bad team into the playoffs, and can give some rest if the team is good enough to survive it, while a team without one is left in a trickier spot, even with a goalie tandem that's better overall.

The 2nd answer is playoffs. Teams pretty much never use their backups in the playoffs, even when the dropoff is pretty small, and rest generally isn't a factor in the playoffs thanks to the lack of travel. With that in mind, over a 7-game series, team #1 will get 0.7 wins from goaltending (1 win times 7/10ths of a ten game stretch), while team 2 will get 0.21 (3 tenths times 7 tenths) in that series. Half a win might not sound like a ton, but in a tight series it means everything.

Investing a ton in a number one goalie isn't a great idea with how inconsistent and difficult to project goalies are, but there's no denying you'd rather have a #1 than a platoon.</div></div>

But if we are talking wins above expected if you have 2 goalies with a .5 WAE vs one with a 1WAE and his partner with a -.5 WAE in a 45 game split they are equal, and favering more games towards your number 1 would make it better than my split. This number is flawed obviously but i do understand your logic mathematically
Forum: Carolina Hurricanes17 nov à 13 h 37
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>The_Ultimate_Pielord</b></div><div>The point of having one good goalie vs 2 mediocre goalies is that come playoff time rest isn't a major issue, so you only use one goalie and the better that goalie is the better the team is. The ideal goaltending situation is something along the lines of Arizona or Anaheim, where you have an elite goaltender and a good enough backup to only play them 45 times a year (my argument would work better if either of those teams could make the playoffs, but Carlyle and the Arizona injury bug have decided that I can't have nice things.)

Let's say we have 2 teams. One team has one goalie worth one win per 10 games (very very good) and one goalie worth -0.5 wins every ten games (less good). That comes to +0.5 wins per 10 games from goaltending with an even workload over the regular season for maximum rest, about +4 wins on the year. The other team has 2 goalies each worth 0.3 wins per 10 games, for 0.6 wins per ten games from goaltending, or 4.8 per year. Which team would you rather be?

The answer is the 1st one, for 2 reasons. For one, you can adjust the usage to make the 1st one get more wins. If you change it to a 50-30 split (using round number for easier mathing), suddenly that's +4.5 wins, or almost even. At a 60-20 split you've got +5 wins, with a 0.2 win cushion to account for diminished performance due to lack of rest. The coach can ride a #1 goalie hard to get a bad team into the playoffs, and can give some rest if the team is good enough to survive it, while a team without one is left in a trickier spot, even with a goalie tandem that's better overall.

The 2nd answer is playoffs. Teams pretty much never use their backups in the playoffs, even when the dropoff is pretty small, and rest generally isn't a factor in the playoffs thanks to the lack of travel. With that in mind, over a 7-game series, team #1 will get 0.7 wins from goaltending (1 win times 7/10ths of a ten game stretch), while team 2 will get 0.21 (3 tenths times 7 tenths) in that series. Half a win might not sound like a ton, but in a tight series it means everything.

Investing a ton in a number one goalie isn't a great idea with how inconsistent and difficult to project goalies are, but there's no denying you'd rather have a #1 than a platoon.</div></div>


Okay first, a .3 goalie and another .3 goalie don't get you to a .6 goalie, every game would be played at a .3 Wins Per Ten pace so obviously you would be at .3 wins per ten for all 82 games. But this theoretical stat game is a zero ends game because i can give you stats that say one thing you can refute with a different one that says another. SV% doesn't account for quality, Wins above expected doesn't give enough credit to goalies with defensively solid teams, and doesn't take in to account quality, GAA is literally just a team stat, WAR is OK but oversimplifies whats going on and punishes goalies in good defensive systems. Plus all goalies are unicorns, defining them as if they will act consistently year round is disingenuous.

But on another note, the Ducks are proof that over work is definitely a thing, Gibson is the best goalie in hockey period in my opinion, and early in the year the Ducks ride him to being competitive in the early playoff race. But after January his stats begin to really fall off because its not just a volume of games played it is a volume of shots he faces and a very uniquely high volume of quality chances to score against him. Basically Gibson faces a constant barrage of rubber to the face every night for 60+ nights unimpeded by his offensively focused defense. Under this system the Ducks backup gets absolutely torched in the fire that only Gibson is able to handle. Gibson under the Islanders system (Assuming his play remains just as good which isn't true but theoretically speaking) his numbers would be godlike. He's not a better goalie in New York, he is very much a product of environment. The Islanders have a very competent defense and don't let quality chances through often at all. Thus, the reason that you see Robin Lehner, Thomas Griess, and now Varlomov are all putting up numbers that are equal too Gibson's (SV% wise, GAA, GPG, Wins). All flawed stats in their own right but so is Wins above expected. These goalies aren't better than Gibson in any world but their environment makes them play at a level that is equal too a Gibson. Gibson would put up a .935 sv% in NY, Lehner put up a .931% Griess put up a .927%, basically, by putting their money and focus on building up a strong defensive system they have given themselves a goalie that is equal to what Gibson would do every night. This is accomplished by understanding the mechanics of being a goaltender in the NHL. Most guys that are good in the NHL can stop the shots a NYI goaltender faces on a nightly basis, no goalie on the planet not named Gibson or Jesus himself can put up the performances Gibson puts out on a nightly basis in Anaheim.

What I just described to you is the future of hockey, by letting Lehner walk in free agency the Isles demonstrated they understand what they've done, they have created a system where all they need is a goalie that is positionally sound and they will preform the same as if they had Carey Price. Thus they can spend less on a goalie tandem than anyone else have it play better than anyone else, and invest the extra Draft capital and extra money capital on maintaining a good defensive core, and to pay Barry Trotz whatever the hell he wants to keep running it.

Im not arguing simply that two decent goalies are better than one Amazing one, cause thats not true, im arguing that understanding the goalie position and practically eliminating the high danger scoring chances by bolstering your defense will produce a tandem of goalies that, if they are positionally sound, will both play at a level equivalent to a Gibson or a Price in their systems which often leave them out to dry.

This is better for playoffs because your season can't be jack knifed by one player being injured, if one of your goalies gets cold and starts letting in weak pucks you have another that will work equally well, and you have more money and draft picks that you spent in making your defense better so your team can theoretically be better in the process. This is economics merging with hockey to make our game more efficient and smarter, this is the future of the game.
Forum: Carolina Hurricanes16 nov à 20 h 35
Forum: NHL Trades 9 nov à 19 h 48
Forum: NHL Signings 3 nov à 21 h 45
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>1) Bull****. It is just a philosophy change. Some teams are certainly in a better position but all teams can switch on a dime if they wanted to.
2) Nashville's GM has been gm for decades. That is PLURAL! The team being this way is entirely his own fault.
3) Who said punt and be mediocre? They have the rest of their team, and they could have traded guys who weren't interested in signing shorter deals into their twilight (imagine the return Josi would have gotten a year ago, or even at the draft). Teams aren't just screwed if they don't want to sign contracts with guys that they think will be too much for too long.
4) Columbus' hail marry was very different from this one as it didn't hinder their ability to ice a competitive roster in 5 years time. While I think they overpaid for Duchene and did spend slightly frivolously (picks for McQuaid?!?!?) They still have their young core and good prospects coming so that they will be back in it soon enough. Nashville on the other hand has guaranteed a 5 year period where they are basically Detroit. Don't be Detroit.

Just as a note:
Here is a potential team made up entirely of picks a contending team might have (no first rounders and limited to the last 10 years to keep relevant) or free agents from college.
Aho-ROR-Stone
Kerfoot-Point-Debrincat
Gourde-Hintz-Lebanc
Moore-Blueger-Malign

Slavin-Paryko
Edmundson-Barrie
Nutivaara-Holl

Gibson
Jarry

Is this exhaustive? Not even close. Are there better options? Maybe. I did this quickly.
Point is there is tons of talent available and smart GM's get them and a team can easily be made that works cap wise and respects age curves and doesn't hamper your ability to compete going forwards.</div></div>

1. There has only ever been a handful of teams that were able to remain at the top of their division for more than a decade, acting like any team can just do it is ignorant. Everyone would love to be the Red Wings dynasty but that good of drafting is something that nobody else has had until maybe Tampa bay recently.

2. Nashville came in at a bad time, had to draft for years to become close to competitive, and have finally found consistent success. They worked with what they had, did they do a good job? I don't know, with hindsight it could have been better, but the past is the past, who cares.

3. If they trade Josi, they wont get a player that is equal value, why would a team trade a younger cheaper comparable for an older Josi. If they shop Josi in the middle of a cup run what does that say about their faith in their core that they have built. If they trade Josi, they will be getting worse as a team in the right now in an attempt to be even better in the future, AKA punting seasons. Likely you get high picks and a bluechip prospect, and the team you have right now is not going to be as good in 2 years. Unless you plan on trading every aging player on the roster for more inexpensive younger options and draft picks then you have to push now, everything about how this core is built says push now. The west is weaker than i have ever seen, (I was born in 2000) and you just won your division and get to come back with a similar core, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TRADE YOUR BEST DEFENSEMAN.

4. Our opinions on Columbus are very similar, I just think they are a bit worse off than you think they are, they need a lot of TLC to be a contender in 5 years.

And Lastly that note is such a lie, every single one of those players are outliers in their own rights, getting elite talent in the later rounds is so goddamn rare you could never hope to build a team around assuming your just better at scouting than everyone else in the league. Any team without a gm named Yzerman is lucky to get ONE let alone TWO like Carolina has been blessed with. (Praise be Carolina luck gods). Your perfect world hindsight of what teams should have done is ignorant to the reality of the odds of getting great players in the draft.

SURE, if you could draft better than anyone else, take advantage of other GM's and get steals of deals through trades, and get inexpensive valuable players in free agency OF COURSE YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF. That is not reality, reality is, you take chances that might bite you later on. Im not saying GM's are all good at their jobs, quite the opposite. I'm not saying this Josi contract is necessarily good, Josi might fall off a cliff in 2 years who the hell knows. What I am saying is you don't trade away the best player on your team while you have a serious chance for a deep playoff run for the chance at another superstar in 2/3 years that you will run into the same problem with.
Forum: NHL Signings 3 nov à 20 h 17
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>I used war because that is a better indicator than some others (also it was first available) but the articles I link where the research was taken from links to other methods of calculation. They all agree with the basic idea here.

I understand that they may not care about the long term, but they are just creating an issue for themselves later. Cycle theory (the idea of cup windows and rebuilds) is an entirely gm made phenomenon and it exists entirely because of contracts like this. If they manage their cap better combined with good drafting and smart trading they should never have to rebuild. Until recently San Jose was the leader in this thinking (good trading, good drafting) but they messed it up with contracts like Vlasic, Karlsson, etc. Had they not extended Vlasic and Karlsson, they could have switched to the new core that they had done a fantastic job at creating and skipped the rebuild almost entirely.

So I reject the notion that this contract is fine because they don't care about the last year's when he isn't worth the deal (by your own admission he won't be worth it for 5 years) because that is based of flawed gming that can easily be avoided by not making stupid decisions like this.</div></div>

I completely agree with your philosophy on gming, but with that in mind, that is only a philosophy and not a viable model for most teams as of right now. Teams like Carolina and Toronto can begin this model and be set for a long time, but a team like Nashville is not built for the long run. They are ageing quickly and their drafting has not fully replenished the pool, so they're left with a good team that will not last forever. Sure they could punt and be mediocre for a few years and then be contenders again, but I think they see exactly what I see. A wide open field in the western conference, and a eastern conference that will murder whichever team comes out of it like the final gladiator coming out to take on a relatively fresh champion. No one can deny that for strong western conference teams, now is as open a field as it will ever be. So instead of punting they went for it, will they get a cup out of it? I personally don't think so, but I respect them for trying and not just giving up on what is their best chance ever as a team to win a cup since their creation. Last year Columbus went for a hail marry and came up short, but you have to respect not just folding and choosing to punt an opportunity that may never come again.
Forum: NHL Signings 3 nov à 18 h 44